Actually the dictionary definition of straight is just 'sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex'. The word you've described is 'homophobia'.
Straight guys can be gay too
- Thread starter Jake212
- Start date
So in your world, a man who does not engage in sexual activity with or fall in love with another man, is homophobic.
Riiiiiighhht...
Straight means being attracted to people of the opposite sex. You have made up a negative definition for your sexuality focused on other men. How is that not homophobic?
Put it another way. A gay man who defined his sexuality as NOT being sexually attracted to women would be heterophobic in my world.
I have a question for you. Is English your native language or first language? I find it difficult to understand what you are trying to say.
Or a lesbian who announced her sexuality as not engaging in sex or falling in love with men would be...what, averse to men, perhaps a man-hater? It's a matter of emphasis but you'd hope she'd focus positively on what she does like sexually rather than what she doesn't.
Don't be so ridiculous. I wasn't writing a definition to use in a dictionary. I was explaining the meaning in the context of a discussion where someone had said, "Straight guys can be gay." The point was to emphasise that straight guys are not gay... by definition. It really shouldn't be difficult for people to understand this. Clearly, though, it is; hence the need for some emphasis.
words have meanings. That is correct. It's just that you've given an incorrect meaning. By definition straight means 'sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex'. Homophobia by definition means 'aversion to homosexuals or homosexuality'. You have given straight the meaning of homophobia. It's not so hard to understand if you accept that words have meanings.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Posts
- 4,445
- Media
- 72
- Likes
- 8,288
- Points
- 393
- Location
- Ontario (Canada)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Homophobia is actually the hatred or fear of homosexuals not an aversion. What elvid said was not a definition of homophobia at all.
what he said above was not a definition of a homophobic person
According to Merriam Webster, homophobia is "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". What Elvid described was aversion to homosexuality - both homosexual acts and homosexual love. Straight means simply attracted sexually to the opposite sex.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Posts
- 4,445
- Media
- 72
- Likes
- 8,288
- Points
- 393
- Location
- Ontario (Canada)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
he never said it was an aversion to homosexuality he said
which is a sexual preference not homophobia. Straight people are attracted to the opposite sex if they were attracted to both then the definition would be synonymous with bisexuality and that is not the case.
just because a vegetarian doesn't eat meat or animal products doesn't mean they hate or fear animals.
I get it. Straight = no homo. It's striking how seeing the self as not the other, defining the self in opposition, is so important the straight male psyche.
Women don't do it. Nor do gay men. If you asked 100 gay men to say what gay means not one would come up with "does not engage in sexual activity or fall in love with members of the opposite sex". They'd say, 'I'm into men', 'I have sex with other men', 'I fall in love with men' or possibly 'I'm only attracted to men'. If they did define gay as "does not engage in sexual activity or fall in love with members of the opposite sex", it would be bizarre. You'd wonder a) why they were using pseudo-dictionary language and b) whether they had something against women to define their gayness primarily in terms of not wanting to have sex with them. Yes, you can say this is just their sexual preference, but when you express preference as its opposite, not what you are but what you are not, that raises a flag.
If you are exclusively straight or gay, then of course it follows that you don't have sex with the same/opposite sex, but that is the corollary rather than the meaning of the word. Straight still just means sexually attracted to the opposite sex.
It's interesting that you raise the analogy of vegetarian because again that is a concept defined in terms of what you don't do, what you are not. "A person who does not eat meat" (Merriam Webster).
Why is it so important for straight males to see themselves as not the other, defining the self in opposition? I don't know. Maybe some kind of heteronormative peer display, in reaction to homosexual threat, perhaps, hence it's such a feature of the Ask a Straight Man forum.
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Posts
- 10,447
- Media
- 57
- Likes
- 47,351
- Points
- 693
- Location
- New York (United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I hate to say it, but I know Bull when I read it. A word can be bastardized and stretched so far that it will loose its original meaning.
I would never be so bold as to claim to know the responses of 100 other persons, when no 2 people are alike. ( Straight or Gay )
How could 100 Gay people give the same answer, when there is such diversity within the Gay community ?
Gay guy A likes only Twinks
Gay guy B likes to only bottom
Gay guy C only likes to Top
Gay Guy D is versatile
Gay Guy E only likes daddies / Sons Etc.
Gay Guy, F does not top or bottom, does not like to get oral but loves male companionship
These people have a preferences, and if they turn down the advances of someone they find, not to their liking, does that make them Phobic ?
I would never be so bold as to claim to know the responses of 100 other persons, when no 2 people are alike. ( Straight or Gay )
How could 100 Gay people give the same answer, when there is such diversity within the Gay community ?
Gay guy A likes only Twinks
Gay guy B likes to only bottom
Gay guy C only likes to Top
Gay Guy D is versatile
Gay Guy E only likes daddies / Sons Etc.
Gay Guy, F does not top or bottom, does not like to get oral but loves male companionship
These people have a preferences, and if they turn down the advances of someone they find, not to their liking, does that make them Phobic ?
Crimsonlurker
Admired Member
No straight doesn't equate to no homo thats your disingenuous way of trying to paint straight males into a corner. Straight is as much straight as homosexual is homosexual. Any attempt to change the meaning one means you have to..logically change the meaning of the other. As well as bisexuality, asexuality and any other. Straight men aren't and haven't been the ones trying desperately to change the definition of what straight is and means. No, once more that has consistently been gay, bisexual and curious men. Now when i say that i mean specifically on this site.
