Slutwalk

[G13]

RedCelt,

I wrote a proper reply to you, but either the mods take longer to deal with longer posts, or a mod has a sense of humour and let the one-line snark go through before the, I hope, rather mitigating, genuine response.

RedCelt, honestly and truely you are mistaken in your picture of what feminism is, which you've just completely cemented to me in offering someone as a "vox populi". Firstly, I'm absolutely no expert, but I have a decent clue of most of the major issues floating round, and I've never heard of Kat Banyard. Secondly, the viewpoint you present her as having sounds like an anti-porn viewpoint, which honestly is not representative of feminism. Anyone who knows a basic outline of feminism knows that the position on porn is one of The biggest and most bad-tempered splits among folk who consider themselves feminists. One person from either side of that divide cannot possibly represent "feminism", because there isn't one single feminism. Feminism has no position on porn, only many feminists with dramatically different positions on it. Which kind of leads to thirdly. I've been trying to say to you how much there really isn't One feminism. I'm certain you wouldn't have to look far to find folk who identify as feminist and have no time or care for men; believe me, you also wouldn't have to look far to find ones who care plenty about men.

And I may never have heard of Kat Banyard because I don't hang out much in the anti-porn wing. I'll be far from the only one.

I'll give you the most concrete example I can: *I* (mostly) identify as a feminist, and *I* care about men's rights. There are many men who are disadvantaged by our current gendered society: gay men, non-hetero men, trans men, men with disabilities, men who want to care for children, men who don't appear physically "macho", men who show their feelings, men who are shy, men who have "feminine" interests as hobbies or careers, men who don't know how to take/can't deal with a woman showing him what she likes in bed... I want all that to be different just as much as I want all the other individual wrongnesses to be different. This society that holds up a certain concept of manness as superior is bad for all of us.

Feminism also isn't an alternative to other areas of human rights; it's an added part. If I heard of a human rights violation to a person gender-nonspecified, I wouldn't think "if it's a woman, I care, if it's a man, nah, not bothered": I'd care because it's a person.

I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with people who claimed to be, or you thought were, feminists. I can only say, the feminism you describe is not representative; not even close.

[macgamer]

No, I read all of what you wrote. Indeed, as I noted in my post, I quoted what you said "word for word" and all of a sudden you didn't agree with yourself any more. The fact that you managed to make two contradictory arguments in one paragraph, namely that 1. women must dress modestly to avoid provoking rape and 2. what women are wearing should be irrelevant when judging a rapist, suggests an inability to follow a simple line of thought from start to finish, not that I have twisted your words. What you wrote is there for everyone to see, and you quoting only the last bit of what you wrote is not going to muddle anyone's memory. Indeed, I'm not the only person to have picked up on it. G13 called it to your attention, too.

Oh, and saying that rape isn't about lust but continuing to talk about "provocative" clothing is clearly contradictory.

It isn't contradictory, at least from my perspective as the person who articulated it. There were two statements the latter of which you agree with that a person's appearence should not be considered in a rape trial, the first which you disagree with that women should (and in most cases would / do) err on the side of caution in how they dress when in certain places. These aren't contradictory. The 'appeal to pragmatism' was just that an appeal not an imperative. The statement about culpbility was more of an imperative, that appearance must not be considered. The rapist is person who carries out the crime and bears all culpability.

What might be contradictory and make this discussion moot I grant you, is the extent to which rapes are carried out by persons with psychological pathologies and those who are drunk or under the influence of another substance. In the former case, then discussions of appearence are probably largely irrelevant. In the latter case, appearence must have some signficance, at least for a man who might be judging women based on how they are dressed and interpreting how likely it is that he might be 'successful' with them.

Surprise, surprise, people get a bit snippy when they are treated as less-than.

Believe me JTW, that it has never been my intention, when posting here, to insult people. Certainly I anticipate that people my 'take offence' to what I have written, but never has it my intention been to insult or demeen people. Please point it out and I'll be happy to offer an apology.

The rest of your argument is also rubbish... calling your demand that women dress modestly 'an appeal to pragmatism', for example. I am rather surprised you understand the concept, since you're normally so busy insisting on absolutes of good and evil, or art/porn dichotomies.

You see, this is an example of a something written to insult someone deliberately. I suppose that is the nature of message boards, the tone of one's argument isn't always conveyed accurately. I'm sure if you ever met me in reality, you wouldn't think me quite the ogre that I seem to be portrayed as here.

Then you say that "you can see... on a certain level" that masturbation is worse than rape, although you take care to tiptoe around Aquinas on this one. This would seem to be the first time you aren't familiar with his work back-to-front. I'll be charitable and chalk it up to coincidence. Surely you didn't skipp that passage just because he wasn't busily condemning the gays?

I was, in a round about way, saying that whilst I understand the philosophical train of thought that Aquinas used, I disagree with him. It is not a comparable evil, viz. masturbation and rape. However I do not know where he wrote this, I've heard of this remark many times before, but not having read it myself I don't want to prejudge the angelic Doctor. I'm not a scholar of Aquinas, I'm a biologist. However as a Catholic and someone who appreciates philosophy and a logical exposition of theology, Aquinas naturally appeals, so I should read more of him to rid myself of my ignorance of his work.

