What is being homophobic?

[CrimsonBlaze]

I, too, find two women making out, regardless of their sexuality, sexy, basically because I love women.

If I were to see two guys make out as passionately as women do, I would probably look away, because I'm not attracted to men. I don't believe that it is homophobic to find something that gay people of your gender unappealing. I have talked to a lot of straight women that say that they find women making out really disgusting and find guys making out very appealing.

It could also be about camaraderie. When you think about hanging out with people of the same gender as you, you picture them doing things that they would enjoy doing and sexual, passionate activities with the same gender is usually not one of them. Some people might argue that some women might kiss or make out with one another, but not always; and if so, it is not always for sexual gratification. Women are generally more emotional and open with other women.

 

[karamazovnew]

True, but let's get back to the start then... seeing two people of the same sex kissing on the street. I come from a country where homosexuality is not usually displayed in public. When it is, there's almost a sympathetic view of it, a sign that my country has shred her communist past. People are curious and if they have an opposite stance, they just shut up or mumble to themselves. They are not used to seeing this and you can bet your fanny that they'll tweet it to all their friends and talk about it for weeks. But is it legal to kiss in public? Sure, and why not? Just because some people find it disgusting is not the important issue, which is in my previous post I tried to comfort the OP. Some people find breastfeeding in public disgusting. Some people find french kissing in public disgusting. I agree somewhat with all of them. We do have certain unwritten rules of public behavior. Breaking them shouldn't land anyone in jail or attract insults or rotten food thrown at them. But they should be aware that not everything they do in public is "accepted" and just roll with it. I don't understand the gay point of view of this, regardless of the vague picture Flyboy painted in this thread. You can't decide what other people think, in this or other matters. Drawing their contempt is part of the game of being different. And as long as laws protect you from direct insults or acts of violence, where's the problem? How is being gay any different from cheering for the Arsenal team in the Manchester pub? Sure, anyone should be able to cheer for whatever they want, but in the real world you have to deal with reality and be a bit more socially responsible.

 

[Loonyyy]

The many reactions here remind me of a moment I had last week. I was standing in line for a night club, and I saw further up in line two guys start making out.

And at that moment I thought, I haven't actually seen this before. How fucking sheltered is that? I mean, really, I noticed that? I felt awkward at my reaction (I have a similar one when seeing uncommon ethnicities. It's a double take of awkward-"That's something odd." "That's weird that I think that's odd.". I've got plenty of gay friends and the like, but I'd never actually seen this (I'd seen girls making out in clubs, but that's not exactly the same). It's almost a test of how convinced of your own convictions you really are.

And then I got the fuck over it. Walking down the street I'll see fat people stuffed into clothing they can't pull off, dog crap on the sidewalk, children shrieking and pestering their parents, wannabe tough guy bogans posturing with their pants down their ankles. On the list of things that could potentially make me uncomfortable, two people showing affection, neither of whom I personally would choose to make out with, is pretty low down my list. Thinking about it at all makes me ashamed. Why should it be that this is seen as any different?

As someone who's gotten used to being glared at by large segments of the population (I've chosen to believe it's because they're intellectually inferior) because they don't like some aspect of my appearance, I know not which (Although I've turned it into an amusing game where I scare old people. I'm classy like that), it strikes me as disgusting behaviour to consider it disgusting. It's just more ostracisation. And, I'm sure ostracisation is something well known in our geeky, nerdy, gamer circles. Perpetuating it against a different group, when we so often cling proudly to our ostracised underground self-image would be the height of hypocrisy.

Oh, and the other people in line at the club? I was suprised. No-one seemed to react at all.

 

[101flyboy]

Honestly, it's more of an almost prudishness than anything else. People who consider light kissing or light displays of affection sexual. That more or less has to be it, because I don't believe, everyone with this mentality is anti-gay. But if you take a basic display of affection and your mind interprets it in a sexual manner, then you're going to more or less make the connection of 2 guys/girls/guy and girl kissing=lustful, sexual, interpersonal activity.

I don't see it that way, at all. I separate basic affection from making out. I wouldn't turn away from seeing a man and woman make out or two women making out. Not at all, because it's not inherently disgusting or ugly to watch. But I wouldn't search for it, either, because it's not what I'm into. It's understandable to find it unappealing if you're not attracted to the two people kissing for whatever reason. There are many different lines like hot and heavy kissing vs light affection, finding affection between X group unappealing vs finding affection between X group disgusting, only finding X group disgusting but no problem with other groups.

I'm not attracted to two women fucking, I've never much liked straight porn, but thinking about it doesn't make me gag or anything. I mean, lets be honest...........there is a reason when people condemn "homosexuality", it's gay and bisexual men who get the brunt of the hate. Part of it is patriarchy and misogyny in general; women are taken less seriously in society. But a lot of it is that people think of ANAL AND ORAL SEX when they think of two guys having sex. They're not thinking "awwwww" or "that's cute/charming/etc." and more "OMG!" When you think of a guy, people tend to think burly, muscle, dicks, hair, masculinity. Men aren't supposed to be the sexy ones, women are. Men aren't to be sexualized, and a lot of men hate being sexualized. Men aren't supposed to be the emotive ones, or the ones to be vulnerable. Behind every good man is a great woman, as the quote goes, women are the prize in our society (almost like a shiny toy, which is misogyny in itself). The thought of two guys together is a lot less "soft" than a man and woman and two women, solely because there is no female factor involved. It's more raw, it's more abrasive, and thus I think it's a lot harder for people to wrap their heads around. At least many straight men and some straight women. Hell, even some lesbians. It's simply a completely different concept that throws out pretty much all societal gender norms.

