• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The homosexual persona

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
well i know one guy who'd youd be happy at....hes gay, hes into computers....and unless u asked u wouldnt even know he was gay, hes a quality bloke, jus acts like all us non gays....we all know he is and we just dont care

but yes i have seen and i do vaguely know a few of those so called "in your face" gay ppl with the overly camp and deliberatly loud voice, the ones that associate mainly with all the girls, the type of girls with who are not particularly bright and have their heads so far up their own and each others arses its hard to tell where they begin and the others end.

they also have the inability to dress normally, they have to have the bleeding edge of what i would class as over priced tatt (ie fashion)

i find them annoying too......its like a deliberate face or mask to show to ppl, deliberately to say LOOK AT ME IM GAY ARENT I GOOD IN MY NEW GUCCI SHOES THAT COST MY ENTIRE MONTHS WAGES.....AND OOOO ID DOO HIM UP THE BUM VERY TASTY....it comes across all false...i dont hate gays but i hate these ppl, this lot should die in a fire, and jus leave the world to the normal gays who are happy with what they are...like my mate
 
I've been around enough homosexuals to know they don't care what you think.

Come back and post on the subject when you are gay (unless you are?) and know what the hell you are talking about.
 
Originally posted by: DigDug
So I guess you are not a fan of Queer Eye for the strait guy
Click to expand...


That show exists precisely because of this established persona that homosexuals aspire to be. Its too contrived and subscribed to by so many gay people I know. They all speak with the same inflection, the same terminology, and like the same things. Do all heterosexuals speka the same way, have the same, interests, and use the same terminology? It's a persona, there's no question about it.
Click to expand...

agree
 
I don't have an issue with gays, and I believe in equal rights, but I hate those "in your face, look at me, I'm gay" types. Like the douche from QEFTSG.
 
I think to a certain extent, it's a phase that a lot of gays go through when they're younger. most break out of it.

but for many of gays, the only homosexual rolemodels they've ever known growing up are the stereotypical media-friendly gays (aka: Will and Grace, Queer Eye, etc).
 
Originally posted by: brigden
I don't have an issue with gays, and I believe in equal rights, but I hate those "in your face, look at me, I'm gay" types. Like the douche from QEFTSG.
Click to expand...

They probably hate a guy's guy just the same. Just avoid them in real life and on TV and its okay.
 
I agree the whole ru-paul persona is unnecessary however I think we all would be surprised by how much we are groomed by society to act the way that we do.

People who live in glass houses.....



 
Originally posted by: boggsie
An interesting day.

Why so much facination (today) with a group of people who do nothing more than express their personal choice to have sex with willing people of their own gender.😕
Click to expand...

Fixed.
 
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Hallelujah brother, pways the lewd!!!!

now after we are done killing them gays, how about we go after them there musulums? I hear they are different than us and don't go to church or nohting, ma always said to pa, church or die and i think we should enforce the rule!!!!

Just be careful cuz then niqqers get to sit everywhere and you don't want to sit where their lazy asses hve been.

PWAISE THE LEWD!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: brigden
I don't have an issue with gays, and I believe in equal rights, but I hate those "in your face, look at me, I'm gay" types. Like the douche from QEFTSG.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
I have outlined the various arguments so far, along with my response:


1. Some variation of "you are homophobic"

A: I'm not homophobic at all. If you knew me, you know that my peeves are as valid among many homosexuals as they are among me. What I do apologize for is about speaking in the absolute. You all are right, they don't ALL act as I mention. But many, many do - many more so than would be the product of happenstance. As Gustaharian (sp?) admitted - its a contrivance. And that's what I was getting at. The gay men in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy are modern-day Sambos. Anyone who suggests otherwise is kidding themselves, and are probably the same morons who assert that women who pose naked in Hustler are furthering female empowerment.

2. Some variation of "heterosexuals are the same" (the old relativity argument).

A: I believe I addressed this in my original post, but perhaps not clearly enough. Yes, there are heterosexuals who choose to base their identity on heterosexuality. Shows like the Man Show, and a good amount of the hyper-macho men out there seem to talk about nothing but sex, are examples of the bunch. However, as a percentage of the heterosexual population, I'm willing to be that they are far smaller a group than the percentage of homosexual society made up by "flamers", for lack of a better word. Again, Gustaharian's assertion that this ru-paulesque persona is a counter to the inferiority complex brought about by the by-and-large ocietal disapproval of homosexuals only serves to prove my point - see below.

3. The more thoughtful argument that this is simply compensatory behavior.

A: I believe this is exactly right, to an extent. And sadly, it does nothing but garner more hatred and seeks to alienate those, like me, who otherwise are willing to embrace someone who is gay. Like I said before, I want to know you as you, not Gay you. If you are so one-dimensional or uninteresting as to have nothing else to offer but your sexual orientation, then you do not deserve my friendship. People don't like a stance or opinion continually thrown in their face - regardless of what it is (and unless it is one they passionately agree with) - and as PETA enrages and alienates the average person, so too does the constant sexual banter that flamers engage in (in a transparent effort to shock and feign self-assuredness). One of my best friends - we have a tight social circle from law school - is gay, but you'd NEVER, EVER know. Is he less gay? No, to me - he does far more for the "gay cause" by doing nothing at all, than the affected lisps and hip sways of the "will and grace" chelsea-boy crowd.

While my post may have been a little harsh, it was a (perhaps poor) attempt at a humorous way to demonstration frustration, along with what I tried to say clearly, "you do not need to do this to be gay." What I said, however, I meant - and its sad that any critical evaluation of a marginalized group instantly draws the "you're a homophobe!", "you're an anti-semite!", "you're a racist!" crowd piling out of the woodwork.
 
Originally posted by: DigDug
I have outlined the various arguments so far, along with my response:


1. Some variation of "you are homophobic"

A: I'm not homophobic at all. If you knew me, you know that my peeves are as valid among many homosexuals as they are among me. What I do apologize for is about speaking in the absolute. You all are right, they don't ALL act as I mention. But many, many do - many more so than would be the product of happenstance. As Gustaharian (sp?) admitted - its a contrivance. And that's what I was getting at. The gay men in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy are modern-day Sambos. Anyone who suggests otherwise is kidding themselves, and are probably the same morons who assert that women who pose naked in Hustler are furthering female empowerment.

2. Some variation of "heterosexuals are the same" (the old relativity argument).

A: I believe I addressed this in my original post, but perhaps not clearly enough. Yes, they are heterosexuals who choose to base their identity on heterosexuality. Shows like the Man Show, and a good amount of the hyper-macho men out there seem to talk about nothing but sex, are examples of the bunch. However, as a percentage of the heterosexual population, I'm willing to be that they are far smaller a group than the percentage of homosexual society made up by "flamers", for lack of a better word. Again, Gustaharian's assertion that this ru-paulesque persona is a counter to the inferiority complex brought about by the by-and-large ocietal disapproval of homosexuals only serves to prove my point - see below.

3. The more thoughtful argument that this is simply compensatory behavior.

A: I believe this is exactly right, to an extent. And sadly, it does nothing but garner more hatred and seeks to alienate those, like me, who otherwise are willing to embrace someone who is gay. Like I said before, I want to know you as you, not Gay you. If you are so one-dimensional or uninteresting as to have nothing else to offer but your sexual orientation, then you do not deserve my friendship. People don't like a stance or opinion continually thrown in their face - regardless of what it is (and unless it is one they passionately agree with) - and as PETA enrages and alienates the average person, so too does the constant sexual banter that flamers engage in (in a transparent effort to shock and feign self-assuredness). One of my best friends - we have a tight social circle from law school - is gay, but you'd NEVER, EVER know. Is he less gay? No, to me - he does far more for the "gay cause" by doing nothing at all, than the affected lisps and hip sways of the "will and grace" chelsea-boy crowd.

While my post may have been a little harsh, it was a (perhaps poor) attempt at a humorous way to demonstration frustration. What I said, however, I mean - and its sad that any critical evaluation of a marginalized group instantly draws the "you're a homophobe!", "you're an anti-semite!", "you're a racist!" crowd piling out of the woodwork.
Click to expand...

Unfotunately, since your beliefs have no actual proof to back them up your point is moot.

