Aaron Swartz "Why I'm Not Gay"

[Telstra]

It's not about what I personally would list off as far as stereotypes surrounding a label. It was a fundamental question of people are basically reacting saying "no, the author is wrong when he tries to get out of a label." Which is almost the opposite of what gay people would argue any other time when labels are used against us.

There are good labels and bad labels.
Nothing to argue about really.

You can't stop labeling people all together, that would be a mess.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

I strongly disagree with his viewpoint. Labels have the purpose of identifying traits that, to a greater or lesser extent (and regardless of whether people like it or not), define our identity both as social beings and individuals. Sexual orientation hasn't been a sensitive issue in Western societies due to a sexually repressive Judeo-Christian religious tradition, that views sex as a purely functional act that ought to be devoid of any pleasure, because pleasure eludes to freedom and the disruption of social mores. In Ancient Greece and Rome, homosexuality itself was seen as something odd, and men were expected to engage in relationships with either youths or men of an inferior category as part of a dominant/subservient exercise of parental control. Truly homosexual men (i.e. those who exclusively wanted to engage in relationships with other grown men), were spoken of with extreme derision and ridiculed as freaks. Even in the more "accepting" Oriental societies like China or India, purely homosexual behaviour was seen as unnatural, and same sex relationships were only tolerable as accessories to the healthy sexual appetites of powerful men.

Consequently, gay people have always been outsiders (even women, who were also severely punished for being gay). We haven't excluded ourselves from society and asked to be seen as a unique community exclusively defined by our sexual orientation. In fact, we have had to build our own community as a response to the brutal rejection and violence that we've always faced from the rest of society, which deems us anomalous just because we do are not capable of complying with the patriarchal view of sexuality as both an economic and military need, and an exercise of male dominance over lesser beings. Which leads to the next point: men have always been terrified of same sex desire, because they perceive it as feminizing and thus, a compromise of their masculine superiority. Homophobia is rooted in misogyny and an absurd and irrational contempt for women and the qualities they embody; not in the byproducts of the 1960's Sexual Liberation movement which, as a product of Feminism, sought to lend a voice and give representation to the voiceless, oppressed and ignored. If men don't want to be gay and are ashamed of being homo or bisexual, it's because of their inability to emotionally deal with their own subconscious virulent prejudices about the nature of femininity, not because a hypothetical "gay establishment" is forcing them into adopting any particular identity against their will. In short, they are the ones who are f*cked up, not the rest of us who accept ourselves as we are, and are willing to try to live as healthily and happily as possible as gay people.

This ridiculous notion that every concept must be challenged if it doesn't suit your very personal needs at any point in time that Post-Structuralism promoted, has done more harm than good: it has given people the ability to present arguments against not only social phenomena, but the human condition itself, just because they are incapable of accepting reality as it is, and feel that they are entitled to creating their own lexicon, to define their own rules. Well, no: labels have a function and they are meant to give information devoid of any moral qualities in itself. However, if certain individuals feel threatened by other people's (and their own) judgements, that doesn't mean that the entire semantics of our current modes of communication ought to be changed. Going to therapy to deal with their demons would be better than trying to demonize labels - and the people who both accept and understand their ductility.

go read it

anyway

thankyou

 

[G-Lexington]

would it make much of a difference if he wasn't?

No one would give a good goddamn if he wasn't.

Lex

 

[Adrusek81]

^ So creating labels which we insist everyone use has done more good than harm? Flipping your argument around?

I doubt racialized minorities would agree.

Actually, yes. Labels define identities, and racial and ethnic minorities are defined according to the historical context that preceded them - which doesn't justify discrimination and violence. We are what we are whether we like it or not. However, fighting for our rights and to have out collective experience as minority communities validated by wider society, does not exclude accepting the primary meaning of the labels that define us. Language is a vehicle for power and, as such, we can use it to our own advantage by internalizing it and integrating it to our own experience.

Also, every adjective is a label, and every label has a range of meanings, and potential reactions. Take Christian people, for instance. Often, within the same congregation, there will be people with extremely different views on what Christianity represents. Should that be a reason for them to start rejecting the label and whine endlessly about how damaging it has been to them? Labels provide general, aleatory meanings that are open ended enough for people to elaborate further, if they want to do so. Just because some individuals have a hard time accepting that they are different themselves, and don't like that little fact, doesn't mean that we ought to invalidate language itself to suit their self-pitying. More specifically, labels linked to sexual orientation define general behaviours - whether people like it or not. If you are a homo, bi, hetero or asexual person, that's just what you are. Other people's prejudices shouldn't condition the meaning of that.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

ya missin sumthang ans etc

but anyway thankyou

 

[Laufey]

Not wanting to label yourself doesn't mean you can't be labeled.

Look up gay and bi in the dictionary... if the description fits you then you are. You might not want to refer to yourself as gay or bi, but you still are.

