Is It O.K. For Gay People To Recruit Among The Straight Population???

[Rakhmetov]

I mean is it ok for gays to pass sexual advances among the straight population hoping to land them in bed? I say this because I've been propositioned by gays and I politely declined their advances but I'm left wondering since I'm not gay and am very unambiguous about my sexual preference, why do gay men proposition me?? In any case, I'm very pro-gay rights and support gay people's struggle for emancipation and toleration and civil unions, etc.

[VirgJans12]

They're probably careful with that, as most guys take it as a huge offense. You support the gay people's struggles and therefore they may have thought you were gay or had doubts.

[Robespierre Richard]

I've propositioned lesbians, it's not a big deal, just a doyiieee moment when you find out she's a lesbian. Never been propositioned by a gay man though, when I talk to gay people it's usually in the same way that I talk to straight people though this leads them to think I'm a huge homophobe and I feel bad about myself as a result.

[nuisance]

what is the alternative? neat little badges declaring whether peeps are gay or straight?
Anyway, why wouldn't you feel pleased that someone found you attractive enough to proposition you, as you presumeably would with a women? This all aside, you probably look gay.

[caramelpence]

LOL @ "recruit". TEH GAY CONSPIRAZY!

How exactly are you unambiguous about your "sexual preferences"? Do you wear a sign or something? How do you know that gay men "proposition" you, both in terms of how do you know that a man is actually making sexual advances rather than just being friendly, and how can you tell that men who you don't know are gay? Can you say with absolute certainty that you have never "propositioned" a lesbian woman? Just deal with it man, treat it as a compliment, whatever.

Out of interest, how old are you?

[Kenco Smooth]

I genuinely can't see why it wouldn't be ok. Given the proportion of the population that are straight those who are not would be limited to a rather small section of society if they wanted to make romantic or sexual acquaintances. If it's an issue of discomfort for the propositioned; plenty of woman I know are uncomfortable being hit on in bars and clubs but would you say it's simply not ok for guys to do this before they're aware of the others feelings? Likewise should straight people tread carefully incase they accidently hit on someone who's gay?

Not to mention how hard it can be to pick individuals out as straight, gay, bi, etc.

[Rakhmetov]

28

[Summerspeaker]

The dynamic you mention has problems, as does your framing. Sexual advances can be decidedly unpleasant in this culture, but that's insufficient reason to imagine hard lines between queer and straight folks. I am indeed recruiting, though in a different sense: I won't feel comfortable until straightness as a concept perishes.

[Rakhmetov]

The dynamic you mention has problems, as does your framing. Sexual advances can be decidedly unpleasant in this culture, but that's insufficient reason to imagine hard lines between queer and straight folks. I am indeed recruiting, though in a different sense: I won't feel comfortable until straightness as a concept perishes.

You believe that so-called "straight people" are not straight at all but bi-sexual?

[Franz Fanonipants]

what the shit is going on how is rakhemtov still around

[Dunk]

Maybe Summerspeaker means something along the lines of abolition of any and all sexual orientation labels or at least the denigration of them, to live in a world where sexuality is thought of how it truly is - fluid and dynamic, possibly occupying a not so specific piece of the broad sexual spectrum. Attraction to the opposite sex while having no attraction to the same sex is not going to disappear in such a world, there just won't be any stigma for such a person to jump in the sack with a person of the same sex - or to change their sex to match the person on the inside entirely.

[Summerspeaker]

You believe that so-called "straight people" are not straight at all but bi-sexual?

I think the notion of straightness has been historically constructed to keep folks in line by demonizing its queer opposite. (It's a fairly recent invention.) Being straight implies more than just sexual attraction to a certain group of people; it's a claim of privilege. The ideal is to abolish the gender distinction and sexual orientation entirely, leaving simply people attracted to whomever they're attract to.

[Tenka]

You believe that so-called "straight people" are not straight at all but bi-sexual?

I can't speak for Summerspeaker, but I hold the view that all people are basically pansexual, though environment determines to a large extent preferences for one sex or the other (or both, or neither). Overt heterosexuality is more common than bisexuality simply due to long-standing cultural bias, in my opinion, and probably has little if anything to do with any sort of 'biological imperative': I hope that one day our species can reproduce asexually and therefore eliminate any excuse for this bias.

