What is a 'gay man?', an article I'm writing

[StlKj]

As pointed out by others, a gay man is a man who likes men.

Period. All the rest of the bs in this thread is just generalizations and defensiveness.

Apparently for some on here, the answer to "What is a gay man?" is "Ridiculous."

 

[Lube]

As pointed out by others, a gay man is a man who likes men.

Period. All the rest of the bs in this thread is just generalizations and defensiveness.

Apparently for some on here, the answer to "What is a gay man?" is "Ridiculous."

By that definition, a black man is just a man who has black skin.

But science & medicine has taught us that there are many diseases that affect black men more or less than "white" men or Asians.

Life is not that black & white.

Every gene has multiple effects, some strong, some subtle. The largest manifestation of being gay is that we like men. But it is surely not the only manifestation.

 

[StlKj]

Love ya, Lubie, but not buying it. Sorry. Know too many people who don't fit the stereotypes you and others are trying to sell here.

 

[gsdx]

Maybe you don't, but this is irrelevant.

I apologise for the earlier statement I made about scented soaps. I misread and misquoted you.

However, I am not misreading the fact that you still insist that I bear feminine qualities whether or not I'm willing to admit to them, but that it is irrelevant.

You keep shoving 'on average' down our throats:

On average, gay men are less masculine than straight men.

On average does not equal 'all', right? Then why do you make a sweeping generalisation in the next sentence and apply it to 'all' gay men?

Gay men are less masculine than straight men any way you cut it.

Just like Lube who very early on said, "most if not all" gay men exhibit feminine qualities and switched it up when other posters objected to the generalised statement.

The two of you keep changing the rules to suit your arguments.

Why the fuck can't you people understand the simple concept of statistical averages?

Because there are people here who insist upon applying 'statistical averages' to everybody.

We understand the concept of statistical averages, but we don't understand the way they're being used.

There's a huge difference between saying, "On average, kitchens in Canada and the US contain stainless steel appliances" and saying, "Kitchens in Canada and the US contain stainless steel appliances".

'Average' does not equal 'all'. I am an 'average' gay man, but I certainly don't represent 'all' gay men, nor do all gay men represent me.

There is one particular word which has been absent from this entire discussion: Profiling.

Like it or not, that's what's happening here when the qualities of a portion are applied to the whole, and that's an extremely dangerous thing to do.

 

[Lube]

Love ya, Lubie, but not buying it. Sorry. Know too many people who don't fit the stereotypes you and others are trying to sell here.

I'm not making this stuff up. It's pretty standard genetics.

 

[Lube]

However, I am not misreading the fact that you still insist that I bear feminine qualities whether or not I'm willing to admit to them, but that it is irrelevant.

You keep shoving 'on average' down our throats:

On average does not equal 'all', right? Then why do you make a sweeping generalisation in the next sentence and apply it to 'all' gay men?

Just like Lube who very early on said, "most if not all" gay men exhibit feminine qualities and switched it up when other posters objected to the generalised statement.

The two of you keep changing the rules to suit your arguments.

And I explained to you here, over two hundred posts ago, how what I'm saying is perfectly logical. Draw it out on a piece of paper. It's 100% consistent.

And it's very much like what you say next:

There's a huge difference between saying, "On average, kitchens in Canada and the US contain stainless steel appliances" and saying, "Kitchens in Canada and the US contain stainless steel appliances".

'Average' does not equal 'all'. I am an 'average' gay man, but I certainly don't represent 'all' gay men, nor do all gay men represent me.

There is one particular word which has been absent from this entire discussion: Profiling.

Like it or not, that's what's happening here when the qualities of a portion are applied to the whole, and that's an extremely dangerous thing to do.

What you're saying is very close to what I said in this other thread. Mine's somewhat more emphatic than yours.

Profiling is bad in the sense that it's used as a basis for bullying, bias attacks, etc.

But surely every person uses profiling (in a neutral way) when entering a gay bar. Maybe I just use it in a straight bar, too. Why is that worse?

 

[Lube]

Furthermore, as someone who's constantly gotten shit throughout his life for not matching up with select stereotypes, the urge to even "average" a group of human beings is simply not one that I share with you.

This is a ship I'm simply unwilling to board.

What you'll learn about life is that your willingness to board or not board has nothing to do with whether that ship sails or not.

Life is what it is; it is not necessarily what you want it to be.

That was my epiphany when I came out of denial.

 

[Lube]

Do I?

Ever since that whole sensitive comment, I don't know how serious you are. Some homosexuals are the very epitome of insensitive (look around at some of the shenanigans we see here on a regular basis. Many of my closest friends are sensitive straight men. That comment is of the more extreme generalizations I've seen around these parts.

Are they insensitive or overly sensitive?

I'd argue that they (we) are very sensitive to criticism, and that's why they/we fight back so hard.

If they/we were insensitive, we wouldn't care and would let it slide.

 

[Lube]

And perhaps what you'll learn is that whether a ship sails or not doesn't mean it's going in the direction you want it to.

That was my lesson when I realized my "averaging" of people potentially led to me not making some friends that I might have in the past.

Just because someone's gay (and will probably like Glee) doesn't mean I shouldn't talk about TV with them because I suspect we probably like different shows. It just means that I shouldn't be surprised if we do like different shows.

