Anyway, that's the headline on GSN (you can look it up) that alerted me to this short "coming out" video on YouTube. I like it… very creative… heartfelt… agree?
It's disgusting that there exists a word for homosexuality, let alone a cultural separation of people based on their sexual habits. It's gotten to the point where people have formed a "gay community", a term which kills a bit of me every time I hear it. Fucking Jews and their restrictions made made it impossible for anyone to be sexually free, and took away the last social liberty we had. Humanity loves to hurt itself by regulations too much. Happiness is a rare phenomenon now because of it.
I share with you much of this: "Coming Out" is treated very much like "accepting Christ" in Christianity. It's sort of an attestation to who you'd like others to think (know?) you are. I tend to rebel (at least internally) whenever I sense that I must respond in this particular way to be a member in good standing (of however you think of yourself). Why should this be an "unstated" requirement for gays... heterosexuals seem to be immune of this perceived social pressure?
I'm just not quite as openly vehement on this beef as you! :)
But... maybe I posted this just because of his overall attractiveness?
Coming up with one's own version of a utopic world that won't ever exist is sort of a waste of time, unless you're a novelist (in which case, you're still more likely to go more dystopic anyway).
I think the issue I have with your statement is that statements like this often come from someone closeted or with some sort of internalized homophobia, yet the alternate world is often couched in talk of more freedom and liberty. Why, in these situations, is there always more freedom and liberty in the world where you get to stay how you are in this one?
It is similar to the annual Pride trope about how no one there is "like me" and the media focuses on drag queens and leather and blahblah, and that makes all people think I'm like that, etc., etc.
I believe Gore Vidal said that he disliked the gay identity in the sense that you could get laid more before it, since someone "straight" had less social anxiety about a bit of male-on-male roll and tumble. Of course, Vidal said all of this as a very openly gay writer. It is much better to criticize the world while living within it.
The other problem is that you're typically arguing against natural human tendencies to: name things (since you're arguing a word exists to describe something in existence), create cultural bonds, and find community.
In your reply, you casually mention Jews without questioning why that word exists, why they have a cultural separation, or a religious community.
As to why anyone needs to come out, it is simple. We are an invisible minority. Blacks are a minority, but they don't get to pick the time when they tell people they are black, wait until they are comfortable being black in an often-racist world, etc. They come out of their mom's twinkle cave black from day one and have to accept being black as part of their life's path immediately.
The flip side, why don't heterosexuals have to come out as straight is also moot, since heterosexuals are 90ish% of the population, so why would they need to exclaim that they are, yes, like pretty much every other person on the planet.
When I go to a restaurant as a vegan, I have to tell my waiter I'm vegan so that my food is prepared a certain way, or that I could know which menu items I can select. Why would everyone else at the table need to say, "I'm a carnivore, so I'll have the steak..." It has no bearing on their order, as the majority of people order off the menu directly. Only the minority needs to speak out to be treated equally, whether that is the removal of cheese or dating someone of their same sex.
Ironically, a lot of what you are railing against is becoming more and more true. Gay as a cultural identity is rapidly diminishing, since people are staying within their largely-hetero peer groups anymore and just coming out as gay. Whereas a decade or more ago, when you were gay, you sort of disappeared from that group and had to go find your new tribe. So, gay as a cultural identity is disappearing more and more, although it is likely never going to disappear entirely. And there are probably downsides to this new approach that will need tweaks as society continues to progress.
As for happiness, I can't think of a single thing the "gay community" does that impedes my personal happiness. So, you also seem to set up a situation where you don't want to identify a certain way, yet if you did identify that way, it would make you more likely to be unhappy?
This seems like you're inventing mental constructs to justify the closet and define why you are unhappy (it's not me, it's the society I live in! In ancient Greece, I'd've been fine...)
You can't create utopia and hold it up as where you could be free and truly happy. The challenge is to learn how to become those things in the real world.
"You don't know you're beautiful." - Harry Styles
Sexuality shouldn't be restricted to definitions. It just doesn't work, and it groups people into false cultures that shouldn't naturally exist. Jews are a real ethnic group with a definite geographic origination, religion, and heritage. "Gays" are just people with certain similar sexual habits that shouldn't even matter to anyone. Sexuality is made way too much of a big deal to the extent that a cultural community has been synthesized out of it with no consent from the actual members of this community, except it has no form of justification at all, because it exists in people of all backgrounds and is something completely individual. It would be like having a "people whose favorite color is orange community," or "coming out" as someone who doesn't like chocolate. It shouldn't matter at all and the fact that it does is just terrifying. I'm not saying that I'm unhappy because of this, but people are making each other unhappy by putting each other into these artificial communities just because of personal habits.
But I don't like debates, so I'll stop here. You can say your opinion on this and I'll try to read it with an open mind, but I don't want to argue with you.
This is largely an academic debate, seeing as all of what shouldn't have happened has already happened, so whether it should have or not barely matters.
But the basic definitions of minority or minority group easily encompass sexuality. Jew is just as made up, it's just been around for thousands of years. The notion of a gay identity is barely a century old, if that, so it's still pretty new.
Sort of like how Christians make fun of Scientology or Mormonism, when it's all sort of the same thing. Time has a way of ending debates.
I think the point is a community of support for the oppressed.
I don't like it either, if it helps. But it's here. And so... meh. No point in whining about it.
* * *
The woods are lovely, dark, and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
and miles to go before I sleep,
and miles to go before I sleep.
