I am gay, homosexual, poof, faggot, fairy, queen, shirt lifter ... so what!
The most important thing to me is (and this is something nobody can take away from me) I am ME
-
CLICK HERE To Join Broke Straight Boys & Instantly Get Full Access To Entire Site & 3 FREE bonus sites.
Is the word 'faggot' offensive or not???
- Thread starter Jayman01
- Start date
I am gay, homosexual, poof, faggot, fairy, queen, shirt lifter ... so what!
The most important thing to me is (and this is something nobody can take away from me) I am ME
slimvintage
BSB Addict
Most of us feel the same, personally. But this isn't about us really, it's about the kids (whom some of us may have been years ago) who aren't sure who their ME is, and can have it taken away pretty easily by the kind of cruelty catalogued on this thread.
It's no wonder so many American gays are in the closet. The whole societal climate pushes them in. Homosexuality in the US is like tooting in an elevator, nobody wants to acknowledge something so embarrassing. Or if they do, they shout faggot.
cumrag27
BSB Addict
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Posts
- 2,776
- Reaction score
- 1
Repectful inteaction with others
Dear Slimvintage,
I wholeheartedly agree that it is not really about "us" but the kids struggling to have some glimmer of acceptance. Younger people and especially kids have such a limited perspective on issues such as this. They tend to over-dramatize the relative importance of such name calling. As adults, hopefully, the proportions of this name calling phase is much less than for someone in their teens or younger.
As previous sharings of personal experiences of forum members indicate, there is a lot of uncertainty when first coming to terms with your sexual identity, unlike the socially accepted straight kid's sexual identity. Some may be blessed to feel "gay" as a little child or after their teen years or later. Either way there is going to come a time for reconciling this identity issue within our general social conventions. As a consequence a lot of ambiguity along with denial should reasonably be expected without implying their inability to be truthful to themself or others. Everyone needs a little breathing space to get their bearings.
I hope readers of this post do a little self-reflection from their own personal experiences all the while realizing there can be an infinite number of ways individuals come to terms with their sexual identity - some direct and others not so direct. Mutual respect is the operative word and not merely "political correctness" when making the effort of avoidiing usage of the word "faggot" in our day-to-day interactions with others seems a modest, if not small, price for discretion in protecting others feelings.
Dear Slimvintage,
I wholeheartedly agree that it is not really about "us" but the kids struggling to have some glimmer of acceptance. Younger people and especially kids have such a limited perspective on issues such as this. They tend to over-dramatize the relative importance of such name calling. As adults, hopefully, the proportions of this name calling phase is much less than for someone in their teens or younger.
As previous sharings of personal experiences of forum members indicate, there is a lot of uncertainty when first coming to terms with your sexual identity, unlike the socially accepted straight kid's sexual identity. Some may be blessed to feel "gay" as a little child or after their teen years or later. Either way there is going to come a time for reconciling this identity issue within our general social conventions. As a consequence a lot of ambiguity along with denial should reasonably be expected without implying their inability to be truthful to themself or others. Everyone needs a little breathing space to get their bearings.
I hope readers of this post do a little self-reflection from their own personal experiences all the while realizing there can be an infinite number of ways individuals come to terms with their sexual identity - some direct and others not so direct. Mutual respect is the operative word and not merely "political correctness" when making the effort of avoidiing usage of the word "faggot" in our day-to-day interactions with others seems a modest, if not small, price for discretion in protecting others feelings.
Aquarius,
First of all you do have business being here. You articulated your point very well. And I agree. It is words like "f***t" that low our children's self esteem. It is society's way of trying to guilt people into conforming to their personal ideals. And who pays for it in the end? These children... Again, it all comes down to labels. I love Ms. Diedra's famous quote. "labels aren't for people." I know of many men who have experimented with gay sex just to see what it was about. When can people just be who they are and were meant to be? We are spiritual beings experiencing a human condition. By nature all humans are sexual. The Kinsey studies that were conducted in the 40's and the 50's demonstrates the face that a large percentage of people had experience with people of the same sex at some point in their life.
The 1948 and 1953 Studies of Alfred Kinsey
Kinsey's samples are best for younger adults, particularly the college-educated; they are poorest for minorities and those from lower socioeconomic and educational levels. The original male sample included institutionalized men. Paul Gebhard (Gebhard 1979), a Kinsey research associate and later director of the Institute, described Kinsey's sampling method as "quota sampling accompanied by opportunistic collection" (p. 26). Kinsey's data came from in-depth, face-to-face interviews (with 5300 white males and 5940 white females providing almost all of the data).Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953) reported that:
• 37% of males and 13% of females had at least some overt homosexual experience to orgasm;
• 10% of males were more or less exclusively homosexual and 8% of males were exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. For females, Kinsey reported a range of 2-6% for more or less exclusively homosexual experience/response.
• 4% of males and 1-3% of females had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of the interview.
Although these studies are not representative of all cultures and economic backgrounds the results are pretty astounding for their day.
I wonder how many kids were killing them selves over these issues back then and went unreported? How many kids killed themselves because they were receiving inhumane treatments in an attempt to convert them back to being heterosexual because the DSMV described homosexuality as a mental illness until the 70's.
Aquarius thank you for sharing...
If only it were that easy...
I bet there would be a lot of people that would think using the term "sissy" to describe a gay man. Either that or "Lesbians" may get an even worse reputation. I.e. I know a guy that was beat up by a gay man once. He told everyone a partial truth. He told everyone that he hit on some Lesbian's girlfriend and the two of them beat the shit out of him. It is truly amazing how people's minds work and how these stereotypes get started...
I AM that, I AM...
slimvintage
BSB Addict
Epictetus is a very frustrating son of a bitch to stomach unless you happen to have the internal fortitude and blessed forbearance of a Mahatma Gandhi. He was a pre-classical Greek "Stoic" and as such almost too turn-the-other-cheeky for people with any kind of pride. Nonetheless, and despite his sometimes prissy piety, he's helped me a lot over the years.