With that being said, as I've said before...........there are too many people straight M/straight W/lesbian women who just don't care to excuse that way of thinking. It's understandable but it's not OK. I think that's why so many straight girls do like to watch two guys making out, they find it thrilling. It's edgy, because it goes 100% against what a man is "supposed" to do. Things that are edgy always cause controversy. The problem is, it shouldn't be edgy in the first place to kiss a man if you're a man.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

IThat's not my issue. My issue are the excuses people are making for this feeling. Not necessarily the feeling itself. But the refusal some here have in recognizing they do hold such a bias, and then the almost aggressive way some here defend said bias. Some posters here are NOT here to learn, to gain awareness, to build a bridge. They're here to defend their internalized homophobia. They're here to excuse it and tell us why it's not a big deal. They're here to tell us why it's not a problem. And that's what upsets me.

Say's the guy who went on a hetrophoebic and sexist rant stating essentially that they believe strait men enjoy a power complex over women and control their partners, to the extent that some gay men "fear" being treated how a strait man would treat women, an essentially that women are weak and easy victims. An then does not even explain themselves when challenged? Seriously respond! your rightly bashing some people who do hold deeply offensive veiws. Say something deeply offensive then, have the gaul to ignore it an carry on like you st peter.


" gay community for being angry at the fact we're still looked at like mutants who are constantly trashed on, daily, with absolutely zero sense of sensitivity or understanding " where exactly do you live where bashing on the gay community is so rampant? because no experience with ANY of the gay people I have held as friends has EVER been treated like this. It's mainly isolated incidents. To which any decent people around have promptly told the people involved to "***k off." An I live in a heavily laddish culture, football, pubs, motorsport and rock & metal music, yet still none of these circles have I ever witnessed, heard, experienced in anyway homophobia in such a rampant way your describing, an none of my friends who happen to be gay have ever had trouble fitting in within them. Where ever it is sounds like backwards town if that's how it is.

"we've grown up in a homophobic world" seriously where on earth do you live!?

 

[101flyboy]

And as long as laws protect you from direct insults or acts of violence, where's the problem? How is being gay any different from cheering for the Arsenal team in the Manchester pub? Sure, anyone should be able to cheer for whatever they want, but in the real world you have to deal with reality and be a bit more socially responsible.

OK, here is the problem with what you're saying. You're saying that people who are gay should essentially "deal with" being looked down upon.....for something they cannot control. And for doing the same exact thing that everyone else is doing. That isn't true freedom, because legal rights don't necessarily mean social rights are equal. Social rights clearly are not equal because socially people are more or less given a big fat NO for showing affection towards their same-sex partner if they are a guy. That is not equality. That is not freedom. And the "feelings" that people have do NOT come before the right people have to live their lives in peace, with full freedom to be who they are without persecution.

Being gay isn't a choice, and cheering for a rival football team at your opponents' bar is. One is an intentional display of defiance, an intentional act meant to cause problems. The other is, well, it just is. Gay people are who we are. And that's about it. Same-sex kissing............just is. The same way opposite-sex kissing is, simply, something that people who are attracted to one another do. No-one is asking to be able to make out down the street but one shouldn't feel intimidated to hold their partners' hand or give them a peck on the cheek, and silent hostility is not much better than open bigotry.

Social responsibility entails realizing that there are more than just straight people walking this Earth, respecting that, accepting that, and allowing people to be who they are with absolutely no judgment. That's social responsibility, social harmony, and being a decent human being that genuinely believes in equality.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

Behind every good man is a great woman, as the quote goes, women are the prize in our society (almost like a shiny toy, which is misogyny in itself).

Seriously you seem to have thee most stereotyped views of heterosexual couples I've ever seen!

You've totally miss-interpreted that quote, its not meant to be derogatory its meant to champion the strength of women, their ability to empathize and understand in a way many men do find hard, their ability to be thoughtful and supportive, their ability that for 100's of year went unnoticed as very equal partners in their relationships working with their partners to achieve great things in a world that for a great deal of time refused to recognize their equal standing.

"women are the prize in our society (almost like a shiny toy, which is misogyny in itself)."
Why don't you try and think about what its like to be a strait male of 2013, who doesn't happen to be a rock star or a footballer.

I have forever been told:
- You better look after yourself or what woman will be interested in you
- You better get educated and get yourself a good job else how are you going to get a girlfriend
- Why don't you stop bothering with (insert almost anything of personal hobby) and do something that will attract someone to you etc
- Why don't you cut your hair (I have shoulder length hair) your turning half the women that might be interested in you off
- Why don't you dress smarter so you might get a girlfriend

An I'm not by anyone's measure a social pariah or a virgin, so god knows what it's like for those poor barstards.
Heterosexual men (on the whole) are still expected to ask women out, ask them for their numbers, pay for the bill, open doors, pull out the chair, except where as it was an unequal footing 100 years ago an was kind of demeaning in a way, its now two "supposedly equal" individuals but one is expected to pander to the other.

