PSYC 599 ADVANCED THEORIES: HOMOSEXUALITY AND OTHER QUEER (ANTI)IDENTITIES

Instructor: Dr. Tha Divil
Quarter: Summer '10
Number of credits: 3

I - INTRODUCTION

The recurrent tropes in depictions of homosexual men in media has morphed in recent decades from the AIDS martyr to the campy fashion accessory and pop sensation, while lesbians remain hairy folk singers or white middle class ladder-climbing professionals. Meanwhile people with other queer identities--or-lacking identities entirely--remain off the discursive map for most. In this thread we will survey the self-definitions, not just of the LGBT community, but of the BDSM community, polyamorists, and general perverts; trouble dominant notions of queers as comic relief and sources of narcissistic supply for main characters; and give fashion tips to insecure straight men.

II - LEARNING ACTIVITIES

In this thread (ITT), participants will,

(a) Ask a homo - interrogate those with nonstandard sexualities about bedroom logistics and hair care products

(b) Flirt - follow LRR tradition of getting couples together through the dialogical power of the internets

(c) Vent - complain about failure to get queer nookie

III - REQUIRED READING

Stark, G. & Saunders, P. (2010) Loading ready run v 7.0: 64k RAM 38911 basic bites free. Vancouver Island, Vancouver, Canada: Loading Ready Run. accessed July 5, 2010 from: http://www.loadingreadyrun.com/

Does the indoctrination of a group into mainstream media help it more than hurt it? I'm definitely aware of negative stereotypes of gays like 'watch out straight dudes a gay might try to turn you cause you're irresistible!' or the flamboyant and overly-feminine gay but do you think that the lack of controversy around gays in television today breeds more tolerance, and if so, does that outweigh the negative stereotypes that the media has a habit of instituting not only on gays but across other gender and racial groups?

In my experience overly camp gay men are more likely to drive people away than garner supporters for the cause.

Perhaps it's because of where I live, but lesbians can be anyone and you can kiss or do more than that with a girl and not be seen as a lesbian instantly or even at all... Most girls I know who fancy girls (I'm not sure I know any out-and-out lesbians; most are bi or identify as queer or questioning) are pretty, bubbly, and while concerned about their appearance are not conformist to fashion norms.

It all depends: part of the purpose of the really out-there public camp is to build confidence for the community--to challenge fear and shame, because that's what holds people back.

The movement is split between people who send a we're-just-like-you message and people who send a queer-as-fuck message. The we're-just-like-you faction is talking to the straights, trying to keep them from getting scared. The queer-as-fuck faction is talking to the queers, trying to make us confident enough to come out, connect with other, and challenge homophobes.

The good news is the two groups can complement each other. The we're-just-like-you faction can talk to the politicians, especially since they control the policy-level groups. The queers-as-fuck can work at the community level, since that's where they are, anyway.

What the split boils down to is that policy-level and grassroots activism require different and sometimes opposite tactics. Also, can we talk more about guys jacking me off? I liked that part.

I think the typical gay archetype is really non-threatening which I guess keeps from intimidating old white bigots but I also feel that it delegitimizes actual gay protests by making them seem 'harmless' and 'cute', I'm not even gay and it feels really patronizing.



i will jerk off all over u, heh

It can be. I find that the way to break out of protest triviality is to hit them in the wallet--pickets, strikes, boycotts, direct actions. Protest is usually ignored by the powerful, its value is in helping to organize more concrete actions, which, again, involves showing yourself as united and fearless.

As for the cuteness, I know some more militant groups are talking about "queering violence:" like guys in dresses rioting, the idea is to take images usually associated with powerlessness and turn them around. That, and on some level you get better protest turn-out if you turn it into a party.



It's interesting how women are getting that option to fool around with women and it's no big deal--while guys are still mostly a faggot for life if we do anything with a guy (though most of us still do, early on or in all-male environments.)

I think it's about different oppressions intersecting: women getting it on is a male fantasy, so it's allowed. Guys fooling around with each other is too far from the fake, action-movie images of powerful men, so admitting to it brings a loss of status. What do you think?

my younger cousin (like, twelve) called me a faggot yesterday cause I said I like hiking. he was joking and all but it was still p depressing so I was all "why?" and he's all "cause girls don't hike, how are you gonna find a chick while hiking?"

and i was all 'whoa', i try to discourage the kind of stuff he'll inevitably pick up from the media and his friends and I thought I was doing an okay job but that seriously killed me to hear that

the hyper-masculinity in the media today really does teach boys that problems can be solved with violence and since homosexuals are normally portrayed as the opposite of the masculine culture they're taught to idealize it makes oppressing them that much easier imo.

it's really a shame though

My girlfriend likes hiking even more'n I do.

