h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>"Semantics surely? Sexuality *is* fluid/flexible for everyone - it is expressed inately in your point. If it *can* be flexible, it *is*, it depends upon whether you allow yourself to acknowledge that and how you define your own appropriation of the term which constrains it."

It *isn't* simply a matter of semantics. 'can be' and 'is' are seriously different in meaning

'Sexuality *can be* flexible' equates to 'Sexuality isn't always rigid'
whereas
'Sexuality *is* flexible' carries the implication that at the very least, sexuality in general (for the majority of people) is flexible, and possibly that all sexuality is flexible.


>>"It is, however, those who vehemently stress their sexuality as beign rigid who create dilemmas for those who really aren't that bothered."

I honestly can't see how one person making a statment about *their own sexuality* creates problems for another person, unless that other person has some strange emotional or philosophical attachment to the idea that sexuality should somehow be the same for everyone.
If someone 'isn't that bothered', I can't see where a dilemma can really come from, or what form one might take.

It is quite possible to have one group of people with a sexuality which is, for all practical purposes, static, and to have another group of people for whom it is flexible.

In any case, even from a relatively static categorisation viewpoint, there can be categories which imply flexibility or overlap - think omnivore vs. herbivore or cavnivore.

>>I honestly can't see how one person making a statment about *their own sexuality* creates problems for another person, unless that other person has some strange emotional or philosophical attachment to the idea that sexuality should somehow be the same for everyone.
If someone 'isn't that bothered', I can't see where a dilemma can really come from, or what form one might take.<<

I didn't say that a person making a STATEMENT was an issue, more that those who stress their sexuality through demonstation (violence/oppression of others) was more of the problem. For example, those who are vehemently heterosexual demonstrate their beliefs that *you should be one thing and one thing only* by beating up gay and bisexual men (and it is invariably men as it seems to be a increasingly acceptable for heterosexual men to view lesbian pornography or to see it as sexually attractive). In the same regard, homosexuals (gay and lesbian) sometimes enforce/flaunt their sexuality to impose their attraction onto heterosexual people and try to 'tempt' them into doing things that they may not wish to. Both of these examples are equally abhorrent.

My point about those not being that bothered was in reference to those who find sexuality as an aspect of their life rather than the defining factor and as such any *dilemmas* (a bad choice of words, perhaps) that occur to those who don't care less COULD be that they find their faces blackened or unwanted attentions from other men/women.

In essence, I wanted to make the point that if everyone began understanding the concept of sexuality as an unimportant compartmentalisation (as age, gender and religion should be as well) we could get away from the issues which sexual stereotyping can provide.

"homosexuals (gay and lesbian) sometimes enforce/flaunt their sexuality to impose their attraction onto heterosexual people and try to 'tempt' them into doing things that they may not wish to."

I'd be fascinated to hear of any actual example of this. Just one.

H.

Oh for gods sake.

'Tempt people into doing things they don't want to do' Yeah right.

Right. So asking someone if they might be interested in you is abborent.

Obviously

The few times gay men have come onto me, I've politely said 'no' and they've apoligsed profusely.

In what way on what damn' planet is prancing about in tight silk trousers and a studded leather collar cooing 'you know you want to, really. Go one, try...' IN ANY WAY AT ALL as abhorent as beating the living c**p out of someone FOR wearing said clothes and cooing in said manner?

Flaunting your sexuality (what heterosexual people to every day of their lives, kissing their partners in the street, chatting people up in bars) is an utterly different matter from beating people up. Enforcing your sexuality? What does that mean? Rape? Well, it seems that men who claim they are straight and 'hate poofs' are far more likely to commit homosexual rape than men who claim to be homosexual, and it is done to humiliate and hurt, not for reasons of sexuality. Rape is not really a sexual act. It is a violent act. Keep that in mind.

'Tempting' people is dreadful is it? If someone offers you say a pint of lager and you hate lager, you are going to say no, even if they go on and on about it. If they try and pour the lager down your throat by force, then they aren't tempting you, are they? They are assaulting you. Assault and trying to 'tempt' (a word which in itself suggests the thing is pleasant and not horrible) someone to do something they don't want to do are really rather far removed from each other on the spectrum of human behaviours and lumping them together like that in this context is offensive.

Or do you really find watching Julian Clary on the telly equivalent to being kicked repeatedly in the goolies?

