Here’s a depressing story out of Indianapolis. This high school kid, Dynasty Young, was getting bullied and harassed at school because he was dressing and acting queeny. His mother gave him a stun gun for protection and he used it one some kids. The school expelled him, initially for a year, and then relented and let him re-enroll, but only if he went to some other…..
Sigh….
If only he’d used a real gun, he’d at least have the NRA defending him now. Self-defense is exactly why people carry weapons, when they see that society will not protect them.
I really do get the poiont about expelling a kid for bringing a weapon to school. i wonder about not expelling the bullies.
From the article:
Young says fellow students spat at him, called him derogatory names and threw rocks and empty bottles at him because of the way he dressed and what they perceived as unmasculine behavior.
Specifically:
Young often wore some of his mother’s clothes to school, including knee-high boots, purses, rings and bangles. These accessories were permitted under the school’s dress code, the lawsuit says.
One commenter wondered if the school had a dress code, and another said basically – Let me guess, boys are allowed to wear some things and girls are allowed to wear anything, right?
That’s what this is really about, gender policing. That’s why I consider this another example of misandry. This is an example of why homophobia is misandry, not misogyny. If it were misogyny, the girls dressed like that would have been harassed and bullied the same way.
Look at the comments on the story please. All the usual “well, he provoked it by acting gay, you know…” Supposedly these people would have no problem with a kid getting bullied and harassed for wearing a yarmulke to school (which is pretty likely too, still these days.) Oh, someone mentioned that later.
This whole fight is a battle of inches. Good luck to Mr. Young
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
by 
Wait, please tell me they called the police about the kids tossing the rocks and expelled them as well? First, if they are using something as a weapon its a weapon. Two STONING IS A METHOD OF EXECUTION. They should be bringing felony level charges against the bullies who did that! This never should have come to the point of using a stun gun. Secondly, if the state had even half decent laws, allowing a child to be stoned and not calling the police, or doing something would be grounds for a child neglect charge. Three the kid obviously didn’t have equal access to the schools facilities because he was a boy (this would not have happened if he was a girl), therefore the school seems to have denied him equal access on the basis of sex. That seems to violate one of Indiana’s civil rights statues.
I think this is one of those many problems that can be solved by rounding the criminals up and giving them a permanent record so they do not get allowed in a position to pull similar antics.
I’m guessing this is single-mom parenting: name your boy Dynasty, encourage him to wear your clothes to school, demonstrate a total lack of sense in resolving problems
Actually, Wilson, this is a case of single mothers raising packs of thug-ass straight kids who hear from every figure of authority in the community and the country that kids like Dynasty are some sort of freaks to be targeted for harassment and violence. I am trying to decide whether kids like that should be removed from those mothers or just put on public display as a warning to all their little friends. A stun gun is damned little to use on them.
Dynasty sounds like a drag name, I agree. But it’s a lot better than other I’ve heard, like “Caleb’ = “Dog” in Hebrew or all those boy names people give girls, like Mackenzie or Ashley. But a name like that is an albatross, that’s for sure.
Gingko: How many of those bullies are probably closet cases themselves?
Obviously unacceptable, but depressingly par for the course.
So long as you have a nice compliant victim, bullying creates little hassel for the school. Victim defends themselves though and suddenly you’ve got a drama. Dumbarses see the drama and come down on whoever has caused them to go from “No drama” to “Drama.”
Honestly, I’m not even sure that the observed outcome neccessitates the existance of misandry or homophbia on the part of the administration. I can easily imagine the same responce for either gender or sexuality (provided that if we change the gender of the victim we change the gender of the harassers).
Though I will say that the “Well if he dressed differently…” reactions reported in the linked artcle smack of both.
@Jared: Yep, a conflict starts when the victim(s) defend themselves.
Good lord, and so many think that men don’t get victim blamed for what they wear. The commentary on that is so awful. It is nothing but reams and reams of victim blaming. (And implying he wore dresses and stilettos and makeup when he did none of those, just some jewelry, purses, and boots — not that there’s anything wrong with men wearing anything that women wear.)
I gotta say though, something that has always rubbed me the wrong way — the conflation of gay and femininity. Bears are hardly feminine, and there are plenty of crossdressers and transvestites who are straight and cis. (My youngest brother would probably be one if there wasn’t such social stigma — and if you could find skirts that looked good on a 6’5″ husky freshman college student)
And we’re still sort of struggling with reclaiming pinks and pastels for men’s clothes. (It’s certainly better than it was, but it was almost an invisible process and pushed along in both business wear and in “preppy” teens)
Oh, and because I see his name was mentioned; the article states his given name is Darnell – but he obviously must have picked up Dynasty as a nickname. I’m not sure what’s so feminine about the name “Dynasty” that everyone else seems to have. I think of, y’know, actual dynasties, like the different Chinese dynasties, for instance.
This is disturbing. I can agree with taking action over him bringing a weapon to school but I do wonder where all this action was when he was being bullied. Chances are this bullying was going on plain view for him to have resorted to a stun gun for protection. Where was the “zero tolerance” then?
This is an example of why homophobia is misandry, not misogyny.
Which is why for the most part feminists will be dead silent on this. If it can’t be twisted into “women are the real victims” it’s not on their radar. Fine by me.
Skidd:
And we’re still sort of struggling with reclaiming pinks and pastels for men’s clothes. (It’s certainly better than it was, but it was almost an invisible process and pushed along in both business wear and in “preppy” teens)
Yeah the rapper crowd was on it for a while but I think they largely abandoned it once the shock value of a man wearing pink wore off.
Man, this is a very tough area for me. I know firsthand how evil bullying can be, and yet I don’t want to shield and over-protect kids to the point that we’re carrying them through life without ever having to face ridicule or hurt feelings. The taser reaction is obviously wrong; bullies assaulting the kid were also obviously wrong; and yet taunting and throwing insults…? I’m not sure where to draw the line there.
I would never approve an anti-bullying policy that punished kids for calling each other “fag,” for example, even though that’s an ignorant and hurtful comment. Because it would lead to a discussion of whether they can call each other “retard” or “clueless” or “dummy” or “sissy” or a thousand other things. You’d wind up with meaningless policies like “Nobody should ever say hurtful things to anybody else, under any circumstances, ever”–a policy is that laughably unenforceable and therefore worthless. And more importantly, it would be an over-protective policy that teaches kids they have the right never to be offended or upset by anything anyone else says.
Taser = bad.
Rock-throwing = bad.
Punching, shoving, tripping = bad.
Calling names = ???
Nope, sorry, I can’t get behind the notion that name-calling should (or can) be prohibited. I guess that makes me opposed to anti-harassment policies and therefore in favor of bullying.
This is an example of why homophobia is misandry, not misogyny.
Which is why for the most part feminists will be dead silent on this. If it can’t be twisted into “women are the real victims” it’s not on their radar. Fine by me.
Excuse me, but WHAT? This seems to assume all homophobia is directed at MEN for feminine behavior? Have yall never heard of female bisexuals and lesbians? Women experience homophobia too, you know. When *I* was repeatedly bullied and called a dyke as a teenager, for defending feminism, was that misogyny or homophobia or… misandry? How exactly?
(shakes head)
BTW, along these same lines, did anyone see this post? I am interested in opinions from folks here:
Dad Wears a Skirt So His Son Will Feel Strong Enough To Do So As Well
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2012/09/01/dad-wears-a-skirt-so-his-son-will-feel-strong-enough-to-do-so-as-well/
“This seems to assume all homophobia is directed at MEN for feminine behavior? Have yall never heard of female bisexuals and lesbians? Women experience homophobia too, you know. When *I* was repeatedly bullied and called a dyke as a teenager, for defending feminism, was that misogyny or homophobia or… misandry? How exactly?”
It does look exaclty like that and I knew that when I wrote the first piece of that, you are completley right, but this was what I was thinking: I am sick to fucking death of seeing homophobia directed agaisnt men made into a women’s issue with that self-seriving misogyny crap. That’s the first thing. The other is that the jeering and snide comments girls get are horribly humilitiaing and alienating and do real emotional damage; that kind of treatment is straight up emotional violence – but gay or gay-acting or gay-suspect boys and men get *killed*.
So I went a little overboard by underspecifying.
Do we ever have situations in our society where women are killed or beaten for their (perceived or real) homosexuality? I don’t know of any off the top of my head, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
However, I would be fairly confident in saying that physical violence related to homosexuality is directed at men at a much higher rate than women. I would guess that is because the male equivalent to slut shaming is an old fashioned ass-whooping. Note that I don’t mean equivalent in the sense that they occur for the same reason, but equivalent in the sense that they are carried out for the same purpose – namely, to constrict, limit, and delineate what is and is not acceptable.
I think it is mostly confusion, and a little bit of victim appropriation (or is that the other way around?) that leads people to label anti-male homophobia as misogyny. Because they sense the parallels between the two, they assume it is the same. And when assigning roles, remember Typhon’s rule, a man is never a victim.
@Copyleft:
I agree that it isn’t a good idea to try and keep kids dry in the rainstorm we call life, but on the other hand, the name calling can be emotional violence. You might be right that we can’t ever legislate that kind of abuse away (just as we can’t ever legislate physical violence away), but I would be worried if we all decided to ignore abuse when it happens to us, or our children, “cause that’s life”.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that we need more of an effort than saying all name calling is bad, or all name calling is okay. Neither is really true, since somewhere in between is where the teasing turns into abuse. And that line is likely a moving target. What kills me are the lazy adults who want a policy that is one-size fits all so that they can rubber stamp discipline.
Excuse me, but WHAT? This seems to assume all homophobia is directed at MEN for feminine behavior? Have yall never heard of female bisexuals and lesbians? Women experience homophobia too, you know. When *I* was repeatedly bullied and called a dyke as a teenager, for defending feminism, was that misogyny or homophobia or… misandry? How exactly?
Yes I am quite familiar with female bisexual and lesbians. I am fully aware that women experience homophobia and it seems (in the eyes of a lot of feminists at least) that all homophobia traces back to some hatred of women or hatred of that which is designated as feminine.
And I bet you’ve been around (at least modern) feminists to know that when talking about homophobia against men the conversation is usually kept strictly to sexual orientation and gender is avoided like the plague but when talking about homophobia against women all of a sudden it’s gender and sexual orientation. (All a part of the declaration that under no circumstances are men oppressed because of their gender.)
How else do they end up calling an attack on a gay man misogyny (attacked because he dared to do things that are associated with being a woman) and then turn around and say that an attack on a gay woman is misogyny as well (attacked because she is a woman that was not doing things that women are “supposed to do”).
What you’re seeing is a bit of backlash over something that has gone unchallenged for quite some time. It doesn’t excuse that remark but I was hoping you understood that. My apologies.
But Daisy since I like you I’ll go back and tweak that remark.
Which is why for the most part feminists will be dead silent on this. If it isn’t against women or can’t be twisted into “women are the real victims” it’s not on their radar. Fine by me.
When *I* was repeatedly bullied and called a dyke as a teenager, for defending feminism, was that misogyny or homophobia or… misandry? How exactly?
Since you identify as a woman I’d call that misogyny with a twist of homophobia (if you were gay I’d say misogynistic homophobia perhaps, whereas this case Gingko speaks of in the post would be misandric homophobia).
As for the story about the dad that started wearing skirts in support of his son I think there are two good things going on here. First we have a boy that is getting support for a choice that actually does no harm to anyone but is treated like it does harm to someone (seriously who is being harmed by a guy wearing a skirt?). Second we have a dad that is doing exactly what others are too busy bitching that men are not doing. And that’s being a present and supportive father.
“Name-calling” is the wrong way to think about non-violent bullying. Kids call each other all kinds of things all the time, and most of the time it’s just banter, back and forth and nobody involved minds. Where it’s a problem is when one kid is singled out for unidirectional abuse and exclusion.
It’s the same with violent bullying, actually. If kids are getting involved in mutual and voluntary rough and tumble, that’s not bullying. It’s bullying when one kid gets ganged up on by a bunch of others in a concerted campaign.
I’ve started to wonder if the claim that hostility to gay men is really misogyny is itself partly inspired by a common homophobic idea- that gay men aren’t really men. It would hardly be the first assumption about manhood that’s gone from Patriarchal to Feminist basically unchanged. (I’ve seen a LOT of feminists who seem to hear “male” and automatically translate it to “straight male” or “straight white male,” and it’s too common and reflexive to write off as a mere rhetorical trick.) It might not even occur to a lot of feminists that there’s anything offensive or insulting about such an attitude- if your guiding assumption is that men are generally bad and women good, I suppose considering a gay man an honorary woman would seem like is a sort of promotion.
Well, there is a moral and a practical viewpoint. Morally Dynasty can be blamed for bringing a gun to school, instead of taking appropriate measures like suing the school and not visiting this school, if he fears for his safety. From a practical point of view, he made choice to dress a certain way and react in a certain way to the attacks and hostility. This choice in the given setting had consequences. I don’t criticise his behaviour, I just wouldn’t want anybody I care about be in his situations and assuming his clothing, behaviour and demeanor had negative effects on the situation, I would advise him to change those things, if possible.
@Daisy
About the 5 year old boy wearing skirts and dresses:
As 5 year old kids are usually unable to see the ramifications of their actions, parents must be protective of them. Of course, morally the boy should have the right to wear dresses or skirts, but as he is living in a not so tolerant society this clothing, will provoke many people to take actions which will harm him. Not much against the father wearing a skirt, but 5 year olds shouldn’t be at the front line of the fight for social justice.
Re: Father wearing a dress/skirt for his son.
How soon we forget that toddlers/young children of all genders wearing pants is a recent invention? Like, early 1900’s recent. There’s even a photo of FDR wearing a dress and with rather feminine hair. http://s19.postimage.org/w278q48hv/image.jpg (Likewise pink for girls, blue for boys is a 19th century invention. Blue was for blonds, pink was for brunet(te)s. Or at least in some cases, others had flip-flopped pink and blue, others the way we know now)
Granted, as toddlers, my brother wanted to imitate everything about me and wore one-piece girl’s bathing suits, wore pigtails in his hair, and had a baby doll. He eventually dropped them all but the baby doll. He was much more into his doll than I was into my dolls.
“I’ve started to wonder if the claim that hostility to gay men is really misogyny is itself partly inspired by a common homophobic idea- that gay men aren’t really men.”
John, that is absolutely elegant – so now when a feminist claims homophobia is misogynist, she’s being homophobic. That is absolutley elegant. and very plausible; it has that going for it too.
““Name-calling” is the wrong way to think about non-violent bullying.”
Patrick, the plot sickens. One of the girls pulled his underwear over his head. That is sexual assault. Gee, I wonder if that pervert is going to be charged and put on the Sex Offender Registry.
Yeah, cis feminists have this interesting habit of pretending that femmephobia (I wish we could just call it masculosexism, but that’s too long an argument to fight… though we did manage to fight it on cissexism and heterosexism) is something that is rooted in misogyny. Misogyny is rooted in femmephobia. Attacks on amasculine men, and when intersecting with cissexism, amasculine CAMAB folks (feminine trans men don’t get a lot of heat, just more radical chic), are attacks on amasculinity, not on cis women.
Once again though, cis feminists make it all about them.
Sure the bullies should have been expelled but expelling the kid for bringing a stun gun to school is completely appropriate also.
One of the girls pulled his underwear over his head. That is sexual assault.(Ginkgo)
Geez, do I now need to seek therapy for sexual assault because of all the times I got “wedgies”?
Danny: Since you identify as a woman I’d call that misogyny with a twist of homophobia (if you were gay I’d say misogynistic homophobia perhaps, whereas this case Gingko speaks of in the post would be misandric homophobia).
I am bisexual, which counts. I know everybody tries to disappear that, but it does count. And perhaps since I was dyke-baited, my bisexuality “showed”? (I think I was also targeted because of lack of makeup, primping, etc.)
Equilibrium: Do we ever have situations in our society where women are killed or beaten for their (perceived or real) homosexuality?
I said bullied, and I meant it. Of course I was beaten up. Granted, this was 1973, and nobody gave a shit about queers then, so *I* was the one ashamed, too ashamed to speak up. I did not claim bisexuality then, but it was there. In the past, I framed it as “bullied for being feminist”–but the word they used was DYKE. I am now learning to call it both.
Of course women have been killed for being dykes. How did you miss these rather famous cases: http://barryyeoman.com/articles/murderonmountain.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Wight
More currently: Josie Smith-Malave, a lesbian who was on the TV show “Top Chef” –was attacked by two women after appearing on the show… interestingly she complained that the charges were not taken seriously enough. The fact that they were women-assailants is probably why. In my observation and experience its het women attacking lesbians and het men attacking gay men, which would make sense if homophobia is the main reason.
Women usually don’t KILL (anybody) though, just in general, unless its child abuse.
So, in keeping with this idea, that is probably why fewer lesbians than gay men are killed for being gay, since its women who do the attacking. Besides me, I remember two other girls beaten up in my high school for being “girls looking at other girls”–identified as tomboys or dykes. People did not yet use the word gay or lesbian then. Queer was still an insult, and usually signaled the intro to a beating. One reason I can never bring myself to use the word. I don’t care how trendy it is.
Deserves its own thread.
http://io9.com/5938698/the-great-geek-sexism-debate
One reason I can never bring myself to use the word. I don’t care how trendy it is.
Meaning, in conversation. I can’t say it out loud. It literally will not come out of my mouth, like a few other words I could name.
Of course, easy to type it. But when I hear it spoken aloud? Still makes me blanch and makes my skin crawl.
People did not yet use the word gay or lesbian then.
Clarification: in the Midwest, where I was. On the coasts, sure.
Until about 10-15 years ago, lesbians would more often call themselves “gay women” and usually did not even call themselves lesbian. Big push to reclaim the word… the popularity of the umbrella term GLBT made it more acceptable in general.
Thank you Valerie, that captures it very cleanly.
And thank you Daisy, for all of that and thanks in advance for writing a post for us. and I saw that geek sexism article and was thinking of working it into my next effort on gaming.
Sigh:
Can someone please explain to me how “I know this sounds strange, but would you like to come back to my room for a coffee ?” is a “heavy handed” pass?
Either this woman got very third hand information, has a poor memory, or was deliberately “shaping” her narrative. Here’s my take:
http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/elevatorgate/
It was always about more than Watson’s response to Elevatorguy. Indeed, the only reason her original video rubbed some wrong as she seemed to be trying to impose her personal preferences as to how and when to propoposition (assuming that is what he was doing) into universal laws. It spiraled down hill after that partly due to trolls, partly due to Watson’s attention-seeking and bullying ways, and partly due to how some supposedly skeptical sites decided to moderate.
Daisy: _Of course women have been killed for being dykes. How did you miss these rather famous cases: http://barryyeoman.com/articles/murderonmountain.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Wight_
I missed those because I was 8/9 when they happened, but they do show that murder/physical violence is perpetrated on lesbian and bisexual women. Interesting observation regarding the sex of the attackers.
Clarence, I have seen entire websites devoted to Watson in rather sicko, bizarre, obsessed fashion. (I have seen no such website about the geek in question) She was stalked and threatened and everything else. See, I think its been the *response* to the whole thing, that took so many WOMEN aback. Some women even report being “turned feminist” due to the male responses to Rebecca they read. So it goes both ways.
My opinion, it was a lot of stuff percolating beneath the surface and one big event sends it spewing out like a geyser. This “geek sexism” thing (or skeptic sexism thing, or whatever label you prefer) had simply never been addressed before, head-on, in a big way…and this forced it all out in the open.
You have to look at the big picture and not the particulars. There is a reason this situation captured the popular imagination, so to speak. In that sense, was destined to happen eventually, and that event was simply the unfortunate catalyst.
As I said over at NSWATM, I think women being constantly schooled from the time we are six months old or something, to NEVER EVER speak to DANGEROUS EVIL men in elevators, is a huge part of that. (HOW do you know a man is dangerous? HE TALKS TO YOU IN THE ELEVATOR!!) It is time not to just talk about men’s approach to women, but women’s indoctrination to be afraid, but that tends to get lost in the uproar. (sigh) I think this indoctrination greatly harms us, and we need to be talking about that too.
Historical aside: Again, we see how one aspect of the Second Wave was preserved and magnified (talking about what men do), but the corresponding aspect (talking about what *we* do) was neglected. Both are necessary for deconstruction, or nothing is really accomplished in the long run.
A Second Waver would have said: fuck off, dude. And later she would have said, some asshole talked to me in the elevator! And probably that would have been the end of it. Maybe he would have been a footnote in a book, or talked about over dinner… but likely not even that. Since there was no blogging or vlogging or any of that, this simply could not have turned into WWIII. And maybe that was good? It forced us to deal with things on the spot.
The Third Wave thing about blogging and Youtubing every little thing instead of dealing with it **directly** is also an aspect of this whole situation… and that is also generational. What happened to DIALOGUE with someone, or even just cussing them out? This snitching/tattletale/gonna-post-it-on-Facebook tendency, I find both a disturbing AND empowering development.
For instance, I also see the good side… if Christopher Peterman had not been able to go to the net and report what happened to him at Bob Jones University, he would have been stuck with the situation as it was. (expelled for watching “Glee”) Because he was expelled days before graduation, and it was a big hoopla (they admitted it), he was able to get a job that ordinarily would have demanded a degree. (The situation was well known, why he didn’t have the degree.)
So, I see both sides. Tattling is sometimes the only way to get justice, but it can also be a way to avoid dealing with situations that you could have dealt with directly and immediately.
Just thinking out loud…
Gingko, if it’s not too off topic, I’d like your perspective on this article over at the GMP
http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/straight-guy-in-bed-with-another-man/
Now, I’m bisexual, but I just don’t seem to see this situation (two straight guys being uncomfortable sleeping in the same bed) as inherently homophobic the way this article seems to suggest. Ironically, as a bisexual, I would have a “valid” reason for not wanting to sleep with another man (I’m not attracted to him)
I don’t see “straight guys not being comfortable with anal play” as homophobic either. So, like I said, I’d like your perspective as a gay man, do you think straight men being “uncomfortable” with this kind of thing is signs of some kind of subconscious homophobia? Because, personally, I’m getting kind of tired of these tropes.
Paul, first off, I hate that kind of precious mrla fashionability – “Oh, you can’t hang with that? Well aren’t you backward!”
Fuck all that.
Bunking together is an issue in our culture because of our personal space rules that come out of our individualism. just too close. it has nothing to do with sex or homophobia. interestingly it all goes away when there is some solid practical reason to ignore it – forstbite and hypothermia come to my military mind immediately.
I don’t think it’s ironic that you would be les likely to sleep with a guy you weren’t attracted to, that makes sense, because to yu as a bisexual man, it’s potentially sexual, where for a straight it’s not.
None of it is homophobic, any more than my discomfort with getting physical is misogynist.
and as far as homophobia goes, i care a lot more about shit that actually hurts people and lessens thier lives than I do about some theoretical thought crimes on the part of prefectly well-meaning, decent straight people. I suspect that’s not something straight old Carlos has ever had to worry about so he doesn’t draw that distinction.
Thanks Gingko, I was thinking pretty much the same thing, I just wanted to see if I was completely off in left field.
You were bang on. And “out in left field” is creeping Americanism; watch out or the language police will send you over here!
“As I said over at NSWATM, I think women being constantly schooled from the time we are six months old or something, to NEVER EVER speak to DANGEROUS EVIL men in elevators, is a huge part of that. (HOW do you know a man is dangerous? HE TALKS TO YOU IN THE ELEVATOR!!)”
This may be an age difference and a culture difference here, but I never really had a lesson like that growing up. Granted, I am just 23, but it always is curious to me how much vigilance has been instilled in other women when it just HASN’T been for me. On the other hand, I have never ever gotten cat-called, leered at, or anything — and I do like to think I lean towards the attractive side. (Utah’s sexism leans toward puritanical rather than lewd). But maybe once or twice I have gotten told by my mother to stay under streetlights or carry my key as a defense tool, but not anything more than that. I’ve learned much more from my co-ed kung fu class I take for fitness. (Mostly about how best to hit people and break arms and such. Fun stuff.)
“I don’t see “straight guys not being comfortable with anal play” as homophobic either. So, like I said, I’d like your perspective as a gay man, do you think straight men being “uncomfortable” with this kind of thing is signs of some kind of subconscious homophobia? Because, personally, I’m getting kind of tired of these tropes.”
I tend not to think of anal as an explicity gay act – not all gay men do anal, not everyone that does anal is gay. Pegging has it’s enthusiastic followers, as well as female-bottom anal. And I’ve also heard of gay men that just didn’t like giving or recieving anal, so they went more for frotteur or intercrural sex. It’s odd to think of it as homophobia to not want something up your poop chute. Think of it just as like any other kink: Your Kink is Not My Kink, but Your Kink is Okay. (I’m not saying that “gay sex” is a “kink” here – but anal is – there’s more to the sexuality of gay men than anal and not all gay men have anal sex).
As I said over at NSWATM, I think women being constantly schooled from the time we are six months old or something, to NEVER EVER speak to DANGEROUS EVIL men in elevators, is a huge part of that. (HOW do you know a man is dangerous? HE TALKS TO YOU IN THE ELEVATOR!!) It is time not to just talk about men’s approach to women, but women’s indoctrination to be afraid, but that tends to get lost in the uproar. (sigh) I think this indoctrination greatly harms us, and we need to be talking about that too.
It’s gonna be hard to talk about women’s indoctrination (much less how women just eat that indoctrination) when the slightest mention of it is met with “it’s all because of men!!!”. Apparently the one and only solution to women being indoctrination with such irrational and unreasonable fear is for men to stop being bad. Meaning that no matter out of hand a woman is with her fear it is NEVER her responsibility to think about her role in said fear. That territory has been cleverly marked as “victims blaming” so that it is nigh impossible to even mention it.
No no woman is out of line with her fears or unwillingness to confront them or not give into them. It’s all because men.
Skidd:
I don’t think of anal play as inherently “gay” either, but that’s why this whole “OMG Homophobe!” crap is so harmful. People have a right to decide their own boundaries. To determine what they will or won’t engage in. And, even though I’m not straight, it’s a little disgusting… and somewhat scary.
Are men not allowed to determine their own boundaries anymore?