POLL IT:- Straight-acting

[eastofeden]

Nobody ever said that SA guys do it to deliberately perpetuate a stereotype or to harm others. Not in all 12 pages there or the 2 here. It's extremely unfair to claim that, and if you insist on it, I'll hold you to quoting people. I could be wrong, but if I am, then whoever said it was deeply wrong.

And yeah, I think people who feel the need to identify as straight acting, have issues with their sexuality. Might be minor issues, and totally subconscious, but they are there. Because in this day and age, pretty much ALL of us already have some issue with our sexuality, other than young teens coming out NOW.

See, I'm honest about it.

Actually...I did say that the one guy up there (forget his name) was perpetuating a stereotype...and I do think that. If you need to claim you are straight acting...then of course you are perpetuating a stereotype because you want to distance yourself from being "gay acting"..which is based on a stereotype. The guy I was responding to stated that stereotypes existed for a reason and I said that it was people like him that perpetuated the stereotypes that insured they kept the stereotypes in place.

My Japanese friend is going to meet me for lunch...and I am going to tell him he is very "white acting". He is ultra masculine...tears apart engines...almost married a white Playboy Centerfold Bunny after a long engagement....climbs up big ass trees and trims them or cuts them down....he certainly is not the stereotypical Japanese. I will suggest to him in case HE wants to put an ad in the personals to just go ahead and say he is a white acting Japanese man. I can't wait to see his reaction. (Of course...I know what he is going to say but I want to see his face when he says it)

 

[Rolyo85]

OH CONTRARY MON FRITTER...

I don't like it, but i don't resent it's usage 20.90% Just stated quite clearly they could give two fucks
I don't like it, and i disapprove of those who use it 28.36%
I don't object to it, but i don't identify with it 28.36% Equally just stated they could give two fucks
I identify as straight-acting 22.39% Could obviously give two fucks because they use the term.
I don't fully understand the term 00%


That 81. something or another... you do the math.... of people who could give two fucks about whining people use a term that makes them feel funny inside.

"I don't like it" =/ "I don't give a fuck". It just means "I dislike it, but I am not judging". And as I said above, those who identify DO give a fuck, or they wouldn't mind not using it. The ONLY ones who truly don't care are those in option 3.

But let's keep arguing about semantics, it totally validates everything ever. Because indifference is always such a great argument to make.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually...I did say that the one guy up there (forget his name) was perpetuating a stereotype...and I do think that. If you need to claim you are straight acting...then of course you are perpetuating a stereotype because you want to distance yourself from being "gay acting"..which is based on a stereotype. The guy I was responding stated that stereotypes existed for a reason and I said that it was people like him that perpetuated the stereotypes that insured they kept the stereotypes in place.

No, of course they perpetuate them, I just say they don't do it deliberately to harm us. Do you think they do?

 

[vater292]

Don't stomp your foot too much, it makes you seem gay.

And uh, if they don't give a flying fuck, why don't they change it when they see it bothers others? Yes, exactly, because they DO give a flying fuck.

That's your response.......HAHAHAHAHA

OKAY so I don't agree with you so this automatically means I identify as straight acting, right? WRONG AGIAN

If you actually look at the poll its clearly in two main categories (well three but nobody voted on the third) Dislikes the term and doesn't object to the term. The sub-categories for those are has resentment for the use, and doesn't have resentment for the use. The other is identifies as SA doesn't identify as SA.

So when you analyze it for those that don't give a fuck (which is the doesn't object main category) you look at those that identify as it and those that don't, but don't object to its use.

 

[JayHawk]

P.S. They change it when it bothers others because they initially viewed you as a disposable fuck and still have that aim

What is truly and deeply amusing is trying to argue about 'quality' people on grndr....

 

[eastofeden]

No, of course they perpetuate them, I just say they don't do it deliberately to harm us. Do you think they do?

No...not deliberately...but I think it IS harmful......

Willful Ignorance IS a choice.

 

[JayHawk]

Willful ignorance isn't ignorance though is it?

 

[eastofeden]

Willful ignorance isn't ignorance though is it?

Maybe for the first six months...then we can give it a new name.

 

[Rolyo85]

That's your response.......HAHAHAHAHA

OKAY so I don't agree with you so this automatically means I identify as straight acting, right? WRONG AGIAN

Wait wut? Where did I say that?