P:
<>

But surely it's not the sexuality that's unimportant. It's the compartmentalisation of it that causes the problems. Sexuality is very important in how one sees oneself and defines oneself.

Even if one can't put a name to it.

"do you really find watching Julian Clary on the telly equivalent to being kicked repeatedly in the goolies?"

Speaking for myself, no.

But if I had to make a choice between receiving one swift kick to the goolies, or being FORCED to watch an hour of Graham Norton, I think, on reflection, I'd take the kick to the goolies. The pain would be over sooner.

H.

>>"Rape is not really a sexual act. It is a violent act. Keep that in mind."

Rape is term which covers rather a wide range of actions. Some might be non-consensual sex where the issue of consent is simply one the perpetrator doesn't care about. In other cases, power, the lack of consent, or the violence used to enforce submission may be more of the motivation, or even essentially the sole motivating factor.

I've had the experience of lesbians coming on to me - wondering if I might be interested.

I always said - um, not really - then they usually bought me a drink and we ended up spending a nice evening together chatting.

<>

Not only that, but it is considered *normal*. To be honest I've had more unpleasant experiences with drunken hetty male boors who thought I should want to f**k them simply because they deemed themselves to be God's gift to women. And when I said - um,not really - to them, they didn't offer to buy me a drink and chat, they got rather abusive. Saying sh*t like - 'oh think yer too good for me, eh?'. Well frankly, yes.

So why is it that heterosexuals can flaunt their sexuality all over the place yet homosexuals are told doing exactly the same thing is somehow 'abhorrent'?

The mind reels . . .

az

Personally, I'd have thought gay-bashing was perfectly compatible with a view of sexuality as being flexible ("Maybe people think I'm a bit gay, so I'll show my mates I'm really straight by joining in") or with sexuality being rigid ("I'm straight, they're gay, they're different so it's OK to beat them up").
Hostility can easily be directed at people who have made choices (based on religion, politics, football team, etc) as well as people without a choice (based on sex, nationality, skin colour, etc). *Difference* is the real target.

>>"In the same regard, homosexuals (gay and lesbian) sometimes enforce/flaunt their sexuality to impose their attraction onto heterosexual people and try to 'tempt' them into doing things that they may not wish to. Both of these examples are equally abhorrent."

Actually, doesn't the idea of a gay man trying to 'tempt' a straight man to try a bit of gay sex rather fundamentally tie in with the idea of sexuality actually being flexible or naturally broad?

Whether people thought that sexuality was or wasn't flexible (either for them, for most people, or for everyone), if they respected other people's sexuality, there wouldn't be any problems.

In fact, while I understand that *some* people might think that the concept of generally flexible sexuality might promote tolerance ("You never know, *you* might change your sexuality one day"), I think that it can seriously backfire by playing into the hands of the "Gayness is an evil free choice, which can be cured" religious brigade.

Right can of worms I've opened eh?

Ooops.

My comments were meant to say that ANY hetero- or homosexual attempts to proclaim their sexuality on others are inappropriate. I find it abhorrent that anyone should force their beliefs on others and, thus, claiming that sexuality is flexible or fluid would help to prevent that from occurring to some extent.

I do not find it abhorrent for any person to be proud of their sexuality and I was merely expressing the fact that 'ramming it down people's throats' (if you pardon the expression) is equally as inappropriate for gay and straight people.

I was also expressing the fact that a physical beating because of your sexual preference is abhorrent. I also find the vehement expression of interest in another, same-sex person who finds the idea against their own conceptualisation of their sexuality (whether this leads to rape (which I didn't discuss or allude to) as a result) is equally as unacceptable - morally and socially (and criminally).

I agree completely with azahar's statement: >>why is it that heterosexuals can flaunt their sexuality all over the place yet homosexuals are told doing exactly the same thing is somehow 'abhorrent'?<<

I find it inappropriate that I am not allowed to kiss a man in a public bar, that I can't hold hands in the street (unless I'm in a 2 mile area of Soho) without the possibility of prosecution or that I have to "hide" my sexuality to prevent straight people (and their kids) from being embarrassed that I am in a loving relationship but the person I've chosen is male.

As part of a David Bowie online community, Teenage Wildlife, there was a thread about being gay. One of the comments was (and I perhaps paraphrase):

"You can take it up the a** and still be a real man"

One amusing reply was: "Sounds like a great bumper sticker to me!"

I found this hilarious and actually laughed out loud when I read it.

