LGBTitp - Part Six

[Danne]

@Danne & Delta: Oooooh... shiny. Thank you for the input!

You are most welcome.

[Ostien]

In the interest of not wall-o-texting this thread:

Spoiler

Show

So you're attracted people of both/any sex. Then you're bisexual, or pansexual if you prefer that term for "not mostly attracted to one sex" *shrug* Like I said, it's no different than if I were attracted to effeminate males, or any men for no definable reason.

Yay Fay ^_^

But my point was that I'm not attracted to sex (as in genitals) so really I don't like a label that implies that and imo pansexual does not imply that whereas bisexual does. So it's not "not mostly attracted to one sex" it's not being concerned with sex at all.

This may be where confusion is coming from: It's not the being attracted to effeminate males or butch females that is my hangup with the term bisexual. I can see someone in that situation labeling themselves bisexual if they are also attracted to the genitals of the individual (effeminate or butch) themselves, but that is not the case for me. For a crude but to the point example seeing a penis or a vagina does not do much of anything for me, the genitals and sex of a person don't matter at all, they are a means to an end of connecting pleasurably and emotionally with someone.

So I choose to identify myself as pansexual and really that is my choice, and my choice alone to make. It is not the job of anyone else to tell me what I am for what reasons. If I feel it fits better, then it fits better period.

@golentan:

Spoiler

Show

No offense taken at all And yes emotional criteria is the most important but as far as physical goes... really it varies widely and I can't really sum it up. I know that is not that helpful. I guess I tend to more petite people or long and slender builds but really I have varied from that so often that it does not seem accurate. Shortish cropped hair usually looks nice and mostly darker hair.. I guess but different people look better with different colors so really that's no good either. I am usually attracted to more feminine of people but I mean that may be a 60/40 split perhaps 70/30 if were going to quantify here. Usually don't like a lot of body hair and long legs and a firm butt (so I guess I like firm butts and I can not lie?) is nice. Really I'm kind of reaching/rambling here. I know it when I see it but am having a hard time describing it.

[Lix Lorn]

Yeah, but I want something that's going to last longer than two years.

[Coidzor]

Gotta admit, 2 years is a good window of time to have a short term relationship in.

And if you already know you aren't in the presence of the love of your life...

[golentan]

Yeah, but I want something that's going to last longer than two years.

My point is that you can't know that. You can't. You probably would find your relationship failing long before then. You might learn something about yourself and your goals. He might be a little more flexible than you thought. One of you might get hit by a bus.

That is a textbook example of borrowing problems from the future.

You like this guy, yes? And you are compatible (at least for the time). So what's the problem?

[Lix Lorn]

To be honest, I would try it. He doesn't want to.

[Tricksy Hobbits]

Hey people in the playground.
I'm bi (with a preference for dudes) and no one else ('cept for you) knows.
I want to change that, first with one or two people in the know, then somemore, then some more, then everyone else. So, I have this friend who I would want to tell first, and I'm pretty sure she'll react well, but I'm not sure how I should bring it up. Should I just say "btw, i'm bi" and let her figure the rest out with questions or should I say a long thing to set it up? And what would be the best time to say it? Sometime just before the weekend so we can discuss it over the weekend and get her used to it by monday, or just one day on the way home from school?
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

[Ostien]

^ - Welcome, Tricksy Hobbits!

Well from the looks of it you seem to be comfortable with this person so I don't see anything wrong with the "btw, I'm bi" route and see where the conversation goes from there. Perhaps you can try to find a casual point to bring it up so its not as random so they will be less put off balance. Such as bringing it up in the context of discussing a book/movie/TVshow/whatever. I'd say it would probably be best said at a time that gives you both time to talk about it and her think about it, so yeah during/before a weekend sounds good.

Also, don't feel like you have to rush it so make sure this person knows your plans of coming out slowly so you don't get in an awkward/overwhelming situation that you have no control over.

