Homophobes in the media... Are they all fugly?

B_Nicodemous

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Posts
4,366
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
73
Sexuality
No Response
Hows this: kirk cameron.

NOT overtly gay. Never did ANYTHING to suggest it, Doesn't have a "gay face" (a term i am hating)

and said not a couple of months ago homophobic remarks.

And yes, if I knew NADA about his hateful stance, he is attractive enough (even if not my usual type)

I believe I have met all the criteria of the thread, and got it back on the rails before I leave.
 

Attachments

nycmcmike

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Posts
366
Media
0
Likes
1,392
Points
323
Location
New York City
Sexuality
Pansexual
Gender
Male
Ditto.

If you think about attractive men in Hollywood, business, (not sure about US Politics) they know that homophobia is not part of the repertoire of an attractive or successful person these days. Except in the alternate universe of fundamentalist religion where I would nominate the President of Iran as possibly sexually attractive but otherwise repulsive. A hookup? I'd have to kill him afterwards.
Good call. The president of Iran is actually good looking. One point for that side but I am not sure if we can count a country that kills gay people.
 

nycmcmike

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Posts
366
Media
0
Likes
1,392
Points
323
Location
New York City
Sexuality
Pansexual
Gender
Male
Hows this: kirk cameron.

NOT overtly gay. Never did ANYTHING to suggest it, Doesn't have a "gay face" (a term i am hating)

and said not a couple of months ago homophobic remarks.

And yes, if I knew NADA about his hateful stance, he is attractive enough (even if not my usual type)

I believe I have met all the criteria of the thread, and got it back on the rails before I leave.

Another excellent one however there are rumors he used to cruise parks for gay sex.

Nico, I can see your frustration on being able to pick out a good looking homophobe that probably isn't a closet case.

But didn't you try arguing that wasn't the case?
 
Last edited:

nycmcmike

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Posts
366
Media
0
Likes
1,392
Points
323
Location
New York City
Sexuality
Pansexual
Gender
Male
If anyone comes across a new news item please post the guys pic. Unfor it would be impossible to rewind to get a fair, comprehensive and nonbiased look.
 

B_Nicodemous

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Posts
4,366
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
73
Sexuality
No Response
Another excellent one however there are rumors he used to cruise parks for gay sex.

Nixon, I can see your frustration on being able to pick out a good looking homophobe that probably isn't a closet case.

But didn't you try arguing that wasn't the case?
Unless there was verification, then they remain rumors.

And your def of a homophobe is that they are all closet cases. Let us not revisit that.

I met your criteria. Rumors started by people who either had it out for him or had a crush on him back when he was younger, are treated as such.

Your criteria is that they don't look gay, were never confirmed gay, and were not fugly. i met them all. Rumors are hardly conformation.

No frustration at all. I know what i wrote and what I meant. The only reason i even bothered to post that last one, was to play nice, and get the thread back on the right footing. I still disagree with you, I still feel you went off when you didn't need to, and that your attacks on Conan were unprovoked. I can care less about how you treat me.

You have to understand (and it helps me, when I remember) that you are all nothing but ones and zeros, baby. My friends are more than that, but the majority of you. Ones and zeros, the whole lot. Keeps frustration at hostility towards me in check.

Peace.
 

NoH8

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
644
Media
1
Likes
225
Points
438
Location
Byron Bay (New South Wales, Australia)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Here's a link to an article on the recent study confirming that homophobes have some degree of same sex attraction. The study did not measure attractiveness though.

Gay.net - New Study: Researchers Link Homophobia to Repressed Homosexual Arousal

Personally, I find the straightest most homo-friendly men are often very attractive to me. I have to struggle to keep a lid on my crushes sometimes but that's another topic.
 

Smaccoms

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Posts
2,778
Media
7
Likes
1,466
Points
583
Age
34
Location
Massachusetts (United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Funny how Smaccoms didn't have any issue comprehending the point of this thread. He instead went to Google and posted two of the most recent homophobes he could find, neither of which have a gay face and are actually making headlines from some time besides last millennium.

