Santorum – that frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that occurs with anal sex.
and the dude is worse because he has a dead baby fetish. seriously – google it – he kept his dead baby for several days at home and took family portraits with it.
that is disturbed. do not make a fetish of death.
but more importantly, don’t vote for people who have death fetishes
because they are the ones who tend to start wars
and will send You or your children off to die in them
while they stay home and their children do not go to war
and anyone who goes out of their way to claim to be moral in public
is the kinkiest, most perverted person in private
because the only thing they are bothered by
re people who are honest enough to do what they wish they had the balls or boobs or brains or integrity to do.
I am a lesbian, I am a science fiction geek and I am a kinky person. Proud to be honest and public about that. so now you know that in private, I am deeply moral and decent.
It’s curious to me that straight women and gay men have two strongly bonded relationships – the fag hag and the gay best friend – while there are no parallel relationships being lesbians and straight men.
For context, I beleive in diversity when it comes to friends – the more kinds the merrier. But the Fag/Fag Hag relationship seems to be a particularly unhealthy relationship, when a woman makes a gay man the centre of her emotional well being, because it is a role that a gay man cannot fulfill, they can do anything for love, but they can’t be straight.
At least, there seems to be no parallel between straight men and lesbians; but I think it’s there – just not named.
Yes, anyone can be friends with anyone, and without any subtext and in all honesty, some of my best friends over my life have been and are straight men – but these friendships were on par with any other friendship with any other person – the closeness was owing and arising from the personality rather than tapping into any social role.
And it’s movies and TV programs that reflect the relationships that we form in life, art reflecting life, which is in return, copied back into real life.
It used to seem like there were straight people and gay people and each side contained the genders; but when you consider people behaviorally in a broader spectrum, neurologically, it seems that gay men have much more in common with straight women than with straight men – but straight men and lesbians also have overlaps, they do not form the same friendships and relationships that gay men and straight women do.
At some levels, the strong bonds between gay men and straight women can be harmful, if not counterproductive. A fag hag is not merely a woman who enjoys the company of gay men and is friends with some or one in particular, but rather the fag hag is a woman who is in love with a gay man that she cannot fulfill a romantic and sexual relationship with – in a way, he is her idealized safety net that prevents her from forming romantic bonds with an available male, who could harm her, disappoint her or let her down – all the things that happen in a real relationship from time to time.
In a way, the fag hag to fag relationship, is reflected in the current angsty virginal teen to vampire – an eternally unrequited love, the attraction between innocence and a self aware darkness, the promise to be unfulfilled, lest it wholly consumes and destroys the parties.
As a lesbian, it has been a curiosity to me to see straight women flock to be – not groupies in the rock n roll sense, or harem in the Arabian sense – but a level of fannish girl crushes in adult women who are otherwise fully engaged in life – marriage, children, work and personal relationships, – never the less, turn into swooney teens and indulge in some kind of group fantasy of unrequited and therefore safe attraction and semi-devotion to attractive, but needy and insecure gay men who, not exactly string the women along, but who certainly revel in the attention.
Although, it seems that there are some on both sides who take it farther – to the fag/fag hag stage – and the gay man and straight woman, end up in a tight bond of everything that is meaningfully a marriage relationship, except for the sex, which, the woman is often so devoted to the gay man, that she doesn’t form romantic or sexual relationships with available straight men, and accepts that the gay man is having sexual and romantic or sexual relations with other gay men.
It occurs to me to wonder why these women are seeking such strong emotional attachments that can do anything for her, but it can’t do that one thing.
In a parallel, I also wonder about women who work in the criminal justice system, who fixate on a prisoner, often going so far as to marry him – full knowing he is in jail for life, often for violence crimes against women for rape and murder. What is it about him? That forbidden, that he has harmed and maimed and killed, and that you will be the one woman to save him? To rescue him from himself? To be so loveable that a man who has harmed, maimed and killed other women won’t be able to treat you in the same way? To be unattainable because imprisonment holds you apart and wreck vengeance?
Is love for violent prisoners incarcerated a manifestation of the vampire’s self imposed restraint?
Do we just enjoy flirting with disaster and our own destruction?
After all, to fall so completely in love with someone we cannot have for some reason – they aren’t real, they are gay, they are in jail – that they would harm us either by taking our lives, as in the case of vampires and criminals, or use our life vitality, as in vampires and gay men – what is the fatal attraction that straight women seem to have for the unattainable, the harmful, the destructive?
Is this fatal attraction what separates straight women from lesbians – and why lesbians do not have comparable relationship intensities with straight men as straight women do to gay men?
