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.

[MTL]

Whereas, if I encountered some rednecky straight guy who couldn't even stand to be in the same room as a gay man (even if the straight guy didn't disagree with LGBT rights), I would encourage, given the opportunity, the straight man to question himself as to WHY simply being in the same room as a gay man was such a repulsive idea?

I'm just saying that people should be willing to ask THEMSELVES why they react with revulsion to things that might not be any threat to them....whether it's something sexual, or something mundane and banal.

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.

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

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.

Acknowledged; I had some qualms about phrasing it like that, for that very reason;
however, it was merely meant as an example;
I am not suggesting, by any means, that anyone here IS such an individual,
afraid to be in the same room as a gay person.

I was going to go so far as to use the example of being repelled by the idea of performing oral sex on a member of the same gender, instead of merely being in the same room;

But of course people DO obviously have every right to naturally feel willingness or unwillingness to engage in the sexual activity of their choice; it is certainly a different matter from simply being in the same room as someone.

Personally, I once felt revulsion at the idea of going down on another woman,
but when I opened my mind and pushed myself to ask why it was repulsive,
I couldn't find a reason.

Now the idea doesn't bother me...but I didn't get to that point, overnight.

Being in the same room as a gay person never bothered me on an instinctual level,
so I never had to challenge myself on that one.

However, I can't ask everyone to push their own sexual boundaries, as I chose to ask of myself,

and I certainly hesitate to label someone as a bigot, simply because of the sexual boundaries they have chosen for themselves, as long as, as you observed, they are not trying to limit the freedoms of others.

(although I've given a couple, which you seem to have ignored)

I'm very sorry, I must have missed it.  I didn't ignore you on purpose, at all.
I will try to find these, unless you feel like giving me the Post#.

I apologize if I missed your comments.

EDIT:

ok, I read back a bit, I think I know which comments you were referring-to:

On Pg 15, your Post# 149:

Is this the post you are referring-to?

First of all, I want to acknowledge the part of your post where you relate about abuse suffered in your youth;
I'm very sorry I missed this part, earlier.

Needless to say, suffering abuse makes "being open-minded" or "challenging yourself" on a boundary
MUCH more difficult to overcome.

I myself was raped by a man at 15; I am able to sympathize, and I'm so sorry you also suffered abuse, as well.

Personally, while I did hate men for many years, I overcame my experience with abuse;
however I also identify as a straight woman,
and my attraction for men likely facilitated my ability and willingness to recover, to some degree.

I can certainly see how a forced same-sex abuse situation would be more difficult for a straight man to overcome,
especially when you are already not bigoted against the LGBT, when you very easily could have become such,
and also when, unlike in my situation, there is no attraction to that gender to motivate your recovery.

Secondly, in the same post, you equate homophobia with bigotry.

That has been the bone of contention in this whole discussion, really.

Whether or not to rely upon the strict etymology of the word,
or it's practical, real-world application.

Please see my Post# 169, on Page 17, addressing my feelings on this part of the issue.

[robvalue]

Cantor: Thanks a lot, I appreciate it I have very much enjoyed meeting you too!

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Rocketsurgeon.

You haven't been strawmaned, you're just making very tenuous links after repeated re-clarification. When I re-clarified and re-clarified and made it very simple, I got accused of being angry when I wasn't. You genuinely are getting angry over this and it's silly.

You may feel you are strawmanned. That's your opinion. Personally I don't agree with you. Homophobia is bigotry. Etymologically it may literally mean irrational fear of same-sex sexual experiences, but to suggest I had any sort of fear even after repeated re-clarification is so tenuous and silly. How often do I have to make it clear? I'm not afraid and I'm not bigoted, got it? Examine myself? I've already done it repeatedly. Why the fuck would I be afraid or bigoted?

[MTL]

It seems to me that everyone has repeated themselves numerous times,
and now everyone is just at a point of digging in on their various positions.

This conversation is starting to circle.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I certainly agree that there can be a gap between common usage of a word and correct meaning of a word. There can also be multiple ways to use the same word, even if one has a more-common and more-emotional usage... that's why I endeavored to illustrate the difference between saying someone may have "racist" feelings and calling them "a racist".

My intent was to get people to look at how culture may have subtly influenced how they react to certain ideas, not to call anyone a bad name. While I get that what I said can be misinterpreted, I'm genuinely upset that people read what I wrote and thought I was calling someone a bad name; surely, by now, it should be obvious that to do so would not be within the bounds of my character and my sense of honor. I used the term "some homophobia" because it is an accurate description, just like "some racism" is accurate; as a liberal-minded thinker, I try to acknowledge that I have some homophobic and some racist ideas that I absorbed and which I must work to confront directly in my own heart, if I am to expunge them and be a better person.

When it was pointed out to me that people read what I said as being accusatory of being a bigot, I quickly corrected my statement in such a way to make it obvious that I was NOT calling anyone a bigot, or saying that having "instinctive" revulsion toward a sexual behavior means the person hates anyone, only saying that we may not realize the degree to which culture has programmed us to have a particular set of attitudes toward the idea of sexual roles and identity, which even the most open-minded person may have absorbed without realizing it, and which upon reflection they may choose to expunge.