[Manic Impressive]

You believe that so-called "straight people" are not straight at all but bi-sexual?
If gender is a social construct then it would make sense that sexuality is also.

[Pretty Flaco]

what the shit is going on how is rakhemtov still around
he's only around so he can help stop the gay recruiting conspiracy.

[Rakhmetov]

what the shit is going on how is rakhemtov still around

What now?? Had your morning coffee and now feel you need your morning cup of bashing me??? Why is there this hate for Rakhmetov in this forum??? I try to be civil and nice and accomodating. Am I perfect??? --- I'll be the first to admit that I am not. Still, man, have some tolerance for others with a view not completely identical to your own ... :rolleyes:

[Franz Fanonipants]

he's only around so he can help stop the gay recruiting conspiracy.

thank god because i know that our glbt posters have really been working hard on me

E: Restrict Rakhmetov for this hilarious reactionary bullshit

[Manic Impressive]

E: Restrict Rakhmetov for this hilarious reactionary bullshit
He only asked a question, albeit extremely clumsily he didn't state an opinion. Punishing ignorance that's a great way to educate people isn't it?

[Franz Fanonipants]

He only asked a question, albeit extremely clumsily he didn't state an opinion. Punishing ignorance that's a great way to educate people isn't it?

works by me.

[Rakhmetov]

he's only around so he can help stop the gay recruiting conspiracy.


Hold your horses now, man. You are putting words in my mouth which I never uttered or even hinted at. I never mentioned the phrase "gay conspiracy." :cursing:

[JustMovement]

I dunno i thought it was flattering when a gay guy hit on me...if only more women felt that way:rolleyes:

But I dont know how I feel about this whole idea about abolishing straightness. It seems to me one of those cases where you are attacking the word, instead of the idea behind it. The truth is that having words that denote a persons sexual orientation are very useful, what is wrong is (and in my mind this is undoutably true) the privilege implied behind the word straight, but this is not a justification to do away with the concept altogether.

Also, I have a problem with this whole idea that sexuality is a fluid sliding scale. Maybe for some people it is, but for many people it is not. And what does it matter anyways?

Its like when liberals to justify gay marriage say "But gay people are born gay! its not their choice!" Well so what if it is their choice? Does that change anything?

[JustMovement]

Also agree with Franz Fanonipants, clearly the moderators dont restrict enough people already. What we need to do is make Leftism completely inaccessible to the average person who is not well versed in its numerous facets, as they relate to every aspect of everyday life. This way we can achieve that small, disciplined, dedicated group of (online) revolutionaries that Lenin was talking about.

[Kenco Smooth]

Hold your horses now, man. You are puttin words in my mouth which I never uttered or even hinted at. I never mentioned the phrase "gay conspiracy." :cursing:

The word 'recruit' was a poor choice and does tend to imply some concious attempt to turn people over to some other way of thinking. I do think people are being overly harsh here but your question could have been put much better.

[Rakhmetov]

Also agree with Franz Fanonipants, clearly the moderators dont restrict enough people already. What we need to do is make Leftism completely inaccessible to the average person who is not well versed in its numerous facets, as they relate to every aspect of everyday life. This way we can achieve that small, disciplined, dedicated group of (online) revolutionaries that Lenin was talking about.

You are being ironic, right???

[Summerspeaker]

The truth is that having words that denote a persons sexual orientation are very useful

How so? They're blunt instruments at best, and encourage objectification.

[JustMovement]

How so? They're blunt instruments at best, and encourage objectification.

Well fine, they dont cover nuances. But most of the time they get the point across pretty well. I mean its a bit like saying black and white are useless words because there are so many shades of grey- if you see what I mean.

[Sasha]

"my name is Harvey Milk and I'm here to recruit you!"

[Sasha]

@ OP, i dont know if you have seen the documentary or bio-pic about the assasinated first openly homosexual elected official harvey milk but i refrenced that ^ sententence (it was Milks re-appropriated catch phrase when campaigning for office) to illustrate that the word "recruit" is considered not an innocent word when used in reference to homosexuality. It is an word constantly used by bigots to imply that homosexuality is A. an (deviant) lifestyle choice B. all homosexuals are predators trying to molest honest straight people.
i understand you in all likelihood didnt mean it that way but you should know you should not use that discours as it will antagonizes queers and plays into the bigots hands.

[Luisrah]

I can't speak for Summerspeaker, but I hold the view that all people are basically pansexual, though environment determines to a large extent preferences for one sex or the other (or both, or neither). Overt heterosexuality is more common than bisexuality simply due to long-standing cultural bias, in my opinion, and probably has little if anything to do with any sort of 'biological imperative': I hope that one day our species can reproduce asexually and therefore eliminate any excuse for this bias.

Then how do you explain the fact that most animals are heterossexual? (Mammals for example)
Of course culture and etc can very much alter sexuality, but certainly you agree that there is something before that that is a fundamental factor of it. There are cases of homossexuals that lived in a homophobe environment, and if only the cultural bias was responsible for sexuality, how were most humans heterossexual before culture ever existed?

[Manic Impressive]

Then how do you explain the fact that most animals are heterossexual? (Mammals for example)
Of course culture and etc can very much alter sexuality, but certainly you agree that there is something before that that is a fundamental factor of it. There are cases of homossexuals that lived in a homophobe environment, and if only the cultural bias was responsible for sexuality, how were most humans heterossexual before culture ever existed?
Because most mammals don't have sex for enjoyment they do it purely to procreate.

[caramelpence]

Then how do you explain the fact that most animals are heterossexual? (Mammals for example)
Of course culture and etc can very much alter sexuality, but certainly you agree that there is something before that that is a fundamental factor of it. There are cases of homossexuals that lived in a homophobe environment, and if only the cultural bias was responsible for sexuality, how were most humans heterossexual before culture ever existed?

Ugh, the point is that the basic categories of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are themselves extremely recent phenomena. When there was homosexual sexual activity in pre-modern periods there was no sense that someone's desire and willingness to engage in that activity was indicative of a sexuality as such or any kind of psychological condition, even when homosexual sex was still condemned as immoral or deviant. Only with the nineteenth century and particularly the year 1869 do we see the word homosexuality being use for the first time, by the Hungarian doctor Karl-Maria Kertbeny, and only during this period do we encounter the idea that homosexual acts or instincts are the sign of a determinate condition and a specific type of person. This was a dramatic change in the way human beings thought about sex and reproduction, and the particular relationship between the notion of sexualities and capitalist modernity is what has to be stressed here. For that reason, it makes no sense to talk about animals being heterosexual or homosexual. These categories, like other elements of thinking under capitalist modernity, represent attempts to order and classify acts that are, in their sensuousness, inherently resistant to categorization - by which I mean that none of the categories we use to talk about sex are capable of giving full expression to how complex, varied, and beautiful human sexual activity is, and in that sense I also embrace the prospect of homosexuality and heterosexuality being eliminated from our sexual vocabulary.

[JustMovement]

Only with the nineteenth century and particularly the year 1869 do we see the word homosexuality being use for the first time, by the Hungarian doctor Karl-Maria Kertbeny, and only during this period do we encounter the idea that homosexual acts or instincts are the sign of a determinate condition and a specific type of person. ... These categories, like other elements of thinking under capitalist modernity, represent attempts to order and classify acts that are, in their sensuousness, inherently resistant to categorization - by which I mean that none of the categories we use to talk about sex are capable of giving full expression to how complex, varied, and beautiful human sexual activity is, and in that sense I also embrace the prospect of homosexuality and heterosexuality being eliminated from our sexual vocabulary.

However these years also coincided with the growth of psychology as a scientific field. They did not have a name for the unconcious or the id, but that does not mean they did not exist. I think that that many individuals do have certain set of preferences, and it makes sense to be able to classify them.

On the other hand, I do see what you are saying though, the invention of these labels (which were meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive), does probably force many people into a certain way of acting. I recently read a biography about Casanova, and it seems that in the 18th C. having sex with men did not make you a homosexual (although it did make you a sinner).

[PhoenixAsh]

Are you saying you do not understand why somebody wants to have sex with another person?

I don't understand where this question is comming from, besides that I get the feeling you are struggling with some mild forms of uneasyness with the concept of homosexuality and perhaps some societally influenced insecurity and slight fallout of the homophobia inherreted in society.

Or are you doubting your own sexuality and/or the "vibe" you give off that may lead others to misunderstand or misinterpret your sexual preference?

Bascially not matter what gender, shape, form or esthetical qualities...if somebody hits on you and tells you, or shows you, they feel intimately attracted to you...its a huge compliment (keeping in mind that they do so respectfully!!). It has everything to do with how they perceive you.

So yeah..they proposition you because they think you are worthy to be intimate with. Either they think you are hot...or they love your personality enough to be close to you in that way.

I hope that answers your question.

[gorillafuck]

Being straight implies more than just sexual attraction to a certain group of peopleno it's not. any privilege that comes with it is due to that preference. but nonetheless, it's a preference. but it's a preference.

[praxis1966]

...you probably look gay.

How exactly does one "look" gay?

[Luisrah]

How exactly does one "look" gay?

Certainly you understand that there is prejudice against men using pink or yellow pants for example. Atleast in my area there is.
It is quite understandable (although not good of course) that in the area of the OP gays usually dress, (or there is a stereotype that they do) act, etc, in a certain form, and the OP has similarities with that stereotype, thus making other people assume he is gay.

Just because we aren't homophobes it doesn't mean we don't acknowledge that there are stereotypes.

[praxis1966]

Certainly you understand that there is prejudice against men using pink or yellow pants for example.

In my area, if you're wearing pink or yellow pants it just means you're an urban teenager or trying to dress like one because brightly colored pants a la the 1980s are what's "in" right now. My point is that the crudely labeled phenomenon known as "gaydar" doesn't exist in any real sense so far as I know... and that's because it's predicated on exactly the kind of stereotypes you're talking about.

[ZeroNowhere]

Because many straights who are publically unambiguous about their sexual orientation aren't necessarily unambiguous about their sexual orientation.

[Luisrah]

In my area, if you're wearing pink or yellow pants it just means you're an urban teenager or trying to dress like one because brightly colored pants a la the 1980s are what's "in" right now. My point is that the crudely labeled phenomenon known as "gaydar" doesn't exist in any real sense so far as I know... and that's because it's predicated on exactly the kind of stereotypes you're talking about.

Well, it does exist where I live, so I suppose it exists in many more places.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

If someone is hitting on you or asking you out it's awkward no matter what if you don't like them back like that. Although in my experience it's worse when someone who's gay does it. Not because I'm a homophobe or anything but because then other people who probably are homophobes start questioning your sexuality. Like how am I going to go near a gay person after they were obviously flirting with me unless of course I'm gay! Basically the social consequences are always worse if you don't want to reject a gay person by being a homophobic dirtbag. At least in my experience... It's alright for gay people to make advances, just tell them you're not down, and leave it at that.

[PhoenixAsh]

Certainly you understand that there is prejudice against men using pink or yellow pants for example. Atleast in my area there is.

In my area they are worn by the yuppie higher middle class and lower burgeoisie.

But funny to realise how that differs so much around the world. I guess that underlines that there is no stereotype...just differences between people and cultures.

[Tim Finnegan]

Then how do you explain the fact that most animals are heterossexual? (Mammals for example)
By pointing out that a great many of them are, in fact, not, including the notable example of bonobo chimpanzees, our closest evolutionary cousin. Further examples here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals).


Because most mammals don't have sex for enjoyment they do it purely to procreate.
Actually, sex fulfils a variety of roles in animal societies, particularly in forming or cementing social bonds. In the example of the aforementioned Bonobos, their polyamorous bisexuality- manifesting in a variety of forms of sexual intercourse, not just penetrative sex- is integrated at a fundamental level with their social organisation, acting as essentially a more intimate form of the mutual grooming characteristic of all apes. In fact, the majority of sexual activity in bonobo society is reported to occur between females, as it plays a crucial role in the maintenance of their matriarchal social structures.

[praxis1966]

Well, it does exist where I live, so I suppose it exists in many more places.

Define "it." Are you talking about "gaydar" or stereotypes?

[Luisrah]

By pointing out that a great many of them are, in fact, not, including the notable example of Bonobo Chimpanzees, are closest evolutionary cousin. Further examples here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals).

The fact is that being homossexual is harmful to the progress of a species because a homossexual won't reproduce, while a heterossexual will.
So it is only natural that there is a tendence for there to exist more heterossexuals than homossexuals, assuming it is genetic.

[manic expression]

Because most mammals don't have sex for enjoyment they do it purely to procreate.
Obviously you are not well-versed in the freak-a-leek ways of the Bottlenose Dolphin.


