The gay men will just hit on yo9u and make you feel all uncomfortable.
I was just waiting for women to get like that, but I guess they are too cool and like to see us guys do the balancing act.

On 2002-06-18 16:43, Justin wrote:
The gay men will just hit on you and make you feel all uncomfortable.
I was just waiting for women to get like that, but I guess they are too cool and like to see us guys do the balancing act.

Justin brings up a very good point that gay people and their friends never seem to want to talk about. It would seem that there are just as many hypocrites among gay men as anywhere else. They talk about how God made them the way they are, that they were simply born gay and as such we shouldn't discriminate against them. Fair enough. But why is it then, that so many of them hit incessantly on straight guys, as if they believe that they can "convert" someone who's had crushes on girls since age 2 into a homosexual? Putting aside the obvious-- that sexual harassment of any sort is very, very wrong-- do they not get it that this throws a monkey wrench into their very core belief?

On the other hand, maybe they do get it. Perhaps they aren't trying to really convert anyone, and are just being mean, common bullies when they pick on straight guys who don't appear to present any threat to them. To be blunt, guys like these are every bit as vile as your garden variety gay-basher.

A word of warning, then: it would behoove gay males to cease harassing the very people who don't happen to go around bashing them. In a Fourth Turning, a gay person might need a favor from one of those straight guys he made a point of hitting on when times were better.

how are gay guys supposed to know who's straight, gay, or bi just by looking at them?

On 2002-06-17 21:46, angeli wrote:

"it's icky"

Well, that's about the size of it. A lot of people have an emotional, irrational fear of homosexuality. There are also those who have the same emotional, irrational fear of the homeless, or the sick, or the handicapped, or of people of other races/nationalities/beliefs. Defending the "it's icky" response with scripture is kind of choosing Old Testiment words over New Testiment example. Jesus hung out with the "icky" all the time. Indeed preferred the "icky" over the pretty and comfortable. Pretty shaky theological ground to stand on, if you ask me, but of course nobody who holds that view does. :wink:

Note that I divided the groups, though some individuals belong in both. Not everyone who holds the Scriptural opposition feels the 'icky' gut-aversion, and some of those who are part of the 'it's icky' group make no pretense of being Christians or believers of any sort.

Note also that I didn't say where I personally fall in these categories, if indeed I am part of either one.

On 2002-06-18 21:19, Agent 24601984 wrote:
how are gay guys supposed to know who's straight, gay, or bi just by looking at them?

A better question: Ask a young straight man who really loves women a lot, but is often too bashful to ask a girl out on a date, and then has to contend with unwanted, uneccessary, predatory attention from gay people to boot....ask him if he cares whether or how they can tell who is who! It's not his fault, and shouldn't be his problem, your problem, Justin's problem, or mine. Thank God that at least I am now an old Boomer.

The bottom line is that sexual harrassment is wrong, no matter who the harrasser or the harrassee. Enough said.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-18 21:47 ]</font>

On 2002-06-18 21:19, Agent 24601984 wrote:
how are gay guys supposed to know who's straight, gay, or bi just by looking at them?

Some claim to know at a glance, but of course they don't (or not with 100% accuracy, anyway).

I am straight myself, and I can only recall one time when a gay man came on to me (or at least only once that it was obvious enough to notice), and he immediately took a polite no for an answer.

The 'in your face' faction of the gay rights movement and gay male (and some lesbian as well) culture is in fact possibly the worst enemy of gay rights extant, though I think they don't quite realize it.

Hmmm, the "in your face" thing. A lot of people talk about that, but what it puts me in mind of is Act-Up, a very controversial group even among gays for their extremely in-your-face protest of public indifference towards AIDS. Their symbol was a pink triangle on a black background with the words silence = death.

It seems to me that if it weren't for the people who are out there, nobody gay or lesbian would have earned any rights at all. The squeaky wheels get the oil. Same is true of any minority.

On 2002-06-18 21:16, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-06-18 16:43, Justin wrote:
The gay men will just hit on you and make you feel all uncomfortable.
I was just waiting for women to get like that, but I guess they are too cool and like to see us guys do the balancing act.

Justin brings up a very good point that gay people and their friends never seem to want to talk about. It would seem that there are just as many hypocrites among gay men as anywhere else. They talk about how God made them the way they are, that they were simply born gay and as such we shouldn't discriminate against them. Fair enough. But why is it then, that so many of them hit incessantly on straight guys, as if they believe that they can "convert" someone who's had crushes on girls since age 2 into a homosexual? Putting aside the obvious-- that sexual harassment of any sort is very, very wrong-- do they not get it that this throws a monkey wrench into their very core belief?

On the other hand, maybe they do get it. Perhaps they aren't trying to really convert anyone, and are just being mean, common bullies when they pick on straight guys who don't appear to present any threat to them. To be blunt, guys like these are every bit as vile as your garden variety gay-basher.