Both of you are just trying to be bitter assholes with the only point you're trying to prove is that you enjoy being one.

How hard would it be for EITHER one of you to find a news article.from the past month which involved a homophobe so we could discuss it??? Instead you went out of your way to be argumentative by brining up the most inane people possible.

Yes I said find one good looking homophobe that wasn't obviously gay which you couldn't do. And in doing so you proved one of my points. You guys are arguing not every homophobe is gay nor are the fugly yet you can't produce one single good looking homophobe making headlines in this century.

Of course you're pissed. I would be too if I were full of it.

And Nico my friend that is your "fuck off" as requested

As you are so new to this forum, I can see why you would have difficulty having a civil conversation with other members given your personality type. In real life, you can bitch all you want because everyone has context and meaning so they understand what is really going on.

On a forum such as this, the situation is completely different. 93% of how humans communicate is NOT THROUGH WORDS. It is through body language, tone, pitch things like that. Therefore, communication on a site like this is MUCH more difficult. Hurtful words take become 10,000x more hurtful. When the only communication is through words, bitching out at people only works against you, as opposed to what you are clearly accustomed to.

Bitching someone out can be constructive and warranted for, but such circumstances are increasingly limited on a forum site. As such, these guys were attempting to understand your OP so they could discuss the topic with full understanding. When you attacked them, it really hurt your cause. They stopped caring to understand, and left.

I am so sorry the entire thread broke out into such a disastrous argument. My goal was to help create discussion where it was needed for certain members. It clearly is a touchy subject. I do wonder why? You have to remember, most members here are NOT out to get you, even if it's hard not to absorb it that way. Communication here is ABSOLUTELY key. I have been a member for sometime, and so know this. We all have disasters where everything comes out wrong because we are NOT accustomed to this type of communication, where words (not anything else) comprise about 99% of communication.

I hope this helps. Does it make sense to you?

Edit: Also, part of the goal of homophobia (and oppression really) is to isolate and ostracize members of a minority. It causes such hurt, that strong and hurtful responses become second nature, even when they are not necessary. It pushes us to further isolate and ostracize ourselves. Whenever you feel such a strong response in yourself, just tell yourself that if you succomb, then oppression has won. We should always try to focus on connecting with others in a positive way, even when it becomes difficult to. In many cases, we can't. In others we can. But positive connections help our cause (as homosexuals). Otherwise, we need to walk away and work though our conflicted feelings before tackling the fucking hurtful situation.
 
Last edited:

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,306
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Here's a link to an article on the recent study confirming that homophobes have some degree of same sex attraction. The study did not measure attractiveness though.

Gay.net - New Study: Researchers Link Homophobia to Repressed Homosexual Arousal

Personally, I find the straightest most homo-friendly men are often very attractive to me. I have to struggle to keep a lid on my crushes sometimes but that's another topic.
Very interesting, NoH8.
This confirms what analysts always thought. Some of the most homophobic patients would, if therapy went deep enough, finally be talking about their homosexual urges and all the angst and self-judgment that resulted.

Of course, not all homophobes are the same. Some seem to have visceral fear of being present with gay people, as though they fear their inner nature will inadvertently reveal itself.
But some have merely been programmed to condemn homosexuality, or have rather cerebral reasons for rejecting it. (Many of these would be religious people.)
Some researchers propose calling such people homonegative rather than homophobic.
Of course, there is a lot of overlap in applying these terms.

Bitching someone out can be constructive and warranted for, but such circumstances are increasingly limited on a forum site. As such, these guys were attempting to understand your OP so they could discuss the topic with full understanding. When you attacked them, it really hurt your cause. They stopped caring to understand, and left.

^^^ Pretty accurate, Smaccoms.
Tnx.
 