Here's a quote that's uber-inapplicable to the heinous destruction of young peoples' lives by bigots and bullies, a phenomenon which should be met with effective outrage and specific action, but is at least worth thinking about briefly if you're ever personally called a name that makes you burn inside.
Here's a quote that's uber-inapplicable to the heinous destruction of young peoples' lives by bigots and bullies, a phenomenon which should be met with effective outrage and specific action, but is at least worth thinking about briefly if you're ever personally called a name that makes you burn inside.
It is not he who reviles or strikes you who insults you, but your opinion that these things are insulting.
Epictetus
Ms. Kianna
BSB Addict
The world would be a completely different place, if this was an attitude that more people had. Unfortunately this is an attitude almost impossible for young people to demonstrate. This degree of internal fortitude almost exclusively comes from life experience, which young people do not yet possess.
It is usually those that survive the bigots and bullies that build the fortitude to see beyond the actions of others and look only in themselves.
mikeyank
Long time forumite
Another sick act of homophobia by teens
I don't know if this story has received national attention, or if it's only made the local news in New York City. I copied the article out of today's New York Daily News.
I will make a comment in a separate post.
Gang goes on sick rampage, sodomizing teen with plunger and forcing another to burn lover with cigs
Fueled by hate for homosexuals, a sick crew of Bronx gang members went on a wave of sadistic violence that included forcing a teen to burn his gay lover with cigarettes, cops said Friday.
The cowardly creeps then made the 17-year-old watch as they sodomized the tortured man with a miniature baseball bat.
The gang members, who call themselves the Latin King Goonies, also sodomized another 17-year-old with a toilet plunger before capping their reign of terror by beating up and robbing a fourth person. The last man attacked was the older brother of one of the earlier victims.
"These suspects employed terrible, wolf-pack odds of nine against one, odds which revealed them as predators whose crimes were as cowardly as they were despicable," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.
Seven hoods, ages from 16 to 23, have been rounded up. Cops are looking for at least two other members of the cruel crew, Kelly said.
Their leader was identified by sources as 23-year-old Ildefonso (Cheto) Mendez. They're charged with unlawful imprisonment, abduction, assault, robbery, menacing and sodomy - all as hate crimes.
The suspects, including one who was taken out of the 41st Precinct stationhouse on a stretcher and transported to a hospital because of a seizure, were waiting to be arraigned last night.
They were still passing blame to one another last night, said a law enforcement source.
"Nobody wants to take responsibility for the plunger," the source said. "One guy is lying through his teeth."
"This was not part of an initiation," Kelly said. "This was a reaction to the fact that they had engaged in homosexual activity."
The arrests came just days after two young men were busted for attacking a gay man in the bathroom of the Stonewall Inn, the birthplace of the gay rights movement.
And with gay-bashing on the uptick - 44 attacks as of Monday compared with 41 at the same time last year - city leaders reacted with outrage.
"These attacks are appalling and are even more despicable because the victims were clearly targeted in acts of hate simply because they are gay," City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said.
"Bronxites will not tolerate any form of bigotry in our borough," Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. said.
The torture took place in an abandoned Morris Heights building across the street from a public school. Area residents called it the Goonie House. Gang members threw parties and had sex there. As many as a dozen pit bulls guarded the place.
"They'd have meets there every Friday," said a 33-year-old woman too terrified to reveal her name. "They're running crazy from there - hurting people, taking stuff. Latin Kings don't let gay people in their nation."
(Page 2 of 2)
Kelly said the gang members didn't appear to be real Latin Kings.
The depraved violence was touched off by rumors that a 30-year-old Bronx man was having sex with the teenagers, police said. One of the 17-year-olds, who had been subjected to a beating a week earlier as part of a gang initiation, was cornered at 3:30 a.m. Sunday and dragged to the Osborne Place building.
There the Goonies stripped him, hit him with a beer can and cut him with box-cutters until he gave them the name of the 30-year-old man, police said.
Then the gang members sodomized the teen with the wooden handle of a toilet plunger, police said. Two hours later the violated teen turned up at a Bronx hospital and told disbelieving doctors he'd been mugged. They called cops, who got the horrible truth out of him, Kelly said.
Later that Sunday, at 8:30 p.m., the Goonies grabbed the other 17-year-old and dragged him to their torture chamber where they stripped him, stole his jewelry and beat him.
An hour later, they lured his 30-year-old lover there by telling him they were having a party.
The unsuspecting man arrived with a 10-pack of Four Loko, an energy drink laced with caffeine and liquor. For four hours, the Goonies beat the 30-year-old with their fists and a chain before sodomizing him with a small baseball bat, police said.
They also forced him to guzzle four cans of the Four Loko.
The savagery was too much for one witness, who bolted after encountering "a gang guy with blue medical gloves on with blood on them," said a woman who knows the man.
"When he went inside, he saw two young guys tied to chairs, blindfolded, facing each other."
While the torture was going on, five of the Goonies peeled off and went to the 30-year-old's apartment just blocks away and let themselves in with his keys.
There, they roused his older brother and covered his head with a blanket while they beat him and demanded money.
"When he refused, the assailants placed a cell phone to his ear," Kelly said. "He heard his younger brother tell him that he was being held against his will and to 'Give them the money.'"
The older brother complied, and the Goonies fled with $1,000 cash, his debit cards and 52-inch TV.
They left him bound and gagged. He was able to free himself hours later about 1:30 a.m. Monday and went to his neighbor for help.
"He had his hands tied behind his back and his face was covered with tape," said the neighbor, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. "I cut him free."
"He was crying and sweating," the neighbor's daughter said. "I was really scared - I didn't know what to say."
The family called 911, but the victim told cops only that he'd been robbed.
He didn't mention his brother was in danger, Kelly said.
It wasn't until 4 a.m., when the 30-year-old was found unconscious on the landing of his building, that cops began to suspect the attacks were related.