In my experience society has told me every single time "women are in control of this game, not both of you" "cater to their needs" " prove yourself"

I know it's not the same for everybody, but again your demanding unflinching correctness and then making mass assumptions.

 

[101flyboy]

Say's the guy who went on a hetrophoebic and sexist rant stating essentially that they believe strait men enjoy a power complex over women and control their partners, to the extent that some gay men "fear" being treated how a strait man would treat women, an essentially that women are weak and easy victims.

1) Straight men do enjoy a power complex over women. In society. That's patriarchy in a nutshell.

2) Straight men do enjoy a power complex over gay men. In society. That's heterosexism in a nutshell.

3) Straight men can fuck 50 women and be called a player, a woman fucks 5 guys and she's a whore. That's power complex.

4) Women and gay men are victims of this power structure and have been abused and are being abused daily by it. It's not a purely sexual thing. It's a societal thing. A lot of gay men are threatened by straight guys because a lot of straight guys DO go out of their way to exert their superiority over gay men, anytime they can. And over LGBTQ people in general.

5) It's not heterophobia to be honest. If you're a straight male and in (most) situations not an open Atheist, you are off the bat privileged compared to others and that's something you can't help. But don't ever act like you're some sort of victim, because you're not, and I'm not going to pretend that you are to protect your feelings.

An then does not even explain themselves when challenged? Seriously respond! your rightly bashing some people who do hold deeply offensive veiws. Say something deeply offensive then, have the gaul to ignore it an carry on like you st peter.

It's not offensive to call people privileged when they are privileged by simply existing.

"gay community for being angry at the fact we're still looked at like mutants who are constantly trashed on, daily, with absolutely zero sense of sensitivity or understanding " where exactly do you live where bashing on the gay community is so rampant? because no experience with ANY of the gay people I have held as friends has EVER been treated like this.

Good for them. You don't know their entire life history, though. You don't know what may or may not have happened to them when you're not around them. LGBTQ hate crimes are the ONLY classification of hate crimes rising worldwide. LGBTQ citizens are 2-3 times more likely to be assaulted in hate crimes.

It's mainly isolated incidents.

True. It's isolated incident after isolated incident for a lot of us. Which takes a toll. It's easy to brush a few off here and there. Repeated incidents are not so easy to brush off. When 40% of society hates you, that is not easy to brush off.

To which any decent people around have promptly told the people involved to "***k off." An I live in a heavily laddish culture, football, pubs, motorsport and rock & metal music, yet still none of these circles have I ever witnessed, heard, experienced in anyway homophobia in such a rampant way your describing, an none of my friends who happen to be gay have ever had trouble fitting in within them. Where ever it is sounds like backwards town if that's how it is.

Consider yourself lucky. There are parts of the UK that are good, and there are parts of the UK that are atrocious. Just like anywhere else. Hate exists everywhere.

"we've grown up in a homophobic world" seriously where on earth do you live!?

The only Earth there is.

 

[101flyboy]

You've totally miss-interpreted that quote, its not meant to be derogatory its meant to champion the strength of women, their ability to empathize and understand in a way many men do find hard, their ability to be thoughtful and supportive, their ability that for 100's of year went unnoticed as very equal partners in their relationships working with their partners to achieve great things in a world that for a great deal of time refused to recognize their equal standing.

The problem with the quote is two-sided. There are plenty of strong men who either aren't attracted to women, aren't in relationships with women, didn't have a great relationship with their mothers and have lived more or less on their own their entire lives.............A man doesn't NEED a woman to be strong. A woman doesn't NEED a man to be an empowered individual. I mean, totally, I see how the quote is meant to champion the strength of women and personally if women find strength in it, that's great. But I don't see it that way because it promotes this idea that one needs the other to be successful in live. And it ignores same-sex couples.

"women are the prize in our society (almost like a shiny toy, which is misogyny in itself)."
Why don't you try and think about what its like to be a strait male of 2013, who doesn't happen to be a rock star or a footballer.

Boo hoo. You're not a rockstar in any way for the sex you were born.

I have forever been told:
- You better look after yourself or what woman will be interested in you
- You better get educated and get yourself a good job else how are you going to get a girlfriend
- Why don't you stop bothering with (insert almost anything of personal hobby) and do something that will attract someone to you etc
- Why don't you cut your hair (I have shoulder length hair) your turning half the women that might be interested in you off
- Why don't you dress smarter so you might get a girlfriend

That's all more sexism and misogyny. Which goes back to my entire point. Our society is sick on many levels. I'm sorry you've been pressured into being something you're not. Our society puts too much emphasis on arbitrary views of what it means to be a "real man" or "real woman" instead of simply allowing people to be themselves and be comfortable in their own skin without worrying about adhering to such rigid stereotypes.