If you actually look at the poll its clearly in two main categories (well three but nobody voted on the third) Dislikes the term and doesn't object to the term. The sub-categories for those are has resentment for the use, and doesn't have resentment for the use. The other is identifies as SA doesn't identify as SA.

So when you analyze it for those that don't give a fuck (which is the doesn't object main category) you look at those that identify as it and those that don't, but don't object to its use.

Like I said, semantics. I definitely think those who dislike the term DO give a fuck, even if they don't object to its use, but this is a pointless argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Willful ignorance isn't ignorance though is it?

Are you also one of those "I don't buy social sciences" guys?

 

[JayHawk]

No but the statement is an oxymoron. If you know something and know the harm it causes it cannot be willful lack of knowledge. At least it is willful negligence , at most it is destructive and harmful ill will.

But that is just an opinion, similar to whether a guy who says straight acting is evil.

Everyone comes from different circumstances. I guarantee you if you came from the desolate oil fields of west Texas you would be straight acting to be alive. Lacking any understanding of that is .....cough cough cough......willful ignorance.

 

[JayHawk]

P.S. I have a beer festival and tasting to go to... try to come back later and be drunkenly offensive..... cheers!

And my brand of gay is better than yours.... cough cough

 

[vater292]

Wait wut? Where did I say that?



Like I said, semantics. I definitely think those who dislike the term DO give a fuck, even if they don't object to its use, but this is a pointless argument.

- - - Updated - - -



Are you also one of those "I don't buy social sciences" guys?

Again the question I posted to you was because you said my "stomping was making me look gay" the IMPLIES you think I might try and hide I was gay and in your terms be straight acting.

Again your "semantics" response is wrong. Because as you worded it the people who dislike it DO give a fuck. I never disagreed there. That's why I didn't add it. I said those that don't object but don't Identify those are two different poll options. You really need to look at that better.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

actuals not 21st century just numba but no wanna upset folk like mak numbas
* please a check taday anoda day *
$ ooh check $
" numba it "
wot numba taday?
! consult da expert ons a numbas !
% wot numba yestarday? %
9
% 9 ans 1/2 %
" nottttttttttttttttttt?! "
__OOOOOOH_

ans word gay word a is actuals is cause ans etc ans so on cause wen ya cut appull it still appull
but add human ape a awsum cultures a civils ization ans glass a milk ans no tips well wot a glob a spit
ans then ya go gots undys no wash fa centurys alls sort a stuff
* lot a stuff *

so is wonda most awsum civilzations apes up ta seconds a awsums no straight ta jail ans play sand rest a their cretin life

ans sumthang ans bit more ans so on

ans whip ans oven it
ans choclate sofflay
-YAY
_

thankyou

 

[Rolyo85]

No but the statement is an oxymoron. If you know something and know the harm it causes it cannot be willful lack of knowledge. At least it is willful negligence , at most it is destructive and harmful ill will.

It's a legitimate psychological term. It's when part of you - usually subconscious - knows better, but you choose to ignore it and hold on to your ignorance because you don't want to face certain truths.

But that is just an opinion, similar to whether a guy who says straight acting is evil.

Nobody says SA guys are evil. They aren't any more evil than an oil spill is evil. Though hopefully they are more aware than one

Everyone comes from different circumstances. I guarantee you if you came from the desolate oil fields of west Texas you would be straight acting to be alive. Lacking any understanding of that is .....cough cough cough......willful ignorance.

You are describing circumstances and behavior. I am not. I said it many times in the other thread and I will repeat it here. My problem in this discussion is NOT with the attitude, but with the specific term used to describe it. I am not asking straight acting guys to change ANYTHING about their behavior or circumstances. I just wish they didn't use the term "straight acting" for it and I have exhaustively described in great detail why I think that.

- - - Updated - - -

P.S. I have a beer festival and tasting to go to... try to come back later and be drunkenly offensive..... cheers!

And my brand of gay is better than yours.... cough cough

It's most certainly GAYER than mine if you can get drunk on beer. Ha! ^_^

 

[Rolyo85]

Again the question I posted to you was because you said my "stomping was making me look gay" the IMPLIES you think I might try and hide I was gay and in your terms be straight acting.

