Candy Floss on a Shitty Stick
Dear Anonymouse,
I fear I may be about to be a bit brusque with you. I’m not even sure this is entirely necessary, to be honest, given that I’m going to be, for the most part, simply reiterating what I’ve already said in response to your comment to Sulla on my archive post, “The Homosexual Agenda”. There are even, in fact, some aspects of your comment that I find sort of charming, like your comparison of the disgust you feel in the face of homosexuality to being “grossed out by beans and onions”. You do recognise that “lots of people love those,” that it “doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them, or that it's gross or not beautiful and terribly romantic in God's eyes and many people here on earth as well. the love that is, not beans and onions.” The babble is inane, but its heart is in the right place. You even go so far as to say, “the real main thing is that no matter what ‘grosses us out’..it is not our place to place judgment on an activity between two consenting adults who have feelings that they can't change and must have been sent by God.” That’s a worthy sentiment, and while I find the talk of God somewhat stimulates my own retch reflex, it does make me feel kindly disposed to you.
But you did have to post two days after the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, didn’t you? And you did have to say that “Homosexuality IS inherently disgusting to a lot of straight people...more even than the way we generally use the word inherently, I mean it is REALLY inherent, in that it is positively biological, at the very core of psychology for some (not all) straight people....and personally I believe that only a small part of that is society no matter how intolerant and evil society is, and most of it is just natural biology of the brain.”
At the very core of psychology, you say? Natural biology of the brain?
It’s nice to know that this inbuilt imperative of hatred isn’t something you’ve allowed to rule you, that you “used to think all homosexuality was pretty gross, but much more with gay men than women” until you “got a little bi-curious”. So now, you say, “although I'm not sure I can ever picture myself being with a woman, and still prefer men as a romantic partner, I can fantasize about women in romantic situations and I can watch lesbian love stories without flinching like I used to, it's actually nice.”
How lovely.
You go on: “I too am a girly girl and I like women that look like women, not men, maybe just a tiny bit spicy, if you know what I mean, but at the same time very very feminine looking.” And on: “When it comes to men though, where my romantic dreams still lie, I prefer men who are fairly masculine looking and acting, just not huge beefcakes or cavemen.” And on: “I don't really go for feminine type men though just because I like girls a little now.” And on: “I like it one way or the other, I don't really go for androgyny (which I believe that some people that classify themselves as "gay", as liking either men or women, REALLY in truth prefer people that are somewhere in the middle, sometimes even smack dab-but I guess there's no word for that yet).”
I know it’s just mean of me to say that your self-absorbed witterings are a riveting study of (I'm guessing late-adolescent?) vacuity. I know that this is needlessly snarky. But you did have to post two days after the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, didn’t you? And you did have to say that “Homosexuality IS inherently disgusting to a lot of straight people...more even than the way we generally use the word inherently, I mean it is REALLY inherent, in that it is positively biological, at the very core of psychology for some (not all) straight people.”
And you did have to say this in response to Sulla, who had valiantly taken a bigot to task for a specious claim that there was “no record of homosexuality being ‘celebrated’ or ‘embraced’ or even ‘tolerated’ until very recent history”. You did have to say this in response to Sulla’s simple factual statements pointing to clear examples of homosexuality toddling happily along without being subject to bigotry, both in the animal kingdom and throughout human history.
And as much as you may have “got a little bi-curious”, you do have some way to go. What is it you say? “[A]lthough I'm slightly more comfortable with the idea of gay men, and even in some tv shows or movies or whatever I can be dragged into the romance of it...if there is anything to [sic] explicit, even especially passionate kissing, I still feel very very uncomfortable and grossed out. And that will probably never change completely. I don't know if it's because I'm jealous that I could never be a part of that (I believe when we watch movies, a big part of it is putting ourselves in the characters shoes)...or if it's just some sort of biological reaction.”
See, now I’m confused. Or rather, you’re confused. You were so very certain that the disgust “is positively biological, at the very core of psychology for some,” but now when it comes to your own reaction, you “don’t know.” It might be a “biological reaction”. But maybe you’re just jealous. It could be natural or it could be a culturally conditioned prejudice. But hey ho. Whatever. It will “probably never change completely”. Personally, I’d be inclined to say it will almost certainly never change completely if that’s your attitude. I’d be inclined to encourage you to change that attitude, not to blithely accept prejudice as the “facts of life”. And definitely not to blather brainlessly to others that they should do the same.
Not to post your prattling piffle on the blog of THE…. Sodomite Hal Duncan!!, two days after the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, saying that “the main thing is that gay people at some point will just have to understand that reality for a lot of straight people.”
Not to meander merrily into a comments thread under the watchful eye of the queer cur Behemouth, and tell the good citizen Sulla that he shouldn’t be calling a bigot on his bullshit, that “if I were you I wouldn't waste my time trying to change them or even argue with them.”
Not to end your vacuous drivel with an empty-headed “peace.”
Peace?
Anonymouse, with all due respect, it's very nice that you've made some baby steps towards not vomiting out your small intestines at the thought of -- shock! horror! -- two men kissing. And I do applaud the fact that you recognise your feelings as only that, rejecting the moralistic poppycock of the bigot that Sulla was responding to. But your peace 'n' kittens sentiments become candy floss on a shitty stick with this apologist balderdash about homosexuality being inherently disgusting.
So it just "IS", is it... for some anyway? Do you actually, I might ask, have any evidence for this assertion? Have you perhaps carried out some scientific studies the rest of the world hasn't heard of? Have you even the remotest idea of how the human nausea response works in relation to visual stimuli? Or are you just blithely and ignorantly excusing bigotry as a biological imperative cause you, like, think maybe it could be, f'rsure? Validating homophobia as an innate disgust that, well, we faggots just have to learn to live with? Telling me that "gay people at some point will just have to understand that reality"? Telling me that I just have to learn to deal with it, to suck it up? And telling Sulla not to get my back when the bigots come around? Just two days after the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots?
Let me buy you a fucking clue.
You say that "we would all do well to understand each other a bit better." Yes, these are very nice words. You might want to try understanding how a mixed-race couple would feel if you proclaimed on their blog that some people do just have an innate revulsion of miscegenation. Or how a Jewish person would feel if you said, well, those Fascists were just born with a natural hatred of the Jews. How a black person would feel if you said that, hey, some white people can't help joining lynch mobs. Some people are just naturally convinced that Gypsies steal children and put curses on people. You just have to accept that. Let them be. Don’t bother standing up to them. Don’t bother defending someone they’re attacking. There's just no point arguing with them.
Go away and think about that. Please. Think about that, and about whether you really want to sound like an apologist for hate crimes with a head composed entirely of… what? Is it air or is it bone? Or perhaps shit?
And after you've thought about it, if you do come back here, do not ever use my blog to tell someone who is arguing with a fucking bigot not to do so. Not to bother.
Is that clear? Am I making myself clear here?
Bigot posts hate-screed on my blog. Sulla shows his cojones by calling out said bigot for his bigotry. You tell Sulla, "if I were you I wouldn't waste my time trying to change them or even argue with them."
Well, in the name of every faggot in the world who's ever had someone stand up for them, and every faggot in the world -- and by fuck there's so many of them still out there -- who's never had someone stand up for them, thank fuck that Sulla is happy to "waste his time" standing up against bigots where people like you are not. Thank fuck that he is not you. Thank fuck that I'm not you. Thank fuck that there have been, and are, and will continue to be innumerable people around the world that aren't you.
Frankly, the world would be a much better place if you weren't you.
But you know, all it would take is for you to understand why, and then you wouldn’t be.
Peace out.
I fear I may be about to be a bit brusque with you. I’m not even sure this is entirely necessary, to be honest, given that I’m going to be, for the most part, simply reiterating what I’ve already said in response to your comment to Sulla on my archive post, “The Homosexual Agenda”. There are even, in fact, some aspects of your comment that I find sort of charming, like your comparison of the disgust you feel in the face of homosexuality to being “grossed out by beans and onions”. You do recognise that “lots of people love those,” that it “doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them, or that it's gross or not beautiful and terribly romantic in God's eyes and many people here on earth as well. the love that is, not beans and onions.” The babble is inane, but its heart is in the right place. You even go so far as to say, “the real main thing is that no matter what ‘grosses us out’..it is not our place to place judgment on an activity between two consenting adults who have feelings that they can't change and must have been sent by God.” That’s a worthy sentiment, and while I find the talk of God somewhat stimulates my own retch reflex, it does make me feel kindly disposed to you.
But you did have to post two days after the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, didn’t you? And you did have to say that “Homosexuality IS inherently disgusting to a lot of straight people...more even than the way we generally use the word inherently, I mean it is REALLY inherent, in that it is positively biological, at the very core of psychology for some (not all) straight people....and personally I believe that only a small part of that is society no matter how intolerant and evil society is, and most of it is just natural biology of the brain.”
At the very core of psychology, you say? Natural biology of the brain?
It’s nice to know that this inbuilt imperative of hatred isn’t something you’ve allowed to rule you, that you “used to think all homosexuality was pretty gross, but much more with gay men than women” until you “got a little bi-curious”. So now, you say, “although I'm not sure I can ever picture myself being with a woman, and still prefer men as a romantic partner, I can fantasize about women in romantic situations and I can watch lesbian love stories without flinching like I used to, it's actually nice.”
How lovely.
You go on: “I too am a girly girl and I like women that look like women, not men, maybe just a tiny bit spicy, if you know what I mean, but at the same time very very feminine looking.” And on: “When it comes to men though, where my romantic dreams still lie, I prefer men who are fairly masculine looking and acting, just not huge beefcakes or cavemen.” And on: “I don't really go for feminine type men though just because I like girls a little now.” And on: “I like it one way or the other, I don't really go for androgyny (which I believe that some people that classify themselves as "gay", as liking either men or women, REALLY in truth prefer people that are somewhere in the middle, sometimes even smack dab-but I guess there's no word for that yet).”
I know it’s just mean of me to say that your self-absorbed witterings are a riveting study of (I'm guessing late-adolescent?) vacuity. I know that this is needlessly snarky. But you did have to post two days after the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, didn’t you? And you did have to say that “Homosexuality IS inherently disgusting to a lot of straight people...more even than the way we generally use the word inherently, I mean it is REALLY inherent, in that it is positively biological, at the very core of psychology for some (not all) straight people.”
And you did have to say this in response to Sulla, who had valiantly taken a bigot to task for a specious claim that there was “no record of homosexuality being ‘celebrated’ or ‘embraced’ or even ‘tolerated’ until very recent history”. You did have to say this in response to Sulla’s simple factual statements pointing to clear examples of homosexuality toddling happily along without being subject to bigotry, both in the animal kingdom and throughout human history.
And as much as you may have “got a little bi-curious”, you do have some way to go. What is it you say? “[A]lthough I'm slightly more comfortable with the idea of gay men, and even in some tv shows or movies or whatever I can be dragged into the romance of it...if there is anything to [sic] explicit, even especially passionate kissing, I still feel very very uncomfortable and grossed out. And that will probably never change completely. I don't know if it's because I'm jealous that I could never be a part of that (I believe when we watch movies, a big part of it is putting ourselves in the characters shoes)...or if it's just some sort of biological reaction.”
See, now I’m confused. Or rather, you’re confused. You were so very certain that the disgust “is positively biological, at the very core of psychology for some,” but now when it comes to your own reaction, you “don’t know.” It might be a “biological reaction”. But maybe you’re just jealous. It could be natural or it could be a culturally conditioned prejudice. But hey ho. Whatever. It will “probably never change completely”. Personally, I’d be inclined to say it will almost certainly never change completely if that’s your attitude. I’d be inclined to encourage you to change that attitude, not to blithely accept prejudice as the “facts of life”. And definitely not to blather brainlessly to others that they should do the same.
Not to post your prattling piffle on the blog of THE…. Sodomite Hal Duncan!!, two days after the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, saying that “the main thing is that gay people at some point will just have to understand that reality for a lot of straight people.”
Not to meander merrily into a comments thread under the watchful eye of the queer cur Behemouth, and tell the good citizen Sulla that he shouldn’t be calling a bigot on his bullshit, that “if I were you I wouldn't waste my time trying to change them or even argue with them.”
Not to end your vacuous drivel with an empty-headed “peace.”
Peace?
Anonymouse, with all due respect, it's very nice that you've made some baby steps towards not vomiting out your small intestines at the thought of -- shock! horror! -- two men kissing. And I do applaud the fact that you recognise your feelings as only that, rejecting the moralistic poppycock of the bigot that Sulla was responding to. But your peace 'n' kittens sentiments become candy floss on a shitty stick with this apologist balderdash about homosexuality being inherently disgusting.