And yes, there is a lot of ire. I think that rape and bigotry ought to be met with a bit of ire, don't you? Or should the down-trodden and abused be 'pragmatic' about it all, hide away quietly and not demand equal protections?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13456306

Apart from the ire, which you might want to avoid directing against individuals who mean you no harm, I actually agree with you. We should have a society where people are free do dress as they please. It is just that we aren't there yet and if pragmatism can help reduce the incidence of rape, sexual assault and harrassment all the better. I'm not sure whether these 'slut-walks' help. The issue is not the freedom to do it (largely that exists), the issue is how we perceive each other. Ideally we should not come to prejudicial conclusions about people based on their appearence, but we do, for that is how we select a partner. We must be aware of human nature, it is not perfect. We should as a society work towards a situation where we do not see each other for what the other might be worth in terms of gain for ourselves (e.g. sexual gratification), but seeing the other as a person of intrinsic worth no matter their appearence or status.

Is that progressive enough for you? I do have a radical and progressive side hidden away.

And as for your suit just improving your appearance (please note that it isn't 'appearence'), but the clothes of women being provocative, get off your high horse/hypocrite soapbox, and recognise that any suit, tight-fitting or not, is intended to emphasise male secondary sex characteristics, like broad shoulders and an inverted triangle torso, in much the same way as some women's clothes are intended to highlight a narrow waist/broad hips or cleavage. Just because you're not willing to recognise this doesn't make it any less true. And what you insist on calling 'dapper', lots of people would call 'sexy'. And this is not an art/porn divide (which does not, in any case, exist... this is just you and your absolutes again). It is a divide between your outlook and reality.

Ok, I've dismounted my high horse. For now. My trusty steed stands ready for our next flight.

On a separate note, macgamer considers most sex to fall onto a scale between wrong and *Go to hell, do not pass 'Go', do not collect 200 quid, etc*

Really? I'm not the Eternal Judge, it isn't up to me. People are free to, and should, act according to their own conscience. People should be free to discuss morality and philosophy, being prepared to reform their own conscience as developments arise. Disputations on morality are a symptoms of consciences formed in different ways.

And yes, I also agree that engaging with macgamer can be bad for your mental well-being.

It shouldn't be the case.

Keep your homophobia far away from us.

That's curious, I don't know how you are able to judge that I either hated or feared homosexuals, but I suppose that etymology for you. If you control the meaning of words, you can control how people think.

I'm a feminist (if that's a label that a gay man can apply to himself).

On the matter of labels, I have a sincere question based on a lack of understanding and genuine curiosity. Also I had better put in plenty of caveats before I issue it: please do not be offended, I'm not trying to insult or demeen you.

Could you please explain to me the thinking of homosexuals when they adopt 'gay' or sexuality as a label or identity? I have not seen a comparable phenomenon amongst heterosexuals.

From my perspective, attraction and sexuality are only a small component of an individual. When it is used as a label it seems, to me at least, to magnify it beyond proportion. As I have said before, attraction strikes me as a continuum that does not fit into neat little boxes, much as I, and seemingly society too, would want it to.

Anyway, I'd be interested in your opinion.

[Senethro]

Keep your homophobia far away from us.

That's curious, I don't know how you are able to judge that I either hated or feared homosexuals, but I suppose that etymology for you. If you control the meaning of words, you can control how people think.

The whole thing about trying to make out that some Others try to control some kind of debate using words as being cheating is just.... well it doesn't lend credibility to your irrational view that homosexuals shouldn't be accorded the same rights as everyone else. Why is it every time the word comes up you desperately point out you don't fear homosexuals, so you must not be homophobic?

Surely you must have come across the term hydrophobic as applied to a molecule? Did you berate your lecturer for ascribing emotions to molecules? Drop the hardcore etymolgy please.

Also, thank you googlefairy.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=& ... homophobia

Edit: Ugh, that just reminded me you once used the phrase "obligate homosexuals" and that favorite term of religious people trying deny homosexuality any validity, Same Sex Attraction.

I'm a feminist (if that's a label that a gay man can apply to himself).

On the matter of labels, I have a sincere question based on a lack of understanding and genuine curiosity. Also I had better put in plenty of caveats before I issue it: please do not be offended, I'm not trying to insult or demeen you.

Could you please explain to me the thinking of homosexuals when they adopt 'gay' or sexuality as a label or identity? I have not seen a comparable phenomenon amongst heterosexuals.

Ok, this was well and sensitively asked, I'm not going to presume I can answer it, but please just think about that last sentence quoted.

[Senethro]

Well, it was an observation and a rhetorical question. The "right back atcha" wasn't a good comeback, as it emphasised my observation. But hey ho.

Oh my, how terribly embaressing! You made a statement that was not to be commented on by other people, how gauche of me to fall into your trap and respond!

Do you want to even try to think how a man making a statement that feminists do not believe in equality or that if they do, they shouldn't call themselves feminists might be a bad thing?

OK. Let me see, now. As a man, there are certain views that I, as a man, am not allowed to hold or share? And it doesn't even entertain you as a possibility that your view is a sexist one? As a human being, I hold all sorts of views... I shouldn't have to ditch certain ones because of a factor-of-birth.

Oh, very good. I see what you've done there, you've turned it back on me like its my discrimination thats the problem.

However, its like that time that B&B owner said everyone else was being a bigot for discriminating against them being a bigot.

If you think otherwise, then you are a sexist. Or stupid. Take your pick.

Damn, if only I could get away with "agree with me or you dumb" on my writeups.

Feminism fights for the rights of women. On this, my belief system is in perfect alignment with them. However (and it's a big "however") there is no semblance of any kind of interest in the rights of men. None. Zero. Nada. For that reason, I reject feminism and everyone who calls themselves a feminist.

"Yeah, of course I care about your rights. But... y'know... do you care about my rights? No? Not even a little? Oh. Then you can fuck right off." is the summary of my position.

I'll stick with humanism, as it covers all factors-of-birth.

"abloo bloo bloo what about my rights" cried the middle class white straight male

You've had centuries rigging the system in your favour and now you cry foul.

Honestly, what have egalitarians ever done for women? What great successes can be attributed to them? Wide umbrella identities don't work for advocacy especially when you try to include the complacent privileged groups in them.

Feminism was necessary and still is.

Edit: Ugh, conscience twinge. I'd better make my full point explicit here.

I'm not saying that you as a male are responsible for past conditions. That is clearly ridiculous. However, I am saying that you surely benefit from them due to the institutions and mores in our society being derived from these times.

The idea is that equality is unfair. This is the tricky idea that many people will just outright reject but I'll try and make it clear. If we were to be equal tomorrow, all of us, then straight white men would still be ahead because they still have greater access to wealth and power through having occupied political/religious/corporate/academic/authoritative positions for generations.

Even if groups were equal, one group with greater accumulated resources can use these to maintain its lead.

[Senethro]

I still don't follow your claim to be pro-equality but anti-feminist. I haven't met anyone who told me they were a feminist who wanted to ignore men's rights, any more than gay rights campaigners want to lock up all the straights in huge camps, where they will not be allowed to wear pink triangles.

Perhaps, in all my years on this planet, I've encountered more reasons to despise feminism than you have. Humanism also covers the rights of LBGT. But then again, if the gay rights campaign groups (that you're familiar with) don't dismiss heterosexuals as wholeheartedly as the feminists and feminist groups (I've encountered) dismiss men... you won't see a problem with those groups.

What is this shit? You're (likely to be) older and therefore right?

well that just shuts down all discussion thread over

You don't know what feminism is, and Your Doin It Rong!!

I didn't say that feminists don't know what feminism is. I didn't say that they're doing it wrong.

Otherwise, excellent point well made.

yes you did and heres the quote!

G13, the short reply is that I believe in equality. People who call themselves feminists aren't into equality. Or they are, but they've attached themselves to the wrong grouping.

[RedCelt69]

yes you did and heres the quote!

G13, the short reply is that I believe in equality. People who call themselves feminists aren't into equality. Or they are, but they've attached themselves to the wrong grouping.

And back to my earlier comment about you and thinking. Read them both again. Now tell me that I said what you think I said. Hint: I didn't.

[Hennessy]

I've figured out why this bothers me.

Some women are sluts.

If we're going to imagine society has some kind of moral norm which it expects people to live up to then I don't see why women should be exempt from being found in contempt of that norm.

Case in point: Imogen Thomas. What a slut! Ryan Giggs is going to get what's coming to him - divorce, limited access to his kids, a huge financial hit. The man broke one of the unspoken codes of society, he deserves the pile of excrement that is going to be heaped upon him. for every pub bore who brings up his footballing record in some kind of lame defence there are going to be people who think he's a worthless piece of crap, which he is. So's Arnie, so's Strauss Kahn, so's that fat useless lump Prescott, so's every middle-aged guy sitting behind a desk with pictures of his family on it watching his secretary's arse as she opens a file cabinet. These men get to the top by being loose and scabby arseholes to the rest of humanity - so when they slip up we should feel free to mosey up to the high ground and call them what they are. Toast their names ironically and put them in the stock for their 15 minutes of shame - it's the least we can do.

But Imogen gets off scot free with some added publicity for her rather limited talents. I have no problem with calling her a slut or regarding her as nothing but a slut because at some gutteral level all of us can quickly identify her as such. Takes two to tango and she seemingly had no qualms lying flat on her back for old Giggsy (I wonder if he bothered taking his wedding ring off beforehand?).

Seriously though enough hand-wringing. What does it say about us we're willing to suspend our usual digust because these men have some money in the bank or some skill kicking a bloody ball around? The French, inventors of droit du seigneur, have no problem seeing their bosses shag their daughters, but we should. Those daughters should be called what they are the eves who ate the forbidden fruit, and the men involved stripped of their families, because obviously it wasn't good enough when they had it. Bring back a little of the fire of public inquisition.

