If you ever say you are "straight acting" that is a copout

[JPGhost]

This is gay acting, he's totally burn in hell

 

[Rolyo85]

What a load of cock-a-maimy babble!! No offence but talk straight.

Can't. I'm gay. You should teach me how to act straight ^_^

I have no need to try and refute an accusation that i'm calling you ANYTHING when i choose to call MYSELF straight-acting.

Actually, you do, when I have taken the time to present an argument defending my position. That is if you insist of being part of the discussion. That's how arguments work. People make statements and then others respond. Otherwise you're, like I said, just stomping your foot down.

If you wish to prove why it is that the term shouldn't be allowed

I do not wish any such thing, and I am not going to acknowledge this misrepresentation of my position as fact. I believe people should become aware of the negative connotations of the term, and make a free choice to stop using it. There is a world of difference.

, and in what way i am harming you by doing so, and most importantly, one that does not hold true of the polar opposite, i.e. effeminate language being used towards gays in general, then i may listen more intently to you.

"May" being the key word here, as you clearly haven't done so yet, considering I have responded to ALL of these. Here's a recap, for the short of attention:

1. You are harming me by propagating a harmful stereotype, namely - that being straight equals being masculine, and therefore being gay is feminine, with the understood subtext that comes with straight culture that masculine is superior to feminine when it comes to the male gender. Worse, you are propagating that harmful stereotype WITHIN gay culture, not without. It is not one that makes straight people like us less, but one that makes US like us less.

2. As I said in a response to buzzer, masculinity and femininity are NOT on an equal basis in today's culture. Being masculine is "good", being feminine is "bad". So celebrating femininity is embracing diversity and in no way harmful to masculine people because masculinity is still the law of the land. So the cries of "double standard!" are kinda like Christians screaming that they are being oppressed by gay people. Furthermore, I stated multiple times that there is nothing wrong with expressing the fact that you are masculine. The problem comes when you use phrases that equate it to the condition opposite of yours, and one that I am also a part of.

Otherwise, all i'm getting is that its A-OK to call yourself diva, queen and sugar-petal, but don't you dare call yourself straight-acting because somehow that's homophobic.

Another recap - though frankly at this point it's glaringly obvious you barely skimmed the topic and have no real interest in engaging in an actual discussion, or I wouldn't have to repeat myself verbatim and giving you answers to questions that have already been answered:

Being a diva, queen and sugar-petal limits your description to yourself. Also, there is NO specific opposite to ANY of these. For each you could list a hundred words that would be AN opposite. But there is no one thing that you can say "if you are a diva, then you are saying you are not X". Same with being masculine, btw. True, that one does have a specific opposite, but you are not making a judgment of others by calling yourself masculine. NOT so when calling yourself straight-acting, and I am sorry, but I am not going to repeat AGAIN the numerous posts in which I explained why. If you weren't interested in reading them before, you won't do it now either. It absolutely IS homophobic, because you already agree (and if you didn't, it would be laughable) that there is pervasive femmephobia in our society, and you are equating "straight" with "masculine", and "gay" with "feminine" (or, to be precise - "not masculine", but we already know there is only one opposite to that one). So how is that not homophobic again? You are LITERALLY saying "straight is better than gay" by using the term SA.

But why should the SA guy have to deny himself an identity when femme guys get a free pas to label the entire community?

Because a) SA is not an identity, but a denial of one; not to mention there are any number of non-offensive ways to describe the identity it describes; and b) because femme guys have earned their "free pass" by being hated even within their own community by super straight acting guys like yourself. Them's the perks of being a persecuted minority. You get all sorts of free passes. I am sure Tony Perkins and Porno Pete could totally relate to your plight.

I am not saying you are making it up at all. I'm saying you're over-reacting.

+

The only reason for that is because guys like you seem intent on smearing the terminology.

= Oops...

At least read YOUR OWN posts if not mine.

That's a fair point to make. I'm a label guy i guess. I like being able to term things.
SA is largely understood, if its a problem for any gay guy, then liklihood is, they're not the guy being sought anyway. (in ref. to dating ads which sparked this raging thread)

First, being able to term things is good, but being able to term them correctly is better. Part of that is discarding inaccurate offensive terminology. You aren't any more straight acting than the most catty drag queen in any of the bars in Boystown. You fuck dudes. You're gay acting. So why not use terms that actually describe what you want them to, instead of ones made up by self-hating faggots?