A word of warning, then: it would behoove gay males to cease harassing the very people who don't happen to go around bashing them. In a Fourth Turning, a gay person might need a favor from one of those straight guys he made a point of hitting on when times were better.

Man I was sexually harassed so bad in junior high school by a friend, and he never learned the word "stop." He delighted in making me uncomfortable. This was funny because since I am a straight male I dont feel uncomfortable or get insulted.

I don't have a problem with a man telling me Im nice looking. Thats a compliment. I just didn't like getting stared down at the local coffee shop or whistled or yelled at. I mean if women feel uncomfortable in the same situation, I understand. Its just not polite.

On 2002-06-18 21:41, angeli wrote:
Hmmm, the "in your face" thing. A lot of people talk about that, but what it puts me in mind of is Act-Up, a very controversial group even among gays for their extremely in-your-face protest of public indifference towards AIDS. Their symbol was a pink triangle on a black background with the words silence = death.

It seems to me that if it weren't for the people who are out there, nobody gay or lesbian would have earned any rights at all. The squeaky wheels get the oil. Same is true of any minority.

The problem with squeaky wheels, Angeli, is that they can easily trigger a backlash that would negate -- even reverse -- anything positive they may have gained. The same is true for Black nationalists, radical feminists and Earth First! sabateurs. I, frankly, am surprised that major backlashes against any of these four haven't yet occurred. Perhaps we really are still 3T.

On 2002-06-18 16:43, Justin wrote:
The gay men will just hit on yo9u and make you feel all uncomfortable.
I was just waiting for women to get like that, but I guess they are too cool and like to see us guys do the balancing act.

What do you mean by 'hitting'? Do you mean any advance at all, or repetitive or insulting or coercive ones? (Bear in mind that woman have often complained of similar things, without specifying a difference either, thus making lawyers richer.)

You didn't already know he's the resident T4T flirt?

On 2002-06-18 21:41, angeli wrote:
Hmmm, the "in your face" thing. A lot of people talk about that, but what it puts me in mind of is Act-Up, a very controversial group even among gays for their extremely in-your-face protest of public indifference towards AIDS. Their symbol was a pink triangle on a black background with the words silence = death.

It seems to me that if it weren't for the people who are out there, nobody gay or lesbian would have earned any rights at all. The squeaky wheels get the oil. Same is true of any minority.

Sure. I think any kind of struggle for rights has its radical element. They do get attention. And they aren't necessarily wrong in their goals and intentions, even though some of their tactics may be out of bounds.

After the Stonewall riot of 1969, there was no way things were going to stay the same for gays and lesbians. And I do believe that growing acceptance of gays and lesbians will be one of the legacies of the Boom Awakening. Not as big as the victories won by the feminist movement, but still significant.

On 2002-06-18 21:57, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

The problem with squeaky wheels, Angeli, is that they can easily trigger a backlash that would negate -- even reverse -- anything positive they may have gained. The same is true for Black nationalists, radical feminists and Earth First! sabateurs. I, frankly, am surprised that major backlashes against any of these four haven't yet occurred. Perhaps we really are still 3T.

Or maybe they're just dying out on their own. Nobody's really listening to the extremists anymore.

On 2002-06-19 00:57, Xer of Evil wrote:

As for being hit on by men, we straight women don't necessarily want to have sex with every male that hits on us either. If we can deal with it, you guys can learn to deal with it too.

XoE

My point was that it all sucks. Women shouldn't have to deal with advances from rude and crude men (or women) either.

Speaking for those bashful guys who, in the past, have had trouble asking women for dates largely out of a fear of being considered rude, I take offense at the notion that being hit on by gay men is somehow our "just desserts" that we'd "better get used to".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-19 10:23 ]</font>

Sure there are backlashes ... do you think anything changes without them? No, the way happy mediums are achieved is through the back and forth of push and counter push until an entire generation grows up never having known a time when women didn't have the right to vote, or when black people were property, or when gay people couldn't get married.

The backlashes have their place in a sense, they slow the pace of change until it can be absorbed. But they never succeed in rolling back all the acheivements of the previous generation. Jim Crow was a horrible backlash, but didn't reinstate slavery. The 50s push to get Rosie the Riveter out of the workforce didn't repeal the 19th amendment.

Besides, backlashes in turn spark counter-moves. Even the Taliban created RAWA and the Northern Alliance. That's how it goes. Change isn't linear, its a spiral.

Resident flirt?

On 2002-06-19 14:11, Justin wrote:
Resident flirt?

If the shoe fits...
:smile:

Speaking for those bashful guys who, in the past, have had trouble asking women for dates largely out of a fear of being considered rude, I take offense at the notion that being hit on by gay men is somehow our "just desserts" that we'd "better get used to".