The sodomized man couldn't give police a clear account of what he'd gone through, possibly because of the Four Loko he was forced to drink, Kelly said.
On Tuesday, detectives tracked down his 17-year-old lover and the entire terrible tale came out.
When cops arrived on Osborne Place, they discovered the apartment had been scrubbed clean with bleach and repainted.
It was, in the words of one investigator, "the cleanest crime scene I've ever seen," Kelly said.
In the crowd of onlookers was a tipster who eventually led cops to Mendez, the reputed Goonies ringleader.
"They could clean but they couldn't hide," Kelly said.
Sources identified the other suspects in custody as Nelson Falu, 18; Steven Carballo, 17; David Rivera, 21; Brian Cepeda, 16; Bryan Almonte, 17; and Denis Peitars, 17. Cops are still hunting for Elmer Confessor, 23, and Ruddy Vargas-Perez, 22.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...rcing_another_to_bu.html?page=1#ixzz11syW1OCY
I don't know if this story has received national attention, or if it's only made the local news in New York City. I copied the article out of today's New York Daily News.
I will make a comment in a separate post.
Gang goes on sick rampage, sodomizing teen with plunger and forcing another to burn lover with cigs
Fueled by hate for homosexuals, a sick crew of Bronx gang members went on a wave of sadistic violence that included forcing a teen to burn his gay lover with cigarettes, cops said Friday.
The cowardly creeps then made the 17-year-old watch as they sodomized the tortured man with a miniature baseball bat.
The gang members, who call themselves the Latin King Goonies, also sodomized another 17-year-old with a toilet plunger before capping their reign of terror by beating up and robbing a fourth person. The last man attacked was the older brother of one of the earlier victims.
"These suspects employed terrible, wolf-pack odds of nine against one, odds which revealed them as predators whose crimes were as cowardly as they were despicable," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.
Seven hoods, ages from 16 to 23, have been rounded up. Cops are looking for at least two other members of the cruel crew, Kelly said.
Their leader was identified by sources as 23-year-old Ildefonso (Cheto) Mendez. They're charged with unlawful imprisonment, abduction, assault, robbery, menacing and sodomy - all as hate crimes.
The suspects, including one who was taken out of the 41st Precinct stationhouse on a stretcher and transported to a hospital because of a seizure, were waiting to be arraigned last night.
They were still passing blame to one another last night, said a law enforcement source.
"Nobody wants to take responsibility for the plunger," the source said. "One guy is lying through his teeth."
"This was not part of an initiation," Kelly said. "This was a reaction to the fact that they had engaged in homosexual activity."
The arrests came just days after two young men were busted for attacking a gay man in the bathroom of the Stonewall Inn, the birthplace of the gay rights movement.
And with gay-bashing on the uptick - 44 attacks as of Monday compared with 41 at the same time last year - city leaders reacted with outrage.
"These attacks are appalling and are even more despicable because the victims were clearly targeted in acts of hate simply because they are gay," City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said.
"Bronxites will not tolerate any form of bigotry in our borough," Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. said.
The torture took place in an abandoned Morris Heights building across the street from a public school. Area residents called it the Goonie House. Gang members threw parties and had sex there. As many as a dozen pit bulls guarded the place.
"They'd have meets there every Friday," said a 33-year-old woman too terrified to reveal her name. "They're running crazy from there - hurting people, taking stuff. Latin Kings don't let gay people in their nation."
(Page 2 of 2)
Kelly said the gang members didn't appear to be real Latin Kings.
The depraved violence was touched off by rumors that a 30-year-old Bronx man was having sex with the teenagers, police said. One of the 17-year-olds, who had been subjected to a beating a week earlier as part of a gang initiation, was cornered at 3:30 a.m. Sunday and dragged to the Osborne Place building.
There the Goonies stripped him, hit him with a beer can and cut him with box-cutters until he gave them the name of the 30-year-old man, police said.
Then the gang members sodomized the teen with the wooden handle of a toilet plunger, police said. Two hours later the violated teen turned up at a Bronx hospital and told disbelieving doctors he'd been mugged. They called cops, who got the horrible truth out of him, Kelly said.
Later that Sunday, at 8:30 p.m., the Goonies grabbed the other 17-year-old and dragged him to their torture chamber where they stripped him, stole his jewelry and beat him.
An hour later, they lured his 30-year-old lover there by telling him they were having a party.
The unsuspecting man arrived with a 10-pack of Four Loko, an energy drink laced with caffeine and liquor. For four hours, the Goonies beat the 30-year-old with their fists and a chain before sodomizing him with a small baseball bat, police said.
They also forced him to guzzle four cans of the Four Loko.
The savagery was too much for one witness, who bolted after encountering "a gang guy with blue medical gloves on with blood on them," said a woman who knows the man.
"When he went inside, he saw two young guys tied to chairs, blindfolded, facing each other."
While the torture was going on, five of the Goonies peeled off and went to the 30-year-old's apartment just blocks away and let themselves in with his keys.
There, they roused his older brother and covered his head with a blanket while they beat him and demanded money.
"When he refused, the assailants placed a cell phone to his ear," Kelly said. "He heard his younger brother tell him that he was being held against his will and to 'Give them the money.'"
The older brother complied, and the Goonies fled with $1,000 cash, his debit cards and 52-inch TV.
They left him bound and gagged. He was able to free himself hours later about 1:30 a.m. Monday and went to his neighbor for help.
"He had his hands tied behind his back and his face was covered with tape," said the neighbor, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. "I cut him free."
"He was crying and sweating," the neighbor's daughter said. "I was really scared - I didn't know what to say."
The family called 911, but the victim told cops only that he'd been robbed.
He didn't mention his brother was in danger, Kelly said.
It wasn't until 4 a.m., when the 30-year-old was found unconscious on the landing of his building, that cops began to suspect the attacks were related.
The sodomized man couldn't give police a clear account of what he'd gone through, possibly because of the Four Loko he was forced to drink, Kelly said.
On Tuesday, detectives tracked down his 17-year-old lover and the entire terrible tale came out.