Second - that is not something I can argue with. Most of the SA homos I've encountered are the "no face picture, I don't like bars, if you can quote a Britney song, eat shit and die" type that pretty much only go for each other. Here's the sad thing though - an AWFUL lot of perfectly masculine and good looking guys would still get offended by this lazy terminology and just assume you are a self-loathing loser, whether that's true or not. So you are really mostly harming yourself.

 

[pat grimshaw]

^



Yugoslav diplomacy in action


I hate you!…I keel you!!

 

[Kulindahr]

Wow. I gave up actually reading before I finished the second page, and just skimmed after that.

Let's look at the word "act". As an example: "She acts like a baby." The speaker isn't saying the gal is putting on an act, like an actor, but that her actions, taken together, resemble those of a baby. Turn those words into a different way of saying it, and you have "baby-acting".

Saying someone is "X-acting" merely means that observation of their actions shows that they resemble someone who is X. In reality it makes no judgment as to whether it's an act, or just the natural way the person is.

So also "straight-acting": all it means is that if a person's actions over time were observed by an average person, they'd never guess the guy was gay -- his actions say "straight". It doesn't mean the guy is acting, i.e. putting on an act, it just means that judging by his actions he appears to be straight. It's not good, it;s not bad, it just is -- and the only way to know more is to get to know the guy and find out if it's an act, or just natural.

I can think of a number of reasons a guy might be straight-acting, from trying to hide he's gay to having been so indoctrinated while growing up that any actions that weren't "straight" got suppressed. They both happen to deserve our pity -- the first because the guy lacks the balls to be himself, and the second 'cause the guy was so abused he never had the freedom to be himself. Although I'll make an exception: any gay guy where I grew up who wasn't straight-acting would have had a very high probability of not finishing growing up. Even eight years ago guys here had to be very careful -- one at where my best buddy worked was beat up, most of his ribs broken deliberately, because some others at work thought he was checking them out. The only openly gay couple in town has better security than people I knew in Gary, Indiana, where steel bars across doors to supplement dead bolts and chains weren't uncommon.

The real tragedy here is that some people are so arrogant and self-righteous that they can be judgmental and dismissive without every getting to know a person.

 

[youfiad]

Over analyzing the term doesn't mean that you should get offended. I find nothing wrong with it. 99.99999% of people understand what is implied. How else would you explain someone who is attracted to guys that you wouldn't expect because they fit into mainstream culture? I actually find it a quite fitting term and not at all offensive.

 

[refujiunderground]

Re: If you ever say you are "straight acting" that is a copout

yes, it is a cop out. a gay guy that's "straight acting" is an oxymoron. it doesn't exist. you can be masculine gay guy but you're still gay.

- - - Updated - - -

yes, it is a cop out. a gay guy that's "straight acting" is an oxymoron. it doesn't exist. you can be masculine gay guy but you're still gay.

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

Over analyzing the term doesn't mean that you should get offended. I find nothing wrong with it. 99.99999% of people understand what is implied. How else would you explain someone who is attracted to guys that you wouldn't expect because they fit into mainstream culture? I actually find it a quite fitting term and not at all offensive.

That's a rather bold fallacy considering that the implication can be easily swayed to be many different things all at once.

 

[youfiad]

That's a rather bold fallacy considering that the implication can be easily swayed to be many different things all at once.

No.

Maybe the people who they want to understand it understand it. I, for one, understand it and find nothing bad about it. That's my opinion, and you can't necessarily call it wrong.

 

[bankside]

Wow. I gave up actually reading before I finished the second page, and just skimmed after that.

Let's look at the word "act". As an example: "She acts like a baby." The speaker isn't saying the gal is putting on an act, like an actor, but that her actions, taken together, resemble those of a baby. Turn those words into a different way of saying it, and you have "baby-acting".

Saying someone is "X-acting" merely means that observation of their actions shows that they resemble someone who is X. In reality it makes no judgment as to whether it's an act, or just the natural way the person is.