Hope this helps. Good luck! ::hugs::

[Delta]

In my experience, the long setup might sound like a good idea in theory, but in practice, it's only awkward and will most likely lead to more drama and misunderstanding than anything else. The most important thing IMHO is to do it in a moment you're comfortable and not in a rush, and then simply tell her.

[Lix Lorn]

I did that. It worked.

[Jacklu]

Yeah. I think the long drawn out setup would just make things more stressful than simply coming out and saying it. Course, I haven't come out yet, but I have a feeling when I do it will be a spur of the moment thing.

[Serpentine]

In the interest of not wall-o-texting this thread:

Spoiler

Show

But my point was that I'm not attracted to sex (as in genitals) so really I don't like a label that implies that and imo pansexual does not imply that whereas bisexual does. So it's not "not mostly attracted to one sex" it's not being concerned with sex at all.

This may be where confusion is coming from: It's not the being attracted to effeminate males or butch females that is my hangup with the term bisexual. I can see someone in that situation labeling themselves bisexual if they are also attracted to the genitals of the individual (effeminate or butch) themselves, but that is not the case for me. For a crude but to the point example seeing a penis or a vagina does not do much of anything for me, the genitals and sex of a person don't matter at all, they are a means to an end of connecting pleasurably and emotionally with someone.

So I choose to identify myself as pansexual and really that is my choice, and my choice alone to make. It is not the job of anyone else to tell me what I am for what reasons. If I feel it fits better, then it fits better period.

But how is this any different to a heterosexual man who has no interest in the physical bits of women, but they find they connect better to women on an emotional level?
I'm not saying you shouldn't identify as pansexual or anything else you want to, by the way, I just don't see how it's a meaningfully distinct category to bisexual.

Good luck, Tricksy Hobbitses.

[Derjuin]

Hey everyone again Derjuin has picked up a new hobby of sorts!...

With my love of OotS, and artsy stuff (even though I'm pretty bad at it), I decided to try making my own avatars for the forum. Unfortunately they're all quite vertical-heavy (90 x 120 is the widest, ), so they aren't TOO great to use yet.

I just wanted to post this because one of the characters I drew is an NPC from the campaign I run, an elf princess who is actually (pre-magic?) MTF transgender...

I guess this is just a blab more than an update, heehee.

To be on topic, I would probably call myself bisexual, only because more people understand the term better. Yeah, I like (some) manly men and womanly men and manly women and (some) womanly women...But technically, isn't that liking men and women? If the need arises to let someone know that I do like androgynous folks just as much as I like everyone else, I'd probably just call myself an androgynosexual or a humanosexual or something equally silly.

[Viera Champion]

Hey people in the playground.
I'm bi (with a preference for dudes) and no one else ('cept for you) knows.
I want to change that, first with one or two people in the know, then somemore, then some more, then everyone else. So, I have this friend who I would want to tell first, and I'm pretty sure she'll react well, but I'm not sure how I should bring it up. Should I just say "btw, i'm bi" and let her figure the rest out with questions or should I say a long thing to set it up? And what would be the best time to say it? Sometime just before the weekend so we can discuss it over the weekend and get her used to it by monday, or just one day on the way home from school?
Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Yes, there isn't anything wrong with just telling her randomly that your bi. Ad anytime would be fine. I don't know anything about where you live, so I can't say when the best time would be. If she's such a good friend, she shouldn't mind.


Also, note to everyone. Don't become emotionally attached to friends. Especially when they're going to a boarding school next year, and you don't have a lot of time left with them. >_> Being madly in love with them doesn't help either.

[Terraoblivion]

I have to concur with the general advice here, TricksyHobbitses. Just saying it plainly without awkward setup or longwinded attempts at explaining something self-explanatory. There really is no benefit to trying the other methods other than rhetorical tricks to prevent yourself from running away from saying what you were going to say and those just make it more awkward. So try to say it as plainly as possible at a more or less reasonable time, though a natural segue is unlikely to present itself. Good luck coming out no matter how you choose to do it.