I'd never suggest not making friends with someone because of averages. What I am saying is, just don't be surprised if they do fall somewhere into that average.

 

[bulge]

Men fucking men are men, men fucking chicks are chicks.

 

[Lube]

That was my lesson when I realized my "averaging" of people potentially led to me not making some friends that I might have in the past.

And I'm saying I have no use for them altogether. Because if I found out someone who met me found out I was gay and their first thought was "he probably likes Glee," I wouldn't want to continue talking to them.

Those two comments seem completely at odds with one another.

 

[fetaby]

Those two comments seem completely at odds with one another.

How so?

 

[Lube]

How so?

To paraphrase, in the first case Naughty's saying he learned not to judge people based on preconceived notions, and in the second Naughty's prejudging someone--refusing to talk to (and presumably befriend) him--simply because he thinks Naughty watches a particular tv show.

It appears to me that Naughty is attaching a judgment call to someone who is simply stating the obvious ("you're gay so you are more likely to watch Glee than a straight man").

The key is that he doesn't think less of Naughty because he might watch Glee; he just thinks it's more likely.

But that somehow offends Naughty so much that he refuses to talk to or befriend this guy without knowing anything else about him other than he thinks Naughty watches a particular tv show.

If that's not the definition of prejudice, I don't know what is.

 

[Dduder]

Yes, let's pretend that the only difference between straight and gay men is the gender of people they are attracted to.

Let's pretend that gay men are just like straight men on average except for their sexual preference.

Let's close our eyes and shut down our brains and pretend that gay men are just like straight men and believe that all stereotypes are simply social constructs with no kernel of truth to them.

Gay men on average have tastes and preferences that are a lot more similar to those of heterosexual women rather than straight guys, but let's pretend that is just a mistaken impression caused by our social conditioning and that our eyes are lying to us and our brains interpreting what we see incorrectly.

I know this because a Berkely professor of sociology said that all differences between people are the result of social conditioning or mistaken stereotyping and that all evidence to the contrary is either the result of social spectations or ideologically maipulated data. This also applies even what our lying eyes tell us.

 

[fetaby]

To paraphrase, in the first case Naughty's saying he learned not to judge people based on preconceived notions, and in the second Naughty's prejudging someone--refusing to talk to (and presumably befriend) him--simply because he thinks Naughty watches a particular tv show.

It appears to me that Naughty is attaching a judgment call to someone who is simply stating the obvious ("you're gay so you are more likely to watch Glee than a straight man").

The key is that he doesn't think less of Naughty because he might watch Glee; he just thinks it's more likely.

But that somehow offends Naughty so much that he refuses to talk to or befriend this guy without knowing anything else about him other than he thinks Naughty watches a particular tv show.

If that's not the definition of prejudice, I don't know what is.

And I'm saying I have no use for them altogether. Because if I found out someone who met me found out I was gay and their first thought was "he probably likes Glee," I wouldn't want to continue talking to them.

But it's not a prejudgement. He says he'd wait until after he knows about the prejudice of an individual before dropping them.

Eh, I figure the easiest way of knowing something is to ask. Not coming into a situation guessing no matter the percentages. More often than not you'll be wrong and all of the time you'll be offensive.

Case in point? Dduder, you'd guess he was gay, but he says adamantly that he's not. Another? You, if in all those years of your marriage, were there no times that everyone believed you were completely straight?

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

cultures sure love square da circle ans live with their white rabbits

ans pump out more toons of same

anyway internet invent keep da handfuls of um playin ons rounds abouts ans save da ears of many in real world repeats



how da jolly green giant?

is ya country loony? try eatin carrots

 

[Lube]

Prejudging means you judge before you are certain. PRE-judge. PRE-judice.

Not hiring someone because he's black is PRE-judging that that person can't do the job. You don't even give him the chance to prove himself. Hence PRE-judgment.

Thinking that someone might watch a particular tv show is not prejudging. It's just a thought; you're not basing any decisions on it. Refusing to friend someone because you think they watch a particular tv show is prejudging.

Understand the difference?

 

[Lube]

Oh, and yeah, my parents thought I was gay from my early teens, as it turns out. LOL.

The only people who tell me they are surprised I'm gay? Gay guys.

 

[fetaby]

Prejudging means you judge before you are certain. PRE-judge. PRE-judice.

Not hiring someone because he's black is PRE-judging that that person can't do the job. You don't even give him the chance to prove himself. Hence PRE-judgment.

Thinking that someone might watch a particular tv show is not prejudging. It's just a thought; you're not basing any decisions on it. Refusing to friend someone because you think they watch a particular tv show is prejudging.

Understand the difference?

Not hiring someone because he's black is discrimination. Believing a stereotype about a person is a prejudgment, which makes the holder prejudiced.

Thinking that someone might watch a particular tv show because of a characteristic that person has is prejudiced. Do you assume all black people watch the Cosby show? And all old people watch Murder she wrote? Stereotyped prejudices.

Refusing to friend someone because they can't be bothered to learn about you, and instead rely on stereotypes as a basis of friendships sounds like a good plan.

 

[Dduder]

Yes, let's. I second that. It may help prevent teen suicides and make for easier and less judged lives of others.

"Live not by lies."

- Solzhenitsyn