Jump to content

This Man's Questions


Guest
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1168 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

 


Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

 

I would agree that those portions of SL that I've encountered are, for the most part, remarkably liberal in comparison with RL.  That's a function of ths platform.  But I've certainly also seen homophobia at work here, in many forms.  Ever heard the phrase "fur **bleep**"?  It's a pretty common expression in SL -- in fact, you'll see it in use amongst the posters on Alphaville Herald right now, if you'd care to look.

Carole replies:

But Scylla, in all-inclusive SL - trans-gender/species/race/sexual origin plus however you want to indicate beings which exist in no sphere except in human imagination, such as ghosts, fairies, aliens, vampires, werewolves, etc, etc, etc - there are no battles to fight as the owners/governors allow any form of expression and award everybody equal rights. Two homosexual midget hippos can marry, have prim babies, adopt human babies, speak up in the forums, speak out at meetings, rent land, buy land, work or bum about like everyone else. If you're talking about individual manifestations of intolerance...well, if expression is free for everyone, it's free for everyone, including bigots who can stick a big "gays and furries keep out!" sign outside their sim gates and that has to be respected too. I fail to see how anything more can be done. Already you have the option of reporting single acts of intolerence, however, short of banning certain forms of self-expression, which would rapidly snowball into censorship and would herald the end of SL as it's always been, I think we each have to accept that where speech is truly free, you're going to come across, once in a while, stuff you'd prefer not to hear. And like I said - when it slips into an act of disrespect, you can always report it, otherwise you have the option of going elsewhere. That's a far cry from needing to mobilise an entire community who, most of SL, has at one point or another, belonged to, however fleetingly.

I don't read the Alphaville Herald. You'll have to get me up to speed - is that something inside SL or another of these external blogs? Because if it's an external, private one, then it's as relevant as RighteousJoe76 who just happens to be an avie writing homophobic trash on his private blog or twittery thingy. The main point is that LL doesn't condone/allow intolerance.

And I'm still guessing as to what the bleep was covering up....

 

Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

 

As for your contention that gender-bending in SL makes one a member of the LGBT community, I'm afraid that I strongly disagree.  So, I suspect would the majority of those who gender bend, as well as those whom I know belong to the LGBT community in SL.  Wearing a dress -- or a female avatar -- does not make one "transgendered" or even truly transvestite, and it certainly doesn't make one gay.  Gender-bending is, for the most part, playing and experimenting with identity, and it can derive from a great many impulses.  TG, on the other hand, speaks to a profound feeling of belonging to a gender with which one's sexual biology does not match:  it's a deep-seated conviction about one's sexual identity, not a matter of taking a female avi for a quick stroll through an SL club.

Carole responds:

Oh no. You misunderstood. I never meant that being an SL gender-bender makes you a real-life LGBT member. That was my point actually. Being a member of the LGBT community IN SL is quite a different matter altogether and they (we) certainly don't have to face any of the issues a real-life transexual has to face. Let's not trivialise hugely significant real-life issues by setting them on the same table as SL "equivalents". That's not to say among SL gender-benders there aren't real-life transexuals - I don't doubt there are loads. But there are also many who are just dabbling (I've done it - still do, from time to time). I'd hate to be the one who decided who qualified as a "real" gender-bender and a "wannabe" one...and I'd hate to see that happen. It would be another ghastly attempt at forcing a square peg (SL) into a round (RL) hole.

 

Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

To term everyone who experiments with gender identiy in Second Life "LGBT" is to profoundly misunderstand what constitutes being gay, lesbian, bi, or transgendered.

 

Carole replies:

I didn't. Trivalising real-life issues by awarding their SL equivalent the same value is exactly what I'm against. And creating special places (ghettos) for them (rather than allowing communities to spontaneously form their own private spaces in-world) is so very patronising in my view.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

 

Panic . . . fear . . . annoyance . . . post-prandial indigestion . . . whatever.  Storm has clearly indicated that he sees the creation of an LGBT forum as some kind of threat to heterosexuals.

I've
never
disclaimed having an agenda.  I got into the forums over two years ago because I had a clear agenda, and I'd say for the most part I wear it on my sleeve.  What I think you'll find if you look (although I can't imagine that you'd bother) is that my response to this accusation has always been "Of course I have an agenda.  So do you.  We all have agendas."  The dispassionate pursuit of objective truth is something that is played out in scientific journals (if there), and not in a forum like this.