That is why the reactions, which continually claimed I was calling someone a bigot, based on the fact that the word homophobia is commonly (but not always!) used to refer to the actions of bigots, upset me so much. I get where someone could have had that reaction, initially, to my badly-worded intro, but it was only after my secondary explanations were totally ignored, and I was repeatedly straw-manned and accused of making statements I clearly did not make (with everyone apparently unwilling to read those follow-up explanations and modify their understanding of my original statement, in-context) that I became angry about it.

I'm not here to make anyone feel bad about themselves. I'm not here to shove an opinion down anyone's throat. But I will challenge people to think, even if they don't like the answers, and I will always defend myself against false accusation.

[Losty]

Can we all hug now? Yes? Thank you

[houseofcantor]

Can we all hug now? Yes? Thank you

Found the hyphen, I see. 

[Edwardo Piet]

[...]I try to acknowledge that I have some homophobic and some racist ideas that I absorbed and which I must work to confront directly in my own heart, if I am to expunge them and be a better person.

Well I  can see your point of view easier now then, I've never had to do that because none of my family is racist, I didn't go to school for more than a year - I was homeschooled - and I generally never mixed with racists. And the same goes for sexists or homophobes. So I've never really had to question my own bigotry because I've never been bigoted or mixed with any bigoted people really. I just think of it was obvious that it's all wrong. I understand your point of view more when you give me this info.

That is why the reactions, which continually claimed I was calling someone a bigot, based on the fact that the word homophobia is commonly (but not always!) used to refer to the actions of bigots, upset me so much.

I am sorry I upset you man, you upset me too. I mean, I'm sensitive and I get easily upset - I mostly got upset because I warned you that it was silly and irrational of me to be upset and sensitive to you merely hypothetically suggesting the fact that I may be homophobic. I just detest homophobia so much and this is why I warned you that it upset me and I wanted to clarify and you to drop even the idea of me being homophobic. I've got better things to do than wonder if I'm the sort of person I despise. You may say there are other definitions - but the only definition of homophobia that really matters is the bigoted kind. Despite the fact that 'fear' of homosexuals (which I also do not have) is often connected to it, questioning that is kind of trivial if the whole point you're going to make in the end is of course that I, Evie, am not a bigoted homophobe.

I get where someone could have had that reaction, initially, to my badly-worded intro, but it was only after my secondary explanations were totally ignored[...]

Well I felt exactly the same Rocketsurgeon. I kept trying to clarify why I wasn't a bigot. To be honest I thought I would only have to do it once.

I'm not here to make anyone feel bad about themselves. I'm not here to shove an opinion down anyone's throat. But I will challenge people to think, even if they don't like the answers, and I will always defend myself against false accusation.

I am not accusing you of thinking I'm definitely a homophobe, I am accusing you of wanting me to ask myself whether I might have even a tiny bit of it when I pre-warned you that I was sensitive to the idea - and even though I re-clarified repeatedly afterwards why I'm not even a tiny bit homophobic - that because I don't need to examine myself that way and I really don't want to think of myself as even a tiny bit bigoted that way. Not because I'm in denial but because I've examined it all before and I don't need to because I'm not bigoted. I don't like thinking about homophobia or racism too much unless I'm actually having to defend myself from a real bigot. It's such an unpleasant thing bigotry.


Okay friends?

[Whateverist]

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,
and I don't think my life will be any the poorer for it.

Now, let me be crystal clear:  I am pro-LGBT all the way.

---

And if I WAS bisexual or a lesbian, the closet wouldn't even exist.
I'd smash it to bits.

---

But I do not identify as bisexual because I really do not feel that this is an accurate description of my sexuality,
DESPITE the fact that I would have sex with a woman under ideal circumstances.

When I was much younger,
I admit, to my great shame,
that if I had heard a man saying something like,

" Oh, I'm not gay, but I don't mind getting a blowjob from a guy, occasionally, "

I would have scoffed and deemed him a closeted homosexual.

Nowadays, I wouldn't, because I have the insight that it is possible to have mutual gratification
without being attracted to the gender of the person you're engaging with.

I can get a neck massage from a man or a woman.

I can have an orgasm with a man or a woman.

The difference is that I could never fall in love with a woman,
want to kiss a woman, hold her hand, or cuddle with her.

I would never have a "girlfriend".

HOWEVER, what is relevant to this discussion is the following point:

If a certain man wants to be intimate with me,
and I do not find him attractive,
would I find intimacy with him repulsive? 

yes, of course.

but the same law applies to women.
If I find her unattractive to begin with,
then needless to say intimacy with her is going to be off the table.

But here's the difference:

Despite being a straight woman,

I am not going to write off intimacy with all women on the basis of their gender, alone.

I am going to base it on how comfortable I feel with that particular woman.

The mere fact that someone has a pussy instead of a cock is not enough to make them automatically repulsive to me, as a potential sexual partner.

It IS enough, however, to tell me that they could never be a serious romantic partner;

because as a straight woman,

both men and women are capable of being repulsive to me,

but only men are capable of arousing passion in me.

The most I can feel with a woman is neutrality.

---

I feel pretty much the same way.  When I was a teenager I questioned why I had this yucky take on gay sex.  (Interesting that being more than okay with lesbian sex seems to be part and parcel of being a straight man.)  So I deliberately fantasized about it to the point where it just became another kind of sex.  The yucky reaction went away and I found I just am predominantly straight.  I like women's bodies much more and only romantically attach to them.  But there is something about a cigar which is pretty intense - I just don't attach a face to it.