When cops arrived on Osborne Place, they discovered the apartment had been scrubbed clean with bleach and repainted.
It was, in the words of one investigator, "the cleanest crime scene I've ever seen," Kelly said.
In the crowd of onlookers was a tipster who eventually led cops to Mendez, the reputed Goonies ringleader.
"They could clean but they couldn't hide," Kelly said.
Sources identified the other suspects in custody as Nelson Falu, 18; Steven Carballo, 17; David Rivera, 21; Brian Cepeda, 16; Bryan Almonte, 17; and Denis Peitars, 17. Cops are still hunting for Elmer Confessor, 23, and Ruddy Vargas-Perez, 22.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...rcing_another_to_bu.html?page=1#ixzz11syW1OCY
mikeyank
Long time forumite
Correlation of gay bashing and use of the "F" word
I wanted to bring the above horrible story of homophobia to the attention of the forum, but I debated if I should post it on this particular thread. I decided to, as the horrible story of the Rutgers Freshmen who committed suicide after his roommate posted his gay liaison on the Internet, was also posted here.
Both acts are sad, and horrible, but my feeling remains that use of the word "faggot" has little or nothing to do with these two crimes. Unfortunately bigotry and violence are traits that are inborn into the human race. And regarding homophobia, I also believe that fear of one's own feelings of homosexuality lead to anti-gay slurs and violence, particularly in adolescent and young adult men who try to sublimate their own possible attraction to other guys.
I don't know if there will ever be a way to end anti-gay bigotry and violence, but it is important to publicize the fact that these actions do go on. Hopefully a young man who may have ambivalent feelings about his attraction to another male may learn to understand that it is not "wrong" as society, including organized religion and his peer group may have tried to convince him. However it is a very steep, uphill battle, and I'm not as optimistic as others that we can change these feelings in males who have this conflict in their own lives.
And I certainly don't think that banning the word "faggot" will help the situation, as it is a deep rooted feeling inside these individuals that can manifest itself in horrible ways, and will not be affected by the use or disuse of a word.
I wanted to bring the above horrible story of homophobia to the attention of the forum, but I debated if I should post it on this particular thread. I decided to, as the horrible story of the Rutgers Freshmen who committed suicide after his roommate posted his gay liaison on the Internet, was also posted here.
Both acts are sad, and horrible, but my feeling remains that use of the word "faggot" has little or nothing to do with these two crimes. Unfortunately bigotry and violence are traits that are inborn into the human race. And regarding homophobia, I also believe that fear of one's own feelings of homosexuality lead to anti-gay slurs and violence, particularly in adolescent and young adult men who try to sublimate their own possible attraction to other guys.
I don't know if there will ever be a way to end anti-gay bigotry and violence, but it is important to publicize the fact that these actions do go on. Hopefully a young man who may have ambivalent feelings about his attraction to another male may learn to understand that it is not "wrong" as society, including organized religion and his peer group may have tried to convince him. However it is a very steep, uphill battle, and I'm not as optimistic as others that we can change these feelings in males who have this conflict in their own lives.
And I certainly don't think that banning the word "faggot" will help the situation, as it is a deep rooted feeling inside these individuals that can manifest itself in horrible ways, and will not be affected by the use or disuse of a word.
Almost two years ago Slimvintage told a story about being attacked as a child because he was gay. At that same time the entire forum was in an uproar because one of the Boys use the 'f' word in a scene. This was my response to Slim's horrifying story. It's my same response to the New York events this past week. It's also why I think we need 'hate crime laws,' too.
Bully: one habitually cruel to others who are weaker
Tyrant: one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power
Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
"Among some over stimulated heterosexual males it seems there is a visceral, basic, unlearned repugnance toward homosexuality, almost instinctual, as in snakes and spiders. If these people are also violent and aggressive, their feelings spur them on to actions." (A quote from Slim)
I'm not trying to be clever or sarcastic or anything else. I just don't know any other way to say this without taking up another thousand lines. I, too, wish for a country free from intolerance and bigotry. But, Slim, your nemeses were no more than bullies picking on you because you were weaker. You weren't picked on because there is a long history of abuse of asthmatics. (If there were, I would have been right there on the floor with you!) Matt Shepard was attacked because he was gay. He was screamed at and then killed because he belonged to a group Henderson and McKinney felt they had almost a right to attack.
There is no unlearned repugnance to any behavior except loud noises and sudden movements in human nature. Babies play with snakes and spiders all the time. They learn to fear and hate them from adults who react strongly in front of them. And that is how homophobia, the true culprit in this long chain, comes into existence. It is passed from, shall we say, father to son, peer to peer. And it begins with hate speech. A child whose father slaps him for playing with a doll and screams "No son of mine is going to become a fucking faggot!" is likely to think that that is the appropriate thing to say to an effeminate boy and hitting him is the appropriate treatment.
To paraphrase, I think it is equally shortsighted to lose sight of a primary means by which the homophobe (1) is taught (2) teaches (3) justifies his actions in the name of over stimulated heterosexual males. You see, a tyrant didn’t begin as a tyrant. Hitler began as a housepainter whose anti-Semitic hatespeech brought followers to him. Gas chambers and ovens were nowhere in his mind until his hatespeech brought him the power.
Now, how do I reconcile my inalienable belief in freedom of speech with my (according to many here) insufferable abhorrence of hate speech? It's a little word called tolerance. I read the word faggot in books; my God, I write it in books, for the sake of realism. I hear it in movies; I hear it in plays; I hear it on television. I tolerate it. It’s being used for a purpose. If I don't find a purpose I leave/change channels/ask for a refund. I hear it on Broke Straight Boys - it's also reality - I don't blame David - I don't blame Mark - I don't blame Broke Straight Boys - I joined this group because I wanted a semblance of reality, and like freedom, I have to let Torin march in Skokie so Broke Straight Boys can stay on line. But the Constitution does not say I have to like Torin, like what he said, feel sorry for him, want to suck his dick, or jack off while he's on the screen. I simply flip back over to episodes and click on something I do like and watch it until the next new thing comes along. We had a wonderful lesson on statistics from a member the other day and saw how divided we are on this issue. That's the beauty of living here and not somewhere else. We can be divided. And I can turn around to the smart-alecky son of a bitch behind me who calls some poor kid a fag and tell him "I will not tolerate that kind of speech from you or anyone else in my presence." That, I think, is intolerance, and that is how I do my part to stop hate speech and castrate homophobia.So, Mike, if you think it's all right - go ahead and say it. And if someone overhears you say it and assumes it's okay because, well "Shit, man, faggots call each other faggots!" and they use the word on the next 13 year old coming down the street - well, it's okay.
After all, you can't ban the word.
Let me close with a paragraph from a suicide note from Steven, a 16 year old. I apologize for the spelling errors and punctuation but, I copied and pasted it because it was to painful to retype. It comes from suicide.org and, fortunately, his friend found him in time. I think the note says enough.
"No I wont let anyone else hurt me. That is anyother reason why I will commit suicide. Nobody will hurt me agaoin ever erer. No one will call me a fag or a queer or a pussy or a fag boy or anything. Nobody is going to spit on me again. Or write faggot on my lockoer of send me letters telling me that I should go to anothershcool because I am a faggot or say they should kill me because I am an ugly faggot and they should kill me. Or that I am an ugly faggot and noother faggot would fuck me. Who says I want to fuck or when or why or where. Whaty do they knowthey talk about fucking girls. I never talk about anyutint assholes fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck "
This was really such a healthy dialog - I had to copy the rest of it:
Then Slim said:
The whole polemic of "nature versus nurture", as we all know, has recently taken an interesting turn. People of my generation were steeped from an early age in "nurture", that is to say the theories of human behavior that posit an empty slate upon which experiences in early childhood etch themselves onto a human personality. The "nature" psychologists were, in the second half of the last century, discredited and reviled for their suggestions that some of our behavior might be atavistic and instinctual. They may have reckoned that if many other species could be proven to act to some degree out of instinct, and had some inborn characteristics that they didn't have to learn, which came with their genetic makeup, then why not us. These guys were chillingly non-PC. They brought to mind the memory of such no-no's as the eugenics practiced in the US by state governments up till the 1970s, they sounded like apologists for the National Socialists in the Germany of the 30s and 40s, they sounded like racists and homophobes. I daresay some of them were. But the researchers who claimed to have discovered in humans certain innate characteristics and behavior that had been touted as "learned" by the "nurture" camp, but which seemed to be inborn, have brought the whole argument again to the table.
In other words, we've been, if we're of the demographic born around the middle of the last century, taught to abhor the idea that we have instincts, to shy away from the concept of inborn traits in humans, and stoutly to deny that there are inherent genetic differences between say, a Japanese and a Nigerian. These "nature" people walk on eggs every time they come out with something because they know how nervous their research makes men of good will. One day we will be able to contemplate their studies with equanimity. For now they give us the shivers, or make us righteous and cross, as probably we should be. I do find the idea of a baby human being coming out beautifully cheesy and slimy, with a bunch of behavioral baggage packed already into her genome, terrifically interesting, but recognize that it's not a PC posture to take.
Then Mikeyank Said:
Slim. I do believe that when certain characteristics of human beings repeat themselves over and over throughout history, they are apparently instinctual rather than learned behavior. One example is man's desire to fight and engage in wars has always been part of our nature. I always chuckle to myself when people say that we have to bring an end to war, as it is a part of our DNA. I look back to Donovan's song Universal Soldier from the sixties as an excellent example of this, although he does use the 'hippy mentality" of suggesting that we can "put an end to war".
Similarly, homosexuality has always been part of man's nature throughout history, as well as homophobia, (usually exhibited by people who are afraid to recognize their own homosexual nature). And "bullyism" has always been around too, as certain individuals seem to be "alpha males" who have an inborn sense of proving themselves to be "king of the jungle", at the expense of weaker individuals.
It is definitely interesting to look at the nature of mankind over history. Keep in mind, the human being is an animal, and instincts do control animals in nature. Obviously we are a far advanced form of animal, but that is what we are, despite what some religions teach us.
Then I said:
According to Port aggression is the instinct that leads to fights and wars. Mankind has a natural instinct toward aggression. It shows itself in such human flaws as greed, selfishness, and pugnacity. There is no natural instinct to fight in a war only a natural feeling of aggression which, under certain circumstances, can become a desire to fight: (1) abuse as a child, (2) nationalistic upbringing, (3) hatred, (4) vengeance – the list goes on, but these are all learned behaviors and not instinctive. A child is merely naturally aggressive, how he chooses to channel that aggression depends on his experience and learning. Chuckle away, but many societies have flourished without being called warlike, the aggressive instinct must merely be channeled into a more socially acceptable expression: commerce, sports, manufacturing. There’s a reason most men like highly competitive sports – its their aggressive nature finding a healthy, acceptable outlet.
Hippy mentality? Hardly. Taming the aggressive beast began long before the hippies. It could be called a Christian mentality but it goes further back than that. Every time a farmer adds ten acres to his cultivated field or a cowboy breaks an extra horse for a roundup or a chef puts two more burners on a range to accommodate some extra pots or a store owner adds a dozen more items of merchandise, he’s channeling that aggressive instinct and it’s not likely he’s even considering war in any way, shape, or form.
Sex is certainly instinctive. We don’t even have to learn to fuck. The desire to have sex is instinctive. From that point, no one knows. If we did, the debate on gay rights would have been over sixty years ago. The fixation of one’s sexual desires is probably genetic, and, as such, is no more instinctive than the color of one’s hair. What is learned is the characteristics of that fixation: long legs, sparkling eyes, brown hair, high cheekbones, or boys with high levels of testosterone who pronounce themselves masculine but for the right amount of money will have sex with a telephone pole. Those are fetishes and everyone one of us has some; they are not instinctive behavior. I happened to prefer a man my own age who takes his time and stays with it till everybody’s happy. But he had to teach me that and I’m glad I learned it.
Animals? Of course we are. But almost every single one of those pesky human-animal instincts can be controlled by channeling, education, or fear. Oh, I know, a hungry person will do anything to alleviate the hunger; that’s part of being an animal. Well, how many times have you heard about a hungry mother devouring her child? Cats do it. Dogs do it. Even sentimental fleas do it. Only an insane (not an instinct, a disease) human mother would.
The point about alpha males is really interesting. I suddenly had visions of the wolf pack which lives in the mountains across from our house. One brute of a male, snarling, growling, howling, beating every other wolf down around him. I’ve watched them through my binoculars from horseback. It definitely is instinctive – but bullying is not the instinct – fucking is. Being the alpha male, or lead stallion, or bull of the woods has nothing to do with aggression, it has to do with who gets to fuck the female. Next time you’re in a gay bar and an absolutely stunningly beautiful twink walks in – watch the alpha males begin to circle. I don’t think any of them is planning to beat him up.
You know, like I tell my students, this argument can go on forever. It all boils down to what we’re willing to do and what we’re willing to not do, who we’re willing to do it with, and what we’re willing to go through to get it. Somewhere in there is the truth and none of us has a patent on it. I’ve said just about all I have to say on this subject. I’m going upstairs and see if I can find an old man willing to let nature take its course. His instincts aren’t as sharp as they u
sed to be, but his reflexes are right on the money!
Of course, since then, my old man died. I stop posting for a while. When I came back the only friends I had on the forum were long gone and I ended up on everyone's 'ignore' list. But my children tell me I thrive on 'ignore'-ance.
Goodnight
Then Slim said:
The whole polemic of "nature versus nurture", as we all know, has recently taken an interesting turn. People of my generation were steeped from an early age in "nurture", that is to say the theories of human behavior that posit an empty slate upon which experiences in early childhood etch themselves onto a human personality. The "nature" psychologists were, in the second half of the last century, discredited and reviled for their suggestions that some of our behavior might be atavistic and instinctual. They may have reckoned that if many other species could be proven to act to some degree out of instinct, and had some inborn characteristics that they didn't have to learn, which came with their genetic makeup, then why not us. These guys were chillingly non-PC. They brought to mind the memory of such no-no's as the eugenics practiced in the US by state governments up till the 1970s, they sounded like apologists for the National Socialists in the Germany of the 30s and 40s, they sounded like racists and homophobes. I daresay some of them were. But the researchers who claimed to have discovered in humans certain innate characteristics and behavior that had been touted as "learned" by the "nurture" camp, but which seemed to be inborn, have brought the whole argument again to the table.
In other words, we've been, if we're of the demographic born around the middle of the last century, taught to abhor the idea that we have instincts, to shy away from the concept of inborn traits in humans, and stoutly to deny that there are inherent genetic differences between say, a Japanese and a Nigerian. These "nature" people walk on eggs every time they come out with something because they know how nervous their research makes men of good will. One day we will be able to contemplate their studies with equanimity. For now they give us the shivers, or make us righteous and cross, as probably we should be. I do find the idea of a baby human being coming out beautifully cheesy and slimy, with a bunch of behavioral baggage packed already into her genome, terrifically interesting, but recognize that it's not a PC posture to take.
Then Mikeyank Said:
Slim. I do believe that when certain characteristics of human beings repeat themselves over and over throughout history, they are apparently instinctual rather than learned behavior. One example is man's desire to fight and engage in wars has always been part of our nature. I always chuckle to myself when people say that we have to bring an end to war, as it is a part of our DNA. I look back to Donovan's song Universal Soldier from the sixties as an excellent example of this, although he does use the 'hippy mentality" of suggesting that we can "put an end to war".
Similarly, homosexuality has always been part of man's nature throughout history, as well as homophobia, (usually exhibited by people who are afraid to recognize their own homosexual nature). And "bullyism" has always been around too, as certain individuals seem to be "alpha males" who have an inborn sense of proving themselves to be "king of the jungle", at the expense of weaker individuals.
It is definitely interesting to look at the nature of mankind over history. Keep in mind, the human being is an animal, and instincts do control animals in nature. Obviously we are a far advanced form of animal, but that is what we are, despite what some religions teach us.
Then I said:
According to Port aggression is the instinct that leads to fights and wars. Mankind has a natural instinct toward aggression. It shows itself in such human flaws as greed, selfishness, and pugnacity. There is no natural instinct to fight in a war only a natural feeling of aggression which, under certain circumstances, can become a desire to fight: (1) abuse as a child, (2) nationalistic upbringing, (3) hatred, (4) vengeance – the list goes on, but these are all learned behaviors and not instinctive. A child is merely naturally aggressive, how he chooses to channel that aggression depends on his experience and learning. Chuckle away, but many societies have flourished without being called warlike, the aggressive instinct must merely be channeled into a more socially acceptable expression: commerce, sports, manufacturing. There’s a reason most men like highly competitive sports – its their aggressive nature finding a healthy, acceptable outlet.
Hippy mentality? Hardly. Taming the aggressive beast began long before the hippies. It could be called a Christian mentality but it goes further back than that. Every time a farmer adds ten acres to his cultivated field or a cowboy breaks an extra horse for a roundup or a chef puts two more burners on a range to accommodate some extra pots or a store owner adds a dozen more items of merchandise, he’s channeling that aggressive instinct and it’s not likely he’s even considering war in any way, shape, or form.
Sex is certainly instinctive. We don’t even have to learn to fuck. The desire to have sex is instinctive. From that point, no one knows. If we did, the debate on gay rights would have been over sixty years ago. The fixation of one’s sexual desires is probably genetic, and, as such, is no more instinctive than the color of one’s hair. What is learned is the characteristics of that fixation: long legs, sparkling eyes, brown hair, high cheekbones, or boys with high levels of testosterone who pronounce themselves masculine but for the right amount of money will have sex with a telephone pole. Those are fetishes and everyone one of us has some; they are not instinctive behavior. I happened to prefer a man my own age who takes his time and stays with it till everybody’s happy. But he had to teach me that and I’m glad I learned it.