[Senethro]

yes you did and heres the quote!

G13, the short reply is that I believe in equality. People who call themselves feminists aren't into equality. Or they are, but they've attached themselves to the wrong grouping.

And back to my earlier comment about you and thinking. Read them both again. Now tell me that I said what you think I said. Hint: I didn't.

Nope, I'm so terribly stupid that I don't understand. You'll have to explicitly point out the misunderstanding I've made because when I quote you describing feminists as being wrong in intention or label and then you say that you didn't mean they were wrong, despite having used the very word wrong, I get so terribly confused.

You still look like a privileged group member trying to split feminism into "bad" feminism supposedly not about gender equality (a strawman you disagree with, a bunch of anecdotes you're too lazy to even tell), and "good" feminism which doesn't really need to even be called feminism because they're actually on your side all along!

You're both trying to define what another group believes contrary to their own self description, and to say their advocacy is outmoded and should really just merge into your poorly defined humanism.

I've figured out why this bothers me.

And I'm definitely too stupid to understand what this post is about and the happier for it.

[RedCelt69]

Diplomacy Monkey is telling me that it would probably be best not to call you an utter fuckwit during my reply. So, I'll do my best not to do that. But bear in mind that it took a lot of will power and self control.

Oh my, how terribly embaressing! You made a statement that was not to be commented on by other people, how gauche of me to fall into your trap and respond!

I said that it was a rhetorical question. I didn't say that it wasn't to be commented upon by other people. It wasn't a trap. You utter fuckwit.

Oh damn. No self control, today, it seems.

Oh, very good. I see what you've done there, you've turned it back on me like its my discrimination thats the problem.

You didn't address my point, you utter fuckwit. So you're not denying that people of a certain gender are not allowed to hold views that can be held by people of the opposite gender? If you hold that view, then you are being sexist. It really is that simple. Throwing around the "bigot" word, hoping that it will stick to me... well, that really won't work. Would you like to make another attempt at justifying your sexist position?

If you think otherwise, then you are a sexist. Or stupid. Take your pick.

Damn, if only I could get away with "agree with me or you dumb" on my writeups.

That wasn't the two options. Either you're stupid or you're sexist. The evidence is painting you into the "both options" category, mind you. You sure as hell aren't too hot at the whole thinking thing... and you didn't defend your sexist position.

Feminism fights for the rights of women. On this, my belief system is in perfect alignment with them. However (and it's a big "however") there is no semblance of any kind of interest in the rights of men. None. Zero. Nada. For that reason, I reject feminism and everyone who calls themselves a feminist.

"abloo bloo bloo what about my rights" cried the middle class white straight male

What have my class (I don't have one), ethnicity, sexual preference and gender got to do with anything? In what way do any of those things hold any relevance to this conversation? Again, are some people not allowed to hold certain views? You're imagining a world in which I, in that societally-powerful position, am using that position (I'm not) or arguing in favour of that position (I'm not) or hold that position to be something other than hideous in a world that knows too little in the way of equality.

I were misogynistic, you might have a point. If I was racist, you might have a point. If I was a homophobe, you might have a point. But you know what, Senethro, oh fuckwit of all fuckwitedness... I am none of those things. If my race, gender and sexuality have placed me in a position of centuries-old "power" then I reject that so-called power and (as with class) refuse to belong to that mindset. We're humans. Every human is as equal as every other human. And yes, that includes men. I'd hold that same view if I were a black lesbian. For you to suggest that I could hold that view with those factors-of-birth, but not with the factors-of-birth I ended up with... well, that's you being stupid.

Sorry.

Don't shoot the messenger, and all that.

I created this blog so that I could make my point once without having to repeat myself over and over again. Because having the same conversations over and over again (each time the next idiot came over the horizon) is a tiring exercise in futility. So read these if my point has still escaped that little brain of yours:-

Sexism
Feminism vs Humanism - part 1
Feminism vs Humanism - part 2

[Hennessy]

My goodness I seem to have stumbled into a bit of a warzone. I thought I was in a proper strop when I wrote my last post but obviously I underestimated the mood.

[macgamer]

My goodness I seem to have stumbled into a bit of a warzone.

Quite.

Most entertaining though, as a spectator. I particularly enjoyed:

What have my class (I don't have one), ethnicity, sexual preference and gender got to do with anything? In what way do any of those things hold any relevance to this conversation? Again, are some people not allowed to hold certain views?

[...]

Every human is as equal as every other human. And yes, that includes men. I'd hold that same view if I were a black lesbian.

[Senethro]

TLDR available next post for those reading along at home.

Diplomacy Monkey is telling me that it would probably be best not to call you an utter fuckwit during my reply. So, I'll do my best not to do that. But bear in mind that it took a lot of will power and self control.

Oh my, how terribly embaressing! You made a statement that was not to be commented on by other people, how gauche of me to fall into your trap and respond!

I said that it was a rhetorical question. I didn't say that it wasn't to be commented upon by other people. It wasn't a trap. You utter fuckwit.

Oh damn. No self control, today, it seems.

Yarp.

