Homosexual characters (and including irrelevant information)

Medievalist said:

This is absolute totally wrong. Some of it--"one prostitute would service either orientation" doesn't even make sense.

1. The fact that you are applying a modern concept--homosexuality--to the classical world, and specifically Rome, is idiotic and ahistorical in the extreme.

2. The fact that there are laws and specific words in Latin for the "catcher" and "pitcher" is pretty damn telling.

3. You will not find female prostitutes servicing female clients; you will find cunnilingus as a titillating sex act performed for male customers in the banquet areas of bath houses. It wasn't illegal. Mostly it was considered odd. Women could do as they like--if they married, and provided offspring, and weren't having sex with a man other than their husband.

4. And the fee scales for prostitutes was based on specific sex acts. Not who engaged in them. Sex acts. There's a price difference for engaging as "passive" vs "active" partner.

6. It's very clear in the Pompeii era that the acts were the issue, not who engaged in them, but what acts. This is clear from the pornographos, the menus of acts on the walls of brothels, and most especially, the clay and metal tokens used by illiterate and non-Latin speakers to indicate what they wished to purchase in terms of sex.

Click to expand...

Haha, fair enough, you clearly know more about it than me. Not sure I get what you're trying to say with calling homosexuality a modern concept, though.

Homosexuality is older than civilization, so the only thing I can get out of that is that you are implying that the Romans and Greeks were more bisexual than homosexual?

5. Generally speaking, males were only condemned for being "passive" partners, not for active roles, and for having sex with male underage slaves; that was against the law. Technically.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression this wasn't universally true. Regardless of the morality of it, the Greeks practiced Pederasty and actually had pretty high opinions of the "passive" part of that relationship (the youth). See Phidias incorporating his lover's name into a statue of Zeus. In fact, for a lot of people, it was considered a rite of passage.

Here's the thing.

I'm probably talking out the hole in my arse here, 'cause I've been up all night, I'm high as a kite (poet!!!) and I'm still buzzing from writing a spectacular chapter that will win me fame, fortune, accolades and the contents of Shannon Leto's undercrackers.

But we digress.

I'm someone who's still working a few things out in this regard, so it's speculation, thinking out loud when I say this but...

Personality isn't just something you're born with - it can be shaped by your experiences, and is. Every day. I'm not the same person I was this time last year, because...2009 happened. People happened to me. Experiences happened. I did stuff.

And if being gay doesn't mark you as a person, or...I dunno...make itself an inherent part of your identity, then stop being heterosexual.

Go on. Try it. It's a choice. Choose to not be het any more.

From a religious, societal standpoint, I firmly believe it's possible to stop oneself indulging in 'teh practise of teh ghey'. Just as it's possible for me not to indulge in heterosexual knockyboomboom. Mainly because the guys in this town are fugly wasters, but again, we digress.

My point is. You can stop yourself acting on your desires, not who you feel those desires for.

And the people you fancy, the people you want to love, of course they brand your character. Even being able to walk down the street with your love(r) - or not - affects you to a greater or lesser degree.

You can choose to have sex with this gender or that gender but you can't choose whether or not you're free to declare that love without risk to your physical safety.

Am I making sense? I need sleep.

@aquacat--he wasn't suggesting that you changed your orientation, just that if you WERE to change it now would it change who you were.

Salis said:

Haha, fair enough, you clearly know more about it than me. Not sure I get what you're trying to say with calling homosexuality a modern concept, though.

Homosexuality is older than civilization, so the only thing I can get out of that is that you are implying that the Romans and Greeks were more bisexual than homosexual?

Click to expand...

It wasn't perceived as an orientation though. Partly this has to do with the role of women. You wanted children, you wanted to inherit, you had sex with a woman and got her pregnant.

Partly it has to do with class differences, then and now, but mostly, the idea of what sex was and meant. There were people you had sex with. There were people you loved. They might very well not be the same people.

There's Alexander and Hephaistion, for example. He clearly adored Hephaistion, (the statues sorta give that away) but he still did his duty and reproduced.

It is not at all academically acceptable, or scholarly acceptable to use the modern concept and apply it to very different times and cultures.

