In his 1995 Chicago Law Review article, The Regulation of Social Meaning, Larry Lessig discussed some of the rhetorical devices that can change a society’s shared understanding of the meaning conveyed by a given word or action. One of these, Lessig explained, was “ambiguation,” which gives “a particular act, the meaning of which is to be regulated, a second meaning as well, one that acts to undermine the negative effects of the first.” In Straightforward: How to Mobilize Heterosexual Support for Gay Rights, we argue that when heterosexuals tolerate ambiguity about their own sexual orientation, they use ambiguation to promote equality for LGBT people.
In 1959, a white man named John Howard Griffin took extreme measures to adopt the perspective of African-Americans: he shaved his head, chemically altered the color of his skin, and traveled the South for two months in the guise of an itinerate black man. He recounted his experiences of racial prejudice and hatred in Black Like Me, which became a national bestseller and opened the eyes of many white Americans to the evils of Jim Crow. By literally walking a mile in his brothers’ shoes, Griffin was able to gain not only a greater understanding of racism, but a greater sense of solidarity with Black Americans.
Today, heterosexual Americans have similar — if far less dramatic — opportunities to adopt the perspective of their brothers and sisters who are gay, lesbian, and bisexual. There is no skin dye, no bodily marker, to allow a heterosexual to follow Griffin’s model, but we should consider the potential in words or well-chosen silence to allow straight Americans even momentarily to have “Gay Like Me” experiences.
Ambiguation has long been deployed by gay, lesbian and bisexual people when they are closeted. But coming out can be ambiguating, too, because people who come out are bound to defy the preconceptions of their audience — by being individuals, not categories. The process of coming out can thus ambiguate — in the core sense of producing multiple and more varied meanings.
If gay peoples’ “coming out” is ambiguating, so too might be heterosexual peoples’ “going in.” This “going in” for heterosexual people could include a variety of moves: permitting confusion about whether or not they are gay; foregoing opportunities to identify opposite sex partners as spouses; making affirmative statements that align them with gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, and not qualifying those statements with disclosure of their own heterosexuality. And just as Griffin promoted civil rights for African-Americans by even temporarily assuming a black identity, so too heterosexuals can promote gay rights by tolerating greater ambiguity about sexual orientation.
To see how this might work, consider an example from Lessig’s Chicago article: the case of Denmark, King Christian, and the Star of David. Legend has it that when the Nazis invaded Denmark and demanded that Danish Jews wear the yellow Star of David on their clothing, King Christian X began to wear a Star of David on his own clothing. Soon all Danes were wearing the Star, confounding Nazi attempts to set the Jews apart from their countrymen. As Lessig explains:
“The Nazis required Jews to wear yellow stars. Wearing a star had then a particular meaning, in part constructed by disambiguating who were Jews and who were not, thereby facilitating the expression of racial hatred. Danes who opposed the racism of the Nazis then began to wear stars themselves. Their action then ambiguated the meaning of wearing a star. Now wearing a star meant either that the person was a Jew or that the person was a Dane supporting the Jews. Their action also tied the Danes to the Jews: now Danes were seen as supportive of the Jews.”
Can we find contemporary analogs to the Star of David, symbols of homosexuality that could be appropriated by non-gay people in liberating directions?
Gay rights advocacy groups have taken advantage of opportunities to use ambiguation. On National Coming Out Day, many people wear buttons or stickers expressing gay-affirmative messages. When, even for a day, people identifying with a broad range of sexual orientations all wear the gay-identified pink triangle, they literally replicate the Danes’ legendary appropriation of the Star of David. For that one day, at least, sexual orientation is ambiguated, because it is not clear: does a person wear a triangle to come out (on that day of all days of coming out) or to express support for and solidarity with LGBT people as they come out? And does it matter why we wear the triangle that day?
Or consider our friend (a lesbian we’ll call Sarah) in Madison, Wisconsin. Vandals broke a window and burned the rainbow flag Sarah had flown from her front porch. When Sarah talked with her neighbors about the attack on her home, one of her neighbors, who is heterosexual, suggested that all of the houses on the street should put up rainbow flags to show solidarity and support. The flags would say to the vandals, in effect: “Do you want to persecute gay people? Well, you’ll have to come after all of us, too.” Like the non-Jewish Danes who wore the Star of David, a street full of neighbors flying gay pride flags could protect and support through ambiguation.
