It's All a Blur to Them (Dressing across genders)

[Heirloom]

I've written my reply.

[theetruscan]

I think tying homosexuals push to have the right to same sex marriage or to be treated with Civil respect to the struggles of blacks for equality has been one of the stupidest and a seriously unfair thing for the gay community to do.

Make no mistake about it, I do not believe in unfair discrimination against anyone, but I do believe that there needs to be a certain level of restraint and regulation in our society, we cant have a world where every man does what is right in his own eyes. while I am not against androgyny, I do like specific distinctions between men and women, in clothing etc, as life is a whole lot easier that way and there are logical and legitimate reasons for such distinctions.

I also find this statement sad

I can understand your frustration to a point, and am willing to see this as a statement of frustration than something you really mean.
I personally am willing to admit that there is an aspect to being gay that I do not understand, and probably never will, because I am not. I have come to this conclusion because I have many friends that are Gay and don't believe people would necessarily choose to be or become something/ someone that would draw unfavorable treatment to themselves. However, this does not bring me to support the push for the right to marry, nor to accept the practice of homosexuality, I am emphasizing the word practice because I do make a distinction between the individual and the practice, I would never treat another individual unfairly because they are/ or choose to be someone I disagree with, after all, are we not all made by the same loving creator who has given all men the right to exist? (albeit with order and civility)

Zamb, this saddens me, because even phrased gently and kindly, it is bigotry, pure and simple.

The reason the gay community has tied their push for the right to marry, the right to visit their partners in a hospital, the right to the tax benefits of marriage, the right to inherit from partners, the right to share custody of children, etc etc etc is because they associate it with anti-miscegenation laws. The reason they associate it with anti-miscegenation laws is because you've collected a subset of people and kept them from having rights available to other people through the institution of civil marriage. The argument has nothing to do with religious marriage, and no one I have ever worked with when volunteering on equality campaigns has ever wanted to infringe on religious freedom in any way. There is not a lot of complexity to this argument. Right now, from a legal (not a religious) perspective, one group of people are more equal than others. This is fundamentally contrary to the ideas of equality on which our country was founded*.

Your comments about not accepting the practice of homosexuality and about needing a certain level of "restraint" to prevent a society where every man does "what is right in his eyes" are either disingenuous or ill-considered. The idea breaks down to "I don't like homosexuality for (blank) reason so I will equate it with anti-social behavior such as (blank)." No one with half a brain argues that society doesn't need laws and rules to exist, but equating two loving adults doing something victimless between themselves with acts detrimental to society is incomprehensible and seems like a behavior of some of the more insane public speakers we have.

I think it's important to note that America, at least, was founded on the ideas of equality and the separation of church and state (among many many others), and it is necessary to consider this. One's religious belief should dictate his life if he so chooses. But, one's religious belief shouldn't dictate others lives.

I'm sorry to be so harsh. I appreciate that you would never personally discriminate against someone, I truly do. But, I still find your positions indefensible. On the other hand, I agree with you about not ever fully understanding homosexuality. Girls are just too hot.

* As were many other things, but we've made good headway on many of them and will continue to work towards equality for all

[Heirloom]

thanks theetruscan

[Heirloom]

i wish i was like you
easily amused

haha am I? I thought my thing was being easily bored.

[galia]

maybe the two go together

[theetruscan]

In my experience they do.

[laika]

sexuality in it's existence is instinctual. In it's shape, social construct. I don't disregard anyones personal identity or true nature, but i expect other people to admit there are others who don't fit in with one or the other. That's just how it is. I'm one of them. I know me. I love myself and I wouldn't push myself into a mold if there's no reason to other than to please other peoples wish for order in society. I've heard society say things to me all my life that doesn't rhyme with what I feel inside. Why would I hurt myself when there's no higher purpose to conform other than to make things look neat and uniform? Where is the worth in that?

heirloom, your posts make me happy, especially bits like the existence vs. shape of sexuality. nicely put.

sorry faust, while some part of me longs for the really real of nature, there is a deep discomfort in me--a kind of nausea almost--that knows nothing is natural. Yes, sexuality is socially constructed. What's really interesting though, is the way most of us go about living our lives as though this were not true...as though we were living facts instead of fiction. It's a public secret, an act of forceful forgetting that makes the world go on somehow...

sorry if i sound totally spacey, i've been reading a lot this week and a lot of nietzsche.

[Mail-Moth]

You sound limpid Laika. At least for me.

[Heirloom]

Laika: thanks for you response. Actually, you shouldn't feel sad, cause in my mind there is nothing unnatural. Everything stems from nature, even social constructions and silicone. We could use man made and evolved as distinctions, but in the end even manmade things are a part of evolution.

[zamb]

heirloom, your posts make me happy, especially bits like the existence vs. shape of sexuality. nicely put.

sorry faust, while some part of me longs for the really real of nature, there is a deep discomfort in me--a kind of nausea almost--that knows nothing is natural. Yes, sexuality is socially constructed. What's really interesting though, is the way most of us go about living our lives as though this were not true...as though we were living facts instead of fiction. It's a public secret, an act of forceful forgetting that makes the world go on somehow...

sorry if i sound totally spacey, i've been reading a lot this week and a lot of nietzsche. [/quote]

Laika: thanks for you response. Actually, you shouldn't feel sad, cause in my mind there is nothing unnatural. Everything stems from nature, even social constructions and silicone. We could use man made and evolved as distinctions, but in the end even manmade things are a part of evolution.

interesting comparisons here..........................and thats why we will always live in a world where their wont be a common consensus on certain things because there is always so much different conclusions to come to, even in the grant world of empirical and objective science.........

[Heirloom]

i'm still awaiting a response from you on my pov. And I'm also curious on how much gender studies you've done.

[Fuuma]

1) Gender roles are socially constructed, that much is true and is reflected on clothing. Try wearing a skirt for a day and see how much movement you have to avoid, having to choose between acting demurely (a female characteristic) or brazenly displaying your sexuality (what bad girls do). Clothes are, in part mechanisms of control and ways to put forward physiological characteristics associated with our perception of males (say an emphasis on the shoulders) and females (ex: focus on the hips).

2) We’re caught in a scripted dance competition and it is not clear who’s leading the steps; as Marx (haha) said the dominant is as much a prisoner of the relation of domination as the dominated; I think he added that the dominated also holds a part of the responsibility in the continuation of said relationship.

3) With that being said I find that acting like those social rules do not, in fact, exist is the height of naivety and a profound misunderstanding of the difference between “laws of nature” (say gravity) and “laws of men” (say stopping at red lights or gender roles). You can’t go against gravity, its action is immediate and its existence permanent. On the other hand the laws of men are all about the consequences; no one can stop you from running a red light, however you might end up in an accident or get a ticket. It is similarly true that Heirloom won’t be stopped from wearing a skirt w. heels, which makes him say the rules are not present, but social rules still exist and he will have to face the consequences in being judged by the multitude. The laws of men take effect a posteriori and are socially enforced, be they codified in the Law or social taboos.

4) Gender roles also provide convenient scripts and a predictability that allow us to function on a day to day basis; scenarios like “couple shopping together-guys dislike it, girls likes it” are instantly recognizable and almost hieratic in their ritual permutability; you could switch people and form new couples in the average American mall and no one would feel lost, they’d still have very similar conversations and teasing. When social customs are discarded or we’re in a foreign land, we feel lost and somewhat helpless, hopelessly ignorant and estranged.

5) Now you might think all hope is lost but you might also have noticed we don’t wear togas anymore, that homosexuality is gaining acceptance and that gender roles have evolved; so never fear! No one is an “exemplary” specimen of their own culture; we all approach it at an angle, never standing on the “average” mould. We transgress a little, a lot or not at all depending on the rules and context and at some point, the rules get decentered, their focus changes and different standards emerge. You’re never going to see me in a skirt but I don’t abide by “scripted relational standards”. On the other hand I still open doors and leave my place to women in public transportation. I am in certain aspects more conservative and in others quite transgressive. We’re all like that.


As for Christians well I’ve yet to see them protest near weight watchers or McDonalds and gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins. Or line up to denounce avarice in gated communities. I also know that very few of them wait until marriage to have sex or are anti-blowjobs. Where is the outburst concerning mixed fabrics or the demand for punishment by stoning?

I can only deduct from that (and the relative lack of focus on homosexuality found in the Bible) that their misgivings are cultural and linked to conservative thought not scriptures.

Oh and Zamb, what you’re saying is roughly equivalent to “I don’t have a problem with niggers but I don’t want any of them in my workplace or dating my daughter.” You can’t hide basic discrimination behind kind words. I do hope you’ve never had sex before marriage, enjoyed a hearty meal or have worn mixed fabrics as you know what Jesus said about throwing the first stone. Religion is like anything else, it either changes or it dies. Taking scriptures as having one meaning, constant through time is ignoring the complexity of the Bible, a work made of contradicting fragment that resist easy interpretation, in fact a post-modern collage.

[theetruscan]

ok, here we go.

Yes, it's just as discriminating. Homosexuals have just had the benefit to hide their sexuality. A black man might find it difficult to hind his skin or curls. This is why blacks have had worse treatment in history than homosexuals. If homosexuality had been as visible as black skin, they'd probably been alot worse treated as a group than what "they" have.

History aside, the act of dismiss someone because of the way they dress is as discriminating as someone being racist, simply because it's completely irrelevant, and hurts that persons true nature, something he or she can do nothing about.

I mostly agree with the rest of your post. I don't agree with quite a bit of what you say here. Discrimination is discrimination, yes. But, there's a serious gap in your argument. I don't know it it's being disingenuous like zamb's (paraphrasing) "we must draw a line" argument, or if it's just an oversight.

Either way, a manner of dress, unlike race or sexuality, is a choice. It's a costume, and changing your attire doesn't change your person. It is not the same thing to discriminate based on dress as it is to discriminate on race, gender, sexuality for what I would think are obvious reasons. I'm not dismissing it out of hand, but there's a clear difference you need to consider to get anywhere. You don't go out and buy new skin, or new desires, or a new cock like you do with clothing. You're stuck with your race, gender and sexual orientation (barring some extreme surgeries which can alter the second to some extent). You can change clothes without becoming another person, many of us are expected to dress a certain way at work. When I put on a suit for something, it's just me in a suit, I'm not suddenly a different person because I needed to wear that attire.

Ugh, I know you feel passionately about this stuff, but I really think you need to consider this argument more.

[Heirloom]

if my way of dressing reflects who I am then it's just as bad. And I assumed we all dress that way.

[Fuuma]

if my way of dressing reflects who I am then it's just as bad. And I assumed we all dress that way.

No one is that way, who you are is not that fixed and can't be taken in one block. If I simply had to look at people to know "who they were" I'd go live on a deserted Island as no one would be worth interacting with. I like to think we're a lot more subtle, complex and secretive than that. Representations are not some core we hold deep inside.