Salis said:

I was under the impression this wasn't universally true. Regardless of the morality of it, the Greeks practiced Pederasty and actually had pretty high opinions of the "passive" part of that relationship (the youth). See Phidias incorporating his lover's name into a statue of Zeus. In fact, for a lot of people, it was considered a rite of passage.

Click to expand...

Your comments were in reference to Pompei. But keep in mind what got Socrates in trouble; he was considered a bad moral influence on the young men. The implication is mostly political, but not all.

Salis said:

I was under the impression this wasn't universally true. Regardless of the morality of it, the Greeks practiced Pederasty and actually had pretty high opinions of the "passive" part of that relationship (the youth). See Phidias incorporating his lover's name into a statue of Zeus. In fact, for a lot of people, it was considered a rite of passage.

Click to expand...

Greek != roman. There are fundamental differences. On a superficial level greeks were individualists, whilst romans were collectivist. You had to be a certain way to be considered a real roman.

.

I just mentioned it because when I read it the first time I saw the same thing you did and thought, "What?" and read it again, and didn't think that was the way he intended for it to come off. I'll let Salis speak for his intentions lol.

This is just the natural peacekeeper in me coming out.

Bah, ignore that message, eh? I'm tired.

It's okay. I'm starving (have only eaten a banana all day) and I've spent way too long reading this. Kaitie is hereby taking a break to eat something! And hopefully get something writingesque accomplished lol.

aquacat said:

It is the default assumption of many straight people. It is NOT the default assumption of all people. And straight people, despite what you may think, are not the only people in the world. I don't understand what's so complicated about this argument.

Click to expand...

Nothing. I just don't find it very convincing. I mean, I'm not saying we should ignore minorities, I'm saying don't be surprised that people who aren't in the minority don't care except as an idealistic exercise. For example, a majority of whites believe racism against blacks is ugly and wrong--nevertheless, that majority will ignore the problem or treat it as solved because, hey, as long as they're not racist, it's not their problem.

Sure. Just as it's easier for many white people to write white people than people of color. Just because something is easier doesn't make it right or good. The fact that so few straight, white people are able to imagine what it might be like to not be that speaks to the problem of privilege. This is something that intelligent, creative people should try to remedy, not revel in.

Click to expand...

I touched on this in another thread. Why don't I write stories filled with things I'm not good at writing, why don't I make a difficult effort to learn all about them? Well, learning is entertaining and I do my fair share of it, but I write things I enjoy or appeal to me, or caught my interest when I was kid. I doubt I'm alone in my bias.

I mean, a successful minority writer who is concerned about their issues is doing the same thing.

It's still a faulty comparison. Unless you believe that all identities and social experiences today are exactly the same as they are in ancient Rome. But you know, the last time I checked we didn't still enjoy weekly trips to the coliseum.

Click to expand...

It was a (as it turns out, historically poor) comparison to establish a baseline. My point is that homosexuality is not static. The cultural divide of hatred and acceptance for it is a current phobia, and may very well be extinct in a century or two.

Well, for one, homosexuals were targeted by Hitler just as strongly as the Jews were. The difference is that I can't think of a single major movie that's been made popularizing the persecution of the homosexuals by the Nazis - for the most part that's an ignored story. For another, there are no prohibitions in the US against Jews getting married, or the Roma for that matter.

None of which really addresses the point, because I'm not about to get into a round of oppression olympics. Have all of these groups been persecuted? Yes. But not all in the same way, for the same periods of time or by the same groups. Nor is being Jewish the same as being a homosexual.

Click to expand...

I never got to compete in the oppression olympics.

I don't understand what this has to do with this conversation at all, except as a distraction. We're not talking about institutionalized rape or blood vendettas - both of which, by the way, I know a lot about since I'm writing a dissertation on rape. But I fail to see how these have anything to do with the current conversation.

And incidentally, there are places in the US in which being gay (or actions associated with queer sex) are illegal. And it's the US I'm talking about when I mention the homosexual panic defense. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Click to expand...

Moral equivelancy. Ergo: I don't find the plight of homosexuals any more morally pressing than the plight of Jews, Arab Christians, foreigners in Russia, and on and on. It all sucks, and I wish it wasn't there. Which leads me back to...

I didn't say you had to be gay to talk about it, but forgive me if I think your "logic" is highly skewered by your significant lack of information and experience with this issue. Your "logic" is writing me out of existence, and I find that illogical and offensive.