BTW-So, you like your gays hidden and not so in your face. Do you like your colored friends calling you Master as well? I could care less if someone is gay and it doesn't offend me in the least if they are flambouyant. Why does it bother you?
 
Originally posted by: DigDug
Such stinging wit, Klixxer. So original too!


:roll:
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but your posts can be summarized with "i am a bigot and i hate homosexuals".

The degree of dislike or the level of your hate does not really matter.

You are a bigot, i hate you for it, i will always hate you and people like you, it is in me to love democracy and hate majority rule, if you don't like it, well, tough, i am not going to change but i suggest you do.

What you wrote was the same as if someone would have come in here and said that niqqers are lazy.

It is a biggoted viewpoint you got there, i will not apologize for disagreeing with your bigotry.
 
Originally posted by: DigDug
I have outlined the various arguments so far, along with my response:


1. Some variation of "you are homophobic"

A: I'm not homophobic at all. If you knew me, you know that my peeves are as valid among many homosexuals as they are among me. What I do apologize for is about speaking in the absolute. You all are right, they don't ALL act as I mention. But many, many do - many more so than would be the product of happenstance. As Gustaharian (sp?) admitted - its a contrivance. And that's what I was getting at. The gay men in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy are modern-day Sambos. Anyone who suggests otherwise is kidding themselves, and are probably the same morons who assert that women who pose naked in Hustler are furthering female empowerment.

2. Some variation of "heterosexuals are the same" (the old relativity argument).

A: I believe I addressed this in my original post, but perhaps not clearly enough. Yes, there are heterosexuals who choose to base their identity on heterosexuality. Shows like the Man Show, and a good amount of the hyper-macho men out there seem to talk about nothing but sex, are examples of the bunch. However, as a percentage of the heterosexual population, I'm willing to be that they are far smaller a group than the percentage of homosexual society made up by "flamers", for lack of a better word. Again, Gustaharian's assertion that this ru-paulesque persona is a counter to the inferiority complex brought about by the by-and-large ocietal disapproval of homosexuals only serves to prove my point - see below.

3. The more thoughtful argument that this is simply compensatory behavior.

A: I believe this is exactly right, to an extent. And sadly, it does nothing but garner more hatred and seeks to alienate those, like me, who otherwise are willing to embrace someone who is gay. Like I said before, I want to know you as you, not Gay you. If you are so one-dimensional or uninteresting as to have nothing else to offer but your sexual orientation, then you do not deserve my friendship. People don't like a stance or opinion continually thrown in their face - regardless of what it is (and unless it is one they passionately agree with) - and as PETA enrages and alienates the average person, so too does the constant sexual banter that flamers engage in (in a transparent effort to shock and feign self-assuredness). One of my best friends - we have a tight social circle from law school - is gay, but you'd NEVER, EVER know. Is he less gay? No, to me - he does far more for the "gay cause" by doing nothing at all, than the affected lisps and hip sways of the "will and grace" chelsea-boy crowd.

While my post may have been a little harsh, it was a (perhaps poor) attempt at a humorous way to demonstration frustration, along with what I tried to say clearly, "you do not need to do this to be gay." What I said, however, I meant - and its sad that any critical evaluation of a marginalized group instantly draws the "you're a homophobe!", "you're an anti-semite!", "you're a racist!" crowd piling out of the woodwork.
Click to expand...

MAN you are fvcked in the head, this isn't even worthy of further comment.
 
Unfotunately, since your beliefs have no actual proof to back them up your point is moot.
Click to expand...


How can there ever be proof in such situations where scientific inquiry would be impossible to perform? Does that mean we just stop talking about it altogether? These ARE the topics most worthy of discussion, because it is in these areas that society is struggling the hardest. YOU are the one who wants things hidden and quiet.

So, you like your gays hidden and not so in your face. Do you like your colored friends calling you Master as well?
Click to expand...


Jules, you clearly do not understand what is being discussed, or what I am saying. Because others out there may be also reacting reflexively and without any attempt at thinking it through, I'll break it down, using your analogy.