The issue is the exact nature of Storm's agenda.  I contend that it is a reactionary one, that would wish to deny a disadvantaged community a tool that might (or might not -- this is under debate) have some utility, because he can't have one too.

As for the broad opposition to a separate LGBT forum from within that community, I'll agree:  it's certainly there.  But that opposition is clearly not founded on the same assumptions as Storm's.  I doubt that too many oppose it because they are afraid that it is going to stifle heterosexual males.  And it's Storm's assumptions that I'd like him to lay bare.

 

Well, I kind of remember defending your right to have an agenda and expressing yourself accordingly - that's why what you said to Storm - which seemed very much a criticism for having an agenda at all - came as a bit of a surprise. Having said that - since I appear to have understood that LL wish no extra-SL issues to be discussed in the forums, real-life social issues, however noble, no longer have a place here. And in fairness to Storm, his "agenda" appears to be wholly SL-forum-related, whilst you seem to be trying to fit real-life issues into the picture.

If for some strange reason, LL set up a special LGBT forum and allowed that community to discuss real-life questions, at that point I'd assume I'd hear deafening cries dennouncing unfair favouritism rise in among everybody else who's not part of that group...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Ian Undercroft wrote:

Whatever else, your "vivid" and extended description of the sort of place where Venus might live gives to me the impression of envy and jealousy on your part and of someone posting with a serious chip on their shoulder. You will no doubt tell me that is not so, but, in the spirit of bluntness, that is the impression (perhaps mistakenly) I was left with.

 

Envy and jealousy? Not at all. More along the lines of "see that attitude too often". I'm quite content with where I live and find the area I described rather unpleasant to visit .. and certainly would not live there. The common description assigned to residents of that area (the one I had in mind while writing that description) is "their ____ don't stink"

I will plead guilty to a certain degree to the "chip on the shoulder" charge. I make no bones about the fact that, after having seen, associated and dealt with people from that part of town, they are just as much a problem and a source of bigotry as any other "closed minded community". So yes, I have a chip on my shoulder .. as I object to anyone claiming a higher moral imperative or rightness .. while thumbing their nose at anyone that doesn't meet their "qualifications."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

Ian Undercroft wrote:

Whatever else, your "vivid" and extended description of the sort of place where Venus might live gives to me the impression of envy and jealousy on your part and of someone posting with a serious chip on their shoulder. You will no doubt tell me that is not so, but, in the spirit of bluntness, that is the impression (perhaps mistakenly) I was left with.

 

Envy and jealousy? Not at all. More along the lines of
"see that attitude too often".
I'm quite content with where I live and find the area I described rather unpleasant to visit .. and certainly would not live there. The common description
assigned to residents of that area
(the one I had in mind while writing that description) is "their ____ don't stink"

I will plead guilty to a certain degree to the "chip on the shoulder" charge. I make no bones about the fact that, after having seen, associated and dealt
with people from that part of town
, they are just as much a problem and a source of bigotry as any other "closed minded community". So yes, I have a chip on my shoulder .. as
I object to anyone claiming a higher moral imperative or rightness
..
while thumbing their nose at anyone that doesn't meet their "qualifications."

If you read these things in my first post to you, may I suggest that you try rising from the other side of the bed next time.  I claim no higher moral imperative or rightness; I claim my opinion as does everyone else here.  What I read in your reply here is prejudice against  'people from that part of town'....whatever part that may be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Venus Petrov wrote:

If you read these things in my first post to you, may I suggest that you try rising from the other side of the bed next time.  I claim no higher moral imperative or rightness; I claim my opinion as does everyone else here.  What I read in your reply here is prejudice against  'people from that part of town'....whatever part that may be. 

 

Not in your "first post" to me. I don't make judgements about people based on one post Venus. I have this delightful skill that works fairly well .. called "memory". I use it when reading all the posts that I can. That's how I build an internal model of a person, how they think, how they react, and what they believe.

I am guilty of "generalizing" about the residents of "that part of town", but it's not an incorrect generalization as long as I use it as such. (Meaning absent proof, it's a handy starting point .. but not the absolute determinant.)