And by the way - is sexuality a choice or is it biology? You can't seem to decide and keep contradicting yourself in your own post. You might want to think about that.

Click to expand...

You are who you are. Nothing I believe can change that.

If anything, I feel it's harmful for homosexuals to think of themselves as special and separate, in the same way that it harmed Jews (instead of assimilating, they always tried to remain a distinct and highly foreign entity in the societies they entered, which led to a lot of unfortunate grief). Equal but different is to me a way of saying "equal, and basically the same, it's easier to get along if we realize we're all doing the same stuff at a basic level".

As for "choice" and "biology"--that was just me using synonyms to avoid repeating myself, habit from writing. I believe homosexuality is biology, since choice implies they can just go "HEY, I've decided to be straight because it's easier ", which is hugely insulting.

Well, I won't agree to disagree when I feel like you're feigning innocence in order to get out of an argument you aren't winning.

Click to expand...

Uh, the point of these conversations isn't to "win" or "lose" the argument. I guess if you have a lot of stress built up over this and just want to see everyone beat me into a bloody pulp for not being politically correct, that's cool, but I find the whole thing fascinating.

If I just wanted to win or lose, I would have stopped an hour ago with, "Neener neener, I'm right, you're wrong, bye."

Maybe you would prefer to do that yourself.

I take this personally because what you're saying is a dismissal and denial of MY life. I recognize that this is probably an intellectual exercise to you, but to me this is me and my ex-girlfriend getting beaten up by a frat boy because we didn't want to suck him off. To me this is having my desires constantly used as the butt of jokes. To me this is a straight person telling me, again, that they know more about me than I do.

And yeah, I'm sure your sexuality isn't a significant part of your identity. So tell me, are you straight? When did you first know you were straight? Are you sure you're straight? Have you tried being not straight? How do you know you won't like being gay until you've tried it? Gosh, I guess your parents/mother/father must have been really abusive and turned you off to the same gender, huh? I know a doctor who can fix that for you....

Click to expand...

And every time the Jehovah's Witnesses show up with their pamphlets about how I can avoid going to Hell, they are dismissing and denying my belief that God is a silly idea, but what the heck, I can understand that they believe that, and I believe what I believe, and there's something useful to be found in between.

And yeah, I'm sure your sexuality isn't a significant part of your identity. So tell me, are you straight?

Click to expand...

I think so!

When did you first know you were straight?

Click to expand...

Probably when I masturbated for the first time, considering it was a picture of a woman. Could have been a mannish woman, though.

Are you sure you're straight? Have you tried being not straight?

Click to expand...

I can unsubscribe?

How do you know you won't like being gay until you've tried it? Gosh, I guess your parents/mother/father must have been really abusive and turned you off to the same gender, huh?

Click to expand...

They divorced when I was twelve, actually.

Anyway, it's probably best if I just don't post again here, since you're taking my ideas as an assault on your person, which is a little overboard, and not at all what I intended.

Maxinquaye said:

Greek != roman. There are fundamental differences. On a superficial level greeks were individualists, whilst romans were collectivist. You had to be a certain way to be considered a real roman.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but we're talking about ancient history here, you can't expect me to not generalize over five centuries!

Medievalist said:

Your comments were in reference to Pompei. But keep in mind what got Socrates in trouble; he was considered a bad moral influence on the young men. The implication is mostly political, but not all.

Click to expand...

Actually, I read a rather interesting book recently about the naval history of Athens (basically a very in-depth look at how they rose and fell), and it implied that Socrates trial was politically motivated, as you said, not morally. 90% politics and 10% morality kind of makes me side with politics, the timing was really bad for Socrates.

Polenth said:

It shouldn't be a surprise that racists are bolder when I'm alone. With friends, it's rare for something to be shouted. Alone, it's very frequent. The result is most of my friends have no idea what I face on a daily basis or what kind of area they live in... unless I tell them.

It's easy to miss discrimination when you're not in the group receiving the discrimination. The important thing is to realise you're missing it. Right now, you're basically discounting it happens or passing it off as atypical. It's not atypical. Discrimination is the norm and that will affect people in any group facing discrimination.

Click to expand...