I do NO want gays "hidden and quiet". I want them as free to be who they are as possible. Right now, otherwise depthful and fascinating people are using a persona of feigned assurance along with other idiosyncratic characteristics attributed to homosexuals as a means of masking insecurity and inadequacy. The result is a bunch of caring, gentle, mature, passionate and charming people walking around subcribing to and behaving as the folks from Queer Eye do, because they believe that will bring them acceptance and "convince" people that they are "proud" of who they are and that they don't care what anyone else thinks - when exactly the opposite is the case.

This is a sociological phenomenon that is also seen with teenagers, another group of insecure people desperately seeking self-assurance. So the result is a multi-billion dollar media empire that prays upon this desire to adopt a persona, selling music, clothes, and an attitude to match. The "hip-hop" persona, for example has the music (rap), the clothing (a carefully constructed set of styles that you obviously have seen), and most importantly, the I-don't-give-a-sh1t attitude that teenagers are just dying to convince others they posses. When you step back the mechanism is obvious.

I could care less if someone is gay and it doesn't offend me in the least if they are flambouyant. Why does it bother you?
Click to expand...

It bothers me for two reasons: (1) it is painful to watch people behave out of desperation, and (2) it is annoying to have something, ANYTHING, shoved in one's face. While I am against animal cruelty, I didn't like when I walked to class every morning at college and had PETA people screaming about animal cruelty, or play acting like a soon-to-be slaughtered pig, or threatening to enter the biology labs to free animals (ironically bred in captivity).

While I can change the channel on TV, I can't do so in real life - and I refuse to have to maneuver my world because someone feels the need to pollute mine with pointless and contrived obnoxiousness.
 
MAN you are fvcked in the head, this isn't even worthy of further comment.
Click to expand...

Translation from Klixxer-speak: "I can't really even grasp what you are saying, so I'll provide a personal attack and pretend that it's not even worth responding to."
 
DigDug, what started out as a somewhat sound commentary on social issues such as promoting the gay stereotype in the media has dissolved into utter rubbish because of comments like this:

While I can change the channel on TV, I can't do so in real life - and I refuse to have to maneuver my world because someone feels the need to pollute mine with pointless and contrived obnoxiousness.
Click to expand...

Welcome to life. If you honestly believe that the world is going to bend to the whim of your utterly insignifigant existance you're gravely mistaken. Do you have to love what everyone does? No. But what makes their right to act how they want any different from your desire to act the way you wish to? Don't you see that you've disregarded everyone else's views because they do not satisfy your arbitrary criteria for how the world should work?

I tend to agree with the fact that shows like QEFTSG are 100% counterproductive to gay acceptance in this country. But what choice has this country given them? When a giant majority of this country would rather gay people didn't exist you create a situation known as defiance. This is not unlike the cultural revolution we experienced in the 60s. This culture has given them a sense of belonging in this hostile ignorant country. Who are you, sir, to take that away from them?


 
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
DigDug, what started out as a somewhat sound commentary on social issues such as promoting the gay stereotype in the media has dissolved into utter rubbish because of comments like this:

While I can change the channel on TV, I can't do so in real life - and I refuse to have to maneuver my world because someone feels the need to pollute mine with pointless and contrived obnoxiousness.
Click to expand...

Welcome to life. If you honestly believe that the world is going to bend to the whim of your utterly insignifigant existance you're gravely mistaken. Do you have to love what everyone does? No. But what makes their right to act how they want any different from your desire to act the way you wish to? Don't you see that you've disregarded everyone else's views because they do not satisfy your arbitrary criteria for how the world should work?

I tend to agree with the fact that shows like QEFTSG are 100% counterproductive to gay acceptance in this country. But what choice has this country given them? When a giant majority of this country would rather gay people didn't exist you create a situation known as defiance. This is not unlike the cultural revolution we experienced in the 60s. This culture has given them a sense of belonging in this hostile ignorant country. Who are you, sir, to take that away from them?
Click to expand...


*standing ovation*
 
Originally posted by: CorporateRecreation
DigDug, what started out as a somewhat sound commentary on social issues such as promoting the gay stereotype in the media has dissolved into utter rubbish because of comments like this:

While I can change the channel on TV, I can't do so in real life - and I refuse to have to maneuver my world because someone feels the need to pollute mine with pointless and contrived obnoxiousness.
Click to expand...

