|
Grex > Sexuality > #22: My girl is pregnant with twins and another on the side.(and all are mine) | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 71 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 31 of 71:
| 
May 9 20:07 UTC 2002 |
#28> I'm guilty of het privelege myself, but I think that gay monosexuals have
a superficial understanding of it, in general. It's more than, "Well, it's
easier to be with a MOTOS than a MOTSS, so I'll just be with a MOTOS and I
really don't care." There's a different "what's wrong with me?" soundtrack
in the mind when you're torn between social norm and non-norm than when you
are just non-normative.
Erg. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense, but there's more to it than
emotional callousness or laziness, even though I can see how it might feel
that way to a MOTSS who's on the receiving end of it.
|
void
|
|
response 32 of 71:
|
May 24 23:36 UTC 2002 |
There are also the gay+lesbian couples who get married solely to
claim hetero privilege. I've met enough couples like that to be
convinced taht their numbers are not insignificant. In most cases,
hetero privilege is nothing but rank cowardice.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 33 of 71:
|
May 25 01:02 UTC 2002 |
Whoa, that's a bit harsh.. I mean, without equal housing and equal
insurance benefits, maybe they are deciding to go with the flow right
now instead of trying to fight the system?
|
phenix
|
|
response 34 of 71:
|
May 25 01:38 UTC 2002 |
rank cowardice or simple survival?
|
void
|
|
response 35 of 71:
|
May 25 07:52 UTC 2002 |
Given that there are thousands of glbt's who live openly, het
privilege is rank cowardice.
|
oval
|
|
response 36 of 71:
|
May 25 17:27 UTC 2002 |
perhaps "het privalege" needs to be defined.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 37 of 71:
|
May 26 01:37 UTC 2002 |
Re #35: Why are you condemning them for their lifestyle choice?
|
i
|
|
response 38 of 71:
|
May 26 12:35 UTC 2002 |
A bi who keeps getting into MOTSS relationships, then dumping them to
keep up his/her painted-on-the-closet-door image (or over other issues)
is sleazy, but i don't see that it's morally any different that a plain-
het charmer who keeps breaking engagements because he can't handle the
commitment.
You can be a real soldier, have real courage, and still say "Germany"
if you're fortunate enough to be offered a choice between that and a
(often considered less desirable) posting in S. Vietnam. It sounds
like void is a got-no-choice, really-pissed-off soldier in a stinking
rice paddy who's bashing on the soldiers in Germany.
|
lelande
|
|
response 39 of 71:
|
May 26 18:11 UTC 2002 |
rank cowardice and simple survival are not mutually exclusive.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 40 of 71:
|
May 28 15:44 UTC 2002 |
I'm never sure how I feel about the idea that queer people have a duty to be
visible. On the one hand, it seems like good common sense that the further
out of the closet everyone is, the more everyone benefits. On the other hand,
it seems strange to claim that gays and lesbians have special moral
obligations that straight people don't have. You wouldn't want to go claiming
that women, or men, or people of a certain race, have special moral
obligations, would you?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 41 of 71:
|
May 28 16:43 UTC 2002 |
It doesn't seem to make sense to me to politicize sexuality. I mean, it seems
to me that the whole point is that people should be allowed to love, have sex
with, and live with whoever they prefer regardless of their respective sexes,
right?
|
oval
|
|
response 42 of 71:
|
May 28 20:57 UTC 2002 |
i honestly feel that it's more about gender roles than sexuality. queers defy
these traditional roles that society pressures us to comform to. sometimes
non-queers do to, theyre just as ostracised.
|
lelande
|
|
response 43 of 71:
|
May 29 01:50 UTC 2002 |
40:
why not? if the time + place is right + ripe, i can see how members of a
category in bad need of some bootstrapping would get angry at other
members preferring isolation. the greater number of members pitching in,
the shorter amount of time the 'ethical obligation' would need to be
posited, ne?
|
void
|
|
response 44 of 71:
|
May 29 22:04 UTC 2002 |
re #37: I'm condemning them for being liars.
