“Queer” means peculiar, worthless, questionable, suspicious and mildly insane. I’ve never found it acceptable and it seems presumptuous of anyone to categorize all gay people as “queer” or “LGBTQ”.
Homonormativity /Heteronormativity vs Queer
- Thread starter Smallteaplant
- Start date
Bumps, because I feel that it needs to be talked about.
I going to be honest if you look at the history of homosexual rights or sexual politics in general, male homosexuality was only legalized/tolerated under certain conditions. One condition was that male bisexuality be erased or severely punished. This goes back to the concept of invert or pervert. The invert was said to be a sympathetic figure because they suffered from congenital homosexuality or fixed homosexuality. This was in contrast to the pervert, who was corrupted or so animalistic that it didn't matter who they slept with. Most European cultures justified colonization because so-call brown couldn't govern their passions.
Heck, the reason why Weimar Germany was going to repeal Paragraph 175 under the condition that male prostitution stayed banned. Likewise, the Wolfenden report also made that same suggestion. "Wolfenden didn’t dispute the ‘immorality’ of homosex but argued that the Law should not criminalise ‘congenital inverts’ – homosexuals who couldn’t help their homosexuality – so long as they conducted themselves with domesticated discretion. Instead the Law should focus its attentions more usefully on the ‘real perverts’ – the ‘otherwise normal men’ who took part in the semi-public homo demi-monde for cheap thrills, and no-apron-strings sex." So congenital male homosexuality was decimalized. Not male bisexuality.
Sexual behavior was one of the ways that Anglo-German Europeans used to justify colonization, right? I'm sure you as a black American know there are sexual taboos and that those sexual taboos are used to dehumanized people. Bragging about having all types of sex is not the win you think it is. People have little regard for people from Latin America because they looked down the flamboyance and the supposed male bisexuality.
One of the reasons why I made this thread was due the fact that some self proclaimed gay men sleeping FTM or females could jeopardize gay rights. Like I said I don't care about who gay men are having sex with. However, I don't want the identity or status of gay or male homosexuality to fall into disrepute. Despite what queer and trans activists may think, the reason why homosexual rights were won in the first place was because of the "born this way" argument and assimilation/homonormativity.
Am I the only one that is cognizant of these facts. Or has porn and sex rotten your brain.
Straights Go Gay – marksimpson.com
I going to be honest if you look at the history of homosexual rights or sexual politics in general, male homosexuality was only legalized/tolerated under certain conditions. One condition was that male bisexuality be erased or severely punished. This goes back to the concept of invert or pervert. The invert was said to be a sympathetic figure because they suffered from congenital homosexuality or fixed homosexuality. This was in contrast to the pervert, who was corrupted or so animalistic that it didn't matter who they slept with. Most European cultures justified colonization because so-call brown couldn't govern their passions.
Heck, the reason why Weimar Germany was going to repeal Paragraph 175 under the condition that male prostitution stayed banned. Likewise, the Wolfenden report also made that same suggestion. "Wolfenden didn’t dispute the ‘immorality’ of homosex but argued that the Law should not criminalise ‘congenital inverts’ – homosexuals who couldn’t help their homosexuality – so long as they conducted themselves with domesticated discretion. Instead the Law should focus its attentions more usefully on the ‘real perverts’ – the ‘otherwise normal men’ who took part in the semi-public homo demi-monde for cheap thrills, and no-apron-strings sex." So congenital male homosexuality was decimalized. Not male bisexuality.
Sexual behavior was one of the ways that Anglo-German Europeans used to justify colonization, right? I'm sure you as a black American know there are sexual taboos and that those sexual taboos are used to dehumanized people. Bragging about having all types of sex is not the win you think it is. People have little regard for people from Latin America because they looked down the flamboyance and the supposed male bisexuality.
One of the reasons why I made this thread was due the fact that some self proclaimed gay men sleeping FTM or females could jeopardize gay rights. Like I said I don't care about who gay men are having sex with. However, I don't want the identity or status of gay or male homosexuality to fall into disrepute. Despite what queer and trans activists may think, the reason why homosexual rights were won in the first place was because of the "born this way" argument and assimilation/homonormativity.
Am I the only one that is cognizant of these facts. Or has porn and sex rotten your brain.
Straights Go Gay – marksimpson.com
In some Southeastern Asian countries, it is considered socially acceptable for a man to marry a transwoman, but not for a man to marry a man. The Filipinos have a word for it that's escaping me at the moment, for the transwoman or crossdressing man that's respected in the culture. But for two men who identify as men to be with each other is very shameful in the same culture.
So I use that example to support what you're saying. Men who love men is a historically feared thing, deeply feared, perhaps moreso than any other variant of "gay" including lesbians and trans people (depending on the cultural environment). And while I certainly don't care about the variations like a man with a trans person or two transpersons together or anything like that -- you do you, as they say -- I do think we have to preserve the memory of the particular collective fear and social disgracing of men-who-love-men. The trivialization of that dynamic through the touting of other variations is indeed worth the concern and should not be laughed off.
I do apply this issue to bisexual men as well, they are just as vulnerable to the same collective fear as a gay-identifying man. However, they do have be man-identifying or "cisgendered" (to use the trans cult-invented term that I'm not particularly fond of) for this to apply. Not to sound exclusive, but it is exclusive. It is truly the original fear, the fear of men-loving-men, when it comes to the source of the sexual bigotries that have sprung from it.
So I use that example to support what you're saying. Men who love men is a historically feared thing, deeply feared, perhaps moreso than any other variant of "gay" including lesbians and trans people (depending on the cultural environment). And while I certainly don't care about the variations like a man with a trans person or two transpersons together or anything like that -- you do you, as they say -- I do think we have to preserve the memory of the particular collective fear and social disgracing of men-who-love-men. The trivialization of that dynamic through the touting of other variations is indeed worth the concern and should not be laughed off.
I do apply this issue to bisexual men as well, they are just as vulnerable to the same collective fear as a gay-identifying man. However, they do have be man-identifying or "cisgendered" (to use the trans cult-invented term that I'm not particularly fond of) for this to apply. Not to sound exclusive, but it is exclusive. It is truly the original fear, the fear of men-loving-men, when it comes to the source of the sexual bigotries that have sprung from it.
Apparently, to a lot of the gay guys here in the US, not wanting to be a one-man sperm bank for strangers makes you "Heteronormative".
Similar threads