However, with that said, I did not use your post to say "Ah HAH!! That right there is proof!" What I did do was recognize in your post the same general opinions as I've come to expect from you .. after reading many of your posts. That is nothing new. I'm quite well aware that many people have an image of me, and an expectation of what I'll say based on my history and the "body of work" I've posted here and elsewhere.

But if for some reason you feel you are immune from being "understood", or you think no one really knows you .. I will disagree. You have posted quite a lot, and given many examples of how you think ... enough so that anyone with any reasonable attention to detail can identify your writing with a high degree of certainty.

So you see, I didn't pigeonhole you based on where I think you live, or leap to some wrong-headed conclusion because of one post ... I responded to the person I've come to know fairly well .. and responded to a post that exactly matched the thinking I've come to expect.

Just as you are .. right now .. thinking of your own response based on the "me" you've come to know. *smiles*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question that comes to my mind reading the responses so far is where does diversity fit into the equation?  While we all share similarities, even so called identical twins are not carbon copies of each other.

It is not possible to ignore the differences between people.  Big, tall, skinny, fat, blue eyes, brown eyes, light skinned, dark skinned, gay, straight, etc, etc, the differences are there.  Yet somehow I get the feeling that political correctness is trying to dictate to me that I put on blinders and ignore these differences.

So what is it that I am supposed to do?  Of course to demean anyone for being different to me is wrong.  But am I supposed to act like these differences don't exist.  Is celebrating the differences just as prejudicial as discriminating against someone because of their ethnicity?

Storm asks a question here, one that I think is valid regardless of whether he has an agenda or not in asking.  In any group you will find extremists.  The founder of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) now speaks out against the current leadership of MADD as having taken what she started too far! Has feminism been taken over by extremists or has it always been an extremist movement?

In my mind the bulk of feminism has gone too far.  When I hear statements from feminists such as, "All men are rapists," it makes me cringe.  Sadly most of the feminists I have met are not seeking equality but dominance over males.  I wish it were otherwise.  But that is my experience.  I can not claim to have read all the feminist manifestos but that is what I hear coming out of feminist mouths.

I posted earlier in this thread kind of jokingly, "Is their really much room left for a simple Vanilla guy here?"  There was also a serious side to my asking that question.

All said and done I really do try to treat people as individuals and with the same if not greater level of respect with which I want them to treat me.  If that was ALL that feminism was asking for I could and would fully support it.  But as I said, sadly that is not my experience or understanding of what I am hearing feminism being defined as by the feminists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

It is not possible to ignore the differences between people.  Big, tall, skinny, fat, blue eyes, brown eyes, light skinned, dark skinned, gay, straight, etc, etc, the differences are there.  Yet somehow I get the feeling that political correctness is trying to dictate to me that I put on blinders and ignore these differences.

So what is it that I am supposed to do?  Of course to demean anyone for being different to me is wrong.  But am I supposed to act like these differences don't exist.  Is celebrating the differences just as prejudicial as discriminating against someone because of their ethnicity?

I can't speak for anyone but me, but since I'm at least qualified as part of that 'diverse' community my opinion might be of some use. No, I do not expect you in any way to act like differences don't exist. Nor do I expect you or anyone else to encourage or applaud my choices. I don't have any right to expect that, nor does anyone else.


I posted earlier in this thread kind of jokingly, "Is their really much room left for a simple Vanilla guy here?"  There was also a serious side to my asking that question.

All said and done I really do try to treat people as individuals and with the same if not greater level of respect with which I want them to treat me

There is always room for a simple Vanilla guy. Even a slightly complex one, should that be the case. One of Slife's little pleasures for me is being on casual friendly terms with guys I know for a fact are never going to be even remotely interested in me sexually or romantically but can, as you suggest, treat people as individuals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Dillon Levenque wrote:

There is always room for a simple Vanilla guy. Even a slightly complex one, should that be the case.


Well, I do prefer French Vanilla.  And have even been known to pour a little bit of chocolate on it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Storm Clarence wrote:

 

I asked both how I can participate and how will my words be viewed, as a heterosexual male, in a LGBT forum.  Do I, as a heterosexual male, have any input in a forum of this nature?  If no, then why not?  Isn't it about relationships?

Me threatened - no, it is you, the feminist with an agenda, a heterosexual woman, one who appointed herself as speaker for LGBT community, who seems threatened by my OP. 