The fact is that being homossexual is harmful to the progress of a species because a homossexual won't reproduce, while a heterossexual will.
There are some studies on the benefits brought by homosexuality in not only animal populations but humankind as well. Just as one example off the top of my head, check out the role of homosexuality in ancient warfare. The Greeks sometimes purposefully created formations out of lovers, and unsurprisingly these soldiers would fight to the very bitter end for one another with uncommon bravery.

[Luisrah]

Define "it." Are you talking about "gaydar" or stereotypes?

I don't know what's a gaydar. What I know is that where I live, if a guy wears pink pants, people are going to look at him and think he's gay. Period.
I'm not saying it's good nor am I saying it happens in the rest of the world, I'm just saying it is like that.

So I'm not surprised if the OP says something like ''he/she looks gay'' because I know it happens.

[Tim Finnegan]

The fact is that being homossexual is harmful to the progress of a species because a homossexual won't reproduce, while a heterossexual will.
So it is only natural that there is a tendence for there to exist more heterossexuals than homossexuals, assuming it is genetic.
In most of the cases to which I linked, the non-heterosexual behaviour was bisexual (or arguably pansexual), so this isn't really applicable. Furthermore, in most cases, such behaviour is not merely non-disruptive to reproductive, but is actually evolutionary beneficial, in that it encourages firmer and more effective social bonds. In lions, for example, the tendency of males within the same pride to engage in frequent homosexual activity (including "soft" activity like snuggling and nuzzling) leads them to form a strong emotional bond that transforms what could be a socially destructive rivalry into a socially productive partnership.

[praxis1966]

I don't know what's a gaydar.

Ok, wow. Maybe I was being a little ethnocentric in my vernacular. It's a play on the words "gay" and "radar" and it's the idea that one can tell whether a person is gay (and I suppose the contrapositive as well) just by looking at them.


What I know is that where I live, if a guy wears pink pants, people are going to look at him and think he's gay. Period.
I'm not saying it's good nor am I saying it happens in the rest of the world, I'm just saying it is like that.

So I'm not surprised if the OP says something like ''he/she looks gay'' because I know it happens.

Right, I didn't think that you were saying that it was a good thing. All I'm saying is that given that A) we know that these stereotypes, as with all stereotypes, are bullshit that B) we as leftists shouldn't be in the business of parroting the kind of language they produce.

[Luisrah]

Ok, wow. Maybe I was being a little ethnocentric in my vernacular. It's a play on the words "gay" and "radar" and it's the idea that one can tell whether a person is gay (and I suppose the contrapositive as well) just by looking at them.



Right, I didn't think that you were saying that it was a good thing. All I'm saying is that given that A) we know that these stereotypes, as with all stereotypes, are bullshit that B) we as leftists shouldn't be in the business of parroting the kind of language they produce.

Oh I see. Sorry, I'm not english so I thought it could be something else.
But yeah, it's basically the same thing and that's what I'm talking about.

I agree with B, but not so much with A.
I do agree that stereotypes are bullshit, but it is true that many gays where I live DO dress in the way I described. So, sometimes you can look at a person and tell if they're gay or not where I live.

It's like, if you dress ''normally'', then no one knows what's your sexuality. But if you dress like that, it's probable that you are gay. And that isn't ver much bullshit from where I live, because I've asked and it isn't so wrong. Possibly because the person in question likes to stand out, even likes everyone to know that they are gay, so that they can be different. Personally, I dislike that kind of people.

[Leftsolidarity]

I've been hit on and had advances made on me before by gay men and lesbians have done the same to my girlfriend. I don't see a problem with it at all. What are they supposed to do walk up and say "Hello, I am homosexual and I was wondering if you are also homosexual so that we my do homosexual acts together."? I actually wouldn't mind that either. It sounds very proper.

