47 new of 71 responses total.
People associate a bit too much meaning into the vocabulary.
amen. apeople.
Words mean what they mean. If words can be redefined as anyone sees fit, then language is no longer an effective way of communicating and we need to come up with something else pronto. Re resp:19: Bisexuals get a lot of crap from all three monosexual camps. It makes me really mad when I see lesbians or gays start using the same rhetoric against bis as the religious right use against us. Having been burned more than once by bis who turned out to prefer hetero privilege, I can understand the resentment toward them. Still, that's no excuse to go on a crusade and try to make bis adhere to one gender. I just don't date bi women or lesbians-with-boyfriends anymore.
To be fair, though, is it possible to tell whether a person's decision
about two partners is influenced by whether they're more attracted to one
gender, or how society views their attractions, or whether they simply get
along better with one person than another?
What are you referring to?
You - on the subject of "het priv". ;)
#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.
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.
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?
rank cowardice or simple survival?
Given that there are thousands of glbt's who live openly, het privilege is rank cowardice.
perhaps "het privalege" needs to be defined.
Re #35: Why are you condemning them for their lifestyle choice?
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.
rank cowardice and simple survival are not mutually exclusive.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
it's also very effective for keeping said job and out of poverty.
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.
some people also marry for working visa priviledge.
yha, and they don't catch flack.
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.
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.
I'd gotten the impression that both of you were interested in each
other, however, and married for that reason. Isn't that correct?
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?
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)
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.
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.
you seem a little defensive
Most married couples don't throw out their libidoes when they put on
the rings, and it doesn't seem all that significant to me what direction their
libidoes want to go. It's about whether or not they're faithful to the
agreements they've made to their partner, whether those agreements include
extramarital sex or not. If you've agreed not to do it, don't do it.
Void's comment reminds me of an Ani DiFranco song, which goes like this
- "Some chick came up to me and said thanks for saying all the things I never
do, but you know the thanks I get is to take all the shit for you. It's nice
that you listen, it'd be nice if you joined in, as long as you play that game
girl, you're never going to win." It's true, insofar as it goes, but I don't
think everyone was born to fight for what they believe in.
orinoco: why is lying wrong? jazz: i don't think standing for what you believe is something you must be born-to-do to do. when it comes to dying for what you believe, now there i'll agree with you that only the select come equipped with the means. but not standing is cowardice, and that's a choice available to anyone.
Re: #44 I'm only familiar with "het privilege" in reference to bi's being (very conveniently for them) assumed het when they're going out with a MOTOS. A homo who's got a public MOTOS relationship (whether real, fake, baggage from prior het status, or whatever) is just in the closet - which is no privilege, and needs no special term. The fake marriage w/MOTSS action on the side sounds *very* much like the age-old traditional European (& American) institution of marriage for the upper classes. Folks got married for reasons of money, politics, & noble blood to someone picked for those traits (whether they liked each other or had even met each other or not), maybe produced an heir or two, then each took a lover on the side while keeping up the loose pretense of marriage. The last i paid attention, the idea of romantic marriage to one's true love (for most real people in the real world) was a far newer & less well accepted idea in virtually all of Christiandom. The older practice was well accepted in America through most of the 20th century. (Remember FDR or JFK?) With this historical context, the "fake het cover" marriage sounds *at least* as legit as the "madly in love MOTOS romance" marriage to me. On the whole coward/closet thing: i don't see how being an (involuntary) member of group X makes one any more morally obligated than non-members to advance the interests of group X. We're not talking about a country here, with a bunch of obligations to its citizens & need to collect taxes, draft soldiers, etc. to meet those obligations.
lelande: Nice. This isn't the place for it, though. If you'd like, imagine that all my responses begin with "If you're the sort of kinky freak who's into honesty and trust" from here on out. re closets: Look at it this way. We all do things that are socially unacceptable, or way out on the fringes of normal behavior, or persecuted, or whatever. It makes no sense to say that some of them carry with them special responsibilities while others don't. If there's a moral obligation to go out of your way to tell your friends and co-workers you're gay, why is there no obligation to be loud and up-front about your other sexual quirks, or the personality traits of your dream partner, or your interests in stamp collecting and ornithology, or whatever? Anti-Semitism is just as real as homophobia, but I doubt most people would say I'm obligated to tell strangers about my Jewish ancestry. S & M is much more stigmatized than homosexuality, but apparently it's okay to hide my _other_ perversions so long as I say I dig men. I don't buy it. You need to keep everything to the same standard of honesty.
Homosexuality isn't, despite the enormously strong cliques that seem
to go along with it, a group in the sense that the Freemasons or the Students
for a Democratic Society is, though, and it's not really fair to say that
there is a gay agenda, because not everyone agrees. How can you advance the
goals of a group that isn't of a single mind?
Not to mention a group one doesn't really choose to join...
(Did I say that, or are you answering someone else?)
Restating what someone else has said, in your own words, and
elaborating on some points, is generally agreement. I know it doesn't happen
much online, but still ... :)
#61: I don't know, but keep in mind not all Christians agree on all issues, either, and that doesn't stop certain voices from spouting off. Void, isn't it just their choice in how they live? (devil's advocation...)
Well, now, choice has become a loaded word. Choice is not some sacrosanct, unassailable, gods-given right to do whatever the fuck you please and not be criticized or accept responsibility for it...but that's probably another discussion altogether. If people choose to live as cowards, they shouldn't be surprised when others are disgusted by them.
how are they cowards, again? choosing to live by personal interests over those of others also shouldn't be surprised when others are disgusted by them, but living by personal interests over those of others isn't necessarily cowardice. it's possibly very brave.
I remember my discussion with someone who pointed out to me that from a historical perspective, people weren't defined by what they did sexually until about 150 years ago. I'm still puzzled why that would be. And why must it be? Really, why should sexuality define who you are? As best I can tell, the solution must be something of a political one. It reeks of progressives chiding conservatives, and vice versa. (Oddly, the frame of perspective is given by both.) resp:55 yeah, pretending to do nothing is rather bogus, but I still present the case that there are two options: live with your sexuality.. or change it. Don't ape it because it's trendy or acceptable (on either side), but be confident about who you are. Trumpeting it on the street may get you the support/admiration/respect of others, but it's *your* responsibility to accept yourself. Denial is wrong either way you go. Your sexuality *is* a part of you, but you do have a decision on what you want to do with it. Again, some may submit I'm wrong for nipping away at a part of me that I haven't found to be very compatible. Oh well. It doesn't go perfectly, but I am happy with the way things are. If *you* are happy, does what others think ultimately matter?
if you're happy then tyhat's great. but i have trouble accepting that you are based on a lot of your posts. i also have trouble believing that when you say, "be confident about who you are" and then say that you're "nipping away at a part of me that I haven't found to be very compatible" don't seem to correspond very well.
Carrie, you know at times I have difficulty expressing myself, and we have talked about all this before, too. Suffice it to say I feel like a work in progress. Sometimes I hurt because it's hard; because I don't stay true. Change isn't easy. But I didn't appreciate those who professed to support me earlier saying "you're oppressed," "you're in denial," "you're lying to yourself," etc. My experience was as time went on was that I would have to choose between principle that otherwise guided my life and some feelings that were getting in the way of that. Some said, "change that principle," although not in quite those words. Actually, to be honest, sex in general has ruled my life. When I can be sure that I am the master again (for I do not believe in fate; I know that I have agency), then I am sure the matter will be much clearer.
..which actually, to say, my experience on that matter has been hardly anything romanticized nor idealistically loving. Pure.. addiction. Use 'em, leave 'em.
You have several choices: