Are you okay with your (or your partner's) vajayjay?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

 Almost brought me to tears - what a pussy I am eh?

No.

To tell you the truth, I'm a little bit afraid of men who don't  cry when they're moved, emotionally.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah I was only joking About the being a pussy. I did almost cry.

[MTL]

---

Well, I see where you're coming from, but homophobia, by its true definition, simply means a fear of something.

But it is a bad word in our culture, because....true....it usually goes hand-in-hand with bigotry.

But I do think it's possible for someone, at least in theory, to be "homophobic" without being a bigot;

that is, having the fear, but acknowledging it, taking responsibility and ownership of it,
and endeavoring to overcome it.

I have a little anecdote that kind of illustrates this:

when I was 18, I attended my first International Women's Day event.

There were multiple "workshops" posted for attendees to choose from.

I chose to attend a workshop entitled:  "Homophobia - Healing Ourselves"

Now, in my youth and naïveté, I foolishly assumed that this was a workshop
for straight people who were admittedly homophobic,
who were interested in overcoming their homophobia

...when, in fact, it was no such thing.

I was disappointed, I was all set to offer my arguments against homophobia;

But it was actually a workshop for LGBT people who had suffered as a result of the homophobia of others, of course.

Anyway, I think it's theoretically possible that someone could feel homophobia,
and be admittedly ashamed of it,

which to me is not really bigotry.

Bigotry is more like when someone thinks that their prejudice is well-founded
and unapologetically oppose anyone who fits into that category.

To prove this point, I've also argued with unapologetic, flagrant bigots,
who OBJECTED to being called "homophobic" for the same reason:
they opined that it was a phobia, and they asserted that they did not suffer from a phobia, per se,
or a fear, of gay people.

They simply asserted that it was gross or whatever; an insult to nature or to god;
whatever their idiotic reason was.

But the point is, they also maintained that a phobia was a fear of something,
and that fear, specifically, was not their issue.

(I'm not saying I agree with that, but it underlines the etymology of the term).

In other words, someone may not be able to help feeling fear or aversion to something,
but in a way, if they own their phobia and endeavor to overcome it,

in a way, that is even more meritorious than someone who never had the phobia in the first place.

It reminds me of the old illustration between fearlessness, and true bravery:

Someone who has no fear of something is not brave.  They are simply fearless.

But someone who is terrified of something, and does it anyway,

has overcome their fear.....that is bravery.

Likewise, it could be argued that it is possible to be an anti-LGBT bigot, and NOT be phobic of gay people (I guess)

and it is also possible to be admittedly repulsed or fearful of gay people,
but know that it is unreasonable and unfounded,
and believe that the LGBT have as many rights as anyone else,
and own your phobia and try to overcome it.

---

You really are a wonderful thinker, MTL, and your writing serves you well.  Normally I would never read a wall of text that long.  Then again by leaving the spaces you do between each line the effect is more a screen than a wall.  Anyhow, do you sell T-shirts for those of us who made it over the wall?  (I'm kind of proud.)

lololol I'm sorry, I'm sorry.  I keep forgetting to use the "hide" function when I write so much.

I should make up t-shirts for those who didn't back away from the challenge!

Like the kind you get for eating a 40 oz steak or something.

It would read,

" I surmounted MTL's wall of verbosity and all I got was this lousy t-shirt "

(The wall of verbosity around Montréal):

[KUSA]

I'm going to weigh in here.

I identify as a straight woman.

However, if the circumstances were IDEAL, I would sleep with a woman.

Those ideal circumstances will almost certainly never occur

I have an idea.

[MTL]

This is quite the straw-man here. Finding gay sex repulsive inside oneself is not nearly the same as refusing to be in the same room with a gay person. Are you reading what I'm reading? So far as I can see, no one has said they wouldn't share the same space with a gay person. Perhaps you should read what is actually being written in this discussion.

I don't look on gay sex as a "threat" to me, either. But I sure as hell don't want it. Why are my desires -- and my repulsions -- anybody's business, when I already understand that freedom for all to be who they wish is paramount? When I've already gone to the mat for equal rights? My feelings are my own -- but "threatened" isn't one of them.

I've asked myself why I find gay sex repulsive for my own personal circumstances. I don't owe you any answers (although I've given a couple, which you seem to have ignored), so long as I don't push my views on you.

If someone wants to call me a bigot because of that, great, have at it.  I know myself, and I know they're wrong about me.

Since I agree with MTL, I should clarify that I don't think being repulsed by homosexuality (inside) makes anyone a bigot.  Not at all.  All that matters is how we treat each other and I know you to be a guy who gives everyone a gracious greeting and after that "makes change in the coin tendered".  You're no bigot.  

But I believe there is something desirable about questioning the inner yucky.  It is like when you do yoga and discover that there are muscle groups which are opposing your intentions and you learn to relax them.  I think the (inner) yucky feeling toward gayness is like an inner tension which serves no function, a cultural relic that gives you nothing.  You're better off without it.  The icky feeling isn't you.  It is just cultural overlay.

And I THINK that is at the core of what Rocket was originally saying; that the world would be a better place if everyone at least tried to nudge themselves to confront irrational knee-jerk reactions to stuff that is probably harmless.

HOWEVER, having been chastised by another user, for, amongst other things, failing to notice some of his comments,
and having read back to gather in said comments,

I feel quite bad for an insensitivity on my part.

It's fine to wish that people would more frequently endeavor to overcome their own limitations;
but it is pretty callous to say that to someone who has a boundary they are not willing to stretch
due to a past abuse.

If I'd noticed that the first time, I might have held my tongue, at least a bit.

Especially when the abused party has not allowed their bad experience to make them into a bad, bigoted person.

That's says a lot for their character.

[MTL]

I'm going to weigh in here.

I identify as a straight woman.

However, if the circumstances were IDEAL, I would sleep with a woman.

Those ideal circumstances will almost certainly never occur

I have an idea.

Ha ha.

[BrokenQuill92]

So I had a total fit last night, in my dear loves attempt to drag me out of numb mode over the death of my father we had sex for the first time without a condom. Sweet and passionate as it was, WHY IN THE HELL DID NOBODY WARN ME ABOUT HOW MESSY SEX WITHOUT A CONDOM IS?!!!! I was rather grouchy about the mess and Joseph thought my threats were super funny. Cum was everywhere! Not pleasent! Until we try for midget peoples that man is wearing a hat!

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think you're taking the etymology of the word too literally, rather than focusing on usage, which is, of course, the crux of language.

^ this, absolutely. As I said, Rocketsurgon was correct etymologically but language is a lot more complicated than just defining things etymologically.

It's ironic that he said I seemed 'so angry' he has lost his shit far more than I ever did

He's a good guy, and well-spoken. I just don't think his point is very apt in this case.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I never called anyone bigot.

Saying that someone has some homophobia (post #76) is the functional equivalent of calling them a bigot, because the connotation of bigotry is embedded in the word homophobe.

[Edwardo Piet]

The connotation was what upset me before he unpacked and later explained he was using another definition, at which point I had also already re-clarified myself. Anyway, let's not drag this up again lol. Let's stay agreeing to disagree.