[Leftsolidarity]

In most of the cases to which I linked, the non-heterosexual behaviour was bisexual (or arguably pansexual), so this isn't really applicable. Furthermore, in most cases, such behaviour is not merely non-disruptive to reproductive, but is actually evolutionary beneficial, in that it encourages firmer and more effective social bonds. In lions, for example, the tendency of males within the same pride to engage in frequent homosexual activity (including "soft" activity like snuggling and nuzzling) leads them to form a strong emotional bond that transforms what could be a socially destructive rivalry into a socially productive partnership.


lol @ the thought of some gay lions cuddling

[Tim Finnegan]

lol @ the thought of some gay lions cuddling
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llu3jh4xdf1qkcn2mo1_500.jpg

:)

[Manic Impressive]

Actually, sex fulfils a variety of roles in animal societies, particularly in forming or cementing social bonds. In the example of the aforementioned Bonobos, their polyamorous bisexuality- manifesting in a variety of forms of sexual intercourse, not just penetrative sex- is integrated at a fundamental level with their social organisation, acting as essentially a more intimate form of the mutual grooming characteristic of all apes. In fact, the majority of sexual activity in bonobo society is reported to occur between females, as it plays a crucial role in the maintenance of their matriarchal social structures.

Obviously you are not well-versed in the freak-a-leek ways of the Bottlenose Dolphin.
That's why I said most ;)
As far as I know a lot of animals derive pleasure from sex to give them an extra incentive to reproduce but that is not the primary reason for them to have sex.

[Manic Impressive]

In most of the cases to which I linked, the non-heterosexual behaviour was bisexual (or arguably pansexual), so this isn't really applicable. Furthermore, in most cases, such behaviour is not merely non-disruptive to reproductive, but is actually evolutionary beneficial, in that it encourages firmer and more effective social bonds. In lions, for example, the tendency of males within the same pride to engage in frequent homosexual activity (including "soft" activity like snuggling and nuzzling) leads them to form a strong emotional bond that transforms what could be a socially destructive rivalry into a socially productive partnership.
Well that's not what I would call sexual behaviour. I'm not homosexual when I give a male friend a hug or put an arm around them. I would be very suprised if two male lions were homosexual due to male lions having barbs on their penises.

[praxis1966]

Oh I see. Sorry, I'm not english so I thought it could be something else.
But yeah, it's basically the same thing and that's what I'm talking about.

Yeah, sorry about that. I should have checked your location before using slang some people might not be familiar with. No need for you to apologize, the miscommunication is my fault.


It's like, if you dress ''normally'', then no one knows what's your sexuality...

See, that's my point. You admit that if a person dresses "normally" (whatever that means) that they are capable of defeating the stereotype.


...Possibly because the person in question likes to stand out, even likes everyone to know that they are gay, so that they can be different. Personally, I dislike that kind of people.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you because after all your first language and mine aren't the same, but it sounds to me like you're saying here, "I don't mind if people are gay as long as I don't know they are." I really hope this isn't the case, but that's sounding a little homophobic.

[Tim Finnegan]

Well that's not what I would call homosexual behaviour. I'm not homosexual when I give a male friend a hug or put an arm around them. I would be very suprised if two male lions were homosexual due to male lions having barbs on their penises.
Well, firstly, the interaction is rather more tender and intimate in character than mere chuminess, and secondly, I said that it included such "soft" interaction, not that it was limited to it; my point was that their screwing- which they do, albeit in a non-penetrative fashion- was not merely some misplaced masculine enthusiasm, but part of a longer-term quasi-"romantic" relationship.

[JustMovement]

Wiki about the lions:

Male lions ...initiate homosexual activity...leading to mounting and thrusting.

I dont know Manic, if I did that to one of my buddies I think they would guess pretty quickly what my inentions are.

[Luisrah]

Yeah, sorry about that. I should have checked your location before using slang some people might not be familiar with. No need for you to apologize, the miscommunication is my fault.



See, that's my point. You admit that if a person dresses "normally" (whatever that means) that they are capable of defeating the stereotype.
Yes, of course. Just by looking at someone's face, you can't tell his sexuality. What I am saying is that where I live, many times a certain type of dressing can be associated with a certain sexuality. Specifically vivid colors, painted hair can be associated with homossexuality.



Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you because after all your first language and mine aren't the same, but it sounds to me like you're saying here, "I don't mind if people are gay as long as I don't know they are." I really hope this isn't the case, but that's sounding a little homophobic.

I don't mind knowing people are gay. In fact I wish I had gay friends. What I am saying is that I don't like people that like to stand out too much. I don't like the fact that many people I know and have heard of use the fact that they are gay to dress in that manner, behave in a certain manner, and actually contribute to that stereotype.