Oh, very good. I see what you've done there, you've turned it back on me like its my discrimination thats the problem.

You didn't address my point, you utter fuckwit. So you're not denying that people of a certain gender are not allowed to hold views that can be held by people of the opposite gender? If you hold that view, then you are being sexist. It really is that simple. Throwing around the "bigot" word, hoping that it will stick to me... well, that really won't work. Would you like to make another attempt at justifying your sexist position?

Ugh, alright. I'll own up to this.

The view: It is more inappropriate for a privileged group member to deride advocacy of a less privileged group as being unegalitarian despite being declaredly egalitarian, being unnecessary, or having sinister intent than for a non-privileged group member to hold this view.

I hold it.

I was sitting on it because I first wanted to get this concept of privilege I've got such a shoulder chip about at least a little written about first. Did you see that post up there about equality not being equal? Its that again. We should be appropriately skeptical about privileged groups disregarding the views of the less privileged because they are more vulnerable. (and I wish to make it explicit that this is due mostly to past socio-cultural conditions, than innate qualities/values of the groups except where it isn't [i.e. women can become pregnant, men cannot])

Because when you are saying these uncharitable thigns about feminism, it looks to me like you are asking the little ladies to sit quietly in the back while this redblooded socialist rolls up his sleeves and wins equality for all under the banner of humanism.

Really though, what has been the relative success of umbrella identities such as humanism compared to feminist (and pre-feminist i.e. suffragette) at changing the lot of women? Do you honestly believe group members or non-group members are better at advocacy and advancement of under-privileged groups?

Feminism fights for the rights of women. On this, my belief system is in perfect alignment with them. However (and it's a big "however") there is no semblance of any kind of interest in the rights of men. None. Zero. Nada. For that reason, I reject feminism and everyone who calls themselves a feminist.

"abloo bloo bloo what about my rights" cried the middle class white straight male

What have my class (I don't have one), ethnicity, sexual preference and gender got to do with anything? In what way do any of those things hold any relevance to this conversation? Again, are some people not allowed to hold certain views? You're imagining a world in which I, in that societally-powerful position, am using that position (I'm not) or arguing in favour of that position (I'm not) or hold that position to be something other than hideous in a world that knows too little in the way of equality.

yeah, this is pretty much the most privileged thing. The whole lacking an identity thing is actually you never being "othered". You're sitting pretty much in the default/favoured/privileged state of being. You never notice your identity because everythings been set up to favour you.

Did you see macgamers question asking JTW about when he adopted a gay identity because macgamer believes he doesn't have a comparable straight identity? Of course he has a straight identity, its just one that occupies the privileged position. He has never noticed his straight identity because he has never been forced to notice it. Privilege.

I were misogynistic, you might have a point.

Hurr hurr, I so hope this hasn't been editted out by the time I finish this reply.

If I was racist, you might have a point. If I was a homophobe, you might have a point. But you know what, Senethro, oh fuckwit of all fuckwitedness... I am none of those things.

Didn't say you were.

If my race, gender and sexuality have placed me in a position of centuries-old "power" then I reject that so-called power and (as with class) refuse to belong to that mindset. We're humans. Every human is as equal as every other human. And yes, that includes men. I'd hold that same view if I were a black lesbian.

I should hope so.

For you to suggest that I could hold that view with those factors-of-birth, but not with the factors-of-birth I ended up with... well, that's you being stupid.

I didn't say this. This is me going on the record saying I didn't say this.

Look, your intent is good and all. Very much commendable. What I'm saying is you're blind to the way your claim that your big label humanism supersedes and obsoletes all other identities is belittling and without due concern, especially as you occupy a privileged position, indeed, pretty much the most privileged position.

[Senethro]

Look I write a load of shit sometimes so I don't blame you dear reader if you skip over it but please just read this bit as its what the rest is about.

yeah, this is pretty much the most privileged thing. The whole lacking an identity thing is actually you never being "othered". You're sitting pretty much in the default/favoured/privileged state of being. You never notice your identity because everythings been set up to favour you.

Did you see macgamers question asking JTW about when he adopted a gay identity because macgamer believes he doesn't have a comparable straight identity? Of course he has a straight identity, its just one that occupies the privileged position. He has never noticed his straight identity because he has never been forced to notice it. Privilege.

Are you aware of your privilege?

[G13]

Seconding Senethro on why feminism is still needed, and on the stuff about privileged identities.

Answering macgamer from my angle about why not-hetero folk often take up an identity involving that: because the world in general assumes we're all straight. I am regularly asked if I have a boyfriend; only in LGBTQI* or related circles have I ever been asked anything more gender-inclusive and not so assumptive, never in the mainstream. All the dominant discourse in society is about women finding male partners and men finding female ones. I guess it's kind of hard to understand if you're someone who fits all the basic assumptions that people generally make, but if you don't, you're reminded of this fact persistently in many small, and occasionally large, ways. The consistent message becomes "I don't belong here, this world is not made for me". For some people, it becomes easier to deal with by saying "I am xyz" to attempt to stop quite so many wrong assumptions being made, or if not so publicly, at least giving one a space where one fits as opposed to feeling always out of kilter with and not belonging in the everyday world. For some people, it's easier to deal with a world that is forever forgetting that people like oneself exist when one has a strong sense that one is indeed the way one is. As Senethro says, people who have the identity that the world assumes for them don't need to claim it or even be consciously aware of it, because it's all laid out already.

