response 76 of 470:

Mar 26 01:08 UTC 1996

  I'm not homophobic!   Really I think the name is just too limiting.
There must be a good name out there somewhere...

response 78 of 470:

Mar 26 15:00 UTC 1996

Kind of depends.  Maybe he doesn't want people thinking he's a homosexual
because he thinks it might make it harder for him to meet girls.  It doesn't
do to read too much into such things.

response 80 of 470:

Mar 27 00:19 UTC 1996

Ok here is a title, but I don't want to fw -- 
Adbarr's Emporium of Sexual Delights and Serious Human Relationships of all
Persuasians. Now that is settled, can we get on with it?

response 82 of 470:

Mar 27 01:10 UTC 1996

    Actually, the best title would be "coop" as in cooperation,   ideal
for relationships.  Why dont we come up with a new name for "coop" and
let the new conf have that name?  

response 84 of 470:

Mar 27 03:48 UTC 1996

Yes! "Beating around the bush!" I LUVS that title!

response 86 of 470:

Mar 27 06:05 UTC 1996

Y'know, janc may have the best new name of all...

response 88 of 470:

Mar 27 14:45 UTC 1996

You know, Paul, when you refer to homosexuals like that you tell
people a whole lot about yourself.  So don't be particularly
surprised to find people don't respect you all that much.

response 90 of 470:

Mar 27 15:25 UTC 1996

I don't care one whit about someone's sexual preferences.  I do
care about disparaging comments made about other people's 
sexuality.  But then I'm weird that way.

response 92 of 470:

Mar 27 18:35 UTC 1996

Mary, it's a well established sociolinguistic fact that in-group
members use certain derogatory terminology amongst themselves in
reclaiming ways.  In short, since I'm out, I'm entitled to use 
certain terminology that would normally be inaccessible to me.
And if you were so very sensitive, Mary, you'd know that most 
queers tend to favor "queer" and "gay" over "homosexual," and
some downright detest "homosexual", almost as much as "f**".

response 94 of 470:

Mar 27 19:23 UTC 1996

(Pssst - Mary, it's been my experience that alot of homeosexuals don't
 mind being called "queer" by a fellow "queer". It's only when the term is
 used by a straight person in a nasty fashion that the term becomes
 derogatory.)

Please exccuse the laspse into un-PC language here:
About 12 years ago, a friend of mine of the Afro-American persausion
(he was "black" back then), told me the following:
  "Only a nigger can call a nigger, a 'nigger'".

response 96 of 470:

Mar 27 20:29 UTC 1996

 re: the previous drift.   It is also widely acknowledged that among
the most hard-core of gay bashers are often gays themselves.  Even
though homosexuality is perfectly natural normal behaviour, it does
represent a departure from "traditional, judeo-christian western
society accepted lifestyles" and when you take a path seemingly 
different from generations of your family, there is a natural sense
of alienation and guilt.  

There is a large gay community in d.c., and often you will read about 
gay-bashing incidents at gay bars in the news, where gays themselves
are involved, maybe out of self-loathing.  So Brighn being bi-sexual does
not insulate him from occassional homophobia.  Calling a homosexual
a queer might be construed the same way as calling a woman a whore
simply because she sleeps with men.

In the same way, you go into the ghettos, you often see young black kids
calling themselves "niggers",  mainly out of an ingrained sense of guilt
that society has imprinted on them that they should have because of the
color of their skin and that many of their ancestors were slaves.

response 98 of 470:

Mar 27 22:51 UTC 1996

Mary>  No, of course I didn't mean any disrespect.  I might even suggest
a GLB conference called "The Pink Triangle Longue
and Drag Queer Bar" at some point, though I doubt it... ain't really
enough of us around here, I don't think. But, yes, the last sentence 
of #87 was meant entirely as a non-derogatory joke.  Thanks for 
clarifying, better that you call me on it and give me a chance to
explain myself than sit silent and increase your distrust of me
(as some other people around here have been doing... bleh... that's
what I get for being opely bisexual, Pagan, and polygamous).

Anyhow, enough about me.  Kerouac, you're quite right, orientation
is not always correlated to homophobia.  But the gay-bashers you
speak of tend to not be open, out, or even realizing their own
orientation.  The number of out gays who bash is definitely small 
compared to the non-gays who bash.  All I can say is, I'm not 
homophobic.  I tend to be prejudiced against flaming queens who
perpetuate straight stereotypes by playing into them.
But then, I tend to dislike anyone who plays into a specific
stereotype, regardless of what it is, instead of being themselves.

All right, really, enough about me.  See, I *said* I was egotistical,
didn't I?  *grin*  After Dark is not a clique conference.  In the
last few days, I've seen quite a few people who haven't been in in
ages, and a few new logins.  I *should* say rather, that After Dark
may have been a clique conference, but Sexuality II is not.

I agree, though, that there should be another conference for discussing
romance, relationships, love, and sex as they integrate with each other.

I like Partners, or Partnerships (which sounds like the Business conference),
or Relations, Relationships, Amore, and Mutt and Jeff's Soda Shack.
Oh wait, maybe not the last one.