An I'm not by anyone's measure a social pariah or a virgin, so god knows what it's like for those poor barstards.
Heterosexual men (on the whole) are still expected to ask women out, ask them for their numbers, pay for the bill, open doors, pull out the chair, except where as it was an unequal footing 100 years ago an was kind of demeaning in a way, its now two "supposedly equal" individuals but one is expected to pander to the other.

Straight men definitely have their expectations of them and but also have a LOT more wiggle room compared to women. That is simply undeniable. I mean, paying a bill and pulling out a chair just doesn't compare to what women are more or less enforced to do, and not just in select circumstances, but throughout every minute of their lives.

In my experience society has told me every single time "women are in control of this game, not both of you" "cater to their needs" " prove yourself"

Actually, the whole "cater to their needs" thing is MISOGYNY. It's stating women are weak. And then women can't take care of themselves. And that they need a man. Which puts pressure on men. It all begins and ends with misogynistic societal standards. And it all ends up with men being seen as the strong ones, and the protectors, the go getters, the "strong" ones. Physical sex has nothing to do with any of that.

I know it's not the same for everybody, but again your demanding unflinching correctness and then making mass assumptions.

I'm not making assumptions. I just have a different worldview than you do

 

[101flyboy]

You have the truth of it here. A great many people decry the most basic, simplistic forms of bigotry, but simultaneously fail to empathise with the members of the minority community when the more insidious forms of prejudice are pointed out to them.

A straight person can show affection in public. A gay person often cannot. I'm not about to sympathise more with the passers-by, who due to lack of exposure, have a bit of a negative reaction. I'm going to sympathise with the guy who has to live his life in secrecy, possibly fearing the illogical disdain of his family and friends, or even violence.

Yes yes yes. This in a nutshell.

 

[deadpoolhulk]

okay, my personal opinion here. if you do automatically think "eww i don't want to see that" when seeing A guy kiss another guy? then so what? where is the issue? i may sound like a jerk for this, but i really don't like the way society today demands that you have to be 100% politically correct even in your thoughts.
why would it matter if i have the "do not want" reaction to a homosexual couple? seriously. how does that matter? if i see two men kissing, look away from them, maybe even choose my seat in the cafe so that is not in my view. does that effect or change the world in any way? no!
If i asked/told them to stop? then that's wrong.
i make a comment to my friend? wrong too.
even if i tut slightly, they may hear and feel hurt, and even if they don't. that?s not cool either.
but if you truly, in your heart, feel something negative towards a certain group, but then never in your life do anything to treat people of that group as different? then i really do see that as acceptable, not a good thing. of cause intolerance no matter how subtle isn't good. but without hate behind it (and in this entire thread i haven't found anyone who seems to actually hate gays when they say they do not wish to see public displays of affection). believe it or not, but demanding every thought not 100% politically correct isn't fair either.
You can NOT say ?I treat everyone equally? if you tell someone who has done NOTHING wrong, but holds a different opinion to you, that they have no right to their opinion and immediately have to step in line and think the way you do.
No I am not saying free speech means I can tell all the most racist jokes I want. Hell I don?t think telling jokes that offend people is in any way intelligent or okay. But to tell a man what he can and cannot think? Something has gone wrong somewhere.

 

[101flyboy]

okay, my personal opinion here. if you do automatically think "eww i don't want to see that" when seeing A guy kiss another guy? then so what? where is the issue? i may sound like a jerk for this, but i really don't like the way society today demands that you have to be 100% politically correct even in your thoughts.

Okay, my personal opinion here. If you do automatically think "eww i don't want to see that" when seeing a Jew kiss another Jew? Then so what? Where is the issue? I may sound like a jerk for this, but I really don't like the way society today demands that you have to be 100% accepting of all groups. Some groups are disgusting and I'm entitled to feel that way!

but if you truly, in your heart, feel something negative towards a certain group, but then never in your life do anything to treat people of that group as different? then i really do see that as acceptable

Problem #1. It actually is *not* acceptable to hold a negative bias towards an entire group of people for no legitimate reason, and essentially solely for who they are. That is *not* OK. And it is *not* PC to expect people to NOT defend holding negative biases. Silent condemnation isn't something to be proud of. At all. You don't get a pat on the back for it. You still hold the negative attitudes. It's those negative individual attitudes that contribute to negative societal attitudes, which leads to negative societal actions.

You can NOT say ?I treat everyone equally? if you tell someone who has done NOTHING wrong, but holds a different opinion to you, that they have no right to their opinion and immediately have to step in line and think the way you do.

Somebody told you wrong if you think all view points are equally valid.

No I am not saying free speech means I can tell all the most racist jokes I want. Hell I don?t think telling jokes that offend people is in any way intelligent or okay. But to tell a man what he can and cannot think? Something has gone wrong somewhere.

Problem #2. No-one is telling you what you HAVE to think. What is being said, however, is that, at the end of the day, not all ways of thinking are acceptable ways of thinking. Expressing them publicly or not doesn't mean that viewpoint suddenly becomes acceptable. It's not acceptable. It's wrong. You're entitled to your opinions, and others are entitled to call you out for them. And if those opinions are clearly biased or wrong, that's what they will be labeled.