It’s not like fatal attraction to the unattainable is absent from lesbians – many desire straight women – to rescue or steal from the men, the unattainable, the forbidden the unconquerable holds a fascination, has a compelling aspect, a siren song that is difficult to ignore for some.
During World War II, the men of Canada and America went abroad, while the women stayed home with all the other broads.
The woman who stayed home and became Rosie the Rivetter became friends with the men who didn’t qualify for military service. The Geeks.
Geek men, charlie males, computer – dungeons and dragons – anime – braniacs – these are the men that are friends to lesbians – our Gal Pals.
Men who aren’t afraid of strong women, who admire them even, just as they are.
Joss Whedon, creator of the Buffyverse, and Robert Tapert, creator of the Xenaverse, are Gal Pals.
They are guys who are pals to women, who are strong, who are determined, and who are willing to leave their own unique mark upon the world.
I am referring to words that were once used by the mainstream to label and make lesser minority groups.
Words that the minority groups now use freely to describe themselves – a taking back the word and diffusing the power by making the word their own and forbidding it to the mainstream for continued use.
Partly because a person who is not part of the subject minority group, cannot be trusted to be using the word in the current descriptive or pride use rather than meaning it discriminatory and getting away with using said word under the cover of the re-claimation and refurbishing that the minority group has done to the word.
It’s an interesting experience to be a minority group member – lesbian – and be in a mainstream and diverse group without identifying yourself or being identified as a minority member and using a word – fag, dyke – and having people cringe and react as if you are being discriminatory and then, when you explain, hey, I am a dyke so I can use the word – to see the relief and relaxation creep in that the word used by a person in one moment is offensive, but after the group identification reveal, the work becomes descriptive.
Never mind that none of the people I spoke to could had any proof that I was a lesbian, other than my word – so it is curious that by using the words fag and dyke, and causing them distress and offense – that they would then accept my claim of being a lesbian and standing down from their offense.
Shouldn’t a person who behaves in a manner deemed offensive perhaps not be so quickly forgive or relieved from being in the hot spot solely on their word of honor that the term was used derogatorily against them?
I have to wonder, are we reclaiming words in order to give this emotional discomfort payback? Our small pound of flesh for having been subjected to the derogatory language?
How do we move on from being a discriminated against minority to just being part of the broader society if we re-purpose words from being slurs into pride terminology – why real pride is there in calling ourselves in affirmation what we were once called in hatred?
It seems more like slamming yourself before the other person gets to and I think it continues to assign us a lower than status.
I have begun to prefer Sapphist to lesbian, dyke or any other word used to denote women who love women – it comes from the pet Sappho and is a source of strength and pride, uncompromised or sullied by hatred and discrimination.
It is not better to define ourselves by our own history and identity than that which was forced in negatively upon us by others?
Queer Nation was a backlash gay movement that didn’t want a place at the diversity mosaic melting pot table, they wanted to kick the table over. It was more aggressive than other gay groups of the time, which took a “same as you, just happen to be gay” approach.
The major activity of Queer Nation was outing famous people who were anti-gay in public but gay in private. Not just major Republicans, either; but Hollywood Celebrities.
Part of the urgency at the time was AIDS, which seems strange to look back now at the government and health agency inaction and red tape delays while citizens died. Of course, being gays were not “good” citizens – so it’s not really surprising that many people thought that AIDs was a manufactured illness to eliminate societies’ undesirables.
Which, given that the euthanasia programs of the 1950’s into the 1970’s in Canada and the US of sterilizing “undesirables” in mental institutions and other facilities; didn’t seem that far a stretch. Especially when you consider that the Brits allowed Coventry to be bombed and likely the US allowed Pearl Harbour to be bombed to advance or protect a government agenda. Protecting the secret of radar for the first and to sway public sentiment to get into WWII for the latter.
Aside: Wow, I suddenly understand why there’s so many 9/11 Truthers. They are just expending the pattern. But, why go into an elaborate conspiracy when plain covering your ass and incompetence is the simpler and more elegant explanation for events.
But, back to outing. At first glance, those politicians (link to brain rewards post) who condemn gays publically, propose and support unconstitutional laws to discriminate against gays but who are gay in private – deserve to be exposed, outed and removed from office.
These self loathing closet cases are betraying everyone – publically, they are betraying their fellow gays and privately, they are betraying the voters who are anti-gay and voted for that politician.
In the 80’s, this seemed more than fair to me – but then, to liberal thinkers, being consistent in word and deed is important. (religious thinkers tend towards you’re supposed to fail to live up to the word so you can repent – and it’s the quality of your humble repentance that’s important.”
But now, older and less of a black vs white thinker, I see that perhaps I
But more than politicians, it was celebrities who were outed. Probably because they were less discrete in their sexcapades than more opinion sensitive politicians – so there was a larger pool of people to do the outing – and the public is largely apathetic to politicians so it may be that their sex partners had no idea that they were a public figure – so, it’s a sad commentary that the public knows more and worse cares more about what celebrities are doing than the public figures who have input into legislation which affects us all.
The idea behind celebrity outing was to create the appearance that being gay was okay – to provide role models for gay teens, since they are more prone to suicide than straight teens. Back then to my mind, celebrities were less desirable targets. After all, reluctant role models aren’t anything to emulate.
It also seemed less fair to punish a celebrity with career loss than the politician, since the politicians used their careers to cause harm to real people. But celebrities were escapism, not public policy.
However, most people aren’t really aware of what public policy is and they live their lives indifferently because when you have a strong sense of how the world should be, you tend to perceive it is that way – and cruelly punish anyone who challenges that perception. (Like not allowing them to share in rights – it’s why people who say, gays aren’t banned from marriage, they can marry an opposite gender person like everyone else is so infuriating, since it’s a demand to conform without regard to the gay reality that we aren’t going to live hypocritically and cause harm to those people we’d be lying to by marrying them)
So now, older and more a grey thinker – it may well be that closeted celebrities do cause more harm than lying politicians.
What’s funny is that we expect politicians to lie, but somehow actors who play other people are somehow revealing a truth. It’s funny because it’s true – we use fiction to understand our non-fiction world.
Entertainment, where we think that we escape reality, actually reinforces the reality of whatever the public norms of the day are; it’s not an escape. Entertainment stories, no matter how much greyness they appear to include, is black and white thinking. Which is comforting to us, since everything is clear and simple, even if it’s not easy. Heck, we don’t like anything easy.
If you watch cartoons from earlier decades, the blatant racism is overwhelming to current sensibilities – but wasn’t anything to raise an eyebrow in the 30’s. The newest edition of Huckleberry Finn isn’t even going to have the n-word appear – which alters the cultural context of the book – a whitewashing. But we don’t do any good or anyone favours by pretending that the discrimination wasn’t real or wasn’t as bad.
You have to wonder who’s sensibilities are being catered to – the group who was discriminated against, or the discriminators. By ignoring the elephant in the room, you leave yourself no room to deal with anything else.
Entertainments that reinforce public norms (aka stereotypes) play a huge role in shaping what that black and white world that we think we live in. So, when you don’t see gay characters in movies, TV and books – or the ones you see play a limited role – often a cautionary tale where the character dies because they can’t be “normal” or who find something or someone who facilitates them re-joining the normal herd – often as a result of their lover’s death – it’s easy to think that either there aren’t gay people because they get normal or die; so when you encounter a gay person who’s a person who’s gay – it challenges that black and white world view that entertainment tells us we live in – it causes the anger, resentment and hatred that drives the anti-gay sentiment – which in turn, reinforces what entertainment has told us the world is like.
Legislation is easier to undo and challenge than public norms. The laws of the land are the reality that we live in, they are clear but complicated, interdependent on each other and have a hierarchy of authority. At the top is the Charter or Constitution that explain the basic premises of society – while legislation and other levels of law making have to fit within that larger framework of fairness.
There is no footnote in the highest legislation which says that people from identifiable groups are not included in the rights that all citizens are entitled to because they are citizens.
Yet, under the framework of individual and collective rights where everyone is equal under the law – yet, before 1900’s, “everyone” didn’t include the slaves or aboriginal people at all and only nominally included white women.
White women demanded equality as represented by being able to vote, but it was still well into the 1970’s that what women could wear to schools was out of their control, same for obtaining bank loans without a male co-signer.
Black Americans stepped up to demand equality and the rarer and less public lynching have morphed into hate crimes.
Which explains a lot about why so many black activists hate gays and lesbians being covered by that “hate crime” umbrella. It’s hard to be a victim class when other groups are victims too – it makes being a victim more the norm and any one of is less a special case.
What it takes to increase tolerance and acceptance is that people in the majority know members of the minority – to see them as people. This is fairly easy to accomplish in cities, which tend to be where minorities live – and harder in rural areas, which are more demographically homogenous.
Worse for minorities like gays and athiests, because we look like anyone else – and so, unlike an ethnic or other visible minority, those of us who are in invisible groups have to actually come out and tell people that we’re gay and/or atheist.
So, let’s start by outting ourselves and make it easier for people in public positions to be out and encourage more self-outing.