Actually, I was saying, "You know, it's probably the case that being gay sucks and a lot of discrimination happens... but I still don't think it's useful to think of gays as fundamentally different", and I don't, I actually feel it harms them socially more than not, but what the heck.

kaitie said:

Okay, I'm going to try to see if I can understand the basics of what I think Salis is saying and then give my opinion.

I think your point is that in terms of personality traits, my personal sexual orientation doesn't matter. For instance, even if I was homosexual, I would still probably be a night owl introvert who actually enjoys puns. I would still probably be someone who is very patient and doesn't get angry easily. I'll give you that. It's probably true.

The factor here, though, is not so much about just the traits were were born with, but how being a member of a minority group (particularly one that is not accepted by the majority) is going to influence life in many different ways. The others have hit well on what these are. And some of those influences WILL affect what most people think of as personality. If you are always treated as an outsider and you are constantly belittled by those around you, it will affect your opinion of yourself. Perhaps you feel insecure and uncertain. Perhaps you're the type of person who says, "To hell with you" and it makes you stronger. The fact is, there will be changes. So yes, maybe certain aspects of who you are will not be affected, but others will.

Click to expand...

This is exactly it. Okay, here's the thing: all those traits you just described as a result of being ostracized, as, say, gay?

I'm a straight white male and have similar issues. I have terrible self-confidence when dealing with people in public, probably have some sort of social anxiety disorder on the very low spectrum, I live with it, it's no big deal. All of which is to say... people get fucked up really easily, I guess.

I also think this is true of any minority group. The experience of being in the minority is just fundamentally different than that of being in the majority. That's why, at this point in my life, I'd feel uncomfortable writing, for instance, a book about a Japanese person living in America. I've experienced the opposite, I know quite a bit about Japanese culture and mindsets, but nothing can really ever prepare me for truly understanding the experience of growing up as a minority. The best I can do is try to understand.

Click to expand...

This is why my protagonist in my fantasy novel is not a black jew who has a crush on his asian muslim brother.

I write what I know. (Yes, I have personal experience with fireballs.)

Salis said:

Yeah, but we're talking about ancient history here, you can't expect me to not generalize over five centuries!

Click to expand...

I'm just saying that you can't generalize like that because that would be like drawing comparisons between the Maya and the Spanish.

Greece was never a cohesive unit, except under Alexander. It had no central state. Rome is defined as The State. Rome was also formed under the pressure of the major powers in the western mediterranean at that time, and the major powers were not greek. They were Phoenician (Carthage) and Etruscan.

So, the greeks and the romans weren't even concurrent civilisations. Greece was pretty much declined by the time Rome took over.

Maxinquaye said:

I'm just saying that you can't generalize like that because that would be like drawing comparisons between the Maya and the Spanish.

Greece was never a cohesive unit, except under Alexander. It had no central state. Rome is defined as The State. Rome was also formed under the pressure of the major powers in the western mediterranean at that time, and the major powers were not greek. They were Phoenician (Carthage) and Etruscan.

So, the greeks and the romans weren't even concurrent civilisations. Greece was pretty much declined by the time Rome took over.

Click to expand...

I think it would be more like comparing the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Empire.

Greece and Rome had a ton of cultural cross-fertilization, and they were actually pretty close together in terms of years apart. I'm talking about classical Greece, by the way, Athens, Pericles, the Piraeus. Rome ad-libbed a ton of its culture from Greece.

Salis said:

Nothing. I just don't find it very convincing. I mean, I'm not saying we should ignore minorities, I'm saying don't be surprised that people who aren't in the minority don't care except as an idealistic exercise. For example, a majority of whites believe racism against blacks is ugly and wrong--nevertheless, that majority will ignore the problem or treat it as solved because, hey, as long as they're not racist, it's not their problem.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised, and I don't know what gave you the impression that I was. I'm saying we should strive to be better, and this is one way. I'm not making an argument about what "is," - I know what is, and don't need you to tell me. I'm making an argument about what should be and could be if people, like writers, were more aware of what they put into the world.

It was a (as it turns out, historically poor) comparison to establish a baseline. My point is that homosexuality is not static. The cultural divide of hatred and acceptance for it is a current phobia, and may very well be extinct in a century or two.

Click to expand...

And that's what I said, too. But none of the gay people alive now will be alive in a century or two, hence the "politicizing" of gay life that you find so offputting.