Obviously, in our society, homophobia is increasingly being seen as wrong, and that's what it is. So if you choose negative views against gay people, you're in the wrong, and you're going to be called wrong. No different than holding negative views towards people because of their race, religion or gender.

 

[deadpoolhulk]

okay, my personal opinion here. if you do automatically think "eww i don't want to see that" when seeing A guy kiss another guy? then so what? where is the issue? i may sound like a jerk for this, but i really don't like the way society today demands that you have to be 100% politically correct even in your thoughts.

Okay, my personal opinion here. If you do automatically think "eww i don't want to see that" when seeing a Jew kiss another Jew? Then so what? Where is the issue? I may sound like a jerk for this, but I really don't like the way society today demands that you have to be 100% accepting of all groups. Some groups are disgusting and I'm entitled to feel that way!

but if you truly, in your heart, feel something negative towards a certain group, but then never in your life do anything to treat people of that group as different? then i really do see that as acceptable

Problem #1. It actually is *not* acceptable to hold a negative bias towards an entire group of people for no legitimate reason, and essentially solely for who they are. That is *not* OK. And it is *not* PC to expect people to NOT defend holding negative biases. Silent condemnation isn't something to be proud of. At all. You don't get a pat on the back for it. You still hold the negative attitudes. It's those negative individual attitudes that contribute to negative societal attitudes, which leads to negative societal actions.

You can NOT say ?I treat everyone equally? if you tell someone who has done NOTHING wrong, but holds a different opinion to you, that they have no right to their opinion and immediately have to step in line and think the way you do.

Somebody told you wrong if you think all view points are equally valid.

No I am not saying free speech means I can tell all the most racist jokes I want. Hell I don?t think telling jokes that offend people is in any way intelligent or okay. But to tell a man what he can and cannot think? Something has gone wrong somewhere.

Problem #2. No-one is telling you what you HAVE to think. What is being said, however, is that, at the end of the day, not all ways of thinking are acceptable ways of thinking. Expressing them publicly or not doesn't mean that viewpoint suddenly becomes acceptable. It's not acceptable. It's wrong. You're entitled to your opinions, and others are entitled to call you out for them. And if those opinions are clearly biased or wrong, that's what they will be labeled.

Obviously, in our society, homophobia is increasingly being seen as wrong, and that's what it is. So if you choose negative views against gay people, you're in the wrong, and you're going to be called wrong. No different than holding negative views towards people because of their race, religion or gender.

okay i agree 95% on what you are saying here. and lets be clear i wrote "if i think that..." because it was easier. no i am not homosexual, or any group that gets treated badly. and i can never claim to ever know what its like to be discriminated against. nothing i have experienced has ever came close to the way Homosexuals are treated by many. and i have argued many times with my Father for what i see as him being homophobic.
maybe i phrased this the wrong way? Okay on reflection i totally did. and for that i really do want to say sorry from the bottom of my heart.
can i try again? okay, what i was trying to say is this. you can't change how people think, like my Father, i really doubt he will ever become someone who tolerates homosexuals. just don't see it happening. but he once said "as long as it doesn't stop others living how they choose, it is never right to stop someone's choice" so i agreed. And that was what I was trying to get across (poorly I admit) my Father is one of the kindest, sweetest men you will ever meet. I have no doubt he would risk his life to save someone, no matter who or what they are. And even though he does not agree with homosexuality, he does have friends who are gay, his cousin is gay, and he gets along with them fine. That?s all.
The very first post was asking about thoughts, even if the person would never in a million years act upon them, and that was what I was trying to answer. No it doesn?t make them a bad person, it makes them a person who has a flaw and does their utmost to stop it affecting anyone. That?s what I meant when I said it was acceptable. And I stick by the idea that rejecting your own opinion to treat someone fairly is an acceptable act.

so we cool dude?

 

[101flyboy]

Yes, we're cool! And I see what you're saying, I will respond in more detail tomorrow I'm too tired to focus right now (sickness getting in the way lol). But in short, no, a person isn't automatically bad for holding a view that isn't necessarily........commendable. It's not the person that's evil, or wrong, they're just a human and we all have our flaws. It's their thought process regarding whatever issue in question being discussed (sexuality, race, etc.) that's in error. I respect those who don't impose their views on others.

 

[101flyboy]

Oh and I hope you didn't think I was categorically calling you a homophobe. I was speaking in generalities. And flipping the arguments made to hold biased views against homosexuality and replacing it with, in this case, religion. In general, people don't make these arguments against religion, race or gender. We need to stop making them against sexual orientation.