I would be threatened more by the racist attitude of Darrius, as described in his words, than that of mine that speak to my heterosexual being.  More than your assertion that I am threatened by the gay male - is the gay male threatened by me?  I don't think so, but I can not speak for the gay male.  Although it is the first time in my life - RL or SL, that I have been told I was homophobic - there are too many individuals that would disagree with you; including myself.

I do not know the orientation of many responders, however, I did not read in Canoro words anything that indicated either my being threatened or him feeling threatened - he answered the best way he knew how.   I appreciate his words.

You are not a member of the LGBT community but you are compelled to speak for them; to label anyone with dissenting opinions from 'your' agenda on what the LGBT community should look like, as homophobic.  /me laughs.  Like I said, be more circumspect in your activist activities. 

 

No one reading my posts here with any care could believe that I am attempting to speak on behalf of the LGBT community.  In fact, I insist, over and over again, that one of the possible justifications for an LGBT forum is precisely that they may have issues to discuss that neither you nor I could possibly comprehend.

 

Nor did I call you homophobic -- I suggested that the anti-gay marriage movement was mildly homophobic.  Were I to accuse you of homophobia, you'd know it:   I wouldn't do so by subtle implication.

I notice, however, that  you seem to have inadvertently neglected to answer the two questions I asked of you, raised by your OP:

How would the creation of an LGBT forum diminish you in any way?

How have I as a feminist, or any other feminist here, "stifled" your heterosexuality?

I really would like some detailed responses to these Storm, as these are vague shadowy accusations you are making, but leaving entirely unsupported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Perrie Juran wrote:

The question that comes to my mind reading the responses so far is where does diversity fit into the equation?  While we all share similarities, even so called identical twins are not carbon copies of each other.

It is not possible to ignore the differences between people.  Big, tall, skinny, fat, blue eyes, brown eyes, light skinned, dark skinned, gay, straight, etc, etc, the differences are there.  Yet somehow I get the feeling that political correctness is trying to dictate to me that I put on blinders and ignore these differences.

So what is it that I am supposed to do?  Of course to demean anyone for being different to me is wrong.  But am I supposed to act like these differences don't exist.  Is celebrating the differences just as prejudicial as discriminating against someone because of their ethnicity?

Storm asks a question here, one that I think is valid regardless of whether he has an agenda or not in asking.  In any group you will find extremists.  The founder of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) now speaks out against the current leadership of MADD as having taken what she started too far! Has feminism been taken over by extremists or has it always been an extremist movement?

In my mind the bulk of feminism has gone too far.  When I hear statements from feminists such as, "All men are rapists," it makes me cringe.  Sadly most of the feminists I have met are not seeking equality but dominance over males.  I wish it were otherwise.  But that is my experience.  I can not claim to have read all the feminist manifestos but that is what I hear coming out of feminist mouths.

I posted earlier in this thread kind of jokingly, "Is their really much room left for a simple Vanilla guy here?"  There was also a serious side to my asking that question.

All said and done I really do try to treat people as individuals and with the same if not greater level of respect with which I want them to treat me.  If that was ALL that feminism was asking for I could and would fully support it.  But as I said, sadly that is not my experience or understanding of what I am hearing feminism being defined as by the feminists.

 

I suspect, Perrie, that I know quite a few more feminists in RL and SL than you do, and I have yet to meet one who claimed that "all men were rapists."  No one I know would say such an absurd thing, yet alone actually believe it.  Perhaps you travel in very different feminist circles than I, but your contention seems to reflect the right wing media's distortion of one particular brand of feminism -- represented most notoriously by Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon -- rather than a reality.  Not only is this kind of characterization of feminism a reductive distortion of what those two women really said, it is also pretty badly out of date, reflecting most obviously the kinds of approaches taken by 2nd Wave Feminism in the 1980s.

Most feminists are very careful to distinguish between "patriarchy" -- a systemic form of sexism that impacts negatively upon women, but men also -- and males.

