Posted February 28, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folsom_Street_Fair Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I meant are there any where they don't dress up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I meant are there any where they don't dress up. That would make for a pretty dull parade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 That would make for a pretty dull parade. But isn't it supposed to be about gay pride? So surely showing that they are just normal people and not conforming to any stereotypes would be better? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 It's a parade. If want to see the "normal" gay people, they tend to be the people watching and supporting the event. People don't have to be boastfully proud of their sexuality. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 People don't have to be boastfully proud of their sexuality. Unless their part of a parade, in which they have to raid a fancy dress shop so you don't find it dull. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 Queer Studies Circle last night again unstablised my molecules. The topic was "Is there a Queer history?". After about 45 minutes of discussion it came down to us finally facing the difference between LGBT and Queer identities; everyone seemed to agree a queer identity is intrinsically politically involved, and it's optimum situation would be for society to change the way it deals with identity in general [note queer people aren't necessarily LGBT], whereas an LGBT identity doesn't have the same political connotations, and would perhaps wish only to be accepted into an unchanged society (ie. integrate). [That's half an hour of discussion in a few lines, so obvs it's greatly simplified, but if you "pfft" at the idea of queer, you should meet James Butler, who knows what he's talking about too well] Our stance as a society in regards to sexuality just makes no sense, it's so integral to who we are and is integral to the formation of our individual identities, but we keep the whole notion of sexuality under rug swept. I want there to be some sort of revolution (although I hate that word, because it has connotations of loads of people dying/suffering) that changes things. In that respect I think I would identify as queer. QSC is actually the most essential thing I've ever done in my life, because it forces you to re-question things you'd never thought about. It's mostly characterised by James Butler, who runs it, since he actually blows too many minds; of all the people I've met in my life, he's the person most likely to become famous for doing something academically extraordinary. He's to the KNEE Trion what Kate Bush is to the Unmentionable Trion. I'm just so fed-up of people being ashamed of their homosexuality, and unfounded intolerance. At this point, I'm so ready to apply everything I've learned about myself and identity politics in general if anyone ever tries to impose themselves over me. I've fashioned my armour. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 it's [sexuality] so integral to who we are and is integral to the formation of our individual identities I'm still not entirely sold on this notion, personally. Or at least not to the same degree you seem to be. James Butler...he's the person most likely to become famous for doing something academically extraordinary. Well, he's already got the heritage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 So what is queer then if it isn't LGBT? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 Depends on whose definition, but snipping this Wiki from Queer theory. Whereas gay/lesbian studies focused its inquiries into "natural" and "unnatural" behavior with respect to homosexual behavior, queer theory expands its focus to encompass any kind of sexual activity or identity that falls into perverted, normative and deviant categories. I suppose in a way it harks back to "queer" meaning strange ("oh how queer") rather than gay. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 What so things like bestiality and necrophilia would come under queer? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 Yeah, it's literally queer in the sense of strange, as though there's something strange and deviant in the act exploring the sexuality you're born with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 What so things like bestiality and necrophilia would come under queer? There's a euphemism in there somewhere, but Fluid Mechanics coursework is draining my soul. There's probably on in there somewhere, too... I always find it a little odd when a group use a term meant to be derogatory as a badge - I know there's the whole 'turning your enemy into your friend' thing, but it almost strikes me as trying to hard, and makes me feel a little uncomfortable. Maybe I'm just too English. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 What so things like bestiality and necrophilia would come under queer? Yes. I personaly have no problem with necrophilia - it's "eww" in the same way I think fat sex is "eww." Paedophilia and Bestiality is different, because it's exploitative. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 I personaly have no problem with necrophilia - it's "eww" in the same way I think fat sex is "eww." Paedophilia and Bestiality is different, because it's exploitative. Seriously you don't have a problem with necrophilia? Also I think the fat sex comment is very offensive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 Seriously you don't have a problem with necrophilia? Well yeah, if someone wants to have sex with a dead body (and there's no murder involved), and there's some sort of consent involved (as in, they aren't just breaking into a cemetery), then it's fine by me. Society tells us it's wrong. No-one is getting hurt, so what's so wrong about it? 100 years ago, society told people homosexuality was wrong. Also I think the fat sex comment is very offensive. People have said hundreds of times on this forum that they think sex with another man is "eww". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 People have said hundreds of times on this forum that they think sex with another man is "eww". I think it's more the fact that you said it in the same breathe (figuratively speaking) as saying necrophilia was "eww". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 Yes. I personaly have no problem with necrophilia - it's "eww" in the same way I think fat sex is "eww." Paedophilia and Bestiality is different, because it's exploitative. Chair, you're an intelligent kid, but some of things you say are incredibly dumb. They may not be able to "react" like children or animals, but its still exploitative. As for the "eww" comment, well I'll leave Ashley to give his opinion :p EDIT: When will there ever be consent? I doubt many people give consent to someone just before they die saying, "Yeah, you can shag me when I'm dead. Go for it!" LOL@ my signature, Ashley you bitch :p Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 People have said hundreds of times on this forum that they think sex with another man is "eww". I think that's a misrepresentation - there's a massive difference between something that doesn't appeal to you personally and something actively repulsive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 this thread is really interesting... i'm gay, but not what you might call 'overt' in that. I'm not ashamed of it, and if anyone ever asks me, i always tell them the truth... however being gay is just one part of a mix of things that make me who i am. I've actually found that people who are more camp seem to be quite threatened by gay people who don't use their sexuality to define their whole existence. i've often wondered if these people latch on to a gay 'identity' so strongly because they don't have very strong sense of self.... or don't think they'll be noticed based on being less obvious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 Well yeah, if someone wants to have sex with a dead body (and there's no murder involved), and there's some sort of consent involved (as in, they aren't just breaking into a cemetery), then it's fine by me. Society tells us it's wrong. No-one is getting hurt, so what's so wrong about it? 100 years ago, society told people homosexuality was wrong. People have said hundreds of times on this forum that they think sex with another man is "eww". With like relatives or something? That would be a interesting conversation lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 i've often wondered if these people latch on to a gay 'identity' so strongly because they don't have very strong sense of self.... or don't think they'll be noticed based on being less obvious. So you expect us to just be like "Ok, you persecuted us for 100s of years, but now we're are sort-of accepted, we'll just forget all about it and be happy with civil partnership and dirty looks." I find it kinda hard to articulate what I mean (I'm a mathematician), but hear English buffs talking about it, and you just know truths are being spoken. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 So you expect us to just be like "Ok, you persecuted us for 100s of years, but now we're are sort-of accepted, we'll just forget all about it and be happy with civil partnership and dirty looks." I find it kinda hard to articulate what I mean (I'm a mathematician), but hear English buffs talking about it, and you just know truths are being spoken. I may be missing the point but I fail to see what that has to do with jamie's post. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 I think that's a misrepresentation - there's a massive difference between something that doesn't appeal to you personally and something actively repulsive. Hm, what actually determines whether or not something is actively repulsive? Isn't repulsiveness often down to personal preferences as well? I mean, often we have instincts that tell us something is "repulsive", but there are always exceptions to these instances - paraphilias being a good example. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 I may be missing the point but I fail to see what that has to do with jamie's post. I know, it doesn't... :p I wrote a big paragraph about how sexual identity is integral to overall identity, but I felt like it was a pointless opposition, because I couldn't phrase what I wanted to say properly, and I hate arguments when it's obvious people aren't going to change their minds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted February 28, 2010 Hm, what actually determines whether or not something is actively repulsive? Isn't repulsiveness often down to personal preferences as well? I mean, often we have instincts that tell us something is "repulsive", but there are always exceptions to these instances - paraphilias being a good example. Everyone can always get into a subjective and objective argument but that gets boring. Why don't we argue that about peadophilia or beastiality... >_>. Obviously I'm against all 3 of them, I'm just saying, your comment is possible to be argued for those as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