Smaccoms

Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Posts
2,778
Media
7
Likes
1,466
Points
583
Age
34
Location
Massachusetts (United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Very interesting, NoH8.
This confirms what analysts always thought. Some of the most homophobic patients would, if therapy went deep enough, finally be talking about their homosexual urges and all the angst and self-judgment that resulted.

Of course, not all homophobes are the same. Some seem to have visceral fear of being present with gay people, as though they fear their inner nature will inadvertently reveal itself.
But some have merely been programmed to condemn homosexuality, or have rather cerebral reasons for rejecting it. (Many of these would be religious people.)
Some researchers propose calling such people homonegative rather than homophobic.
Of course, there is a lot of overlap in applying these terms.

This is veryinteresting. There has been a clear difference between these two phenomena to me before, but to apply separate terms to it is very clever. I very much approve. I'm going to start applying that actually. It makes it very much more clear what exactly is going on here.


^^^ Pretty accurate, Smaccoms.
Tnx.

Sure, I'm only trying to help!
 

NoH8

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
644
Media
1
Likes
225
Points
438
Location
Byron Bay (New South Wales, Australia)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Edit: Also, part of the goal of homophobia (and oppression really) is to isolate and ostracize members of a minority. It causes such hurt, that strong and hurtful responses become second nature, even when they are not necessary. It pushes us to further isolate and ostracize ourselves. Whenever you feel such a strong response in yourself, just tell yourself that if you succomb, then oppression has won. We should always try to focus on connecting with others in a positive way, even when it becomes difficult to. In many cases, we can't. In others we can. But positive connections help our cause (as homosexuals). Otherwise, we need to walk away and work though our conflicted feelings before tackling the fucking hurtful situation.

^^ This is very insightful. You are almost describing a "ghetto" of the emotions. I recognise this behaviour in people of many groups who have experienced oppression, even after the oppression has lifted or the source of their original pain is gone. However this is not the topic of the thread. It might make a good topic for a new thread. [Could also be related to scapegoating of one "out group" by another].

Your point about written communication versus the fuller context of personal communication is very important too. Remember when people first started using email and forgot to indicate sarcasm or joking or used slang which sounded offensive out of context? People soon learned [especially in business] that without the context and tone the meaning can be misinterpreted, "lost in translation", so most people with a little experience writing email stopped doing this and used modifying phrases, emoticons and SMS acronyms to supply the missing context or tone.

I'm sorry the thread got derailed too. I tried to ignore the potholes along the road, but I will say this in relation to that and the above paragraph. In a written forum to pre-judge a person purely based on their "poor" choice of words is no better than pre-judging a person based on their looks in real life. So condemning a person on this forum for using the words "gay face" without appreciating his intention or context is as bad as condemning ("hating") a person in real life because they HAVE a "gay face". The result is the same.

Please excuse that detour.

Not good with multi-message quoting so I'll get back on topic in the next post.
 

B_Nicodemous

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Posts
4,366
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
73
Sexuality
No Response
Want a good look at homophobes who are not all "fugly"? Go google some of the members of Fox News. Yes some are damn ugly, but there are a few who are very good looking. Yet work for one of THE post homophobic news outlets extant, barring religious networks.

As for the rest. SC, Conan, and NoH8, you have all said it all already.

If the OP wishes to have a civil convo with me, he will find that it is quite possible to do so.
 

NoH8

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
644
Media
1
Likes
225
Points
438
Location
Byron Bay (New South Wales, Australia)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Very interesting, NoH8.
This confirms what analysts always thought. Some of the most homophobic patients would, if therapy went deep enough, finally be talking about their homosexual urges and all the angst and self-judgment that resulted.

Of course, not all homophobes are the same. Some seem to have visceral fear of being present with gay people, as though they fear their inner nature will inadvertently reveal itself.
But some have merely been programmed to condemn homosexuality, or have rather cerebral reasons for rejecting it. (Many of these would be religious people.)
Some researchers propose calling such people homonegative rather than homophobic.
Of course, there is a lot of overlap in applying these terms.