An aside to macgamer on non-hetero sexualities and homophobia: I've read you before on the topic and I don't believe that discussing it with you would be remotely productive. And I said, no etymology: homophobia means, having a problem with non-hetero sex and/or sexualities. And, uh, while you may not Mean to cause offense to individuals, your homophobia Is offensive, certainly to the people it applies to, which explains why might not take kindly to you! You might just have to live with that, or better still, if you can't say something without showing your homophobia, just don't say it.

[G13]

Jollytiddlywink, thanks for viewpoint. I've heard of the heteronormative mirror type thing before, but it's much better to hear about it from someone who would know rather than by hearsay (including me reporting it). I've heard of a similarish effect in some lesbian circles, too, particularly around butch/femme identities. Summing up what I've heard, within the scene, some folk report experiencing a similar co-opting of the higher status masculine role of butches and an inferior feminine one for femmes; naturally, this has to play out very differently than for men, as butches are the ones who stand out as the obvious "transgressors" in society: they're given the hard time and femmes are erased (ie assumed to be hetero). Other folk report not experiencing this in their community. What does seem to be universal, though, is the imposition of stereotypical masculine/feminine roles by the mainstream world.

For me it's really interesting that you used the word "top" to denote the penetrating person. I know that some of this is to do with differences in terminology between different sexual subcultures, but even so, I reckon there's a point of interest here. It seems really strongly imprinted in our society's understanding of sexuality that the penetrating person is the one in charge, in control, with the power. It's so not intrinsically or necessarily that way, but that view seems to have quite a strangle-hold. Sad, and frustrating. I think it's very revealing about both the status of women and the status of gay-sex-having men: it seems that being the enveloping partner (yes, sounds odd, but I challenge you to come up with anything better that puts the agency with the person in this role - and yes I'd use it if you think of it) is automatically inferior, and the enveloping partner is always framed as "the person who has sex done To them" - that is, the person Being penetrated - as if they are necessarily passive and not driving or enjoying the whole thing as much as the penetrating partner. And yeh, non-penetrative-sex-having people are just not considered at all, because hey, penetration is the only Real form of sex, bow before the god of the penis, or at least get a fake one... 'scuse me I reckon it's pretty clear I've got no problem with penises or penis-having people, only with a discourse that massively centres them.

[G13]

Hennessy, what is a "slut"? Someone who has lots of sex, someone who's had several different partners, someone who's had different partners in a short space of time? All those definitions and more are used by different people. "Slut" is also sometimes used on a woman who enjoys sex, who's having sex with someone the speaker doesn't want to have sex with, or someone the speaker just plain doesn't like. Consequently, I don't consider it a very useful word. I don't think it's ok to call anyone a slut, because it's shaming and policing. I don't think that women should be exempt: I think that people shouldn't be shamed for sexual choices that are consensual, not manipulative or deceitful. And I don't think "slut" is an effective way of censuring behaviour that's wrong for those reasons, as it's so sexually coded, it implies that the sex was what was wrong with the behaviour.

I don't think the footballer is going to be punished by society; the punishments you describe come from his wife, on his personal life, and are a result not of breaking unstated rules but of breaking his stated marriage vows (assuming the marriage was agreed to be monogamous).

Amusingly, Hennessy's post illustrates why I (mostly) identify as a feminist. He manages to frame sex as something done To women -"lying flat on her back for old Giggsy", "bosses shag their daughters"-, in the latter phrase, present bosses as people who are automatically men, and present women as temptresses - "eves who ate the forbidden fruit".

[QueerCommunist]

Dear RedCelt, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkp4t5NYzVM

and now compare it to the privileges you have you enjoy due to the simple fact of your dangly bits.

Plus, feminism is very much about men's rights... it directly addresses and criticises the patriarchal, heterosexist underpinnings of our society, which doing away with is indeed also about liberating men from the burden of having to be homophobic, aggressive, emotionless and career-focussed movers'n'shakers replica of action-figures and super-hero stories.

I am a cis, straight male and an ardent feminism... my fight against a sexist society alongside the women, whose exploitation and marginalisation is based on the privileges I directly or indirectly receive by creed of the sex I was assigned at birth is indeed a struggle for self-determination and equality.

[jollytiddlywink]

yeah, this is pretty much the most privileged thing. The whole lacking an identity thing is actually you never being "othered". You're sitting pretty much in the default/favoured/privileged state of being. You never notice your identity because everythings been set up to favour you.

Did you see macgamers question asking JTW about when he adopted a gay identity because macgamer believes he doesn't have a comparable straight identity? Of course he has a straight identity, its just one that occupies the privileged position. He has never noticed his straight identity because he has never been forced to notice it. Privilege.