I should also note that there isn't a monolithic thing called "feminism."  There are, in fact, many many different feminisms, with an enormous diversity of approaches.  Simplistic dismissals of this mythical singular "feminism" don't begin to take into account the variety of different voices and approaches that are part of this movement, insofar as it can even be termed a movement..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 
Oh no. You misunderstood. I never meant that being an SL gender-bender makes you a real-life LGBT member. That was my point actually. Being a member of the LGBT community IN SL is quite a different matter altogether and they (we) certainly don't have to face any of the issues a real-life transexual has to face. Let's not trivialise hugely significant real-life issues by setting them on the same table as SL "equivalents". That's not to say among SL gender-benders there aren't real-life transexuals - I don't doubt there are loads. But there are also many who are just dabbling (I've done it - still do, from time to time). I'd hate to be the one who decided who qualified as a "real" gender-bender and a "wannabe" one...and I'd hate to see that happen. It would be another ghastly attempt at forcing a square peg (SL) into a round (RL) hole.
 

 

Carole, you are still missing my point.  There is an enormous difference between simply assuming a different gender identity in Second Life, and representing a transgendered or gay person in SL.  The motivations, intentions, and actual performances are very very different.

Someone who "is" LGBT in SL is bringing an entirely different mindset to the issue of gender identity than someone experimenting with a female (or male) avi.  "LGBT" isn't simply a shorthand way of describing someone who feels an affinity for, or even role plays as, a different gender:  it describes a very complicated and interrelated set of cultures, assumptions, and approaches, in SL as in RL.  Being LGBT in SL implies an enormous set of conceptions that wouldn't even begin to occur to most casual SL gender benders.

As for "who decides" . . . well, who said anyone gets to decide?  My view has always been that you are LGBT if you self-identify as such:  it is a personal decision, an assertion, actually, of one's self-identity.  That alone would disqualify the vast majority of SL gender-benders, I imagine, because I don't think most of them see themselves as LGBT.  But the point is that no one -- not even LL, when they first came up with this proposal -- has suggested that there be some sort of "qualification" for participation in such a forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Case no. 1 – Herbert joins SL and decides to focus his SL experience around his life-long fad for lesbian porn and becomes a gal, thereby ensuring an endless supply of erotic scenes to watch. Herbert is straight. His avie, Sherbert, isn't. She's a lesbian. Most of Sherbert's partners, however, are RL men. Herbert wants to believe them to be RL women and gets upset if you suggest otherwise.

Case no. 2 – Karl joins SL and decides to focus his SL experience around his life-long fad for lesbian porn and becomes a gal, thereby ensuring an endless supply of erotic scenes to watch. Karl is straight. His avie, Karla, isn't. Most of Karla's partners are RL men. Karl is well aware that they're probably RL males and, frankly, he couldn't care less. His experiences thus are consciously RL male homosexual although both parties make use of female avatars.

Case no. 3 – Mary joins SL and decides to make a male avie. Mary's straight in RL and thus, rather logically to her, her male avie, Mario, is gay and has interactions only with other male avies. To all intents and purposes, Mario's virtual life is 100% gay male even though he's actually operated by a RL straight woman.

 Case no. 4 – Marty is a biological male and secret cross-dresser in RL. Hasn't yet been able to fulfil his RL dream of actually becoming transgendered through surgery and plays SL in a form which represents his actual RL state – male genitals with female curves and boobs (though in RL he has to make do with a stuffed bra) - a shemale, according to the SL term. After much experimentation with other RL males in both standard male and other shemale avies, Marty has fallen for a fellow shemale operated by a RL woman. Therefore, although in SL the relationship is transgender on both sides, in actual fact, from a RL point of view it's entirely heterosexual.

Case no. 5 – Cindy is a RL transgendered male-to-female. She plays in SL as the woman she has always known she was. She has absolutely no desire to be part of any group or movement which labels her as transgender, as the whole traumatic, heart-breaking journey she's had to undertake in RL is now finally behind her and the fact that God or Nature had initially given her the wrong RL body is now something she would like, as far as is possible, to forget. She's happily partnered in RL and SL to the same person – a man who, since the first time he set on eyes on her, has always thought of her as the most beautiful woman he'd ever seen in his life. They don't consider their relationship anything other than very bog-standard heterosexual.

Case no. 6 – Joe is a straight male. A very straight male. He's been known to do a spot of “queer-bashing” from time to time in RL. He's been in SL from day one and has, unknown to him, clocked up the SL record for highest number of homosexual encounters of any single individual in SL. He is, however, unaware of this, and continues to insult and offend any shemale, or declared gay avatars whenever he gets the chance.