Hetero privilege, as I became acquainted with the term, is any bi,
lesbian, or gay who marries a MOTOS primarily to avoid societal or
familial stigma, yet still goes out and does their MOTSS thing when the
boss or the relatives or the church group aren't looking. It's
cowardice. It's pretending to be what you aren't. It stinks.
|
phenix
|
|
response 45 of 71:
|
May 29 22:19 UTC 2002 |
it's also very effective for keeping said job and out of poverty.
|
jazz
|
|
response 46 of 71:
|
May 29 23:13 UTC 2002 |
I'm of two minds on this; one, it hurts people when you lie about your
sexual orientation, because it helps keep prejudice intact; however, two,
when you do not lie, you often bear the burden of the prejudice personally.
I can understand why people would lie. It's not something I'd consider so
much reprehensible as just being a shame.
|
oval
|
|
response 47 of 71:
|
May 30 01:01 UTC 2002 |
some people also marry for working visa priviledge.
|
phenix
|
|
response 48 of 71:
|
May 30 02:21 UTC 2002 |
yha, and they don't catch flack.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 49 of 71:
|
May 30 03:28 UTC 2002 |
Don't they? I've heard much harsher words about green card marriages than
I've ever heard about queer folks in cover-up marriages.
Here's the thing. Lying is wrong. Lying about something important like
love is especially bad. But getting married to keep yourself in the
closet, or to rip the government off, or whatever, isn't any _more_ wrong
than telling any other sort of lie. It's no less wrong, but it's no more
wrong either.
And if you're in the closet, you're already lying about love. I don't see
how getting married to support that lie -- so long as your spouse is in on
the real story -- makes it any worse. And really, sometimes staying in
the closet is the best thing to do, even if it is dishonest.
I agree with jazz. It's a shame, but it's not worth coming down so hard
on.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 50 of 71:
|
May 30 07:31 UTC 2002 |
I'm not sure if I 100% agree in the case of bis, honestly..
because let me get this straight--
if a MOTOS pair decide to marry-- say one is bi, or both are bi, and
they also decide that their relationship should be mutually
exclusive.. no sex on the side.. is that a lie? I'll accept a version
of het priviledge, but.. really.
If anyone cares, my wife and I are.. both, although, admittedly, my
interest is probably stronger than hers. We found things worked best
*for us* to keep the relationship mutually exclusive. *We* love each
other. Doin' it on the side doesn't work, and although it's hard, I
believe it's worth it. I can't imagine trying to drag our daughter
through some sort of polyamory arrangement-- sorry brighn, just is not
for us.
It works for us. We are.. happy this way. Of course, your mileage
and travel time may vary.
|
jazz
|
|
response 51 of 71:
|
May 30 14:50 UTC 2002 |
I'd gotten the impression that both of you were interested in each
other, however, and married for that reason. Isn't that correct?
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 52 of 71:
|
May 30 23:04 UTC 2002 |
well, right.
So let me get this straight-- just according to what's been said--
a MOTSS couple love each other, but one marries a MOTOS for het
privilege-- not okay.
a MOTOS couple, but bi, love each other, get married, but one or both
are doing it on the side-- not okay? if both agree-- okay?
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 53 of 71:
|
May 30 23:09 UTC 2002 |
I ask because the politics are really odd-- I've seen bi people who
seem to be politically active only when they are in a relationship
with a MOTSS. A MOTOS relationship seems to make them politically
fade away.
(then there was us-- I still don't know what the local GALA made of us
for sure when we participated)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 54 of 71:
|
May 31 05:51 UTC 2002 |
That makes sense to me. Activism usually comes from compassion, but it also
usually comes from necessity. I open my mouth more on issues of gender and
sexuality than I do on issues of race and class because I'm of a priveliged
race and in a priveliged class.
|
void
|
|
response 55 of 71:
|
May 31 06:55 UTC 2002 |
re #49: No, staying in the closet is not the best thing to do.
Staying in the closet perpetuates discrimination, prejudice, and
calumny. Staying in the closet means you don't have to gonads to stand
up for yourself in just about the biggest way imaginable.
|