-- Gay black men are low-down thugs without women

I...don't even know how to respond to this.

I've read the article itself twice, and clicked the Gay Pride tag at the bottom. Other articles in the tag seem accepting, mostly, of homosexuality so...maybe I am missing something?

There's a nice collection of assumptions in the link, built from some generalized statements.

sheesh.


Maybe an "or" instead of an "are" in the thread title would have helped?

Maxinquaye said:

Do you mean you don't know how to respond to my post, or hers? I might be overly sensitive, true, but three things make me sad:

Click to expand...

Oh sorry I wasn't clearer.
I meant hers.
I had similar reactions, read the post the same way you did. But, in an effort to give her the benefit of the doubt, I checked out the Gay Pride tag (which, in and of itself is confusing. Why tag things gay pride if you think gay=bad?) and the other articles seem to say different things. Granted, the other articles seem to be mostly about female homosexuality.

I dunno, maybe in the writer's mind "Lesbian=ok" and "gay male=thug" (which is sad in it's own right)? I'm at a loss.

Blog writer seems bigoted in lots of interesting ways.

1. Black guy + hat + t-shirt + baggy jeans + goofy necklace = thug? Generalize much? Last time I checked the outfit you're wearing doesn't make you a criminal, unless it's a prison uniform. I don't know how she knows they are thugs, or how she knows they are on the DL. In fact, holding hands in public would suggest that they are in fact not at all on the DL.

2. Two guys on a train might be gay, therefore they were turned gay by women having jobs, therefore they are increasing the rates of HIV? WTF? Racism+sexism+homophobia=victory? I can't even tell who she bigotedly disapproves of more.

African-American men on the down-low do create a problem because of unprotected sex with multiple partners, and dishonesty about sexual partners. However, "female-led households" are not at fault. Neither are all gay men, "thug-looking" or not. It's a complicated issue relating to extreme societal homophobia and individual irresponsible sexual behavior. Bashing everyone you see isn't really an intelligent or productive way to address it.

There are a lot of troubling assumptions in that post. I don't see how you can tell what situation those two guys are in just from one picture of them. To assume that they're closeted gay men cheating on their wives or girlfriends based on one picture seems like quite the leap to me.

It's also a little hard for me to make out what the writer's point is. She seems to be claiming that black men have become gay because women aren't subservient to them anymore. That just strikes me as bizarre, especially if the writer is a lesbian.

Over the past 4 decades, black women have decided to go it alone with their kids rather than be subservient to black men like their mothers and aunts were back in the days when black men were the majority head of households.

Click to expand...

So black women are to blame for black men abandoning their families? That's nice.

It’s become nearly impossible to distinguish heterosexual men from down low thugs due to the proliferation of female-led households in the black community.

Click to expand...

Very hard to even follow the writer's thought process here. It's non-sensicle.

What the story is with these two people we don't know, but I feel it's inappropriate to post that photo in a public arena, unless i had their permission to do so - as they may not have informed others they are gay, or they may not be gay, or their private life is just that etc -after all they are not celebs ('legitimate' targets.) They may well not care at all, but I'd prefer to have that assurance.

Paul said:

What the story is with these two people we don't know, but I feel it's inappropriate to post that photo in a public arena, unless i had their permission to do so - as they may not have informed others they are gay, or they may not be gay, or their private life is just that etc -after all they are not celebs ('legitimate' targets.) They may well not care at all, but I'd prefer to have that assurance.

Click to expand...

Well, I sure hope they don't mind at this point, since it's been posted to Twitter, a fairly high-traffic (or so it appears) blog, and now a public forum. And who knows where else it's been.

Now, I completely understand what you're saying Paul, and I think I agree but just one caveat. In no way do I think that anyone, anywhere can qualify what happens on a subway train as being a part of someone's "private life." Speculation about their sexuality, sure that impinges on the private arena. But, a picture of people in a public place is not infringement on private spaces (in some countries that is in fact the law, and governments use it to allow themselves to have CCTV in most public areas). However, it is in rather bad taste to take a picture of people in a public place and then use it to publicly speculate about aspects of their personal life, IMHO.

Bookewyrme said:

Well, I sure hope they don't mind at this point, since it's been posted to Twitter, a fairly high-traffic (or so it appears) blog, and now a public forum. And who knows where else it's been.