However, this topic reminds me of some thoughts i have had about the general question of the anxiety caused by coming out. Society does a good job of making sure that people learn that attraction to members of your own gender is abnormal. Even the way the topic is phrased positively makes sure to state how it is different. In both entertainment and serious art, non-standard sexuality is rarely just a non-essential facet of the character, but rather a central point to be explored. You rarely see a gay romance that places focus on the romance part rather than on the gay part.

This is further aggravated by the way that LGBT activists, like feminists, tend to have an interest in both highlighting the unique problems of the group and presenting heroes. And while there are good reasons for this, such as bringing solidarity to the group and creating a positive discourse for people wrestling with their sexuality in less accepting environments it is not without its problems. Most notably that by presenting yourself as a distinct group, it becomes a greater step to join it than if a smaller distinction was present. In a more tolerant society, that might ultimately not only scare people to delay their coming out as well as cause unnecessary anxiety, but also uphold a separation and keep lingering prejudice alive.

As shown by the frequency people want advice on how to come out the very concept of that action can cause problems in and off itself. Rather than being the practical matter of imparting relevant information that it is at its core, it becomes a rite of passage. It becomes laden with symbolism of moving from a heteronormative social role to a different sexual role. This adds further anxiety to something that is otherwise difficult, as well as potentially causing rifts between people as it carries a host of connotations and expectations with it that might or might not be true for a given person. It is further made awkward by how devoid of meaning the act truly is. Unless you are a public person, it is unlikely that a single coming out will be enough to last you for the rest of your life. Instead you will have to explain the same thing numerous times to different people in different contexts, casting doubt on the reason for why so much symbolism is ascribed to that initial action.

Ultimately i think that there might be problems in the general culture of LGBT activism itself, focused on a victim discourse concerned with obtaining rights as it is. While that is absolutely vital in the early stages of any movement and is still important in much of the world, where you need to show that you exist and are not afraid of persecution, it is not always the most suitable approach. Once the conceptual battle has been won and the majority is on your side in abstract matters keeping up such an approach, can have detrimental effects as well. By keeping up a self-presentation as someone who steps outside the bounds of ordinary society to become different, you also keep lingering prejudice alive. You constantly reinforce that there is something to be prejudiced about when you make a big deal out of the difference.

You also run the risk of alienating people who do not want to take an abnormal social role and just want to live their life in peace loving whoever they want to love. It might also cause people who want to be normal to try and reject their sexuality since everybody, even the advocates of rights for people who are not heterosexual and at ease with their gender, clearly show that if your sexuality differs you are abnormal. This constructed identity of sexuality also runs the risk of becoming as oppressive as the heteronormativity they are opposed to. The infighting between various sexual minorities over the years can be seen as an example of that. But it can also be oppressive towards the specific minority in question, if the social identity that follows the sexual identity becomes too confining. The disdain that several famous transgender activists have expressed for those who for one reason or another chooses to stop at hormones and never get the operation can be seen as one of several examples of this.

I guess that in conclusion i could say that the question of coming out and its symbolical significance ties into the larger question of a separate culture of any given sexual minority. I personally do not believe that in most of the western world the present culture and symbolism of these cultures is adequate and desirable for the goal of fully equal society for sexual minorities. While the ultimate goal might never be reached, i cannot help but think that a more confident, inclusive and low-key culture might serve us better in the end.

Ummm, and sorry about this mostly unmotivated rant.

[Delta]

Ummm, and sorry about this mostly unmotivated rant.

Well you do raise some interesting points there, even if it's mostly unmotivated, so I think you are forgiven

[SMEE]

Serpentine, since you requested an update a while back on how everything turned out:
Turns out that right before I got my courage to ask that deaf girl I liked out, she got a boyfriend. Once I found that out, I decided not to tell her because I don't see her often and I felt that it would make things really akward. So yeah. Thats my update.

And there.
Smee, protecting the anonymity of LGBT people since 2007.

[Ostien]

But how is this any different to a heterosexual man who has no interest in the physical bits of women, but they find they connect better to women on an emotional level?
I'm not saying you shouldn't identify as pansexual or anything else you want to, by the way, I just don't see how it's a meaningfully distinct category to bisexual.