[Manic Impressive]

Wiki about the lions:


I dont know Manic, if I did that to one of my buddies I think they would guess pretty quickly what my inentions are.
Well after a few too many pints you never know :D

[Summerspeaker]

Those lions are adorable. That's all I've got to say. :):lol::laugh:

[praxis1966]

Those lions are adorable. That's all I've got to say. :):lol::laugh:

^This. I can haz?

[Salyut]

I've never been hit on. :crying:

[Reznov]

Tell your friend you are not attracted to men, and then move on with your life.

Don't make a personal issue like this into a public one.

[Reznov]

I've never been hit on. :crying:

Hey, hows it going? You single?

[Leftsolidarity]

I've never been hit on. :crying:

Hey there cutie. Is that a roll of quarters in your pocket or would you just like to penetrate me? ;)

[Blackscare]

My god, I hate this "recruitment" shit. Nobody tries to recruit people to queerdom. If I hit on a dude, it's because I'm fairly certain that he's at least capable of returning affection (ie, queer in some way). I don't pursue str8 guys because I don't much like banging my head against a wall, like most people.


When shit like that happens, it's a fucking accident, stop thinking that you're so special or that we're a bunch of compulsively sexual faggots who can't contain ourselves and our homosexual agenda.

[Vendetta]

I mean is it ok for gays to pass sexual advances among the straight population hoping to land them in bed? I say this because I've been propositioned by gays and I politely declined their advances but I'm left wondering since I'm not gay and am very unambiguous about my sexual preference, why do gay men proposition me?? In any case, I'm very pro-gay rights and support gay people's struggle for emancipation and toleration and civil unions, etc.

Why not? I hit on lesbians.

[Invader Zim]

This all aside, you probably look gay.

Gay people have a specific look?

[Johnny Kerosene]

My god, I hate this "recruitment" shit. Nobody tries to recruit people to queerdom. If I hit on a dude, it's because I'm fairly certain that he's at least capable of returning affection (ie, queer in some way). I don't pursue str8 guys because I don't much like banging my head against a wall, like most people.


When shit like that happens, it's a fucking accident, stop thinking that you're so special or that we're a bunch of compulsively sexual faggots who can't contain ourselves and our homosexual agenda.

I don't think he meant recruit, as in The Gays have secret agenda to make everyone gay, so much as he meant, like ask out/hit on. I think he just used the wrong word.

[Tim Finnegan]

I assumed that he was making an (admittedly poor) joke based on the cliché which Blackscare mentions. :confused:

Anyway, here's a question for the OP: count up all the times that straight people are chatted-up by queer people, and then count up all the times which queer people are chatted-up by straight people. Now, taking into account that queer people, by the nature of their non-normalised (as distinct from "non-normal", of course) sexuality, have to learn a bit of tact in these matters to get by, while straight people aren't really expected to learn anything more subtle than "if he is wearing a big "I Am Gay" button, it's a long-shot", which group do you really think has to put up with this on a (proportionally) more regular basis? But which group is more likely to complain? And what does that say about our society? And what does that suggest that you should do?

(Answers: Queer people, straight people, it's heterosexist, get over it.)

[Property Is Robbery]

Because most mammals don't have sex for enjoyment they do it purely to procreate.
Dolphins FTW!

[ellipsis]

I have never closed a thread before as a Mod, this thread makes me want to start...

[Tablo]

I have never closed a thread before as a Mod, this thread makes me want to start...
This would be a good one to close.

I personally have been hit on by both guys and girls. While I am primarily attracted to women I'm left feeling somewhat uncomfortable from being hit on by both groups. I don't think there is anything wrong with either group doing this as I suppose this is how human mating(or whatever) tends to work as far as I understand. I would not consider this gay people "recruiting". I do think that is a somewhat homophobic conclusion to come to for the OP, but I think the OP simply has a misunderstanding of some sort. I do think the thread should be closed, but the person that started the thread should have this all explained to them without any sort of punishment.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

This thread is extremely silly and border-line Homophobic and leaning towards a 'Homosexual Recruiting View' which is completely silly to begin with as one is unable to recruit another in order to 'convert' them into their own sexual preferences, as sexual preferences are simply sexual preferences. Not to mention, Rakhmetov in this situation is blatantly displaying this view. Whether it is a 'Question' or not-- This Question, if you choose to call it so. Is Homophobic in nature and silly.

[ellipsis]

THREAD CLOSED. Bizarre premise, borderline homophobia, likely just plain ig'nance.