THAT'S how we should treat sexuality. It doesn't MATTER who you fancy, who you sleep with and what your desires are. Enjoy the fact that you're a real man, a real woman and a real PERSON!

>>"I find it abhorrent that anyone should force their beliefs on others and, thus, claiming that sexuality is flexible or fluid would help to prevent that from occurring to some extent."

It *might* help *in some circumstances*. It might well make things worse in other circumstances.

As I said, political allegiance is (potentially) entirely flexible, but that doesn't stop people fighting over politics, taking extreme positions, and trying to force their views on other people.
It's perfectly arguable that the idea of flexibility actually supports people's attempts to change other people's minds, and reduces tolerance, since "Everyone else could have made the same choice as *I* did, so other people are either ignorant, stupid or evil".

In any case, even if claiming sexuality was flexible *could* be somehow shown to make things slightly better overall, there's still the issue of whether it is a true statement about sexuality in practice.
Excluding people not under serious pressure to change, I'd have thought that for most people, sexuality was essentially inflexible in practice.

As well as the moral question of whether it is right to push a wishful opinion as fact in order to acheive some imagined good, personally, I think there's a real risk in practice that someone arguing "Everyone is [potentially] a little bit gay" would damage any other, more valid, arguments they might have for promoting tolerance.

'Flexibility' will tend to get conflated in the public mind with free choice, and the idea of choice can open up a whole new can of worms:

If Johhny chose to be gay, did he just choose for himself, or was he lured into it by his first [evil] boyfriend?

Why won't Sally choose to be straight?

Fred got married, and then left to live with a man - why did he choose to become gay and leave his wife?

Simply respecting differences (whether from choice or not) seems a much safer course to tolerance. It may still be interesting to try and understand the many reasons for differences, but only once the reasons are decoupled from the tolerance as much as possible.

yeh.

>>If Johhny chose to be gay, did he just choose for himself, or was he lured into it by his first [evil] boyfriend?

Why won't Sally choose to be straight?

Fred got married, and then left to live with a man - why did he choose to become gay and leave his wife?<<

When did all the straight people choose to be straight?! Why won't William try having sex with a man to see if he'll like it?

Sexuality really isn't an issue. Therefore: >>Simply respecting differences (whether from choice or not) seems a much safer course to tolerance.<<

Totally agree. Except you can't choose your sexuality

<>



Something I have never understood is why so many people seem to find another person's sexual orientation *threatening*. And almost always in the context of a homosexual/bisexual person 'threatening' a heterosexual (simply by being who they are).

I've also often wondered what it is like to be homosexual and see so little media representation of gay love relationships in films, on tv, etc. I've always thought this must feel somewhat isolating. Even though there is a bit more going on these days. Of course then you get the homophobes bleating on about not being able to turn around anymore without seeing homos all over the place (ie, on their favourite tv soap).

So my question is - how and why is someone else's sexual orientation ever threatening to somebody else? I have my own theories about this but would be interested in hearing some others.


az

I have absolutely no idea why someone would find another persons sexuality (or lack of it for that matter) threatening, I don't think I ever have myself, and certainly don't now Maybe it makes them question their own sexuality?; Which makes them feel uncomfetable.... or something

Az, if you want to see a classic example of mad bigot ranting, then pop over to rec.arts.drwho, and laugh at the monkeys bleating about Russell Davies pusing his 'gay-agenda' on the new series of Doctor Who .

Very good points azahar.

Gay representations are criminally absent. Yet the merest 30 minute programme on gay issues or featuring gay characters and the airwaves are stormed with complaints.

How much problem is it really if 2 blokes kiss on Coronation Street, 2 blokes sh*g on Queer as Folk at 11:30 at night or there's a "very informative article on rimming" referred to in Little Britain - possibly the gayest non-gay programme on TV at the moment.

In fact, Little Britain is a case in point. The humour is, much like the racism of Alf Garnett in its day, based around the stereotypical concepts and the real-life allusions to 'everyday folk'. Those who think it's funny to be gay laugh at the programme in this way (WRONG) but those who grasp the comedy of Walliams and Lucas understand its irony.

And, yes, I do find the Graham Nortons of this world annoying but even I used to watch So... when it was once a week. And once a week's enough for any man...

Interesting that Russell Davies should have a 'gay agenda'

I've never seen a camp reference, gay undertone or potentially homo interaction in ANYTHING I've seen in the series thus far.