Good luck, Tricksy Hobbitses.

Spoiler

Show

Heh, did I say it was different? The difference I see there is that they just chose to identify in such a way and I chose to identify in another. I could see a person in that situation identifying as pansexual and would not police them and tell them they cannot identify in such a way. It is important simply because thats how I choose to identify. I prefer pansexual because to me it means being attracted to people not sexes, whereas most will assume that bisexual people are attracted to sex characteristics in of themselves (like the stereotype of straight men being attracted to the sight of boobs without seeing the person who has them). Not saying that that definition of bi is accurate for all but if I say I'm pansexual, people will ask what that means and I can just say it means I'm attracted to people not sex. It's more open, which is also why I prefer genderqueer to other terms as it really has no solid definition.

That being said I'm not bashing people who identify as bisexual and I have so in the past because it can be easier to communicate to others and many others, such as yourself, would see no meaningful distinction. Sexuality is complicated and many people will see it different ways. I respect your position but it does not work for me. Perhaps I'm just too immersed in queer and post-modern theory, over-thinking things and that will probably only get more pronounced as I go to graduate school this fall

@Terraoblivion
A queer discussion group I was in last night had this same discussion about what the effects of forming a queer community with reference to the community at large (so really kind of a meta discussion). A quote from Kate Bornstein was along the lines of "whenever you join a group part of you dies" and we took that to mean that all groups have a limiting and alienating factor no matter what they are, especially in activism. A partial solution was to make sure any group is reticent to change within itself, that it does not view its subculture as static. This is difficult and most often does not play out. That being said there are many activist groups whether they be queer, feminist or what-have-you that do that, but they tend to be smaller but oddly enough more open. Also most of this is also stereotype of those subcultures themselves by the culture at large. I really have never been involved in a feminist group that was exclusive and is aware of the problems with implicit exclusion based on race, class, or sex (in fact one of the feminist blogs I read has a tag called "the patriarchy hurts men too" and the community also routinely tries to check itself on such issues of excusion). This may not be everyones experience however.
side note: a current debate in the post-modern feminist movement is how to have activism centered around "women" while at the same time deconstructing the notion of "women" and also reconciling the class and race barriers within the feminist movement. /esoteric ramblings

Though other people would speak directly to the importance of coming out as a form of activism itself without having the traditional protest and rights talk. Andrew Sullivan, a blogger for the Atlantic, advocates this. The more people come out the more people will come to accepting LGBTQ people just because they will become more personally and generally aware of them. The idea that it is harder to be prejudice against your friend or colleague. So that as the cognitive dissidence disappears in those people rights will come about as more become comfortable. So it gets around yelling at those people by taking it slow and letting rights come about.

Not sure what, if any, solution there is to the problem of exclusion within marginalized groups. Its a big problem and thus needs to be discussed.

[Serpentine]

I still fail to see how that is any different to monosexuals happening to be attracted to the sex of their choice "as people" (and find the implication that bisexuals and these people are only attracted to physical features very minisculely slightly offensive (but no more than the people who say "oh, I'm not attracted to mere physical features. I'm far more deep than mere superficial appearance"), and I've never heard of anyone seriously believing that all bisexuals are attracted to men and women solely for their respective primary and secondary sexual characteristics, but I'm happy to leave it at "as far as I'm concerned the terms are synonymous and have yet to see any convincing evidence otherwise", specially as I obviously have nothing else of substance to add to it and should have shut up a couple of pages ago

On your mini-note: post-modernism is weird. Good for history, though.

[Yora]

Someone defined post-modernism as: Being weird for the sake of being weird.

[Serpentine]

Not necessarily... At least not as it applies to historiography. I'm doing an essay on that, so I'm kinda learning more about it than I'd like to, but I won't go into it unless someone's actually interested.
Obligatory awesome link.