So also "straight-acting": all it means is that if a person's actions over time were observed by an average person, they'd never guess the guy was gay -- his actions say "straight". It doesn't mean the guy is acting, i.e. putting on an act, it just means that judging by his actions he appears to be straight. It's not good, it;s not bad, it just is -- and the only way to know more is to get to know the guy and find out if it's an act, or just natural.

I can think of a number of reasons a guy might be straight-acting, from trying to hide he's gay to having been so indoctrinated while growing up that any actions that weren't "straight" got suppressed. They both happen to deserve our pity -- the first because the guy lacks the balls to be himself, and the second 'cause the guy was so abused he never had the freedom to be himself. Although I'll make an exception: any gay guy where I grew up who wasn't straight-acting would have had a very high probability of not finishing growing up. Even eight years ago guys here had to be very careful -- one at where my best buddy worked was beat up, most of his ribs broken deliberately, because some others at work thought he was checking them out. The only openly gay couple in town has better security than people I knew in Gary, Indiana, where steel bars across doors to supplement dead bolts and chains weren't uncommon.

The real tragedy here is that some people are so arrogant and self-righteous that they can be judgmental and dismissive without every getting to know a person.

I think the issue is not with the word "act" in straight acting, but with the word "straight." There is no necessary association between heterosexuality and any given observable behaviour. (Outside the bedroom, where, presumably, a straight man will show more interest and involvement with females, and a gay man will show more interest and involvement with males.)

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

No.

Maybe the people who they want to understand it understand it. I, for one, understand it and find nothing bad about it. That's my opinion, and you can't necessarily call it wrong.

So your opinion is that a term like straight-acting can only have one right answer based upon the person speaking the term?

That's bizarre, and absolutely short-sighted. Usually I don't even waste the time to argue semantics, but if you're gonna cite a far-fetched percentage, at least have big enough balls to prove that it's more than just an opinion, otherwise why play a numbers game at all?

 

[Rolyo85]

Over analyzing the term doesn't mean that you should get offended. I find nothing wrong with it. 99.99999% of people understand what is implied. How else would you explain someone who is attracted to guys that you wouldn't expect because they fit into mainstream culture? I actually find it a quite fitting term and not at all offensive.

Jeez, I wish there were 6 pages after the first post explaining what's offensive about it and why it's actually woefully inaccurate... Whatever gave you the impression any of us don't understand what the term means?

 

[Callum]

Just posting in this thread to tell all of you that I'm straight acting.

 

[ElmosToe]

or Not-Particularly-Good-At-acting?

That is awesome

 

[youfiad]

So your opinion is that a term like straight-acting can only have one right answer based upon the person speaking the term?

That's bizarre, and absolutely short-sighted. Usually I don't even waste the time to argue semantics, but if you're gonna cite a far-fetched percentage, at least have big enough balls to prove that it's more than just an opinion, otherwise why play a numbers game at all?

Can only have one right answer? I honestly have no idea what you're even trying to say.

 

[ElmosToe]

*wonders if thread will make it to 10 pages before midnight*

 

[youfiad]

Jeez, I wish there were 6 pages after the first post explaining what's offensive about it and why it's actually woefully inaccurate... Whatever gave you the impression any of us don't understand what the term means?

Well, if you don't like it, don't use the term. Problem solved. For some, it happens to mean a lot; to where no other adjective can even compare. Masculine is not a synonym, although it does have similarities.

 

[eastofeden]

Can only have one right answer? I honestly have no idea what you're even trying to say.

You said 99.99999% "understand" what is implied. That is certainly not the case. If you read this thread you will easily see that is not the case.

(I know you didn't address that to me but I wanted to give you my POV anyway )

 

[Rolyo85]

It won't. People got tired.

 

[youfiad]

You said 99.99999% "understand" what is implied. That is certainly not the case. If you read this thread you will easily see that is not the case.

(I know you didn't address that to me but I wanted to give you my POV anyway )

That's sadly pathetic then.

 

[eastofeden]

That's sadly pathetic then.

If people don't see things the way you do...it is sadly pathetic? May I ask...are you one of the straight acting people that I should implicitly understand?