Yes, absolutely. I read this somewhere in relation to the study, that the researchers said that the two responses are different and that the sample population had only a very small number of, lets say, fundamentalists who had negative attitudes to homosexuality but who did not show any homosexual attraction.

I agree that this group does not disprove the link between homosexual attraction and homophobia, because it's not measuring the same phenomenon, it's cultural rather than psychological. It is disapproval or condemnation rather than fear or revulsion. I agree with you, that there could be plenty of overlap between the two groups. e.g. a Catholic priest who condemns homosexuality because of his cultural and religious beliefs and who fears and abhors it in the boys he comes into contact with at their schools and churches, yet who "in a moment of weakness" blah blah blah...

This is very interesting. There has been a clear difference between these two phenomena to me before, but to apply separate terms to it is very clever. I very much approve. I'm going to start applying that actually. It makes it very much more clear what exactly is going on here.
I think Smaccoms said this.

I have always felt uncomfortable using "homophobia" as a blanket term for this sort of oppression or discrimination. I think the idea of homo-negative covers the other side of it. It would be nice to invent a catchier term for it though, but the meaning is clear. It's cerebral and cultural, not psychological.
 

NoH8

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
644
Media
1
Likes
225
Points
438
Location
Byron Bay (New South Wales, Australia)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Want a good look at homophobes who are not all "fugly"? Go google some of the members of Fox News. Yes some are damn ugly, but there are a few who are very good looking. Yet work for one of THE post homophobic news outlets extant, barring religious networks.
Great example of cultural oppression in the form of ideological and political belief systems that also coalesce around ultra-conservative social agendas. These may crossover with religious beliefs but not necessarily. So I think this falls into the category of homo-negative quite nicely. Thanks Nico!

You also found an excellent example of some who may be good-looking too.

Now here's another idea to test:

TYPE "A"
Anti-homosexual + Unattractive = Homophobic based on fear and shame

TYPE "B"
Anti-homosexual + Attractive = Homo-negative based on belief and culture

TYPE "C"
A blend of the above, including closet cases, self-hating gays or "ex-gays"

If I can paraphrase what might be the subject of the OP's question:

Q: Is all homophobia TYPE "A" (Homophobia) if you exclude obvious gays who may belong in TYPE "C"?

A: No. The evidence exists for TYPE "B" (Homo-negative)

QED, no?
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,306
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Yes, absolutely. I read this somewhere in relation to the study, that the researchers said that the two responses are different and that the sample population had only a very small number of, lets say, fundamentalists who had negative attitudes to homosexuality but who did not show any homosexual attraction.

I agree that this group does not disprove the link between homosexual attraction and homophobia, because it's not measuring the same phenomenon, it's cultural rather than psychological. It is disapproval or condemnation rather than fear or revulsion. I agree with you, that there could be plenty of overlap between the two groups. e.g. a Catholic priest who condemns homosexuality because of his cultural and religious beliefs and who fears and abhors it in the boys he comes into contact with at their schools and churches, yet who "in a moment of weakness" blah blah blah...

We are on the same page, NoH8.
(I just figured out your user name a few minutes ago. Niiiiice.)

Great example of cultural oppression in the form of ideological and political belief systems that also coalesce around ultra-conservative social agendas. These may crossover with religious beliefs but not necessarily. So I think this falls into the category of homo-negative quite nicely. Thanks Nico!

You also found an excellent example of some who may be good-looking too.

Now here's another idea to test:

TYPE "A"
Anti-homosexual + Unattractive = Homophobic based on fear and shame

TYPE "B"
Anti-homosexual + Attractive = Homo-negative based on belief and culture

TYPE "C"
A blend of the above, including closet cases, self-hating gays or "ex-gays"

If I can paraphrase what might be the subject of the OP's question:

Q: Is all homophobia TYPE "A" (Homophobia) if you exclude obvious gays who may belong in TYPE "C"?