Case no. 7 – Lorna is a straight RL woman. Over time, one of her accounts has metamorphosed into a full-time transgendered male-to-female. Almost all interactions with that account are with RL males, some of whom are aware that the avie's operator is female, some of whom aren't. They all, however, have one thing in common – they actively seek out shemale avies in SL. Lorna's alt account is to all intents and purposes 100% TG.

Case no. 8 – Eva is a woman who has known she was lesbian since she was a little girl. In SL, however, she is a penguin and spends all her time building igloos for her little shop. She has no relationships in here, aside from platonic friendships, as she's been happily RL partnered to Zoe for the last 25 years, and has zero interest in belonging to any sort of community in SL except the Igloo-builders Guild Group which she set up herself.

Case no. 9 – William is straight in RL. And in SL too, although once in a while he satisfies that tiny quantity of bisexual curiosity he's always had but which has never been and which never will be sufficiently strong to prompt him into seeking RL equivalents.

Case no. 10 – Marcus believes himself to be straight. He's had a couple of encounters with other male avies in SL but it won't be until he mentions these experiences to his therapist two years from now that will he begin to contemplate the deeper significance. In 4 years time Marcus will realise he's always been gay but has spent his life suppressing his real feelings.

Case no. 11 – Marsha is a lesbian, active politically since the sixties, author of many articles for lesbian journals and active member of five groups and associations relating to lesbian issues. She's very active on SL too and, aside from cultivating a deep and long-lasting, but open, partnership with Belinda, spends a lot of her SL time organising initiatives for her SL group “Lesbians in SL Unite” through which she has created a social and political network of women like herself. It's through this group that Marsha and her partner meet most of the women they have casual relationships with. However, Marsha is actually a man in RL – a highly skilled and consistent role-player, but most definitely a very, very straight RL man whose version of his RL credentials is 100% fruit of his considerable imagination.

 

Which are “being” SL LGBT members and which are just “casually” gender-swapping? Are the only true ones those who are LGBT members in RL? What about those, despite “officially” being straight, knowingly interact with members of the same gender? Could they be considered honorary members? What about those who, despite being vocally straight and anti-gender-bending, ignore all the evidence which points to it being impossible to know with certainty the identity of casually met fellow-players and continue to run the huge risk of accidentally homosexual interactions? What if they're actually repressed homosexuals and simply aren't ready to admit it? Etc, etc, etc...

Might I suggest that the variables in each individual SL experience, motivations, performances and intentions are so numerous that it's quite pointless and meaningless to speak in terms which lump people into one of two categories? Might I also suggest that it's not for you or me to decide who is merely dabbling in gender-bending in the most casual of ways and who is doing it “properly”? You and I cannot possibly know what processes go through the minds of people we will never know when they decide to live their SL in the skin of another gender or explore their sexuality and therefore we're most certainly not in a position to decide whose reasons qualify them as “real” and who are just playing at it.

 I don't think I'm missing any point at all. I do feel, however, that the point you're seeing is a macro-focused one and that you're missing a broader, much, much more complex picture.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

 Nor did I call you homophobic -- I suggested that the anti-gay marriage movement was mildly homophobic.  Were I to accuse you of homophobia, you'd know it:   I wouldn't do so by subtle implication.

I notice, however, that  you seem to have inadvertently neglected to answer the two questions I asked of you, raised by your OP:

How would the creation of an LGBT forum diminish you in any way?

How have I as a feminist, or any other feminist here, "stifled" your heterosexuality?

I really would like some detailed responses to these Storm, as these are vague shadowy accusations you are making, but leaving entirely unsupported.

 

I accept and appreciate that you would not cast accusations and aspersions by subtle implication.  One poster, in a couple of responses, by subtle implication, to 'fit' his argument, accused many people of racism and attempted to 'paint' me in that light; I guess he just can't help himself.  As your post came on the heels of his post I may have read too much into your homophobic statement.

I don't feel the creation of a LGBT forum would "diminish" me in any way.  To say that it would "diminish" I would have to consider myself "above" the gay community.  I do not.  I am not beneath them, either.  I am a heterosexual male.  As a matter of fact I do not consider the gay community a *them* vis 'a vis the heterosexual community an *us*.   I actually though I drew parallels in my OP - that it was about the relationships we form, and the 'health' aspects of those relationships.