Now, I completely understand what you're saying Paul, and I think I agree but just one caveat. In no way do I think that anyone, anywhere can qualify what happens on a subway train as being a part of someone's "private life." Speculation about their sexuality, sure that impinges on the private arena. But, a picture of people in a public place is not infringement on private spaces (in some countries that is in fact the law, and governments use it to allow themselves to have CCTV in most public areas). However, it is in rather bad taste to take a picture of people in a public place and then use it to publicly speculate about aspects of their personal life, IMHO.

Click to expand...

Exactly my point. (no offence to Max, just my opinion)
(as for twitter etc, 2 wrongs don't make a right.)

Maxinquaye said:

I don't think it's speculation. Those two are gay. I'm not 100% sure of course, but the hand holding tickles my gaydar very strongly. I've had perfectly straight guys sleep on my shoulders on long trips, but they didn't hold my hand doing so.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not doubting your gaydar, per se... but knowing for sure and being sure they are happy to have their photo on show and a discussion about them is different. as i say, they're not public figures. I certainly wouldn't like some of the photos taken of me on the net...

Edit:as a footnote / response to the OP, the original source commentator's article is all over the place as far as I can make out.

Edit 2: Appreciate that Max, I just thought it was outside the spirit of fair play - i recognise other might feel different, but hats off to you.

Thugs?!

And then she just gets worse.

She knows nothing about these men. She should stfu.

I also thought the article was befuddling. Considering the scores of negative responses she received, I wonder if the author was just being provocative for a kick.

I personally believe the "DL phenom" is hyped up at best and insidiously homophobic at worst. It got sensationalized with J.L. King's book On the Down Low (which I never read), and he scored some great publicity when Oprah had him on her show back in 2004.

The insidious part is there's no scientific proof that African American DL guys are the cause of rising rates of HIV/AIDS among African American women. It's a belief, an anecdote, some would say a scare tactic to make the correlation. The blame game does nothing to move forward HIV prevention.

She's a bit . . . odd. Look at her other posts.

I wasn't going to post on this but then I took a look at the photo.

Look at the guy with the phone. Then look at the other guy who seems to be napping. The angle of the sleeping guy means that the phone guy either leaves his free arm squashed under the weight of Mr Sleepy or wrap it around him. There aren't many places for him to lay his arm comfortably. If he raised it higher, the phone guy would be seen as caressing a breast. As it is, he simply rests his hand in the most comfortable way. He's clearly not 'holding' hands.
Also it seems to me that if he's being 'romantic', he looks mighty sang froid about it. The real faux pas here is letting another guy sack out on him in public.
I'd say that this is a tempest in a train car.
Down Low? ...he who seals from me my good name... etc.
C

Actually, I have to disagree, citymouse. I mean, he is holding hands (some fingers are under the other guy's fingers). And if he didn't want to have his arm around sleeping-man he could simply lay it along the back of the seats.

But, honestly, that's not really the point. If they're strictly het, then good for them for not being so ravingly homophobic that they can't lend their buddies a shoulder. The point, I think, is the article and the bad stereotypes perpetuated in it.

Not sure what you're implying with the "He who steals" from me quote? That thinking someone is a homosexual is slander? Sorry if I'm being too sensitive about that.

Edit: Max and I seem to have gone all psychic with each other. Crazy...

Medievalist said:

She's a bit . . . odd. Look at her other posts.

Click to expand...

I thought so, as well. I'm also baffled by the "gay pride" tag. I'm not sure what things like Lindsay Lohan's jail life or that flight attendant storming out of a plane have to do with gay pride, aside from the possibility that the people involved are gay.

I don't think there is anything shameful about being gay, in public or in private. I just don't think anyone can be certain from that photo that these guys are indeed gay men on the DL or that they are thugs.
To my eye the pic doesn't say gay, or DL or thug.
I confess I'm not impressed with their clothing choices but that's a personal bias on my part. Orange has never been my color.
C

I mean, they could be brothers. They aren't necessarily gay. But I love the picture either way I just wish they had given permission before it was leaked all over the internet...

Ok, I looked through her other posts tagged in the gay pride, and one of the articles in on Angelina's tomboyish daughter. The commenters blasted Angelina for *le gasp* letting her daughter have short hair and wearing baggy boys clothing. That whole site is messed up in my opinion.

I...got nothing.