Posted by A. on September 19, 2006 at 20:47 [69.136.191.83]
In Reply to: Re: Fakes and fags? posted by SFLDaddy on September 19, 2006 at 19:08
... very sad. This is the pathos spawned by a homoerotiphobic culture that has reduced beauty to a single-gendered thing. The reactionary anger towards those "activists" who would work for a broader acceptance of sexual difference in society on the basic of their attempts to rebuff bigotry through calling out the hypocracy of perscutors living as closet queens is a backhanded bigotry. It takes great umbrage with a misinterpretation of gay, lesbian, and bisexual attempts to account for the hatred, loathing, and discrimination they continue to suffer. It was the same argument articulated by southerners and the unenlightened in the north against bus boycots, marches, and rallies, and that the violence sparked by police action was the fault of the oppressed.
It is the worst sort of fallacy to argue that, because some suggest homoerotophobes are in fact in fear of their own curiousities, that in fact activists (in the collective sense) suppose that all men who aren't gay are homophobic, but homophobes are latent self-rejecting gays, and thus, all men are gay. Only the most flippant activist-cum-comic would make such a quip; anyone else doing so sets up the most blatant sort of straw-man.
I almost wonder if, for those men who don't care to see heterosexual sex, that there's a bit of dysphoria involved. Need you cover all mirrors and turn off the lights during sex, lest you realize there's a man in the bed?
A.
Tired of reactionary sexual politics almost as much as female segregationalist/supremacist sexual politics and the lesbian/gay-identity sexual politics of "there are no bisexuals, only the deluded or confused"; I'll keep my angst equal-opportunity towards all sorts of sexual hegemons.
Email: