(Untitled)

[neilvanders]

So I got asked to prom yesterday. By Adam. My mom laughed at me and asked me who was going to wear the dress. Mildly funny and stereotypical. It sorta got me thinking. Specifically, it reminded me of a conversation I had with Jesse Laurence once upon a time

Comments

When?

[tyler_james]

When are gonna let Adam in on the plan for his life? lol.

[steve_hamster]

I have often thought along those lines. It seems like part (or all) of the point of the homosexual movement is to de-link sex (like the kind you are, not the kind you have) from gender/identity. Interestingly, though, a lot of the gay men (intentionally gendered pronoun) I have known seem to portray many of the stereotypes placed on them. It seems self-defeating, like being gay just means you have a different prescribed identity set instead of breaking out of identity stereotypes altogether.

I was going to say that gay celebrities don't help in that respect, but there are people like Ian McKellan who are their own people (meaning they don't hide sexuality, but they also don't act like that dictates everything about them). Maybe you are right, Meghan, that an increasingly queer-friendly culture will lessen this trend.

[spearofsolomon]

That's an interesting idea. When homosexuality is accepted as normal, then homosexuals can be as comfortable and natural in the formation of their identities as heterosexuals? I hope they aren't expecting much . . .

I see the point. It's worse for gay people, and not just in Ottumwa. ". . . a place where homophobia weren't so rampant and homosexuality less radical," like, Europe?

But don't you think sexual pressure warps everyone's identity while they're still trying to get it together?

On a tangent, I read an interesting and persuasive article about homosexuality in which the author argued that an argument supporting homosexuality that hinges on whether or not homosexuality is genetic is a moral step backward. Main points being that morality can't be encoded genetically, and that "If it's genetic it's ok" also gives rise to "If it isn't genetic than it isn't ok" which seems to circumvent the issue of choice. Anyway.

Eugenics: Talk Amongst Yourselves

[steve_hamster]

"But don't you think sexual pressure warps everyone's identity while they're still trying to get it together?"

This seems patently true. I am thinking of an entire tirade on why it's necessary for the homosexual movement (and those who share its values) to work to end sex/gender binaries, but it will take longer than the space available. As that's my view, though, I must agree that heterosexuality is not a discrete category that is unproblematically and objectively portrayed by our or any other culture.

As to your tangent, it seems like how one feels about that argument is largely pre-determined by how one perceives the gay movement and its goals. If indeed the goal is to introduce the idea of choice into sexuality, then this argument perhaps runs counter. However, the gay movement in the '90s seemed to face much condemnation from people based on people's perception that homosexuality is a choice. The argument, then, was that if sexuality was indeed a choice, it became possible to make it a moral argument. If sexuality was

Re: Eugenics: Talk Amongst Yourselves

[spearofsolomon]

Even if genetics and choice are mutually exclusive categories, it does not mean that together they comprise all the reasons "causing" homosexuality. For instance, genetics could serve as a base which might be over-ridden in certain strong circumstances. I keep reading this statistic that says that of identical twins for which one twin is gay, 52% are both gay. That seems to indicate a strong genetic corrolation without showing that genetics is solely responsible. I haven't read the research but it feels like if there were "certain strong circumstances" then identical twins would be more likely to share them, as well