 

[karamazovnew]

101flyboy, I don't know man... you might be asking for too much too soon. Depending on where you live, gays either have the same rights as anybody else, or they're hanged. Let's be thankful that at least we're moving forward from old mentalities. You're alive, and we can have this nice discussion. That's a big wow. Also not many people have yet uttered the "god hates you" nonsense, although clearly many of us here are homophobes (or anti-gay to put it mildly). It took 100 years for blacks to be able to drink from the same water as whites. And STILL there is a lot of racism, not just in the US, but more and more in countries which laughed at the US for their backwardness. Yet it only took you guys 50 or so years to be able to do a LOT of stuff unthinkable before. And as much as you dislike silent haters, it's them that made most of this possible. Their silence is acceptance. Unless they throw rocks at you or call you names on the street or picket the local square, these people have accepted gays. To call them homophobes or even hint that there's something not OK in their way of thinking is pushing it. You can't expect everything to change THAT fast. It will take generations upon generations to have children born in a world that sees gays as normal as vanilla icecream. These silent "haters" will most probably accept their gay children better than previous generations did. Plus, we love differences, especially ones that feed our love for contempt. Being football clubs (try telling a big fan that he has a "choice"...), the color of our skin, how much we weigh, what color our hair has, etc. etc. etc. people will ALWAYS find themselves in either a majority (which of course holds itself superior), or a minority (which might also always have to deal with the hipster issues of being different from the rest). There will always be racists, antisemites, active homophobes and the rest of the bigotry lot. That's why I said you should just "deal with it". Maybe future generations will have to deal with it less and less.

On the other hand, yes I feel for you. Not being able to hold the hand of your soul-mate because people might get offended around you must suck big time. My previous football club example was close but... you're always living in that Manchester fan pub so... yeah. Thinking back at my previous gripe with not being able to calmly say "you're wrong" without being labeled in a negative way, that surely cannot compare with the frustration you feel at the types of "you're wrong" that you get. I'm starting to understand now... a little. I doubt I'd understand more without being gay myself. But still, try to cherish the little victories. Try asking one of the old guys how it was for them 20 or so years ago. If so many people can say "wtf happened to society's good family values in the last 20 years?!!", surely that's a good sign, right? I mean if true homophobes have begun to feel threatened and abandoned (hence their increased desperate activism) surely that means you're winning the war, right? Maybe you can't be truly free, but... actually while writing this crap sentence I realized I had to stop... Guess i'm starting to understand just a tiny little more... I've been talking about gays in a vague 3'd person way but since I'm now talking to a human being such as myself, that kind-of changes the perspective, doesn't it? Sorry, i'm vague and tired, so I might not make much sense... I just feel like my rusty empathy cogs have noisily started to turn just a bit. And I've just realized I've never felt empathy for gays before. Wow... I guess I've just found my definition for homophobe. Maybe somebody less tired can put it in better words.

 

[JemothSkarii]

Okay, let me start off by saying that since I'm posting in this thread, I'm (apparently) homophobic since I've been inclined to respond.

I'm a white straight male (went through a small stage of bicuriosity) 20 years old. I'm disabled, as a lot of you people probably know, and as much as people think I'm flaunting it or looking for sympathy, I'm not. I know what homosexuals are going through to a small extent. I knew friends who were gay, I have friends who are gay (hold back the bile...)
I was walking through a suburb of Melbourne a few years ago with my friend and his boyfriend. They were holding hands, like most couples would, they were of course getting looks and slurs shouted at them.
I was scared, so very scared that someone would come out and beat the shit out of the three of us.

This was what homophobia was like to me. Did I support them? Yes, one of them was my best friends, of course I would. You'd probably think I'd have gay pride flags just hanging off me wouldn't you? Being so close to the prejudice my friend was feeling?
No.
Why? Because I've also had gay people shatter my mind, putting me 'out of commision' for months.
Before you come at me like I'm Satan in a Kindergarten surrounded by cops, my point is this:
Fighting for equality is great, be who you want to be, be with whoever you want to be with. But regardless of how much tolerance with something there is in the world, there will always be someone who thinks otherwise.

Sure, I could still be quite fond of gay people had I not let my 'trauma' get to me. But in the end, sometimes it's cultural, sometimes it's societal.
Sometimes it's someone's own experience.
I bring this up because there is so many people saying 'if you dislike/hate X, you're wrong'.
I don't hate gay people, some people believe I should after what I dealt with, but I don't.
I don't give a shit about what they do, as long as they don't try to force whatever about it on me.
To say that I'M bad for not exactly trusting homosexuals or whatever because of whatever reason of acceptance there is, aren't you bad too?

I understand how you want acceptance, to lower the hate and such, having Cerebral Palsy gives you a delightful stigma as well (doubly so if you're quiet). But by trying to say that somewhat can tolerate something, but not accept it is wrong, and that they're wrong, aren't you doing to them what they're doing to you?
I must sound like a massive prick to some of you, and that's fine.If people don't like me for who or what I am, fine. I've often been hated for being disabled because I get 'privileges'. I can preach about how giving me a weird look when I'm walking down the street, or kissing my chubby but not disabled girlfriend is wrong, I probably won't change minds. It's sad, but often true.
In the end, it'll probably take decades, even centuries before it's the norm.
There's every kind of hatred and dislike out there.
But if I'm homophobic for finding a gay guy desperately try to hug me, or watching two kissing for a while unlikable, then shit, I'm homophobic.
But that's who I am, and I'll likely only change on my own terms.