Animals? Of course we are. But almost every single one of those pesky human-animal instincts can be controlled by channeling, education, or fear. Oh, I know, a hungry person will do anything to alleviate the hunger; that’s part of being an animal. Well, how many times have you heard about a hungry mother devouring her child? Cats do it. Dogs do it. Even sentimental fleas do it. Only an insane (not an instinct, a disease) human mother would.
The point about alpha males is really interesting. I suddenly had visions of the wolf pack which lives in the mountains across from our house. One brute of a male, snarling, growling, howling, beating every other wolf down around him. I’ve watched them through my binoculars from horseback. It definitely is instinctive – but bullying is not the instinct – fucking is. Being the alpha male, or lead stallion, or bull of the woods has nothing to do with aggression, it has to do with who gets to fuck the female. Next time you’re in a gay bar and an absolutely stunningly beautiful twink walks in – watch the alpha males begin to circle. I don’t think any of them is planning to beat him up.
You know, like I tell my students, this argument can go on forever. It all boils down to what we’re willing to do and what we’re willing to not do, who we’re willing to do it with, and what we’re willing to go through to get it. Somewhere in there is the truth and none of us has a patent on it. I’ve said just about all I have to say on this subject. I’m going upstairs and see if I can find an old man willing to let nature take its course. His instincts aren’t as sharp as they u
sed to be, but his reflexes are right on the money!
Of course, since then, my old man died. I stop posting for a while. When I came back the only friends I had on the forum were long gone and I ended up on everyone's 'ignore' list. But my children tell me I thrive on 'ignore'-ance.
Goodnight
Thank you Rifle for that very well thought out post. I can only imagine how long it took you to write it. Especially given that you quoted so many people at length.
By the way, I still call you Rifle merely because it has fewer letters than Aquarius. And I'm a bit lazy. If you had taken a new screen name like "Jo", I would certainly be using that one instead of Rifle. lol In your last several posts over the past months I have found much to agree with you on. So much so that I wonder if we are in danger of becoming friendly again. I do miss the bygone days when we got along...
By the way, I still call you Rifle merely because it has fewer letters than Aquarius. And I'm a bit lazy. If you had taken a new screen name like "Jo", I would certainly be using that one instead of Rifle. lol In your last several posts over the past months I have found much to agree with you on. So much so that I wonder if we are in danger of becoming friendly again. I do miss the bygone days when we got along...
Wow! Thanks for sharing all this with us Mike. "Disturbing" would be an understatement.
slimvintage
BSB Addict
Just want to recommend to anyone who's residually interested in the concept that humans carry behavioral traits in their genetic makeup, the work of this obnoxiously amusing Brit. For decades Dawkins has decried many of the ills that you and I also abhor, albeit from the standpoint of a gleefully militant atheist/humanist as well as that of principal proponent of the idea that not all human behavior, nor human characteristics, is/are learned, and that some of it/them is/are innate. He's highly offensive to those of us who are observant of political correctness, to the deeply (or even superficially) religious, and to those who adhere exclusively to the "nurture" school over the "nature" school of behavior. This wiki article is very long, and unless you're interested in the subject, probably especially boring. It links you off on goosechasing cross references every phrase or two, some of which interested me, but then I'm patient with this sort of stuff. There's some frivolity (completely apart from his constant irony) and I figure that if you get to the story of his campaign to free up his fellow Londoners from too much God by posting huge banners on the sides of those red buses, you'll have done pretty well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
clock12
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2009
- Posts
- 61
- Reaction score
- 0
Holy FUCK! What in the hell is wrong with these demented fucking reprobates!?
I'm glad the NY Daily News printed the names of even the suspects who are minors, that is rare. If they lived near my hometown there would be "country justice" for those craven fucked-up little psychopaths. Doesn't matter that this small town is pretty homophobic, what these vile dregs have done goes far beyond what could be countenanced by even the most backward redneck bullshit I live around.
SHIT! I wish I never even read that! I am actually mollified by the fact that I own a fucking gun at this point! What can I do? I have just lost what little shred of tolerance I've held onto for people who use words like FAGGOT. It's no different than NIGGER or KIKE! I agree with Aquarius. Other people hear you say these hateful words to each other like it ain't no big deal, and you give succor to the fucking enemy! I don't give a damn, fuck you!
cumrag27
BSB Addict
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Posts
- 2,776
- Reaction score
- 1
Now is the time to act responsibly
Dear Clock12,
People should in their everyday dealings attempt to be mindful of others feelings, exercise some self-control, and use a dictionary if one's vocabulary is so lacking to locate less provocative words. We call this the exercise of tolerance. We do not live all alone on an uninhabited island. Therefore, the responsibility is on us to, once again, act in a socially responsible way respecting the feelings of all others as much as humanly possible. I am making a big assumption that we all want to live in peace! Am I wrong? Surely, showing the least bit of personal constraint is not, and I repeat not, asking too much for the bigger good of our society!
No society can function appropriately if we are all consumed with selfishness. We don't allow people to yell FIRE in a filled auditorium whenever they feel like it, so why not be a bit more civil regardless if you find these words offensive or not. Don't sidetrack the issue by asserting that it is some form of the much hated "PC". That is simply too easy! Rather than asking what do I have to lose, ask yourself what can be gained by my exercising some reasonable restraint? If your personal restraint saved "any person from hurt feelings", wouldn't it be worth it?