Moral equivelancy. Ergo: I don't find the plight of homosexuals any more morally pressing than the plight of Jews, Arab Christians, foreigners in Russia, and on and on. It all sucks, and I wish it wasn't there. Which leads me back to...

Click to expand...

How nice, to be able to draw a moral equivalency between issues that have no affect on your own life. Not everyone is so fortunate.

If anything, I feel it's harmful for homosexuals to think of themselves as special and separate, in the same way that it harmed Jews (instead of assimilating, they always tried to remain a distinct and highly foreign entity in the societies they entered, which led to a lot of unfortunate grief). Equal but different is to me a way of saying "equal, and basically the same, it's easier to get along if we realize we're all doing the same stuff at a basic level".

Click to expand...

Ok. You get rid of all social prejudice against homosexuals and make gay rights equal to those of all others and I'll stop thinking that my life experience has been affected by my sexuality, k?

Uh, the point of these conversations isn't to "win" or "lose" the argument. I guess if you have a lot of stress built up over this and just want to see everyone beat me into a bloody pulp for not being politically correct, that's cool, but I find the whole thing fascinating.

Maybe you would prefer to do that yourself.

Click to expand...

Oh, zing! You got me.

And every time the Jehovah's Witnesses show up with their pamphlets about how I can avoid going to Hell, they are dismissing and denying my belief that God is a silly idea, but what the heck, I can understand that they believe that, and I believe what I believe, and there's something useful to be found in between.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes, because being queer is like being an atheist! Right! And Jehovah's Witnesses get to vote on the civil rights of atheists, so their attempt to preach to you is totes an equivalent issue. Got it.

Anyway, it's probably best if I just don't post again here, since you're taking my ideas as an assault on your person, which is a little overboard, and not at all what I intended.

Click to expand...

I'm not taking your ideas as an assault on my person, I'm just vigorously disagreeing with them by saying that when I hear these arguments they are related, to me, to every other social argument that dismisses and denies the experience of being queer. I don't think you're assaulting me, but I do think your stake in this discussion is different than mine.

aquacat said:

As do I. Your heterosexual privilege insulated you from having to be aware of these issues. Fine. That's common. But you came on this thread and started talking about how you find sexuality, and particularly the argument that being queer is an identity, to be "offputting." I didn't come into your other thread and start this discussion, you did.

Click to expand...

It's probably just the Reeses Peanut Butter cup thing.

"Hey, you got a political issue in my entertaining novel!"

"HEY, you got an entertaining novel in my political issue!"

One person thinks its delicious, the other not so much.

How nice, to be able to draw a moral equivalency between issues that have no effect on your own life. Not everyone is so fortunate.

Click to expand...

Well, wouldn't you say that when things have no personal stake for you, you have to have some way of deciding priority? Which, again, is the case for a lot of people. One argument I can think of off the top of my head is just that gay people are much more common than, say, Roma, or Jews (that might not actually be true, not sure of the numbers, but hey), hence more important.

Ok. You get rid of all social prejudice against homosexuals and make gay rights equal to those of all others and I'll stop thinking that my life experience has been affected by my sexuality, k?

Click to expand...

That's not the point there. Basically, theory goes that the reason Jews had such a hard time with so many countries hating them for so long was that they had an almost fanatically stringent ethnicism. They refused to assimilate, to become part of the "mainstream", and so the mainstream saw them as a threat, constant foreigners.

Not saying that's a justifiable reaction on the part of society, but I'm also not sure how effective "look at us, we are different" is.

Ah, political correctness. I love when that phrase enters a conversation. Usually it means "I don't like having to be sensitive to others or put myself in other people's shoes so I'm going to take my pale and shovel and go home."

I have no desire to see you beat into a bloody pulp.

Click to expand...

Or it could mean, "Ah, shit, they think I'm hating on gays when I just think gays are the same as everyone else, now they're going to tear me a new asshole, then perforate my new asshole, then install some IKEA furniture and set up an entertainment center".

Oh, zing! You're right. That's why I'm continuing to engage you in conversation despite the fact that you seem to have no actual interest in paying attention to what I say.

Click to expand...

You seemed pretty upset, which freaked me out a bit. I didn't mean to stab a burning fire iron of persecution into your life or anything.