 

[Darken12]

That's an ignorant and insulting thing for you to say. Having a penis does not mean that a person cannot be raped, nor does it mean that one cannot experience the tragedy of one's loved ones being raped. I've devoted a good deal of energy listening to women who have been victims of assault. I've attended training sessions to learn how to support sexual assault victims. I've marched in Slutwalks. Where my genitals hang doesn't determine what I'm capable of learning.

So it goes with sexual orientation.

That's not what I said at all. I know that men get raped. But you're not a woman and you haven't been socialised as one. Society has been speaking to you differently than it has been speaking to women. It's called socialisation, and it's different for men and women. I'm not saying you can't comprehend the experience, I'm saying society tells women things that it doesn't tell you (and viceversa) and the experience of being a woman in Western society is different than the experience of being a man. That gives women information that men do not possess (and viceversa), which is why I consider it unwise to speak categorically about the experiences of the opposite gender when they possess information about themselves that I don't. It's much like speaking about a field you're not an expert in. If you're a mechanic, it's unwise to make categorical statements about physiology, for example, and if you're a doctor, it's unwise to make categorical statements about carburators.

It's okay to abstain from having an opinion, you know. You don't have to have an opinion on absolutely everything. I certainly don't.

An whether you think it's trivial or not. It does hurt to think there are people that automatically think I'm a bigoted monster or that me an the majority of my social group are a group of thugs going to beat on them. Based souly on my sexual orientation, my skin color and my gender. In the same way it hurts anyone else to be judged like that. Whether it happens to an individual a few times a year or daily, is it still acceptable?

The problem you're missing is that you think that's all we get too. If that were the case, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but we don't. We don't just get judged on our sexual orientation, gender or skin colour. Marginalised people get judged and then they have to face consequences because of that judgement. That's what you're missing. I judge you and that's it. You walk away and your life's completely unchanged. People like you judge people like me and we can't adopt, marry, do hospital visits, we get hate speech and hate crimes. That's why I am not buying a single thing you're saying. I said it before and I will say it again: it's extremely easy for you to lecture me about prejudice from your comfortable position with full rights under the law and no risk of hate crimes, hate speech or the like.

Of course I focus on those who might agree with me! They're the only ones I bother to acknowledge or have a conversation with. The others aren't worth the conversation if they are irredeemable bigots which I don't think is 50% of the people. I think a lot of it is just plain ignorance. Unless you plan on killing a bunch of people, or using force to oppress them in the say way they are oppressing you now, they need to learn and come to agree with you, which many are and more people are changing everyday. You don't do that by just being angry and mean to everybody regardless of what they've personally done to you.

At the end of the day I don't care if your respectful to me. Just don't come to a conversation to spout bigotry like a woman is totally justified to fear of rape in the presence of males. Like many have said... its basically the equivalent of thinking a black guy is going to rob you if your alone on the street.

Ignoring the people who aren't willing to listen doesn't help at all. It leaves them unchecked to keep spewing their bigotry about and convincing the people willing to listen (that would have otherwise listened to you), then they build up from each other to a mob effect. I have no problems with the way you do things and I wouldn't criticise your methods. I ask you politely that you do the same.

Very, very true, and exactly why I don't let this subtle homophobia slide. Because as this thread in itself has shown, it's gone from "same-sex kissing between men disgusts me", to "homosexuality isn't natural", to "homosexuality is deviant", to "you're a heterophobe". This is what always happens. Group think. The way I've always seen it, you give a free pass to this, then you're only going to let it build and build and build until it becomes a real problem you cannot ignore. We can't do that. Time to nip it now.

I have no problem with subtle homophobia so long as it doesn't build up. I understand that the low-grade stuff isn't going to change anytime soon and trying to correct every single instance of it when there are larger problems at stake is a waste of resources. Keeping it in check to avoid a Sarkeesian-like disaster? That's another thing altogether.

 

[Darken12]

It's also different for individuals. Men are not all socialized the same. Women are not all socialized the same. Most of my childhood I was raised almost exclusively by my mother, and I went through a childhood phase where I played with baby dolls (Cabbage Patch Kids specifically). So do we just throw that experience out the window just because I have a penis?

You are completely correct, but I doubt you were ever warned about the possibility of being raped if you walked alone at night. Mugged? Killed? Sure, but I highly doubt you were warned about rape in that context. And I highly doubt that you were warned about being date-raped, or told by chauvinistic pigs that you might "have it coming" (regarding unwanted sexual advances) if you wore clothes that were too revealing or if you were known to be sexually active.

Which is a nice thing to say, but it's increasingly deviating in relevance from the comment I made that you came onto this tangent. I said that if a woman fears she will be raped simply because she is in an all-male presence, she is wrong. If a woman was socialized to believe that, then she was socialized incorrectly, in a manner I would say borders on abuse.

Really? Well, I personally completely disagree, though I cannot speak for women at all. I would personally say that given the predominance of rape culture in our society, while distrusting all men might be exaggerated, it is certainly not wholly unjustified.

But I am an expert in being me. And I have never raped anyone or threatened to do so. So I am totally comfortable saying a woman in the presence of exclusively male company when that company is me or men whose behavior toward women is like mine, who feels that she will be raped, is categorically, 100% wrong. Now if a woman is in a group of men, and some of them do something indicative that they might be potential rapists- something behavioral mind, not simply existing with a penis- then her fears are more valid. But assuming all men are potential violent sex offenders is a kind of sexism and it is wrong.