One week or so is all it takes for a gay, bisexual and/or curious man to ask straight men a question that flies in the face of what straight actually means. And i don't need to make up imaginary totals for that. The proof is and will be this very section. No straight is the meaning of the word. Unless of course you also want to change the meaning of corollary, meaning preference, opposite, sex important, psyche, follows, don't, analogy and etc. If you were also commenting on those words and their meanings or corollary you're comments would have some validity to them. Instead you are just picking one single solitary word and deciding you no longer think the meaning of it fits. Do so without an ounce of evidence or a logical statement to back it up.
Not to mention your insistence on speaking not only for all gay men but women too. The interesting part though is you keep implying that straight men are defending themselves therefor something must be wrong. Without ever addressing who straight men are defending themselves and who they are from. Namely guys like you. In your assessment not only aren't you doing any harm but you also should not take responsibility for your actions.
Which i might add could connect back with the topic. Is this just yet another case of people not wanting to take personal responsibility for their actions? People wanting to be able to have their cake and eat it to without question? I think so as that would mean that having sex with other men would put them in either a gay, bisexual or curious category. Something you and they want no parts of. And would like to do just about anything and everything to stay away from. Even going so far as to ignore logic, empathy and in general how much damage could or would be done.
That damage being the questioning of all sexualities to the extent that it hurts those who only want the respect a human being deserves. As in if straight can equate to.......no homo then homosexuality can equate to discrimination against heterosexual people. And the invalidation of the lbgt community at large. Not to mention open the flood gates for those who would like their actual perversions to be respected and injected into mainstream ideology.
It's not that straight people want to see themselves as not the other. That's just yet another disingenuous attempt at imparting suggestion. No. Just like homosexual people just are homosexual. Heterosexual people just are heterosexual. No matter how many sneaky ass words you toss at it and people who know the difference it will never really stick. And generally speaking it will only backfire on you over and over and over again.
Unless of course you really do want to allow it. At that point you just made gay and bisexual lives that much more difficult because actual homophobic people will pick up on it and use it against you and them. An at that point there wouldn't be a damned thing you could say about it.
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Posts
- 10,447
- Media
- 57
- Likes
- 47,351
- Points
- 693
- Location
- New York (United States)
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
EagleCowboy
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Posts
- 4,445
- Media
- 72
- Likes
- 8,288
- Points
- 393
- Location
- Ontario (Canada)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
@Crimsonlurker Like @ronin001 said well written and what you wrote was also well written ronin
Going back to what elvid said and what you said here in bold the reason elvid put it they way he did is because when the men here say they are only in to women some bi/gay guys here, like crimson said, still seem to think that includes other men, so to make it absolutely clear evid said does not engage in sexual activity or fall in love with men. because to the some of the non straight men here when that part is left out they seem to think that it might possibly include homosexual acts
Crimsons post was right and perfectly written because literally we cant go a week were a question like this isnt asked.
Going back to what elvid said and what you said here in bold the reason elvid put it they way he did is because when the men here say they are only in to women some bi/gay guys here, like crimson said, still seem to think that includes other men, so to make it absolutely clear evid said does not engage in sexual activity or fall in love with men. because to the some of the non straight men here when that part is left out they seem to think that it might possibly include homosexual acts
Crimsons post was right and perfectly written because literally we cant go a week were a question like this isnt asked.
If that's directed at me, I've not been saying that turning down the advances of someone not to your liking is phobic. I'm arguing about the meaning of the word straight as defined by Elvid. I don't say he's personally homophobic (he seems a nice guy) or has it in for gays because he doesn't sleep with men. That's an obvious straw-dogism. What I've pointed out is that the dictionary-sounding definition he gave for straight is, in fact, incorrect. If you say words have meanings then you have to accept it is a wrong definition. Find me any dictionary that defines straight as 'does not engage in sexual activity or fall in love with members of the same sex'. You won't. That is unarguable. Straight, I repeat, means 'sexually attracted to the opposite sex'. That's all. Now by defining straight negatively, by what it is not, by what it opposes, the word is invested with rather another meaning. This arguably comes closer to a definition of homophobia than it does to a (correct) definition of straight because it defines straightness in terms of aversion to homosexual acts/love rather than attraction to heterosexual acts/love. I then speculate as to what function this serves (heteronormative confirmation in an all-straight-male forum) which may be bullshit but seems quite plausible in this context and the reactions it provokes.
Re: how gays define the meaning of gay, of course there are many shades of gay but I'm fairly sure none would describe its meaning as what it is not, they would describe their preference, not its opposite. The reasons for that may be a) they are not fending off virtual advances from straight males and b) they are not having to uphold a societal 'norm'.
No, you've got that the wrong way round. I'm the one saying we should stick with the commonly accepted dictionary definition of straight (and gay for that matter). I'm not seeking to change the meaning. It's Elvid who came up with an altered meaning for the word straight. He did so in the format of a dictionary-style definition as if to give his alteration some legitimacy. I'm all for keeping the current dictionary definition of straight as 'sexually attracted to the opposite sex'.
Similar threads