I don't think these forums should be used as a LL crisis center for either heterosexual or homosexual relationships.  I think relationships should be discussed - with all of its realities, drama, and humor; and not in segregated fora.  I think at some point we need to have people interject with intelligence, kindness, empathy, etc., so we can perhaps step back a little and laugh at ourselves.  We residents of SL are unique in many ways; we get an environment where we are able to express our world, our imagination.  Many want to talk/complain/whine/laugh/cry when all goes wrong with their world, their imagination (relationships.)  A *mature* open forum is the answer.  If the forums are segregated there will be many voices that are stifled; and to me, it will be the heterosexual male voice.  

I can't answer your second question as that is the same question I am asking in my OP - and of other heterosexual men. My pet thread was a pet thread - you questioned my underlying motives - this thread was a heterosexual male thread and again you question my motives.  This thread was not about homophobia, or homo bashing in any way - yet, you, the feminist, took the position that it was.  Does this help answer your question?  It does answer 'a little' for me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

 

I should also note that there isn't a monolithic thing called "feminism."  There are, in fact, many many different feminisms, with an enormous diversity of approaches.  Simplistic dismissals of this mythical singular "feminism" don't begin to take into account the variety of different voices and approaches that are part of this movement, insofar as it can even be termed a movement..


 

Personally I am very much what one might call an individualist.  As such actually I very much dislike labels when people try to stick things in a box.  Hence I was careful to point out that I know every group has it's extremists.  I have personally had the 'all men are rapists' line thrown in my my face.

One thing that I strongly believe and that I try to keep as my guiding tenet in all that I do is this from the Declaration of Independence,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I see the word 'men' in that phrase as the all inclusive noun and perhaps if he had been writing it in our day and time Thomas Jefferson might have chosen the word 'people' or 'individuals' instead.

I support to the best of my ability every individuals right to the pursuit of happiness.  To my way of thinking, this would be what a true feminist would be doing also.

Thomas also wrote:

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Presently I am involved in a legal action.  A new home was constructed next to the house I live in.  The construction of the new home has undermined the foundation of the house I am in.  While they had every right to build a home on that lot, they did not have the right to ignore in the design and construction of that home the impact it would have upon the neighboring homes. 

This is the care and measure that we must use in anything that we do.  Storm narrowed his question down to the impact of feminism on the heterosexual male.  I broaden it to what is the impact on society overall.  While I think some very important good things have resulted from the feminist movement, I also see some things that disturb me greatly.  I am wondering if the cure has not turned out to be worse than the disease it was trying to heal.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 


Perrie Juran wrote:

Sometimes it seems difficult and even frustrating at times to be a Vanilla Male.  I meet girls who at least initially I like and think I would like to get to know better but then I read their profiles and feel like there is no way I could ever satisfy them.  Yes, there really are girls out there who are into swinging from the chandeliers with bisexual furry skunks.  And in public no less!!!!!

Is their really much room left for a simple Vanilla guy here?

 

/me goes and does my daily perusal of Craig's List personals.

Well, I thought I was a very vanilla kinda gal, but it seems I've got a few cherry chunks mixed in there too :smileytongue:

But can you be vanilla in SL? Even vanilla seems to have hidden secrets - actually makes me view the quiet ones I travel with on the bus a whole lot differently too.

vanilla.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Dillon Levenque wrote:

There is always room for a simple Vanilla guy. Even a slightly complex one, should that be the case. One of Slife's little pleasures for me is being on casual friendly terms with guys I know for a fact are
never
going to be even remotely interested in me sexually or romantically but can, as you suggest, treat people as individuals. 


Can you take the experience of 'casual' friendly with heterosexual guys (assuming this is who you were referring when you stated "would never be interested in you sexually or romantically") to a more intimate level of friendship?  Do you ever discuss 'relationships' with these guys?   Are you able to talk about a 'date' you may have had; are you open to listening to them about a date they may have experienced?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Marigold Devin wrote:

Well, I thought I was a very vanilla kinda gal, but it seems I've got a few cherry chunks mixed in there too :smileytongue

But can you be vanilla in SL? Even vanilla seems to have hidden secrets - actually makes me view the quiet ones I travel with on the bus a whole lot differently too.

First Bondage Kit.jpg

 

Dare I get bold and adventurous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Marigold Devin wrote:

...