Oh, yes, because being queer is like being an atheist! Right! And Jehovah's Witnesses get to vote on the rights of atheists, so their attempt to preach to you is totes an equivalent issue. Got it.

Click to expand...

Agnostic, actually, although the difference is fairly academic (atheists are screaming "GOD DOES NOT EXIST", agnostics are muttering, "Well, then... looks like the landlord hasn't been around in a while.").

Analogies don't have to be literally true, you know.

I'm not taking your ideas as an assault on my person, I'm just vigorously disagreeing with them by saying that when I hear these arguments they are related, to me, to every other social argument that dismisses and denies the experience of being queer. I don't think you're assaulting me, but I do think your stake in this discussion is different than mine.

Click to expand...

Thank god for Voltaire.

And yeah, you're totally right. My stake in this argument is, "Tee hee, I think gays are the same as everyone else, now I'm going to go back to owning land" (except I own no land and am broke). I just feel like gays should seek commonalities instead of differences, but maybe that's crazily optimistic of me.

Salis:

You're wrong about Jews. For example, German Jews always thought of themselves as Germans first, and many didn't even consider themselves to be Jews. But then the Nazis forced everyone to see them as Jews and Jews alone. It was persecution that forced them together, not choice.

Anyway, I think you're misunderstanding us. LGBT people WANT to be treated like everyone else. We just think that we need others to understand that we are not, at the current moment, being treated like everyone else.

A problem can't be fixed if people don't know it exists. We're trying to tell everyone what the situation is, not what it should be.

And it's totally cool and good to say that LGBT people should be treated equally. We only have a problem with people who try to claim that we ARE treated equally already, because we aren't.

(And, like the Jews, it's not our choice. We want to be part of society, but until recently, we were literally criminals just for being queer. And gay and bisexual people still can't do normal things like get married to someone they love or join the military, and transgender folks can't do normal things like identify as our actual genders or join the military.)

You seem to think that we're rejecting society. We've been banging on the doors to get in for decades. Don't blame it on us. Blame it on the bigots that want to keep us out.

Salis said:

I just feel like gays should seek commonalities instead of differences, but maybe that's crazily optimistic of me.

Click to expand...

I'd be perfectly happy to zone out and do writing, but it won't work as long as straight people make such a fuzz about it. I mean, look at the United States. The supposedly most tolerant state now has a constitutional amendment barring adult people from marrying other adult people only because they happen to be of the same gender.

A majority of the voting californians thought that what two adults did in the privacy of their own home was important enough to have a constitutional amendment about.

So, by all means, let us gays, bis and transgenders go about our business, mowing our lawns, dropping our kids at school, getting married. But that sort of requires that straight people butt out of our lives.

Salis said:

It's probably just the Reeses Peanut Butter cup thing.

"Hey, you got a political issue in my entertaining novel!"

"HEY, you got an entertaining novel in my political issue!"

One person thinks its delicious, the other not so much.

Click to expand...

Except that what you see as a political issue other people see as their lives. Yeah.

Well, wouldn't you say that when things have no personal stake for you, you have to have some way of deciding priority? Which, again, is the case for a lot of people. One argument I can think of off the top of my head is just that gay people are much more common than, say, Roma, or Jews (that might not actually be true, not sure of the numbers, but hey), hence more important.

Click to expand...

Not really, no. I generally don't try to prioritize which peoples' experiences are more important, because I generally believe in the pursuit of total social equality for all. I would say that it's important to understand other peoples' perspectives, that we all do better when we all do better and that issues that don't seem relevant to my life are usually incredibly relevant in ways I just can't see, and they therefore deserve my respect, attention and, if possible, assistance. Example: I'm white, but a committed anti-racist because I recognize that not being a victim of racism does not mean I'm not a complicit member of a racist society, and basic human decency dictates that I should pay attention when people of color tell me some shit is racist and not put their concerns on a lower priority level because it's inconvenient or difficult for me to relate.

That's not the point there. Basically, theory goes that the reason Jews had such a hard time with so many countries hating them for so long was that they had an almost fanatically stringent ethnicism. They refused to assimilate, to become part of the "mainstream", and so the mainstream saw them as a threat, constant foreigners.

Click to expand...

Which is totally what "teh gays" do, living all in the same communities and all. Again, this is not a good or necessary comparison!