Welcome to life. If you honestly believe that the world is going to bend to the whim of your utterly insignifigant existance you're gravely mistaken. Do you have to love what everyone does? No. But what makes their right to act how they want any different from your desire to act the way you wish to? Don't you see that you've disregarded everyone else's views because they do not satisfy your arbitrary criteria for how the world should work?

I tend to agree with the fact that shows like QEFTSG are 100% counterproductive to gay acceptance in this country. But what choice has this country given them? When a giant majority of this country would rather gay people didn't exist you create a situation known as defiance. This is not unlike the cultural revolution we experienced in the 60s. This culture has given them a sense of belonging in this hostile ignorant country. Who are you, sir, to take that away from them?
Click to expand...

If anything on AT has *EVER* deserved a standing ovation, this, folks, is it.
 
Originally posted by: DigDug
I've been around enough open homosexuals (and obviously enough heterosexuals) to notice this: all things considered, homosexuals spend more time fashioning their persona to fit what they percieve a homosexual should act like than do heterosexuals.

While you relativists out there will say that its all a spectrum and that there are some of each group that do so, yet the majority - (ahh, its always this "majority") are neither to one extreme or the other.

Perhaps, but it is an ABSOLUTE fact that more homosexuals put on the affected in-your-face-i'm-ru-paul persona than heterosexuals do with a heterosexual persona (I have trouble thinking of what exactly that is).

While I understand that on some level its just a defensive mechanism, you know, feigning self-assuredness and confidence to mask the deepest levels of insecurity and lack of confidence, but in all honesty there is no need.

You don't need to point every man you'd screw and how you'd do it, in a voice too loud for the situational context. We all discuss who we'd like to screw, but we don't yell it out.

You don't need to pretend to be an authority on fashion or feign an arrogance regarding fashion sense. Just cause your gay doesn't mean you need to be familiar with every chic brand label, and you don't need to show/feign disgust when I don't know them.

You don't need to act like a hypersexual hyena. We all have urges; you don't need to steer every conversation in that direction.

You don't need to act like a spoiled brat. You may like to play with little the genitals of boys, but that doesn't make you a little girl. Grow up.

In short, shape your identity to be something more than your homosexuality. When I met Joe, I want to meet Joe, the cool guy that happens to be gay. Not Gay Joe. See what I mean?
Click to expand...


Go away idiot.
 
Welcome to life. If you honestly believe that the world is going to bend to the whim of your utterly insignifigant existance you're gravely mistaken. Do you have to love what everyone does? No. But what makes their right to act how they want any different from your desire to act the way you wish to? Don't you see that you've disregarded everyone else's views because they do not satisfy your arbitrary criteria for how the world should work?
Click to expand...

CR, I was asked why I was bothered by them, and that was my answer. I don't "honestly believe that the world is going to bend to the whim of your utterly insignificant existance" but that has no bearing on expressing an opinion when asked for it. That I post to say that homosexuals need not, nor should behave in a certain manner doesn't imply that I naively believe that I somehow can change the world. I don't see what you are getting at.
I haven't "disregarded everyone else's views". In fact I explicitly agreed with Gustaharian, a homosexual on this board who put forth that such behavior was a compensatory one. Where am I dismissing other's opinions? I addressed each and every one that was made in this thread. I just don't see them to be valid, and as in any conversation among any group of people in this world, I vocalized my disagreement.

The only who dismissed one's view was Klixxer dismissing mine with a one sentence retort, obviously a product of a desire to disregard my view rather than address it.

This is not unlike the cultural revolution we experienced in the 60s. This culture has given them a sense of belonging in this hostile ignorant country. Who are you, sir, to take that away from them?
Click to expand...

I'm not taking that away from them, rather I'm suggesting that, to quote Ralph Ellison, "an escape is not effected through a bitter railing against trap". You don't conquer your detractors by playing into the very role they place you in. Believe me, man. I ALWAYS root for the underdog, whether it be minorities (I am one), gays, women, and the poor, but you know what, more often than not, they always let me down - and my frustration, I guess, is percieved as hatred and not disappointment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top