Again your "semantics" response is wrong. Because as you worded it the people who dislike it DO give a fuck. I never disagreed there. That's why I didn't add it. I said those that don't object but don't Identify those are two different poll options. You really need to look at that better.

Yeah, or I was just joking. Don't be dull...

And ok on the other.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I am at work right now so I dont have time to read a lot of the responses yet, but id like to state that I never came across a gay man who portrays the stereotype tell people that they were "gay acting" or they have gay behavior, that is just considered feminine.

 

[eastofeden]

I am at work right now so I dont have time to read a lot of the responses yet, but id like to state that I never came across a gay man who portrays the stereotype tell people that they were "gay acting" or they have gay behavior, that is just considered feminine.

I always wonder how people define feminine and masculine behavior.

I love my feminine side...wouldn't trade it for anything. My feminine side is a cross between Sigourney Weaver in Aliens and Mother Abigail from The Stand...my female side is bad ass...and kinda mystical.

 

[Rolyo85]

That's fair enough. I actually like getting to know people first and then it comes out during a relevant moment. I took one of my co-workers by complete surprise after working with him for over a month. He turned out to be a homophobe, but he wouldn't admit it outright. Thing is, in that month, he got to quite like my character, evidently felt comfortable around me. But, he was a member of the far-right BNP party over here. He left to take a job at the party headquarters. We had quite a debate about racism, and of course sexuality. He would only ever go as far as to say what the party believes about homosexuality and never actually said anything homophobic to me. He added me on Facebook. I removed him after he posted a picture of himself with the BNP leader Nick Griffin.
Its quite funny when people find out without having a clue first. On another occasion, two girls approached me, one asked if she could have my phone number on behalf of her quiet friend. I said "i'm sorry, but i'm gay", to which she turned around and said "your loss". I couldn't help but chuckle, thinking "er, how?".

Yeah, I am sure it's eye opening sometimes, but I have very strong feelings about being closeted, coming out and the disgusting parts of heteronormative culture that have kept us hiding and self-loathing. I have no patience for people like the guy you describe. But I consider sexuality to always be a major part of who you are, whether you think about it a lot or not. It informs so many things in your daily life that you aren't even aware of... I don't think people would dislike you if they knew in advance, or treat you all that differently. And frankly, I am not interested in those who WOULD.

Yeah, i think it came down to a huge difference in opinion either side of the pond. Its not so common here these days, i expect partly to do with the US campaign got the message through, but its just never been a big deal, and british guys can be self-deprecating, so its not uncommon to hear gay guys say it as much as straights. The term was rarely used here about people, more often when something seemed unjust happened, especially in computer gaming. The amount of times 'that's so gay' was used when someone ran into a penguin on mario-kart...

I mean, I use it too, but that's appropriation. That's like gays calling each other faggots for fun. It's not the same as straight people using it among themselves. If a crowd of kids were using it as a slur and a synonym of "lame", and ONE of them was actually a closeted gay kid, I promise you it would hurt. I know this from personal experience.

You mention that SA is rarely used where you are, but if you go on Grindr etc, its used a lot, inc. no femmes. Well apart from the fact that saying no femmes is way worse in my head than saying SA guys wanted (though i accept you think masculine is more than sufficient), where you are is in a very, very liberal neighbourhood right? If you live in a very gay friendly area, it tends to attract guys who feel less secure elsewhere. So could it be that there is a larger femme demographic in your area, that may encourage people in your area who are not into femmes feel the need to make that known on the assumption that there are more femmes in their neighbourhood than you'd find in most regular neighbourhoods?

While this COULD be a factor, I doubt it, because I've been to small town Indiana, small town Kentucky, even BULGARIA and used Grindr in these places. The "no fem" thing is everywhere because it's part of gay culture, regardless of location. One thing I sorta half-agree with you about though, is that I also HATE negatives on profiles. Like, seriously, do you (random "you", not YOU you) HAVE to say "no fems"? Is it SERIOUSLY THAT MUCH OF A BOTHER to just say "not interested" to the occasional (and it will be very occasional, these guys rarely go on the apps, since those are super hostile toward them) fem boy who chatted you up? This really bothers me and is a big deal breaker - lists of what you don't like and don't accept.