Michael is another friend of ours whose sexuality became the stuff of conversations, all because of one simple action he took. In 1996, the Association of American Law Schools began to publish in its annual directory a list of law professors who self-identified as “Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Community Law Teachers.” In 1998, Michael, then a junior professor at a Midwestern law school, first appeared on the list. The reactions were varied. Surprise: “I thought he had a girlfriend.” Political: “Maybe Michael placed himself on the list in an act of solidarity.” Postmodern: “Michael wants to subvert sexual orientation categories, which are artificial and oppressive.” Some of these conversations missed the point; others were helpful as they caused people to focus on the purpose of the list and the criteria for legitimate membership in the group it purported to represent.
We may never know Michael’s motivations for joining this list (Michael has not responded to our efforts to discuss the list and his appearance on it — such conversations would, after all, be disambiguating; we thus obscure his identity and offer this analysis only tentatively, and decidedly not with the intent to judge him negatively). If Michael is indeed gay or bisexual, the story may be much simpler than all the gossip and analysis would suggest. Suppose for a moment, though, that Michael is heterosexual. Suppose that he joined the list not to come out but rather to change the social meaning of the AALS list of “Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Community Law Teachers.” Suppose he joined the list as an act of solidarity (that is, to declare himself a member of the community which includes (but is not limited to) gay, lesbian, and bisexual law professors). Such a move would not only ambiguate the list, it would be a voluntarily self-ambiguating move.
More famously, Richard Gere has frequently refused even to acknowledge or discuss rumors that he is gay, except to say that “denying it would denigrate homosexuals.” By refusing to deny rumors of his homosexuality, Gere declines the invitation to place himself outside of a group of people he wants to validate and uphold.
But there are risks in ambiguation. It is important to be sensitive to the fact that this strategy will not be appropriate always and everywhere. At times, it might run counter to the goals of LGBT groups and individuals. To avoid these pitfalls, we suggest that allies ask themselves the following questions:
Am I trivializing sexual orientation?
Ambiguation can be viewed negatively if it appears to be “playing” with homosexuality in trivializing ways. Much is at stake, so ambiguate with care.
Do I predict that my audience will think less of me if they perceive me to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual?
Ambiguating may be most constructive if the audience is likely to hold a negative view of homosexuality. When heterosexual allies allow such an audience to place them in a disfavored category, they gain an opportunity to challenge some of the assumptions leading to that disfavor. It is also in these settings that they follow most closely in John Howard Griffin’s footsteps, as they gain a chance to empathize a bit with gay, lesbian and bisexual people.
If, on the other hand, the audience for the ambiguating act is gay friendly or gay neutral enough that it would make no difference to them, then ambiguation may be merely misappropriation of gay identity. Assume for the sake of argument that Michael, the Midwestern law professor, is heterosexual. Did his act of ambiguation succeed? The AALS list is not a Star of David. It carries no negative connotations — for the AALS that created it or for the now hundreds of people who appear on the list. Standing in solidarity with an oppressed group of people who are under attack is one thing; joining the group when it is being affirmed is another thing entirely.
Should sexual orientation be irrelevant to the discussion or transaction at issue?
Ambiguation creates noise or distortion in the signal of sexual orientation. If people’s “true” sexual orientation — that is, sexual orientation as lived and experienced — is appropriately part of the conversation or transaction, then “noise” created by ambiguation will be disruptive. If, on the other hand, signals about sexual orientation are being used to disempower or oppress gay, lesbian, or bisexual people, then interfering with those signals might be the moral thing to do.
We’ve already seen an example of each situation. To the extent Michael’s appearance on the AALS list inserts some noise into the signal, it might actually run counter to the goals of the list. In contrast, when Sarah’s house in Madison, Wisconsin was vandalized and her gay pride flag burned, flags on every other home might have helped to take sexual orientation out of the calculus of who would be safe, rendering sexual orientation irrelevant.
Can I entertain some internal ambiguity about my own sexual orientation?
All of us, straight and gay, have absorbed negative messages about homosexuality. If the process of ambiguating and the rationales for it help us to examine and perhaps resolve some of these negative messages, the process is constructive. Still, these are extremely difficult questions for many people to ask themselves. One key point about ambiguation is that it should be authentic and true. So much harm has been done by the closet and the deception it requires. We should avoid deceptive remedies, even if they have noble goals.
Would Lambda Approve?
The LGBT community is less likely to support trivializing or self-aggrandizing attempts at ambiguation and more likely to support ambiguation that reflects genuine introspection or is deployed when sexual orientation should not be relevant to the question at hand. In some ways, our substantive questions reflect the kinds of concerns that community members have often raised. To measure this, you could personify the community in an organization like Lambda and imagine the response your ambiguation would get.
Ambiguation in Action
Finally, if it’s OK, then how exactly would an ally go about ambiguating? The following list provides a few suggestions of the sort of thing one could do or say to create an ambiguating effect. Note that while these suggestions falls short of actual misrepresentation, they all raise questions about sexual orientation. And to the extent the speaker allows those questions to go unanswered, others might rethink their assumptions about when and why sexual orientation is relevant.