 

[pat grimshaw]

...Look up gay and bi in the dictionary... if the description fits you then you are. You might not want to refer to yourself as gay or bi, but you still are.

My definition of 'bi' is that you put your penis in females regularly. I know lots of 'bi' guys don't like that definition. And that includes LilBit.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

how a folk label gay wen folk no idea wot gay is?
ans bi be anythang out fa fart durin office hours

planet wot goin now still many many centurys all in 1 day play out

not a jot changin but folk make lot words expalin wot right front noses

anyway

was nice

thankyou

 

[G-Lexington]

Does it also include putting your penis in male asses regularly? Or having male penises put into your ass regularly?

Lex

 

[pat grimshaw]

^ yes, I almost got this man on Sunday night. We've met up four times now. We've done a knee-trembler but I haven't got him into bed yet

 

[G-Lexington]

What the fuck is his problem?

Lex

 

[pat grimshaw]

^ there's no problem. We both know it will happen. I'm not keen on one-night-stands and neither of us are deluding ourselves or responding to peer-group pressure.

 

[G-Lexington]

Yeah, OK, Patsy - whatever you say.

Lex

 

[pat grimshaw]

fair enough

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

*thinks... "Damn, he's on to us... must convene the cabal"*

no worry great piles a universtys wipe shoe ans dat me silenced

ha

*sniff? *
^ it nothin ^
* ooh back ta papa dressin *
^ nah it no suit ya ^
* ooh ans like da color *

ha

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

da tea post neva harppan POOFS
may or may a nots assit a dude call potta ans bit a swishins
* not here *

anyway labels a thang

is alway great folk make type

cum on viewers it ya chanceys while complent porn gallerys ans da gay porn ans fetishkink forums ans gay storys forums ans etc so on - wen ya no busy doins it of o course

so where da topic? is follwins it waitin fa sumone type sumthang a KOOL wot free anytime on planet earth were eva

thankyou

 

[xbuzzerx]

There are good labels and bad labels.
Nothing to argue about really.

You can't stop labeling people all together, that would be a mess.

But we're talking about looking at someone's behavior or whatever else and assigning them a label they personally don't want. That's something this forum would chafe at in other contexts.

Actually, yes. Labels define identities, and racial and ethnic minorities are defined according to the historical context that preceded them - which doesn't justify discrimination and violence. We are what we are whether we like it or not. However, fighting for our rights and to have out collective experience as minority communities validated by wider society, does not exclude accepting the primary meaning of the labels that define us. Language is a vehicle for power and, as such, we can use it to our own advantage by internalizing it and integrating it to our own experience.

Also, every adjective is a label, and every label has a range of meanings, and potential reactions. Take Christian people, for instance. Often, within the same congregation, there will be people with extremely different views on what Christianity represents. Should that be a reason for them to start rejecting the label and whine endlessly about how damaging it has been to them? Labels provide general, aleatory meanings that are open ended enough for people to elaborate further, if they want to do so. Just because some individuals have a hard time accepting that they are different themselves, and don't like that little fact, doesn't mean that we ought to invalidate language itself to suit their self-pitying. More specifically, labels linked to sexual orientation define general behaviours - whether people like it or not. If you are a homo, bi, hetero or asexual person, that's just what you are. Other people's prejudices shouldn't condition the meaning of that.

There's a fundamental difference between "what people are" and how they choose to identify which will always come down to the individual, and telling someone "here's your label, deal with it." Do you think the Irish chose to be considered "nonwhite" in the 19th century?

 

[pat grimshaw]

^

are you speaking metaphorically?

..... the Irish chose to be considered "nonwhite"...

Lots of Irish tenants suffered in the potato famine and were pushed off their land and chose to emigrate to the USA.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

people< wot is dat word anyway
but all people no include but a call people?
adjust fa land culture time century next door etc so on woteva

hu man confused or not is not a question got make eva cause
default is >>> obvious fa eons
wot is default? not include everyone cause
but folk luv say EVERYONE

ans india china usa uk france ans SSSSH"
noooooo?
SSSSSSH"
wanna go play golf on moon ans mars but

tea was not say SSSSH"
gonna get it now

please carry forward is most interest read

thankyou

 

[G-Lexington]

But we're talking about looking at someone's behavior or whatever else and assigning them a label they personally don't want. That's something this forum would chafe at in other contexts.

My general theory is that you can call yourself whatever you want, but you can't dictate what OTHERS call you. I can insist that I do NOT own a car - I own a four-wheel motorcycle with enclosed seating compartment. I can also insist that others call it a four-wheel motorcycle with enclosed seating compartment, and deride those who talk about my "car" as Philistines of the first order that insist on labelling everything. But most people would probably think I had a couple screws loose.

Got a thing for the opposite gender? Straight.
Got a thing for the same gender? Gay.
Got a thing for both genders? Bisexual.

Does these words tell the whole story? Not even close. But that doesn't mean they don't come in handy.

Lex