[Danne]

However, this topic reminds me of some thoughts i have had about the general question of the anxiety caused by coming out. Society does a good job of making sure that people learn that attraction to members of your own gender is abnormal. Even the way the topic is phrased positively makes sure to state how it is different. In both entertainment and serious art, non-standard sexuality is rarely just a non-essential facet of the character, but rather a central point to be explored. You rarely see a gay romance that places focus on the romance part rather than on the gay part.

*snip*

You constantly reinforce that there is something to be prejudiced about when you make a big deal out of the difference.

*snip*

You raise some good points. I've always thought that we should really be focusing on making people (ourselves and our advocates as well as others) understand that being GLBT is really No Big Deal. Different from some people, perhaps, but no more so than anything else. There are a variety of ways to do that, to stop making such a big deal out of the difference.

My favorite is to play the boardgame "Life" with a group of kids. Play with a peg that's the "wrong" color, or "marry" a peg that is the same color as the one you're playing. Field any questions that get asked with something to the effect of, "Well, I felt like marrying a boy this time. He's a really great person. Look, see, he just bought me a racehorse!" (Substitute "racehorse" for whatever relevant event "Life" has delt to you, of course.) You'd be surprised at how many kids decide that they want to do the same thing. Not because they're necessarily GLBT, but because you just made it seem perfectly normal for them to have two blue pegs sitting next to each other.

Ummm, and sorry about this mostly unmotivated rant.

No need to apologize. I like it when people make me think.

[Ostien]

Hopefully ending this cordially:

Spoiler

Show

I was not implying that bisexuals are focused solely on sexual characteristics. I'm sorry if you thought that is what I meant but I was saying many would assume it is all about sex and even said that the person you described could say they are pansexual. Nor was I implying that I am above such trifle, c'mon people are hot Also you kept bringing up gender expression, but thats not really the issue. Pansexual for me is being attracted to people regardless of many of those categories, varying so widely as to not be useful. Bi to me implies two whereas pan implies many, many categories that affect attraction, not just sex. I think the issue here is that you think I saying that people who identify as bisexual cannot act in the same way. I am totally and unequivocally not saying that. Its just an identity distinction I like. I'm a stickler for such things when it comes to defining myself.

All I can say is since the terms are not distinct for you then don't bother and identify how you like, bi or not. But they are for me so I will bother, a lot in fact

Well, there is a difference from people who take post-modern as an aesthetic (weird for the sake of weird/challenging) and the philosophy aspect of analyzing the effect of discourse, language, history etc. I'm far more interested in the latter but still love stuff like this.

But, yeah post-modern thought is great for history Serp, you should read Foucault's article Nietzsche, Genealogy, History perhaps for that essay, you'd probably love it if you are into post-modern history methods. Such as that histories of marginalized communities can be post-modern as they present a challenging narrative, especially to ideas of a linear development of history, so a history without origins... okay I could go on for days so I'll stop now.

Serp I would not mind an off thread discussion on such topics. I am that nerdy.

[Faulty]

I don't know quite where else to post this without making a new thread BUT I am in a perdicament: I am vegan. But I need boots! But I need one inch heels not three inch heels. And I don't want booties! Or really loose or floppy boots! I just need shoes in general, oh my!

Any suggestions as to where to shop? Some place I could get synthetic shoes that are affordable and nice?

[golentan]

I don't know quite where else to post this without making a new thread BUT I am in a perdicament: I am vegan. But I need boots! But I need one inch heels not three inch heels. And I don't want booties! Or really loose or floppy boots! I just need shoes in general, oh my!

Any suggestions as to where to shop? Some place I could get synthetic shoes that are affordable and nice?

I buy from payless, meself.