A: No. The evidence exists for TYPE "B" (Homo-negative)

QED, no?

Well, sure.
But I think there will also be a lot of flagrantly homophobic people who are good looking.

That would be:
TYPE "D"
Anti-homosexual + Attractive = Homophobic based on fear and shame

Both Types B and D would refute the premise of the opening post. And surely, the existence of Type D is plausible, unless good looks somehow exempt one from being homophobic.
Which, to me, seems silly on its face.
Do you happen to agree?

(Nice chatting with you, NoH8.)
 

NoH8

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
644
Media
1
Likes
225
Points
438
Location
Byron Bay (New South Wales, Australia)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
So if I can answer my own question... Yes it is possible to find attractive people who are anti-homosexual, but the likelihood is that their prejudice is culturally based and not based on a fear of any same sex attraction they may have.

If I can add an anecdote tangentially related to this:

I once had a job as liaison person between the gay community and the state police and media. I was asked to speak to the police on two occasions.

The first talk was at the officers' training academy where I spoke to a room full of mid-career policemen (there were no women at the time) who were intelligent, questioning, thoughtful and smart. They had been on the force a number of years and were mostly doing desk jobs now. They were seeking to become officers to further their career prospects etc. We talked about community policing initiatives and the sensitivities in dealing with gay people, such as privacy, blackmail, extortion, bashings, public sex or soliciting, prostitution etc. In my state homosexual sex between men had been legal for some years. This talk went very smoothly and I hardly encountered any negativity.

A couple of weeks later I was asked to speak to two classes of new recruits. These men were much younger and had been on the job less than a year. They did not have the same educational background as the officers and they were told they had to attend my talk. It was a totally different experience. There was very vigorous argument about what "should be done about those people" and "how do you become homosexual?" I was often shut down by objections and the biggest impression I had was their strong belief in blatant prejudices, usually beginning with the words... "Aren't all gays...?" It was my job to field these questions and answer rationally to try to dismantle some of their misinformation and prejudice. On behalf of the gay community I had another job which was to try to encourage the police to help stop a series of gay bashings and murders that had scandalised the state and left gays living in fear. In their minds the role of the police was to protect the community from sexual predators including gays out cruising the parks. [The Al Pacino movie "Cruising" was recently released]. In our city the most attractive young policemen were used to entrap gays in parks and in public toilets. This continued for years after gay sex was legalised. All in the name of community protection.

After the talk when we were all leaving the class room one tall handsome officer walked beside me and said "I think you've got a lot of guts coming here". I asked him why he thought so. He said "You heard a lot of stuff from us that must have been pretty difficult but you took it really well. I know plenty on the force won't be changing their minds but some of us younger ones might". I said thank you and wished him goodbye with a smile.

So this is my direct personal experience with the people who enforce our laws. It was very hard to sit there looking into some very handsome young faces and listen to so much crap coming out of their mouths. But eventually I think some of them came away with some new information and respect. I came away thinking it's no wonder they continue to carry on seducing gays in toilet sting operations - they're so good at it cause either they're so good looking or they like doing it so much.

Later I met with the director of the the police training program and he asked me how I liked meeting the men. I said it was challenging and exciting. He said "I bet you noticed a difference between the officers class and the recruits!" I agreed and wondered why he knew that. He said they're all pretty raw when they come in but after a few years on the force they wise up.

So all of this is really about TYPE "B", anti-homosexual, attractive people who aren't self-hating homophobes but who have been raised in a culture that is strongly negative to homosexuality. I must say my experience was a good one and I hope I made a small difference. As confirmed by the older officers, change is possible with enough information, life experience and education.

Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to inform the topic with a real life situation. (BTW my school chaplain was one person who was caught in a park by police entrapment. I thought this was very funny because he was a closet case who told me never to have sex! He was moved to another parish soon after.)
 

