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

[Losty]

---

I also agree with this completely. There's nothing wrong with asking or encouraging people to question or challenge themselves.

I just think it's wrong to label a person as a homophobe or a bigot (because let's face it a homophobe is a bigot) just because the personally are disgusted for themselves.

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.

---

Again, I agree completely. Homophobia is not the same thing as bigotry by dictionary definition, but in general language(in America at least), people don't usually use the word homophobia to mean its definition. They use it to mean a hatred for homosexuals. So, when I read the word that's what I assume is the intended meaning. Bad assumptions are bad.

This thread got way too ouchie.