I don't remember if that one has wool, though... *shrugs*

[Terraoblivion]

I think you misunderstand me, Ostien. I am not saying you should hide yourself and try to downplay your sexuality. That would be giving in to prejudice and make it harder for others who are in the same situation as you. What i am saying is that the ritualized concept of coming out can be harmful and is ascribed symbolic significance beyond what it strictly needs. I am also not saying that traditional activist methods, including the big, symbolic coming out cannot have their place. I find them absolutely vital to withstand pressure in less than tolerant areas such as Latvia or Russia. However, the prescriptive model of there being something wrong with people who don't undertake the largely symbolic action of "coming out", is what i see a problem with. Coming out is ultimately not binary, it is imparting a specific set of information to a given group. Except for the symbolical significance that society ascribes there is truthfully no difference between having come out and not having come when meeting new people. So i think that this symbolical act might cause more harm than good in more egalitarian societies, by making performing the deed it refers to harder.

Also i am fully aware that far from all activist groups uphold strong internal discipline and rigid views. However, sadly a lot do. I have been paying a great deal of attention to transgender activism due to its immediate relationship to my own life and a large amount of infighting between various group is found here. The ideas of what it means to be transgendered and what behavior is to be expected from a transgendered person also tends to be quite rigid, especially within what can be considered the mainstream of this activist movement. It is these risks, as well as the risks of turning yourself into an exotic spectacle for heteronormative society to look at that i am worried about. The prime example of the latter would be the large, often celebrated gay pride parades in western Europe, that gets used by politicians who don't actually do anything for gay rights to show how tolerant they are, and for less than tolerant people to find an angle for ridicule. Yet, they get presented as the epitome of pride in the ways you differ from mainstream society.

So for all those groups out there that are truly accepting of diversity in expression, my thoughts were not aimed at those. They were aimed at those important representatives of activism who often fall into the trap of trading tolerance for a stronger, clearer message.

[Yora]

I have to say that I'm not really that much comfortable with what I hear about LGBT activists.
I agree, in places where society is generally hostile, there's probably no alternative to activism. But in the place and social circles I live in, displaying open hostility is socially unacceptable and under such circumstances I feel it's much more important that people now start seeing us just as completely normal people who are not very different from anyone else. Homosexuality, transsexuality, and others are not a sub-culture or lifestyle, and frankly I would rather not be associated with the common stereotypes, which are in fact embraced and popularized by some LGBT-activists.

But fortunately, at least in public media, this is increasingly uncommon as well.
These are four of the most famous homosexuals in Germany, that came to my mind right now:

Spoiler

Show

Klaus Wowereit: Mayor/Governor of Berlin

Spoiler

Show

Hape Kerkeling: Comedian

Spoiler

Show

Anne Will: Used to be anchorwoman of one of Germanys biggest TV news programm.

Spoiler

Show

Guido Westerwelle: Foreign Minister, Vice-Chancelor, and head of Germanys third largest party.

That's how homosexuals look like in public perception. Not that there isn't any prejudice behind closed doors, or open discrimination outside of the social mainstream, but I'm really glad about how far we've come.

[Faulty]

We are different from everyone else, though, and I don't think LGBT culture should be assimilated into the dominant culture.

[Terraoblivion]

We are different from everyone else in one way, Faulty. Literally the only thing we have in common as a group is whichever non-standard sexuality we have. Or two in my case, being both transgendered and lesbian. Any LGBT culture is an actively constructed entity as opposed to something that comes naturally from the nature of the group it is supposed to represent.

And that is awesome Yora. Yet another example of Denmark having no right to consider itself tolerant, especially not in comparison with Germany like the Danish population loves to. The only famous gay person here is not only rather cliché but also so incredibly incompetent and arrogant that few people can take him seriously. At least the only famous person known for being gay in any wider context.

[Delta]

And that is awesome Yora. Yet another example of Denmark having no right to consider itself tolerant, especially not in comparison with Germany like the Danish population loves to.

Well it's really relaxed in media in politics by now (during the last local elections in a village in Bavaria of all places, a 20 year old out gay social democrat actually managed to win the mayorship from the incumbent conservative mayor... so yes, things are changing) but it's not like we're in a kind of tolerant utopia right now.

It's still a sad thing that for example, no professional soccer player has come out so far, and even sadder that I can't blame them for it. At the same time, homophobia (especially against males) in schools is still as much of a problem as it has been a decade or two ago, if not worse.