Results 41 to 51 of 51
The fact that homosexuality is taboo and that you don't often see homosexual couples in public doesn't mean that homosexuality is any less prevalent than it is in countries like the UK, though, it's just that homosexuals face greater pressure to either remain in the closet, or interact with one another through "underground" communities. I don't think that a country having a Confucian cultural background (which is in any case a big assertion to make - Confucianism is by no means a coherent phenomenon and it's debatable as to whether countries like the ROK can still be described as Confucian in view of all the cultural and economic changes they've experienced in the past half-century or so, in much the same way that it's no longer appropriate to describe the UK as being rooted in Christian ethics) makes people any less likely to be homosexuals as you can see from the fact that Shanghai reportedly has a great gay scene as long as you know where to look, despite homosexuality still technically being illegal in China.
Indeed, not to mention that Koreans don't normally display affection in public areas, so it's even harder to tell. But Confucianism can be contributed due to lower homosexuality rates- people need to understand that the environment plays a big role on the amount of homosexuals as well.
The environment does play a role as can be seem by the fact that not every identical twin has the same sexual orientation as their twin.
But that doesn't automatically prove that social disapproval is part of the environment that has an effect or even that it would have a negative effect. Environmental effects can include many less obvious factors. And then there's chaos theory. A person's sexual orientation might be influenced by sheer randomness(think quantum mechanics) that is a person becomes straight, gay, or bisexual for no reason or for unpredictable reasons. For example, what a person ate one day at the age of 6 would enter their body and interact with all the other chemicals in the body directly or indirectly and so could potentially influence your sexual orientation among other things. Paradoxically this could have the opposite effect in an entirely different person because it is being added to a different combination of chemicals.
Also in psychology there are times when social disapproval increases the chance of people doing something, although only if they can keep it a secret. There's the "allure of the forbidden" so while people might be less likely to be open about homosexuality they are more likely to be curious about it and at least try it to see if its something they'd like and for the kick of getting away with breaking social taboos.
It's interesting that the allure of the forbidden comes into play for sex, drugs, music, minority religious rituals, clothing, but not things such as murder or rape. I think this shows that our brains are preconditioned to empathy for our fellow human beings but also for own personal autonomy. When told something is bad that clearly hurts others we readily agree with it because at some level it already feels wrong. When told something is bad that doesn't hurt others or doesnt clearly hurt others(i.e. shoplifting's effects aren't immediately visible so the "thrill of the forbidden" phenomenon still leads people to shoplift) people are tempted to do it but at the same time want to keep it a secret and fear others knowing.
A good post, though I would just like to amend that homosexuality was legalised in 1992 in China.
Yeah, "the biggest" Stalinist argument(?) is that only them are realistic and the reasonable, and the rest of us are just living in a fairytale.
Clap-clap.
So, creating another repressive system in which will millions of people die from famine (off course, that just economical miscalculation - like in China, or imperialist plot like in USSR), diseases, cold, bad living conditions etc. in which will people stand in lines for bread, in which will high Party members live like bourgeoisie, act like bourgeoisie, and essentially be upper class which exploit working class because of State needs... is good and realistic transformation to communism, while direct democratic, anti-authoritarian way is fairytale.
I hope that one day you'll fall into time machine and end up as Chechen proletarian in USSR.
Woe, the sarcasm!
I never said that they were evil. Also, nice doublespeak here. Back in my native Brazil, you can be beaten for a kiss with a person of the same person. That's why people don't do it. The same thing works for the Korean culture. People may not engage in certain behaviors because these behaviors lead to negative repercussions. This is doublespeak because you try to lead us to think that gays in Korea don't kiss in public just because it may be offensive in the culture. It's not only that, it's that gays are not seen as proper citizens in the DPRK (in fact, their existence is denied).
Also, why should kissing in public be wrong? Are you OK with the Korean culture on this one?
Being a Marxist, I think you should know that almost all cultural statements lead to political statements. Societies' politics are run on various cultural ideas. You criticize a cultural behavior, and you end criticizing various political statements based on that cultural one.
That's funny. I don't remember them making a rational analysis of gay communities in capitalist societies and 'socialist' societies. They in fact said that homosexuals in the DPRK were never subject to repression. Which is the biggest bullshit in the metaphorical barn yard.
P.S: The DPRK isn't a socialist society. I don't remember Marx describing socialism as "a state run by the Party bureaucracy, where the general populace eats shit for breakfast, and an entire cult is based on a dead president. Note that in said society, workers have no power whatsoever. workers' power in fact, is pwned. Workers = n00bs."
That assertion has been made numerous times. And I doubt you can prove it now.
Now you're the one stretching my words.
It is not aimed at LGBT individuals, but it is full of lies about them. Thus, somebody gotta make a point about this B.S.
But yes, oh my, let us see what is following!
lol wut?
In all seriousness, I'm not a socialist-basher. Because there's no socialism to bash, silly!
Well, I don't think you noticed, but you wrote a pretty big response to my post. Good job, bucko.
No wonder the Stalin-kiddies love you. You make no sense!
"Face the world like a roaring blaze, before all the tears begin to turn silent. Burn down everything that stands in our way. Bang the drum."
No, that's not what he's doing at all.
Perhaps the same science that found hair length affects human intelligence!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s...list_lifestyle
I said that you implied that the DPRK unfairly discriminates against public displays of affection by LGBTs, which, as I noted, has no basis. As I said, a lack of PDA isn't the same as oppression, especially when it's a part of wider cultural behaviors (we'll get to this later).