But can you be vanilla in SL? Even vanilla seems to have hidden secrets - actually makes me view the quiet ones I travel with on the bus a whole lot differently too.

 

Good point. Any kind of romantic activity in Second Life is certainly not what nature intended, to use that old chestnut. Which means that dating in SL is inherently kinky and deviant.

(The same applies to a romantic pen pal relationship of course. Or a picnic on a waterproof PVC blanket. It's all completely and utterly unnatural).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Storm Clarence wrote:

 Can you take the experience of 'casual' friendly with heterosexual guys (assuming this is who you were referring when you stated "would never be interested in you sexually or romantically") to a more intimate level of friendship?  Do you ever discuss 'relationships' with these guys?   Are you able to talk about a 'date' you may have had; are you open to listening to them about a date they may have experienced?  

 

Your assumption is correct; I was speaking of hetero males. I never have talked about relationships in any really meaningful way with any of the guys I know but I'd have no problem doing so if asked. I'm certainly open to listening, and have done. Of course, anyone who talks to me soon learns that they need to type really fast to get me to shut up and listen. I do go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

 

Marigold Devin wrote:

Well, I thought I was a very vanilla kinda gal, but it seems I've got a few cherry chunks mixed in there too :smileytongue

But can you be vanilla in SL? Even vanilla seems to have hidden secrets - actually makes me view the quiet ones I travel with on the bus a whole lot differently too.

First Bondage Kit.jpg

 

Dare I get bold and adventurous?

Only if you can fix the chandelier back to the ceiling again afterwards :smileywink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP:  Is the political correctness in today's world suppressing the heterosexual relationship?  Is political correctness and feminism attempting to stifle heterosexual men?  Is the display of a heterosexual relationship on the cusp of extinction? Does the heterosexual man need to 'hide' his sexuality - his identity when he is in the presence of non-heteros? 

 

I am pretty sure this started out with these questions...  This forum is for discussion on relationships and lifestyles.  I hope you do not feel stifled in expressing opinions on anything.  People are people, relationships are relationships.  We all want the same things from them: love, support, freedom, acceptance.  If someone feels strongly enough to ask a question or express an opinion, then they should be willing to listen to (not necessarily agree with) the responses they get.  If you feel like you have something to add, add it knowing that not everyone will take the advice.  If you are heterosexual, celebrate it.  If you are ANY of the other initialisms mentioned, celebrate it (there were too many and I don't even know what all of them were).  Unless I have missed a few posts, I don't think the heterosexual relationship is being stifled and you should not hide who you are.  I believe it would be rather hypocritical for any lifestyle to disregard the validity of another...

Just be you and enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Cinnamon Mistwood wrote:

OP: 
Is the political correctness in today's world suppressing the heterosexual relationship?  Is political correctness and feminism attempting to stifle heterosexual men?  Is the display of a heterosexual relationship on the cusp of extinction? Does the heterosexual man need to 'hide' his sexuality - his identity when he is in the presence of non-heteros? 

 

 If you are heterosexual, celebrate it.  If you are ANY of the other initialisms mentioned, celebrate it (there were too many and I don't even know what all of them were). 

 Just be you and enjoy it.

LOL, Cinnamon. I didn't know what a lot of those were either. I agree whole-heartedly with your point, though. We are who we are. We're lucky enough to have found a place that can let us be that. For some, it's a way to be as we are but with maybe a bit more freedom. For others, it's a way to let a part of ourselves exist in ways we cannot do elsewhere. We should all celebrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cinnamon & Dillon:  I agree with you both.  We also need to be free to ask questions that may make some uncomfortable, defensive, and reactive.  We all are like that sometimes.  I think that if we 'think' about why we react the ways we do in those moments, we can glean more learnings about ourselves.  And, that is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 years later...
On 4/19/2011 at 11:02 PM, Storm Clarence said:

Is the political correctness in today's world suppressing the heterosexual relationship?  Is political correctness and feminism attempting to stifle heterosexual men?  Is the display of a heterosexual relationship on the cusp of extinction? Does the heterosexual man need to 'hide' his sexuality - his identity when he is in the presence of non-heteros?  

I can't speak for everyone, but I like my alphas to be all alpha.  Why would you want to hang around anyone that wanted you to be different than what you are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1168 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...