Being gay is obviously a big part of who i am, how can it not be for any gay man? (unless they're keeping it suppressed). We may be in the 21st century but as a minority group, its bound to be a huge deal for any of us. What i was expressing to rolyo is that we don't all necessarily rank it with the same importance as each other. I don't think that SA guys generally make an effort to identify themselves as gay to everybody, nor have an interest in stereotypical music, fashion, clubbing etc. I know that i don't. When the term straight-acting gets attacked, it doesn't feel like an attack on the ill-thought term, but on my identity. That cultivates resentment. I don't hate on other gay guys, but i use the term SA and suddenly a quarter of the the gay community turn teeth just because they don't like it. This obviously then comes across as hypocrisy, since i don't like femme traits, but don't gnarl about how people should stop saying 'hey gurl' or that transgenders shouldn't be included as part of the LGB(t) community. The double standard that exists is one where femme guys are allowed, and given support for free expression, but not the reverse, since the way its done is then criticized. In a diverse society, we are not gonna be just femme guys and regular guys, because some of i suppose place our sense of manhood as being of greater importance. Maybe i'm over-compensating for having an average dick instead of a huge schlong, i dunno, but straight-acting is a term i use to describe the type of gay guy i am, and i can't ever see that changing. I don't really want to have to listen to guys whine about the term being used on a dating site, the one place where you'd expect that brutal honesty (so long as polite) cuts to the chase and saves wasting people's time. Not liking something is one thing, its the pointless attacking of it that is the problem.

While I understand where you are coming from (and dare I say, I might be a tiny bit sorry for starting my participation in the other thread in such a confrontational manner), I think it's unfair to say we resent you "just because we don't like the term". It's more than that, and I am fairly certain at this point you are well aware of my position.

As well as why the attitude toward fem self-expression and SA self-expression isn't the same.

 

[Rolyo85]

Also, nobody commented on my post from the other thread - I guess it got buried in the flame - but I am interested in people's opinions (on both side of the argument):

Why isn't there such a thing as a "white-acting" black man? A "man-acting" woman? A "Muslim-acting" Christian? All of these exist - as in, you can point at people that would fit the term - but NOBODY would use them. So why are we, gays, different and why is it acceptable for us to describe ourselves by using the word that is the very opposite of what we are?

 

[xbuzzerx]

But I consider sexuality to always be a major part of who you are, whether you think about it a lot or not. It informs so many things in your daily life that you aren't even aware of... I don't think people would dislike you if they knew in advance, or treat you all that differently. And frankly, I am not interested in those who WOULD.

But of course we're all different people, too. For example, I'm a mixed-race person. I feel that being mixed-race informs so many things in my day life that I'm not even aware of... and I think it forces me to think about things in my daily life that many white people in the U.S. may never have to think about at all.

I could describe a situations where someone reacted to us in a funny way or gave us a funny look, and maybe you'd say "oh that's because I'm gay, it happens all the time" and maybe I'd say "oh sheesh that happens every single time I fly through Missouri and they can't figure out what I am, I'm used to it."

Maybe other people here at JUB are in a wheelchair, or have psoriasis, or a thousand other things that may inform how they perceive what happens when they go out and how others react to them, or how they see themselves. I don't think there's one concentration level or one recipe or one formula for how this fits everyone or what proportion being gay is in their life or their outlook. I think that's part of where the friction is here.

 

[bankside]

Also, nobody commented on my post from the other thread - I guess it got buried in the flame - but I am interested in people's opinions (on both side of the argument):

Why isn't there such a thing as a "white-acting" black man? A "man-acting" woman? A "Muslim-acting" Christian? All of these exist - as in, you can point at people that would fit the term - but NOBODY would use them. So why are we, gays, different and why is it acceptable for us to describe ourselves by using the word that is the very opposite of what we are?

Actually i did post it above, but read John McWhorter on "acting white." The phenomenon exists, except within american black communities it is an insult used to discourage black youth interested in academics and prosperity, while "straight acting" seems to be a aspirational goal for some cocksuckers instead of a negative.

In either case, it takes behaviour which is not bounded by orientation or ethnicity at all, and tries to mistakenly attribute it to orientation or ethnicity, and then use it as a standard of comparison.