And you know this how? Do you have ANY evidence that the treatment of homosexuals in Brazil is in ANY way similar or comparable to that of North Korea? Or, as seems most apparent, did you just pull it out of thin air? At this point, your entire argument rests on nothing but a creative imagination: you say that homosexuals in North Korea are physically intimidated out of PDA, but your evidence for this is first-hand experience from...Brazil. Exactly.
The DPRK's statement, around which this entire thread revolves, not only recognizes the existence of LGBT DPRK citizens, but defends their rights at every step. How could they deny the existence of LGBT citizens when they categorically reaffirm their rights as LGBT citizens?
Further, from what I've seen, Korean culture isn't big on PDA, heterosexual or otherwise. You make it seem like heterosexual couples in the DPRK are making out all over the place while homosexuals are expected not to. Until you show us that there is a clear double standard with regard to homosexual and heterosexual PDA, you have nothing here.
I believe the Korean workers have the right to define what is and isn't a proper public display of affection, so long as those values are applied to all sexual persuasions equally. In fact, from everything we've seen on this thread, this is exactly what the workers of Korea have done in the DPRK in this instance.
Perhaps in some cases, but cultural practices have their own place in society that is independent of politics. Ballet was the product of absolutist courts of the Baroque age, but in spite of this, the art was promoted heavily after the October Revolution, not to mention the Cuban Revolution (where ballet enjoys a widespread popular following; check out the link below). Ballet, the creation of monarchical regimes, has been embraced by working class states of many countries. Culture, in many instances, transcends politics.
On Cuban ballet:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n18630584/
If you find that example to be too tangential, let's look at this issue. Right now, I'm writing this post from Germany, a bourgeois society by any definition. I was born and raised in the US, another bourgeois society (to say the least). However, approaching the opposite sex in public life is VERY different here than what I'm accustomed to in the US. Germans, in my experience, are less open to randomly flirting with a girl/guy on the street or even in a cafe. If you walk around NYC enough, you'll see guys leaning out the passenger window of their friend's cars, calling to a "shorty" for a block or two before driving away...I have NEVER seen this happen in Germany, and I doubt I ever will, because the cultures are simply not the same. But who would be silly enough to argue that the mode of production in Germany is fundamentally different from that in the United States? That's my point, there are a wide number of cultural factors in everyday behavior, and there are innumerable examples to show this.
Who is "them"?
I don't remember Marx saying that either, probably because he wasn't gullible enough to swallow imperialist propaganda without the slightest bit of critical thought, which is essentially what you just did.
Read the original statement again. No, wait, let me help you out:
Therefore, the DPRK rejects many characteristics of the popular gay culture in the West, which many perceive to embrace consumerism, classism and promiscuity.
"Popular gay culture" is not, by any rational characterization, equal to LGBT individuals. That would be like saying a criticism of MTV is a criticism of every teenager in America. Criticizing a popular culture is just that, criticizing a popular culture of a bourgeois society. So really, the statement proved my contention three pages ago.
And if you meant to say that I can't prove that LGBT culture in capitalist countries embrace consumerism, classism and promiscuity, that's easy. All you have to do is watch a variety of bourgeois movies that portray homosexuals as promiscuous or single-minded aficionados of expensive clothes. Or, if you'd prefer a more first-hand approach, just walk the streets and clubs of an established gay quarter in any capitalist city. You're bound to find a pretty strong streak of promiscuity. And if you haven't done this yet, I'm tempted to wonder how much exposure to popular gay culture you've actually experienced.
How so? You took a statement that criticized the popular culture pushed by the bourgeoisie, and tried to portray it as an attack on all LGBTs, everywhere. That's exactly like watching an episode of The Boondocks and saying the cartoon criticizes all Blacks.
If it's not addressed to LGBT individuals (as you said yourself), how could it be lying about individuals it's not aimed at? The statement was clearly about popular gay culture in capitalist countries, which IS, to a considerable extent, focused on consumerism and promiscuity. The DPRK is saying that LGBT individuals deserve better than being stereotyped into sex fiends or "good shoppers" (as they are by capitalist societies), they deserve to be treated and seen as human beings equal to any other; that includes the realization that LGBTs act essentially the same as heterosexuals in public, something you apparently believe is a form of oppression.
The only evidence you've shown for this is your dislike of Kim Jong-Il, which isn't exactly the most persuasive of arguments. Coincidentally, your charges of North Koreans eating "shit for breakfast" is almost identical to the anti-Korean slander launched by every American president since Truman.
I don't think you noticed that those criticisms were addressed directly and exclusively to your last paragraph. The first portions of your post were worth responding to for a variety of reasons, partially because they were somewhat substantive and contributed to further discussion. Your last paragraph, however, was well below these standards, and I made a clear differentiation between the two in my first post. In light of this, it's safe to conclude that you thought my post made no sense simply because you weren't paying close enough attention.Well, I don't think you noticed, but you wrote a pretty big response to my post. Good job, bucko.
No wonder the Stalin-kiddies love you. You make no sense!
It is interesting, but I wonder if it's accurate. Given the website that it comes from, I wonder if it is written by the Korean Friendship Association, who may be inclined to make their own interpretation. It's kind of hard to just make judgements on these things on the internet.
What can be said is that it is a progressive policy compared to the rest of the region, but that it is probably hampered by cultural attitudes towards sexuality and taboos. That's why "homosexuality does not exist here/is not talked about".
RedManatee: a Catholic lecturing people on homophobia? Well, now I've seen it all.
Last edited by Wanted Man; 21st October 2009 at 15:06.
What's the matter Lagerboy, afraid you might taste something?
This is definitely an apt description of mainstream queer culture in "the West"...however, the cynic in me doubts the Pyongyang night-club scene is more ascetic...