Pecker Check

Admired Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Posts
789
Media
13
Likes
940
Points
673
Location
Pennsylvania (United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
There is a danger in stating the "rules" for one’s thread in absolutes. (And if “obviously” isn’t an absolute category, it’s darned close.) Where on the scale from rugged he-man to whimpering sissy does a fairy become “obviously” identifiable? Chances are that’s like “beauty,” in the eye of the beholder. Chances are, two proud homophobes might draw different “obvious” conclusions about whether some border-line cowboy/princess is actually a faggot (their term). I’m sad to know a 70 percent gay guy thinks our legitimacy for dismissal and ridicule is all that “obvious.”
 

NoH8

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
644
Media
1
Likes
225
Points
438
Location
Byron Bay (New South Wales, Australia)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
We are on the same page, NoH8.
(I just figured out your user name a few minutes ago. Niiiiice.)

Thank you! there's a campaign in California with the same name. I'm going to steal their images for my new avatar.

Well, sure.
But I think there will also be a lot of flagrantly homophobic people who are good looking.

That would be:
TYPE "D"
Anti-homosexual + Attractive = Homophobic based on fear and shame

Both Types B and D would refute the premise of the opening post. And surely, the existence of Type D is plausible, unless good looks somehow exempt one from being homophobic.
Which, to me, seems silly on its face.
Do you happen to agree?

(Nice chatting with you, NoH8.)
You're very welcome.

On further thought, this TYPE "D" was the group I left out. My handsome police friends who show their cocks in public toilets fit into TYPE "B" but the good looking young teenagers and young men who bash gays in the parks for sport are your TYPE "D".

They aren't driven by ideology or religion, though they might use this as a defence, they are driven by fear and revulsion, especially revulsion at being sexually attractive/attracted to other men, while possibly having extra-sensitive gaydar and awareness of their sexual power.

Would that fit the TYPE "D" scenario?
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,306
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
So if I can answer my own question... Yes it is possible to find attractive people who are anti-homosexual, but the likelihood is that their prejudice is culturally based and not based on a fear of any same sex attraction they may have.

Your story was very interesting, NoH8. Thank you for offering it.

As for the opinion I've quoted just above, I still find it hard to agree with.
Homophobia, we seem to agree, helps a man with repressed homosexual urges deal with homosexuality as a subject and as something he believes he senses in himself and other men. It defends him against his perception of his own urges and against others' perceptions of his sexual nature.
All that is needed is that a man be repressing his homosexual urges.
Surely attractive men can be doing that just as much as unattractive men.
And so: They are as much subject to homophobic feelings.
This is my instinctive take. I'm not wedded to it.

I can imagine how homophobia might be a less severe problem among attractive men.
Such people are, I'm assuming, approached more often by men or women who have a sexual interest.
They probably therefore have more practice in sorting out those that interest them from those that don't. If true, they would tend to have less anxiety in dealing with unwanted attention. They would also wield more 'power,' in the smaccomian sense*, which would also tend to reduce their feeling of vulnerability.
So homophobia could serve as a psychic defence at a lower level of charge.
(I'm just offering these as semi-plausible notions that have popped into mind. Not sure what I'll think of them tomorrow morning.)

(BTW my school chaplain was one person who was caught in a park by police entrapment. I thought this was very funny because he was a closet case who told me never to have sex! He was moved to another parish soon after.)

Well, there you go.
Can't resist one question, for the sake of research: Was he good looking?:tongue:

* Smaccomian sense: Informed by too much reading of Foucault, a term inspired by the writing of the precocious and inveterate young American sexologist Smaccoms, currently doing research in New England.
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,306
Media
0
Likes
2,087
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
On further thought, this TYPE "D" was the group I left out. My handsome police friends who show their cocks in public toilets fit into TYPE "B" but the good looking young teenagers and young men who bash gays in the parks for sport are your TYPE "D".