I'm not bashful at all. Hey XoE, I dig your jive, want to get Coffee sometime? :wink:

he he he

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-06-19 18:37 ]</font>

Wait XoE, you're 36?
Thats my type.

On 2002-06-19 19:57, Justin wrote:
Wait XoE, you're 36?
Thats my type.

Back off kid, I asked her first. :lol:

On 2002-06-19 07:52, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-06-18 21:57, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

The problem with squeaky wheels, Angeli, is that they can easily trigger a backlash that would negate -- even reverse -- anything positive they may have gained. The same is true for Black nationalists, radical feminists and Earth First! sabateurs. I, frankly, am surprised that major backlashes against any of these four haven't yet occurred. Perhaps we really are still 3T.

Or maybe they're just dying out on their own. Nobody's really listening to the extremists anymore.

Oh, we're still 3T, all right. The Fourth is still over the horizon, though the clouds and thunder can be heard in the distance.

As for the extremists (depending on the definition of that word), the only reason they give the illusion of fading is that they are so even matched that neither can make anything actually happen. Deadlock is not the same thing as decline. A symptom of 3T again, I suspect. The Fourth will tell another tale.

On 2002-06-19 07:43, Kiff '61 wrote:

On 2002-06-18 21:41, angeli wrote:
Hmmm, the "in your face" thing. A lot of people talk about that, but what it puts me in mind of is Act-Up, a very controversial group even among gays for their extremely in-your-face protest of public indifference towards AIDS. Their symbol was a pink triangle on a black background with the words silence = death.

It seems to me that if it weren't for the people who are out there, nobody gay or lesbian would have earned any rights at all. The squeaky wheels get the oil. Same is true of any minority.

Sure. I think any kind of struggle for rights has its radical element. They do get attention. And they aren't necessarily wrong in their goals and intentions, even though some of their tactics may be out of bounds.

What's out of bounds at one time and place can and does change. This isn't the Awakening, and what worked then can be and often is counterproductive now. As the 4T approaches, 'counterproductive' could easily shade into 'suicidal', if things go badly.

A perception has been growing among the straight community (for want of a better phrase) that they've been asked to feel guiltier than they need to be. In other contexts, it's called 'compassion fatigue', in this it might be called 'sensitivity fatigue'. It matters less whether it's deserved or not than that it exists.

Thus an 'in-your-face' protest that was effective in 1972 can easily be disastrous in 2002.

But the 'in your face' groups also include the fringe that shows up for gay rights events in skirts, or leather S&M gear, etc.

Whatever their intentions, the results do not help their cause.

After the Stonewall riot of 1969, there was no way things were going to stay the same for gays and lesbians. And I do believe that growing acceptance of gays and lesbians will be one of the legacies of the Boom Awakening. Not as big as the victories won by the feminist movement, but still significant.

I'm not convinced that the victories won by the gay rights movement have deep roots. Certainly the tolerance level is not as high as the media sometimes portrays.

If a gay friend asked me, today, if I thought is safe for him/her to come 'out of the closet', I'd probably advise that he/she play it safe and wait a while yet. I just don't trust the apparent calm out there.

On 2002-06-19 22:28, Xer of Evil wrote:
What the hell is this? I write a post about not wanting to be hit on by men, and the result is that I get hit on by men. Is there no gene for self-control on the Y chromosome?

There is, but natural selection works against it being tremendously strong.

(Half a joke, half for real.)

Justin, I'm only 35, so I guess that makes me too young for you.

Kevin, I wasn't saying that you "deserve" to be hit on by anyone. I was just saying that this is a common problem and you shouldn't feel singled out. And I don't think you have to worry about being rude. We can usually tell who's trying to be friendly, and who's just trying to get in our pants. Unless of course, it's on the internet ... then all bets are off. :smile:

XoE

A society needs a set of common rules for when it's appropriate to make a pass, when it isn't, etc. The old rules broke down in the Awakening, no new ones have crystallized yet. Half the uproar over sexual harrassment suits derives from that lack of any set of agreed on standards for acceptable behavior.

I'm cool.
But Im free to complain if some 50 year old gay dude looks at me like Im a piece of meat.
My female friends complain all the time. I guess I can share in this kind of annoyance.

On 2002-06-19 22:28, Xer of Evil wrote:

Kevin, I wasn't saying that you "deserve" to be hit on by anyone. I was just saying that this is a common problem and you shouldn't feel singled out. And I don't think you have to worry about being rude. We can usually tell who's trying to be friendly, and who's just trying to get in our pants. Unless of course, it's on the internet ... then all bets are off. :smile:

XoE

Thanks, XoE.

Actually I haven't had much of a problem lately with such unwanted advances myself, now that I am officially OLD :smile:. But I did have many such negative experiences when I was in my late teens, twenties, even early thirties. So when I hear about younger guys having to deal with bullshit like that, I am greatly outraged, and very much inclined to defend them.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-20 09:59 ]</font>