And incidentally, the fact that Jews often grouped together had nothing to do, I'm sure, with the fact that there's safety in numbers when you're part of a persecuted minority. Also, what Mara said.

I realize it's easier to blame the victim, but that doesn't make that particular reading of history a complete or entirely useful one.

Not saying that's a justifiable reaction on the part of society, but I'm also not sure how effective "look at us, we are different" is.

Click to expand...

Um, many gay people desperately want to "pass" and can't. I realize you might not understand this, but when a significant aspect of your person is fundamentally different from those around you, it's going to become obvious sooner or later no matter what you do. Or do you think walking down the street holding your lover's hand is an attempt to grab attention? What should gay people do to blend more with straight society? Should all gay men have "beards" they make out with in public places to keep the secret of their gay tucked away for home use only?

Or it could mean, "Ah, shit, they think I'm hating on gays when I just think gays are the same as everyone else, now they're going to tear me a new asshole, then perforate my new asshole, then install some IKEA furniture and set up an entertainment center".

Click to expand...

I don't think you hate gay people, but I do think you're insulated by straight privilege and that your arguments are problematic, ill conceived and limited.

You seemed pretty upset, which freaked me out a bit. I didn't mean to stab a burning fire iron of persecution into your life or anything.

Click to expand...

Well this is just the thing - words have power. You're a writer, so you should know this. And when you get into a discussion about something that is a fundamental part of other peoples' lives, you're likely to step in it if you're not careful and considerate. We're not having a conversation about Buffy the Vampire Slayer here - we're having a conversation about a topic that is both person and political. You started off this conversation by saying you find gay people drawing attention to their identity to be offputting. That's a pretty rude thing to say, honestly. How, exactly, did you expect that to be read as anything but a burning fire iron?

It seems to me that you're not really concerned about that, since you don't seem to be taking any of the arguments made to counter your position as serious points for you to consider. Have you spent any time, in your life, actually engaging in discussions with queer people? I think you'd find that the perspective expressed here by me and others is relatively more common than you'd think.

And yeah, you're totally right. My stake in this argument is, "Tee hee, I think gays are the same as everyone else, now I'm going to go back to owning land" (except I own no land and am broke). I just feel like gays should seek commonalities instead of differences, but maybe that's crazily optimistic of me.

Click to expand...

And again, you're showing some tremendous, and hugely problematic, assumptions. Many, many gay people DO want to focus on commonalities - or did you think the gay marriage movement was just about taxes?

Here's my question to you - why don't straight people spend more time trying to find commonalities with gay people? It is, after all, straight people who commit the majority of violent attacks on gay people and who have voted to outlaw gay marriage in the majority of states. From what I can see, gays have more to fear from straights than vice versa, and it's hard to focus on "commonalities" when it's your differences that cause you the most grief. It isn't just the out, political, overtly "queer" queers who get attacked, persecuted and killed, you know. Why is it always the responsibility of the oppressed group to bend and change in order to belong? And how far do you think queers should or can bend in the pursuit of "commonalities" before they break?

aquacat said:

Yes, but by what you wrote you effectively wrote gay people out of the equation. Which was my point - your default assumption of heterosexuality. For some people, (at least 1 in 10), heterosexuality is NOT the norm or the default. But then, I suppose they don't matter since they're not the majority, eh?

Click to expand...

Heterodeterministic society, I often forget this term, and it usually piss me off.

I know one of the characters in my sci fi novel is gay, but so far nothing's come up that would indicate that to the audience. Maybe something will, but it's not a scene I'm pushing to write.

If it comes up, it comes up, but it matters as much to the storyline as Monique's being black. That is, not at all.

I have a gay character, whose orientation is important to the plot, because he forms a very strong, strictly platonic relationship with my female MC. If he weren't gay, the reader would be wondering why something doesn't happen between them. Plus, it fits in with his story beautifully.

Now, as per not describing what race a character is ... that annoys me. To me, being "colorblind" in writing is more racist than "color is just a color". Race can be such a unique and wonderful part of someone's physical description (and possibly character). It totally irks me to no end when writers leave a character's race out just to be politically correct.

But if one was to describe somebody's race, you'd better pay due respect to their cultural tradition. Usually, if I can't, I'll leave the character raceless.