Redcelt: please read this. Having seen you restate your position in a few different (increasingly expletive-littered) ways, I now have a vague idea of what it is. It still doesn't make much sense, for precisely the reason Senethro mentioned, although there are other reasons. Are you aware that you (probably) qualify as cisgender? For that matter, do you know what it means? I promise you that you're really quite privileged, but never bother considering it, if you have to look up one of the words which describes one basis of that privilege.
In any case, G13 has said you're totally out of touch in presenting the examples you did as representative of feminism.

Macgamer:

I have a sincere question based on a lack of understanding and genuine curiosity...
Could you please explain to me the thinking of homosexuals when they adopt 'gay' or sexuality as a label or identity? I have not seen a comparable phenomenon amongst heterosexuals.
From my perspective, attraction and sexuality are only a small component of an individual. When it is used as a label it seems, to me at least, to magnify it beyond proportion. As I have said before, attraction strikes me as a continuum that does not fit into neat little boxes, much as I, and seemingly society too, would want it to.

I'll do my best to answer this. I should add that these are my views, and that asking ten different gay guys would likely give you ten (at least slightly) differing answers. I'll be painting in broad strokes, so a lot of detail will be left out, and while I'll try to avoid stereotypes, there won't be a lot of space for nuances. That said, here we go!

First, I'd suggest that the reason you haven't seen a similar adoption of a label/identity among straight men is partly because they have no need of such a label; they just are. With this being a heteronormative society, straight men don't have much need for a label, because almost anyone they meet assumes their sexual orientation the instant they meet them. In fact, the very concept of 'straight men' is a new one, created to give the majority (previously assumed to be the totality) a name to distinguish them from the gay men. If you asked 100 straight men to pick 10 words to describe the most important facets of themselves, I doubt you'd find even one who would write 'straight', just as none of them would write 'male', because it would never enter their heads to do so.

Another reason you haven't seen such an identity is because, immersed in straight culture, people fail to recognise how much of it is built around (hetero)sexual identity. If you have an idea of what to look for, and keep your eyes open for it, heterosexual identity is absolutely all over the place. This is why quite a few people I've spoken to about their first visit to a gay bar after coming out described it as eye-opening... not because they didn't know gay bars existed, but because, as a space beyond the wider culture which is steeped in heterosexuality, going into a gay bar for the first time can feel a little like coming home after spending years living undercover as a spy in a different country.

As to why gay men identify themselves as gay(and here my argument must, perforce, rely more on personal experience), my own thought on the matter is that homosexual sounds nauseatingly clinical, partly because it was originally invented as a clinical term, but mostly because it is most often used by people who would seek to deny equal rights, etc. They spit out 'homosexual' as if it were a dirty word, and for me, at least, that means I hate hearing it. Most of the non-straight men I know describe themselves as either gay or bi, but significant numbers identify as queer (a whole other discussion in itself), and a few self-identify as fags or faggots. Calling oneself a faggot does carry a certain shock value at times, but it is part effort to reclaim the word, and part a brilliant forestalling of those who might, on finding out, be temped to use it as a term of abuse. There is no point in shouting "Faggot!" at someone who has just used that exact term to describe himself.
In any case, 'gay' is the generally accepted term to describe men who fall at one end of the Kinsey scale, just as straight/hetero are the usual terms for those at the other end. There are plenty of shades in between, as macgamer alluded to, and some people I have met describe their sexuality as 'Kinsey 3.5', or whichever number suits them, rather than relying on the (rather vague) term 'bi.'

As for the label magnifying people's orientations "out of proportion" this is partly the wider culture, which, by conditioning people to expect heterosexuality, makes gay and lesbian people seem surprising, and the human mind is always drawn to highlight the unusual, the thing which breaks the pattern, be it the only thing moving in the forest, or the only flashing lights on the motorway. The best counter-example I can offer to what seems to be a variation to the 'but why flaunt it?' question is the line "Your father and I are not open about our sexuality," which rather sums up the double-standard in operation. Re-read that sentence, and realise that not only is that woman in an openly heterosexual relationship, she has just announced that she's had sex at least once. Its just that people are so accustomed to open heterosexuality that anything else seems boldly provocative and in-your-face.

The other reason that gay people adopt being gay as part of their identity is because society compels them to, partly to avoid being invisible, but partly to group together for strength, protection, and to press for equal rights and equal treatment. Do people with green eyes all band together and adopt their eye-colour as a central characteristic? No, but then why should they? Society doesn't group them that way either, and doesn't seek to make them second-class citizens on the basis of eye colour.

I don't want to get into the extent to which 'gay' carries cultural or behavioural connotations or not, or what those connotations might or might not be... we'd be here all day.
===================================================================================================
Ok that done, let's deal briefly with everything else.


Regarding your comment that you're not the 'Eternal Judge' about sex, etc... here's what you wrote a little bit earlier:

There is nothing inherently 'wrong' with (heterosexual) sex. Its intrinsic purpose is a 'good'. Its moral status starts to shift when its execution deviates from its intrinsic purpose.