Hubbah wah?

I like to consider myself open minded in regards to these things. I'm for gay rights even if it means some of the people I know think that makes me gay. But seriously? MOST guys fool around with another guy at some point? I...I don't even know what to say. Maybe I live in the part of the world that is the exception, but I have never, nor has anyone who I like to think would be able to talk to me about this ever, fooled about with another guy, without them being decidedly gay.

Speaking entirely for myself here: it's never been something I wanted. Or even wanted to try.

Maybe I'm odd.

When, the fuck, did hiking become un-manly?



Haha, lol.

[If] Women are weak and can't hike ->[Then] You can't get bitches while hiking -> [So] Hiking is gay -> Gays aren't masculine -> [Therefore] You are unmanly.

Kinda of ironic since me and a lot of my friends are inherently into things that are pretty much the manliest things short of banging chicks. I play rugby and hockey.

The REASON you are "Some Obviously Gay Guy" is because of those two sports.

Golf is for real men.

Well, maybe he's got a point. Twelve year olds do get all the womenz.

Sorry that your girl is a lesbo, dude

Psh.

I'm not.

This might have changed since the Internet, but when I was a kid, guys would find a porno, share, and jack off to it together. Sometimes giving each other a hand. I knew some who went further but considered themselves to be both straight and virgins.

My friend who got kicked out of basic training says they would all jack off together in the showers, since there was no privacy and that was the best place. I heard a friend who was on a submarine describe it this way: "a hundred men go down, fifty couples come up." And rape in prisons is a well-known phenomenon. (It's a related issue that everyone knows there's lots of rape in prisons, and no one is doing anything about it, but if I said America engages in punishment rape I would be called some kind of hysterical radical.)

I find that these kinds of experiences live in a weird neverland in guys' heads, where they'll say they've never fooled around with a guy, but then this stuff comes up and if you confront them on the contradiction they'll say, "but that doesn't count."

The same thing happens in the other direction: guys will play up their experiences in locker room bragging sessions, and to some extent they'll believe the lies because it fits with their identities. How we define ourselves has come to have a huge effect on what can even remember or think about.

So I don't know whether you're odd or not, but there are a lot of straight guys having gay sex and calling it something else.

I'm not sure what you mean when you're talking about prison rape. Do you mean prisoners not considering themselves gay if they rape someone else?



It's really obvious that the US encourages a retributive justice system and that prison rape is all too common. I'm rarely called a radical but I do hear a lot of "hurrrrr well they're prisoners so who cares if they're raped/tortured"

Like, not even being ignorant of it, just going "well i know it happens but it's fine with me because I'm literally human shit"

Yes, although we could have a discussion about whether rape is sex. As I've heard it put, "if you hit someone with a frying pan you wouldn't call it cooking." There's an obvious power component but to some extent I see guys getting themselves off with what's available and refusing to own up to it.



Right, and yet even the people who say that often won't own up to the implications--ask them if they would agree with the statement that America enforces its laws with the threat of rape. Or if the existence of "rape rooms" justified the bombing of Baghdad (either time,) and does that mean that it's okay to bomb Washington.

Boy, the discussion gets heavy when you start the thread with a syllabus. Wonder what would have been different if I had lead with something like, "HOT! YOUNG! STUUUUUUDS!"

I don't understand the OP.

Maybe because "gay sex" is a nonsensical descriptor, since "gay" is something someone generally identifies with. Unless you don't think there's any real bisexuals?

It was a joke-syllabus. After I wrote it I realized it was maybe a little snobbish since it won't make much sense if you haven't been to college. Syllabi describe a class, you usually get them on the first day. This one deliberately had a certain amount of pretentious gibberish.



I'm sure bisexuals exist, but these identities connect with behaviors, though maybe not directly. So I'm fine with describing sex as, "gay," and using that to describe sex between two genders that are considered opposite, even though you can complicate that endlessly if you want to.

Like I was saying to Bananafish, people often refuse to see their own behaviors if those behaviors don't fit with their identities. That's what I'm on about.

No uh, snobbish was assuming I haven't been to college (I have)

I just didn't understand what you wanted to discuss.

Query:

Is "pegging" a gay sex act?