Actually... there is a point in whining about it. That is how people make stupid things go away. They have been doing it for years and will keep doing it. Does it always work... no... but does that make it futile... no. Frankly I have to agree completely with anarchist on this. While I am not as good at getting my point across as most of you. I will say I find some of Jeff's points highly silly,
"I think the issue I have with your statement is that statements like this often come from someone closeted or with some sort of internalized homophobia, yet the alternate world is often couched in talk of more freedom and liberty. Why, in these situations, is there always more freedom and liberty in the world where you get to stay how you are in this one?"
This quote for example especially before the comma, makes no sense and actually sounds more like an attempt at insult rather than actual argument, which I have noticed is Jeff's typical MO. Sorry to break it to you Jeff, but my feelings towards the whole thing is that I find it be the actions of just a immature group of people, who are part of a flawed species. It has nothing to do with freedom and liberty, but more to do with the fact that this is just the kind of crap that creates stereotypes. I am sorry, but someone has to act like the stereotype, before it is created... and the more people who continue to act like it then the more it is created. I am sort of going off on a limb here and failing to make my point in the most miserable fashion probably... :(
How is insulting and not merely an observation to say the people who make this argument are typically closeted or have internalized homophobia? Where's the insult?
Also, the "freedom and liberty" bit was something I was saying was typically coming from anarchist's side of the argument, like there would be more of it without these labels, etc. So, you seem to have flipped that bit around to the other side.
It is an insult to people(Myself including) who make this argument and don't fall into either of those categories. The labels are completely unneeded Jeff. People make way to big of a deal out of the most simple stuff, which if they didn't then frankly things would be much simpler. I am not really sure what I am trying to say this point anyway....
I mean in no way can you say that there would be more freedom and liberty with all these labels running around. I don't know if that was what I am trying to say... :(
As my text says, and you directly quoted it in your reply, "statements like this often come from..." It doesn't say always, just often, leaving the window open for non-closeted non-internalized-homophobia people to also make these cases. So, you arguably not being in either group is covered in my original text. It doesn't negate that the majority of people making this point do fall into those two camps.
Once again, you keep arguing the freedom point from a misreading of my text. I said it is something mentioned by the people who want to get rid of such labels, which you seem to agree with, but then counter me supposedly saying there is more freedom with the labels, which I never wrote. My point is that you being more free in an alternate world that doesn't exist and won't for the foreseeable future has little merit on getting on with your life in the actual world. As an academic exercise it's fine, but at the end of the day, oh well, it didn't happen, so what's the plan to deal with the real world?
That is where you are wrong jeff... and actually you sound a bit oppressive with that statement. Weither or not that world exsist now is not the issue. The issue is that it does and shouldn't, and needs to be changed. To me getting on with my life is making sure I do everything possiable to make that kind of crap doesn't continue. Then after doing so I continue about my day... it is actually quite simple, and I have done it many times. I mean it is a prefect way to deal with the real world, by railing against something you don't like.
The back and forth of my own argument has more to do with my lack of short term memory and how hard it for me to get out what I want to say. Combined with the fact this forum doesn't show all previous post and it makes it harder to check over things while posting. Plus I believe you are twisting my words in some cases here jeff, because the entire time I was only talking from the stand point of having labels are bad. While agreeing with anarchist original ideas.
So what is the means to change it? That seems to be where this all breaks down for me.
You don't want there to be a gay community, for gays to be considered a minority, or for people to have to come out or to label themselves as gay... that seems like a tall order.
I wouldn't intentionally twist your words.
I didn't think anyone else thought this except myself. I completely agree that humanity is not just a flawed species, but a flaw in species. To be human is inherently a fault. Humanity is overly complicated and goes to extreme measures to make the world less simple and punish itself doing so. Even the fact that I'm expressing this is am example. The world would just be better off if we were all wild and civilization never happened.
Oh, and Jeff, please don't get involved in this whole misanthropy thing Yamamoto and I have going. I'd rather this discussion just be between those who agree, and I already feel bad about the argument I've caused; it would be best to avoid more of it.
I have zero desire to discuss misanthropy.
I don't know that an argument has occurred, though, just a discussion as far as I'm concerned, although all of Yama's interactions with me tend to look like arguments. ;-)
You have a way of speaking that does make many things look argumentative and judgmental, even when they aren't. I used to be absolutely sure that you were an absolute schmuck. Your speech is a bit... nuanced, methinks, and that doesn't come across well over text to we the hyperemotional youth.
I actually do appreciate nuance and amusing turns of phrase, otherwise writing on Oasis at all would be a rather dreary enterprise for me, especially after 18 years of the same topics being discussed. But this one is likely to disappear in 11 months anyway, so nothing to correct at this point.
That said, hyperemotional youth can read anything as being argumentative if it suits their fancy. ;-)
The same topics for 18 years? How do you do it? I should imagine it probably involves dozens of chickens, some grass, and a lot of lubrication.
ARE YOU CALLING ME ARBITRARY? I ONLY ARGUE WHEN I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT SOMETHING HOW DARE YOU PATRONIZE ME RAAAAAH
Of course you had to get involved. How naive of me to think you'd back off just once.
What have I posted on that topic since you asked me not to?!
In my world, replying is a requirement, even to say you are not going to follow a discussion anymore.
If you want a fresh discussion, start a new journal/thread. This is getting very off-topic from a kid baking an i love cock coming out cake, no?
I admire your passion in this, but my personal philosophy regarding the gay community is practiced apathy. I hold enough distaste for the existence of the community- along with the community itself- that I pretty much just avoid talking about it save for within contexts in which my opinion might change some minds.
To clarify, I categorize 'whining' as being complaints that will be heard by none and will do no service and cause no change. Discussion should be had in forums (not literally speaking) in which minds may be changed.
I do understand your argument, however, and value your input. I will consider your comments carefully and adjust my opinions where appropriate.
but I would die of embarrassment if I did something like that. Not because of coming out, but because of the penis shape on the cake. lol