So it just "IS", is it... for some anyway? Do you actually, I might ask, have any evidence for this assertion? Have you perhaps carried out some scientific studies the rest of the world hasn't heard of? Have you even the remotest idea of how the human nausea response works in relation to visual stimuli? Or are you just blithely and ignorantly excusing bigotry as a biological imperative cause you, like, think maybe it could be, f'rsure? Validating homophobia as an innate disgust that, well, we faggots just have to learn to live with? Telling me that "gay people at some point will just have to understand that reality"? Telling me that I just have to learn to deal with it, to suck it up? And telling Sulla not to get my back when the bigots come around? Just two days after the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots?
Let me buy you a fucking clue.
You say that "we would all do well to understand each other a bit better." Yes, these are very nice words. You might want to try understanding how a mixed-race couple would feel if you proclaimed on their blog that some people do just have an innate revulsion of miscegenation. Or how a Jewish person would feel if you said, well, those Fascists were just born with a natural hatred of the Jews. How a black person would feel if you said that, hey, some white people can't help joining lynch mobs. Some people are just naturally convinced that Gypsies steal children and put curses on people. You just have to accept that. Let them be. Don’t bother standing up to them. Don’t bother defending someone they’re attacking. There's just no point arguing with them.
Go away and think about that. Please. Think about that, and about whether you really want to sound like an apologist for hate crimes with a head composed entirely of… what? Is it air or is it bone? Or perhaps shit?
And after you've thought about it, if you do come back here, do not ever use my blog to tell someone who is arguing with a fucking bigot not to do so. Not to bother.
Is that clear? Am I making myself clear here?
Bigot posts hate-screed on my blog. Sulla shows his cojones by calling out said bigot for his bigotry. You tell Sulla, "if I were you I wouldn't waste my time trying to change them or even argue with them."
Well, in the name of every faggot in the world who's ever had someone stand up for them, and every faggot in the world -- and by fuck there's so many of them still out there -- who's never had someone stand up for them, thank fuck that Sulla is happy to "waste his time" standing up against bigots where people like you are not. Thank fuck that he is not you. Thank fuck that I'm not you. Thank fuck that there have been, and are, and will continue to be innumerable people around the world that aren't you.
Frankly, the world would be a much better place if you weren't you.
But you know, all it would take is for you to understand why, and then you wouldn’t be.
Peace out.
posted by Hal Duncan | 4:42 am
3 Comments:
Sometimes I wonder if gender is just something painted on a pretty canvas, whether it be cotton or linen. I wonder if we should stop looking to our naughty bits as a guide for how we should act or who we should fuck. I wonder if anything less is an offense to our humanity, recidivism to beasts.
Most of all, I wonder who will finally tell them the truth.
The ones who really need to hear it don't seem to be listening, but at least you are trying.
I think it's not innate at all but I find it fascinating that people can manage to have such intense feelings of revulsion without any clear formal training. (Clockwork Orange comes to mind.) Here in the real world something akin to that is managed but how? There is such a strong force within us to conform that goes so unnoticed...
BTW, I sort of suspect that the fear of being perceived as gay has a horrible effect on all of society. I mean to say it creates a barrier between almost all men where they have to hold back most display of their emotions from one another and their interactions are reduced to trivial talk about football, lawn care and cars. (Or is that really all there ever is in their minds?) So that possibly as negative a thing as homophobia is and how it affects the minority of the people gay enough that they can't deny it, the fear of being perceived as gay is maybe having an overall greater negative effect on all of society? (I hope saying this doesn't make it sound like I take light of how actually gay people are being treated which I do think is horrible and I'm sorry you get such stuff in your blog also.)
Worth reading Johann Hari's article from The Independent newspaper: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-almost-everywhere-is-touched-by-the-stonewall-riots-now-1726047.html
Particularly liked the following:
The conversation about gay people has been so soaked in theology for so long that it is important to state some hard empirical facts. Homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon that happens in every human society. Everywhere, about 2 to 5 per cent of human beings prefer to have sex with their own gender. It occurs at the heart of nature: only last week, Professors Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk, of the University of California, concluded in a study: "The variety and ubiquity of same-sex sexual behaviour in animals is impressive – many thousands of instances of same-sex courtship, pair bonding and copulation have been observed in a wide range of species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, molluscs and nematodes."
Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it. It doesn't mean anything. It is a harmless genetic quirk. It has always happened and it always will. The only question is: do you want to be spiteful to gay people, or let them express their most natural urges peacefully?"
Post a Comment
<< Home