Some people have the attitude that no one is going to minimize their rights to free self-expression. These rights are not now, nor have they ever been absolute. And, to re-coin a time-tested expression, ..."Every right has an implied responsibility associated with it." The time of the "Me Generation; X- or Y-generations, etc." has lapsed just like the "Pepsi Generation" and we must all together smell the roses, if any have survived! Stop with the internalized thinking of me, me, me, me, .... Pause a moment taking a deep breath and ask yourself..."what about the "us" in all of this? Are we so self-involved that we view our own feelings as more important than everybody else's? How sick is that notion? Teenagers are, by their nature and their limited maturity levels, extremely egotistical overall. However, the older and wiser we eventually become, this me, me, me...attitude should begin waning as we become increasingly aware that the whole world doesn't revolve around “us”. What a new concept?
You can argue whether behavior is instinctual or learned until the cows come home and arrive at a place not far from when you began with little progress to show for it.
When contemplating potentially inflammatory speech by using such limiting and dismissive words as "Faggot" or "Nigger", you may not have any negative intentions from your own perspective. That is “subjective” in scope, whereas the unpredictable outcomes from reinforcing the usage of these questionable words are simply potentially perpetuating, “objectively speaking”, an unnecessary problem. Even when used among friends, the potential of it being overheard by some seemingly less enlightened individual can be taken totally out of context and you are back to square-one, again.
Hopefully, you believe in mankind enough to allow it this much of a break or benefit of t he doubt. Hopefully, you aren't someone that deliberately spits in their own cup of coffee or bowl of soup as a means of signifying the depths of a self-defeating attitude! Hopefully, out of the bigness of your heart, you can foresee that mankind can make incremental steps in righting past wrongs, just as our country has addressed racial hatred in the 50's beginning with the Civil Rights movement. Progress, though slow, was a considerable improvement over our historical past. Hopefully, you too can aspire for a better time for all people to live in relative peace without all the unnecessary crap stemming from unchecked greed and selfishness.
In all humility, I ask all forum members to pause a moment to dedicate yourself to the eradication of these potentially hurtful and inflammatory words from your own daily interchanges with others. Examples are all around us of people in all ages categories injured by their mindless and/or deliberate usage of these words.
I dedicate my thoughts expressed tonight to all victims of hate crimes stemming from homophobia in its many forms or assumed, but wrongly-perceived, societal imperatives responsible for all injurious behaviors resulting from these negative and hate-filled words.
Respectfully submitted,
Cumrag27, aka Stimpy
Dear Clock12,
People should in their everyday dealings attempt to be mindful of others feelings, exercise some self-control, and use a dictionary if one's vocabulary is so lacking to locate less provocative words. We call this the exercise of tolerance. We do not live all alone on an uninhabited island. Therefore, the responsibility is on us to, once again, act in a socially responsible way respecting the feelings of all others as much as humanly possible. I am making a big assumption that we all want to live in peace! Am I wrong? Surely, showing the least bit of personal constraint is not, and I repeat not, asking too much for the bigger good of our society!
No society can function appropriately if we are all consumed with selfishness. We don't allow people to yell FIRE in a filled auditorium whenever they feel like it, so why not be a bit more civil regardless if you find these words offensive or not. Don't sidetrack the issue by asserting that it is some form of the much hated "PC". That is simply too easy! Rather than asking what do I have to lose, ask yourself what can be gained by my exercising some reasonable restraint? If your personal restraint saved "any person from hurt feelings", wouldn't it be worth it?
Some people have the attitude that no one is going to minimize their rights to free self-expression. These rights are not now, nor have they ever been absolute. And, to re-coin a time-tested expression, ..."Every right has an implied responsibility associated with it." The time of the "Me Generation; X- or Y-generations, etc." has lapsed just like the "Pepsi Generation" and we must all together smell the roses, if any have survived! Stop with the internalized thinking of me, me, me, me, .... Pause a moment taking a deep breath and ask yourself..."what about the "us" in all of this? Are we so self-involved that we view our own feelings as more important than everybody else's? How sick is that notion? Teenagers are, by their nature and their limited maturity levels, extremely egotistical overall. However, the older and wiser we eventually become, this me, me, me...attitude should begin waning as we become increasingly aware that the whole world doesn't revolve around “us”. What a new concept?
You can argue whether behavior is instinctual or learned until the cows come home and arrive at a place not far from when you began with little progress to show for it.
When contemplating potentially inflammatory speech by using such limiting and dismissive words as "Faggot" or "Nigger", you may not have any negative intentions from your own perspective. That is “subjective” in scope, whereas the unpredictable outcomes from reinforcing the usage of these questionable words are simply potentially perpetuating, “objectively speaking”, an unnecessary problem. Even when used among friends, the potential of it being overheard by some seemingly less enlightened individual can be taken totally out of context and you are back to square-one, again.
Hopefully, you believe in mankind enough to allow it this much of a break or benefit of t he doubt. Hopefully, you aren't someone that deliberately spits in their own cup of coffee or bowl of soup as a means of signifying the depths of a self-defeating attitude! Hopefully, out of the bigness of your heart, you can foresee that mankind can make incremental steps in righting past wrongs, just as our country has addressed racial hatred in the 50's beginning with the Civil Rights movement. Progress, though slow, was a considerable improvement over our historical past. Hopefully, you too can aspire for a better time for all people to live in relative peace without all the unnecessary crap stemming from unchecked greed and selfishness.
In all humility, I ask all forum members to pause a moment to dedicate yourself to the eradication of these potentially hurtful and inflammatory words from your own daily interchanges with others. Examples are all around us of people in all ages categories injured by their mindless and/or deliberate usage of these words.
I dedicate my thoughts expressed tonight to all victims of hate crimes stemming from homophobia in its many forms or assumed, but wrongly-perceived, societal imperatives responsible for all injurious behaviors resulting from these negative and hate-filled words.
Respectfully submitted,
Cumrag27, aka Stimpy
joninliverton
BSB Addict
This is a thread that will always be in mind about how 2 countries with the same language and separated by a large pond, have so many different opinions on words such like faggot. The thread brought up some interesting points and I love you all. xx
Bless your heart Jon... I love you too. I am glad this thread helped opened your eyes as much as mine about this subject.
Similar threads