That looks rather like a judgement to me, even if you'll say that you're not the one making it. You're still the one pronouncing it here.
And on that note,

I don't know how you are able to judge that I either hated or feared homosexuals...

G13 is probably able to judge your attitude by reading what you wrote, ie that you think there is something inherently wrong with gay sex, etc etc. That, and the fact that (Senethro, I think) mentioned your prior use of the terms 'obligate homosexuals' and Same Sex Attraction, which are both terms that paint you into a rather specific camp of thought (or should I say anti-camp?).
And if you're complaining about being portrayed as an ogre, you could do worse than to examine some of the things you've said and the terms you've used. Applying terms (like obligate) that the dictionary defines as relating to bacteria to people doesn't convey the impression that you regard such people as fully human, let alone as worthy of respect. Moreover, arguing against equal rights for those people doesn't help, either.

I'm not the Eternal Judge, it isn't up to me. People are free to, and should, act according to their own conscience. People should be free to discuss morality and philosophy, being prepared to reform their own conscience as developments arise. Disputations on morality are a symptoms of consciences formed in different ways.

Right, so if I'm free to act according to my own conscience, you won't oppose me marrying my boyfriend and then adopting children, will you?

[RedCelt69]

I'll give a proper reply another time. I have my last exam (for this semester) tomorrow, so I'm a tad preoccupied. Also, yesterday, I found out that my landlady-to-be took my lack of communication (when there was nothing new to communicate) as a lack of interest in the room. So I'll be homeless in a week. Preoccupied, idd.

[macgamer]

Ok that done, let's deal briefly with everything else.

Thanks for that explanation, I appreciated it.

G13 is probably able to judge your attitude by reading what you wrote, ie that you think there is something inherently wrong with gay sex, etc etc. That, and the fact that (Senethro, I think) mentioned your prior use of the terms 'obligate homosexuals' and Same Sex Attraction, which are both terms that paint you into a rather specific camp of thought (or should I say anti-camp?).
And if you're complaining about being portrayed as an ogre, you could do worse than to examine some of the things you've said and the terms you've used. Applying terms (like obligate) that the dictionary defines as relating to bacteria to people doesn't convey the impression that you regard such people as fully human, let alone as worthy of respect. Moreover, arguing against equal rights for those people doesn't help, either.

I think it should be possible in society to hold a spectrum of views on morality, without having debate shutdown by labelling the opponent, in this case me, as a 'homophobe'. I have tried to critique this term to no avail earlier. I think there is a difference between robust criticism and opposition to certain actions, and hatred and a desire to restrict feedom of action or persecute a group of individuals.

Absolutely I regard all people as fully human, that is the central philosophical principle of so much Catholic moral philosophy and theology. There are certain acts which accord with human dignity and those which do not: there is the sin and the sinner.

I am glad you answered my question about terms and identity above. I now have a better understanding why these terms are adopted. As you said the reasons are subjective, so I have had one person's perspective. In a similar manner I tend to use different terms when discussing the subject, which for me come with less political connotations, however I acknowledge that they can be regarded differently.

Let's consider two terms: i) gay man and ii) man with same-sex attraction and possible interpretations.

i) Gay man:
This term to me and society would most likely be interpreted as describing a man whose predominant sexual orientation / attraction is to members of his own sex and a man who has adopted a homosexual sexuality.

ii) Man with same-sex attraction:
This term to me (I cannot speak for the rest of society since it is seldom used) is interpreted as describing a man whose predominant sexual orientation / attraction is to members of his own sex and who may or may not have adopted a homosexual sexuality.

The latter of the two terms I prefer in various instances because it, in my understanding, cuts out sexuality because, whilst it is obviously connected, it is a different issue. Attraction is one thing, practice is another. As I pointed out earlier and as you mentioned about the Kinsey Scale vs. bisexual, attraction is on a continuum over which the individual has not control. Each individual is informed by their attractions and then 'adopts' a particular sexuality. This is the distinction that I am trying to make. It is important to grasp this in discussions about Catholic teaching on sexual morality.

Right, so if I'm free to act according to my own conscience, you won't oppose me marrying my boyfriend and then adopting children, will you?

I think our views on what constitutes 'marriage' are somewhat diverged - we use different definitions. I do not make the laws of this country, as you are not doubt probably relieved. Although I might be convinced of the merits of some legal arrangement that would allow favourable rights of visitation and inheritance, but which also would be open to siblings who live together.

As for adopting children, similarly I do not make the laws, but I think that it was rather unfortunate that an exception could not be made for the Catholic adoption agencies to act according to their consciences and those who support them. Especially considering that they contributed to perhaps 4% of all adoptions before the law was enforced.

I think there is some debate as to what constitutes a 'right'. I'm not quite sure adoption is a 'right' per se. The adoption agencies must and do judge who and which persons constitute suitable adoptive parents. They have various criteria.

As to my personal views on gay adoption, my concern is to whether two parents of the same sex can provide the necessary stimuli and environment for the development of the child. Additionally questions need to be asked of the stability of all relationships same- or opposite-sex. Divorce and relationship breakdown are at an all time high, such events are extremely traumatic for children.