They aren't driven by ideology or religion, though they might use this as a defence, they are driven by fear and revulsion, especially revulsion at being sexually attractive/attracted to other men, while possibly having extra-sensitive gaydar and awareness of their sexual power.

Would that fit the TYPE "D" scenario?

Sorry. I was writing while you posted this.
Okay. So again we're on the same page.
Funny that you too brought up the issue of sexual power.
 

NoH8

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Posts
644
Media
1
Likes
225
Points
438
Location
Byron Bay (New South Wales, Australia)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
There is a danger in stating the "rules" for one’s thread in absolutes. (And if “obviously” isn’t an absolute category, it’s darned close.) Where on the scale from rugged he-man to whimpering sissy does a fairy become “obviously” identifiable? Chances are that’s like “beauty,” in the eye of the beholder. Chances are, two proud homophobes might draw different “obvious” conclusions about whether some border-line cowboy/princess is actually a faggot (their term). I’m sad to know a 70 percent gay guy thinks our legitimacy for dismissal and ridicule is all that “obvious.”

Beauty is culturally defined. Compare American and Japanese notions of beauty in the 18th century before the two cultures had much contact with each other.

But individuals will find another person more or less beautiful based on their own personal criteria. Beauty is NOT a stereotype. It's a cultural definition with rules to be applied, like a formula, with different data in you get different data out.

With a stereotype you put different data in, you get the same data out. It's NOT in the eye of the beholder because it's more brittle than beauty, it will break where beauty bends.

[In facile terms, after enough episodes of "Ellen" the old stereotype of "Lesbian" breaks - it doesn't work anymore]

I don't think the OP means that many or most gays are "obviously" gay. So I wouldn't assume that he is disseminating prejudice. He's taken a known stereotype, saying that it's recognisable, or obvious, in some cases. Every stereotype that survives has some features based in fact. This is how prejudice works. People take some of these features and then apply them to a whole population. e.g. all Jews have big hooked noses and are good with money. (Notice how the features used are pretty superficial - noses - and generic - good with money?) The stereotype HAS to be superficial and or generic in order for it to survive for very long. It doesn't have to be universally true to be recognisable as a stereotype.

Instead the OP is asking us just to select those people who DO match the stereotype. Two examples from different generations: Liberace who always denied being gay, and Elton John who is proudly out. Both are quite different people but I would suggest they would fit into the general "obvious" gay stereotype.

Because stereotypes are so broad and inaccurate the fact that it might fit Paul Lind and Tony Perkins - yet the sexuality of both men might be more accurately described as somewhere on the range of bisexual or even heterosexual - doesn't mean that the stereotype is dead or unrecognisable. It's inevitably faulty but it's not broken - yet. [Both heterosexual culture and "Camp" culture contribute to keeping it on life support still].

So let's agree that the "obvious" stereotype does exist in the popular imagination. If we use it to find a person that matches, it's like saying "obvious" gays are obvious. Not like saying all gays are obvious or even many gays are obvious. Unlike sexuality (and beauty) the stereotype doesn't exist on a sliding scale, it's simple black and white [yes this applies to racial stereotyping too], you're a "fag" or you're a good ole' boy, you're a "nigger" or you're the plantation owner's wife. In the world of stereotypes there are no shades of grey. (But we know in real life that this is not true). That's why sooner or later we discard stereotypes that are so broken that they NEVER work. That's when they become jokes. "Obvious" gay stereotyping still hasn't become a joke, just ask anyone who's been bullied at school lately.

I believe this idea, ["obvious"] was really a side issue for the OP. I think he was just asking us to separate out closet cases and self-hating gays and ex-gays from the sample so that we were not complicating the task of looking at homophobes. I don't think he was saying that these gays are not homophobes but they are coming from a different place. He possibly chose the wrong tool for the job when he pick up the "obvious" stereotype sledgehammer when perhaps what he needed was a scalpel.