Dear Straight Men, Come Out Already

[equalityboy81]

I'm gay and I can call myself straight but that doesn't make it so.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

I'm gay and I can call myself straight but that doesn't make it so.

cheer up

apees call umself human wit 10million subsection 1million lawayars ans a rleaity tv show fa support tey no pile a doodoo

but public still luv suckin it up

so

_tap dance until a moon turns a in ta bunchs a tulips_
or rubba plant

pinku

 

[Adrusek81]

There are several problems with the phenomenon presented by this article.

The first one is that it inadequately presents same sex activity as as the convergence of a series of random events that have no social significance or political relevance, in spite of the fact that society has been built around institutions directly linked to a dual perspective of active/dominating and passive/submissive sexual identities. Sex in itself is as much of consequence in our society as race, ethnicity or religion, because we build our social identities around it and have access to different rights, privileges and limitations due to our identification with certain sexuality-marked groups.

Thus, the rejection of an even remotely alternative identity that doesn't squarely fit into our ingrained assumptions of maleness and valid behaviours, is the real driver behind these semantic games, which ultimately aim to detach heteronormative and hetero-romantic bisexual individuals from any alternative or socially-condemned identities. In short, it aspires to legitimize internalized homophobia as a valid social driver, saying that challenging the disjointed nature of chosen identity and behaviour, is an act of dogmatism and intolerance in itself.

This is closely linked to post-structuralist deconstructionism and the irrelevant vagaries of fourth wave feminism and its "I say so because I will it so, and since I am a member of society, I have a right to be heard and validated no matter how outlandish or un-scientific my research and personal opinions might be" arguments, which have muddled the social sciences to the point when it's difficult to take them seriously at all.

This article by the universally mocked Jane Ward aims to justify these absurd notions by saying that female bisexuality is accepted, by male bisexuality is subjected to unfair treatment - which prompts her to then, argue that it's normal for men to reject a bisexual identity because it is a queer construct that doesn't befit real straight men, who might not want to identify with queer politics or alternative movements and thus, shouldn't be classed as bisexual out of respect to their strange perspective of what heterosexuality constitutes.

In short, this presents bisexual erasure as something acceptable and says that rejecting "homo" culture and values is feasible and good, because it shouldn't be used to deny self-identifying heterosexual men the right to be ashamed of their actions, and their rejection of anything to do with "queerness".

It doesn't appear to be a very compelling argument at all, and it completely misunderstands the nature and complexity of bisexuality, in my opinion.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

^ ha idea UNI tinkin
!unda 1 word or less!
_ha_

tinkyou