This, of course, is based on the laughable idea that you can identify sex offenders or potential rapists at first sight. The uncomfortable truth is that the majority of rapists are indistinguishable from non-rapists because they have rationalised their behaviour as completely normal or justified, and therefore do not have a tendency to give themselves away. The tired old trope of the easily identifiable sexual predator only applies to a minority of cases.

So again, while perhaps exaggerated, I do not find it at all unjustified.

So it is with homosexuality. If you assume you are under any kind of threat simply because you are surrounded by (people you think are) straight men, you are wrong. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a simple fact. Not all hetero men are a danger to homosexual men. Not all hetero men are a danger to women. If you think otherwise, it doesn't matter how you were socialized, you are wrong.

You are completely right. Not all hetero men are dangerous, but some (perhaps even most) are, and that itself justifies caution. In risk management, the action taken to avoid a given risk are taken far before the risk is anywhere near 100%. That is, we don't need all hetero men to be dangerous before we start taking cautionary measures. And in terms of consequence weighing, we have, on one side, hurting the feelings of hetero men. On the other side, we have preventing hate crimes, hate speech, gender abuse and gender violence. In risk management, the positive consequences vastly outweigh the negative ones.

Yes, yes, but when someone slurs me simply because I have a penis, I'm going to confront that lie just as vigorously as when someone slurs you just for being gay.

And taking a cautionary stance as a slur is a heartless dismissal of a very real risk that you do not have to face. By making this all about you and your hurt feelings, you are expressing a distinct lack of empathy for the marginalised people who have endured worse than that.

 

[Darken12]

All of which is irrelevant to our discussion.

It's relevant for explaining how even if your socialisation as a male was different, it still lacked certain aspects that do take place in female socialisation.

It absolutely is unjustified.

The moment you treat all men as potential rapists, you legitimize rape.

Rape is a choice to commit sexual violence. It doesn't come from your penis. Therefore the people to be wary of are not people with penises, but people who choose to commit sexual violence.

Society already normalises sexual violence! It already legitimises it! Rape culture is so deeply embedded into our society that a woman can write an erotic book about abuse and gender violence as portrayed by someone with an unholy mix of Stockholm and battered woman syndromes and it becomes a best-seller lauded as a romantic standard! By other women!

Rape culture has already been normalised and legitimised, it's not the fault of overly cautious people. Being overly cautious is the consequence of a society where rape is normalised.

Not at all. I never once made that claim, as you're well aware.

Then how else are people going to decide, in a room of strangers, if their caution is excessive or justified?

Caution, yes. Fear, no.

As you said yourself: Rubbish. You're arguing semantics.

Not just hurting, normalizing sexual violence. The moment you create the idea that all men are potential rapists, you create the idea that rape is something normal for men to do. The only way to fight rape is to get men on board with stopping it, and that means recognizing the men who don't rape for who they are- normal.

Everyone is a potential rapist. Everyone who is capable of sex is capable of rape. And with the aid of drugs, alcohol, machinery, restraints, accomplices and the like, you don't need to be physically stronger to have sex with someone against their will. The main difference is that our society has built a monolith of rape culture that tells straight men it's okay to rape women (and other men) under certain circumstances. That's why most rapists are males who identify themselves as straight (even if they rape other men in some contexts, such as prison).

I completely agree, rape is never okay, but most rapists are no different than anyone else, and do not comprehend that what they're doing is wrong. Society has given them an elaborate web of rationalisation for their actions, and even convinced their victims that what was done to them was acceptable (that's why we have so much victim-blaming when it comes to rape). Signalling rape as something abnormal does nothing to prevent rape, because rapists who rationalise their behaviour as normal will not stop doing what they're doing (because they think it's normal, and therefore cannot be abnormal, which means it cannot be rape), and they might even fool onlookers/courts into agreeing with them because of the power of "if it's normal, it cannot be rape".

By raising awareness that anybody can be a rapist and that nobody is above the suspicion of rape, we are both helping women raped by men AND men raped by men or women, and women raped by women. The cases of female-on-male, male-on-male and female-on-female rape are incredibly under-reported and dismissed precisely because of this conception that some people are not capable of rape, or that some people cannot be victims of rape.

Acknowledging the potential of all people to be rapists and rape victims allows us to focus on teaching people not to rape, recognising when rape takes place, and providing adequate support and justice for rape survivors.

Bullshit. You don't know what I've gone through to support victims of sexual violence. You're just making up stuff now to avoid admitting you spoke wrongly.

I am all for stopping sexual violence. I'm all for supporting marginalized people. And I can do it a lot more effectively when we start as a community focusing our ire on the people who commit violence, and not on the people who superficially resemble people who commit violence.

And I completely disagree. As I explained above, the focus should be on raising awareness and teaching people not to rape. Focusing on people who have already transgressed does not help in the long term. By acknowledging that everyone is a potential rapist and teaching them to self-analyse their behaviour and see if it can be construed as sexual violence or coercion, we end up providing greater long-term progress.