1. Avoid gender specific terms like “husband” or “father” and instead use terms like “partner” and “parent.”
2. Fly a gay pride flag from your home or put one in sticker form on your car.
3. Wear a pink triangle button or other gay-affirmative symbol. Simply wearing a T-shirt that says “I support gay marriage” can send a powerful message and raise questions.
4. When discussing gay people and their perspectives, experiment with phrasing that aligns you with gay and lesbian people without clearly identifying your own sexual orientation. For example, say something like “those of us who are gay might take umbrage at the claim that child rearing does not occur in families headed by same-sex couples.” Particularly if the audience for this sentence contains people with anti-gay sentiments, a sentence that potentially aligns you with gay people may be an equality-enhancing move.
5. When a person says something to suggest that he or she has misperceived your sexual orientation, think carefully before jumping to correct. If correcting the misperception will raise that person’s estimation of you, it might be better to remain in their disfavored category.
The key element in all of these examples is a willingness to occupy a large, uncharted space in which sexual orientation is unassigned, where multiple realities or possibilities are entertained, and where heterosexual people reflect long and hard before they expend any energy to distinguish themselves from gay, lesbian and bisexual people.
Creating critical masses of heterosexual people willing to take these risks could be one of the central challenges of gay rights advocacy in the 21st century.
You’ve hit on the reason why “Straight But Not Narrow” buttons annoy me!
This is fascinating. I just obtained a license to use the Safe Space symbol and supporting material as part of my own declaration of how I promise to interact with and honor others regardless of sexual orientation. I have permission to use the symbol on my web sites. I will do so after organizing back-up material on what that implies and how to practice the use of inclusive language and ways of listening that go with the commitment. This is so others can take on the practice as well as know what can be counted on in interactions with me personally, in business dealings with me, and in engaging in the “spaces” I offer on the Internet.
I had been pondering how I will present myself and what declaring a safe space says about me. I have concluded that the space is uniformly for all. There is nothing I need to say about me, there are no questions I call on myself to answer, and the safe space is an emergent setting in which there is no distinction.
There is public information that one could use as a basis for speculation about my lifestyle and sexual orientation. It doesn’t matter. There are questions about which people may be curious, but there is no right to have that curiosity satisfied. I propose to affirm that view by neither answering nor asking such questions.
I’ve been watching these guest posts and wondering how the topic would come around to what individuals and community members can do, not just employers. Your guidance here is extremely useful.
I suppose declining to attend my mock trial to determine if I was gay back in the mid 80s might qualify.:)
Are you saying that you are gay?
I think we should all have a sexual orientation.
More seriously, homophobic indoctrination is cultural, societal, and institutional. Educate one generation, you are nevertheless faced with a new generation of homophobes.
To break it out of this cycle, we need a story people can tell themselves to believe that variation in sexual orientation is a good and normal part of being human. I believe it is only after having that story that ambiguation can have a lasting effect.
Ms. Roughgarden has provided some scientific insight which might seed the beginning of a story, but it is not yet the story I think is required.
I was a strong believer in amiguation as a kid (not knowing there was a name for it) but as an adult think that it is not enough to effect change.
As to whether I have heard the rumors that my Songzilla blog is a gay blog, I can openly state:
“Yes, I have heard those rumors.”
[“Gay like me” is great food for thought… thanks]
There is no skin dye, no bodily marker, to allow a heterosexual to follow Griffin’s model…
you’re kidding right. a versace shirt, dolce and gabbana trousers, some hair highlights – and a decent pair of shoes – would do the trick quite nicely for most heterosexual men.
we take it as a compliment when women mistake us three blind mice as gay. (strangely enough, gay men NEVER make this mistake.) good looking, well dressed, and articulate are hardly negative sterotypes..
the problem with ambiguation is that not everyone is so comfortable with their own sexuality. it is easy for a blond haired, blue-eyed dane to wear a star of david: it is clearly a sign of support and solidarity. ambiguation is a lot more difficult when it results in ambiguity.
While it is your freedom to talk about the ideas, I just
hope that the heterosexuals as well as the homosexuals
will be able to recognize the duplicity in your methods
before they fall for them.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<[email protected]>
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this
comment in the public domain.
1. Avoid gender specific terms like “husband” or “father” and instead use terms like “partner” and “parent.”
George Orwell would be proud
While it is your freedom to talk about the ideas, I just
hope that the heterosexuals as well as the homosexuals
will be able to recognize the duplicity in your methods
before they fall for them.
joseph pietro riolo, did you even read jennifer brown’s post before putting up this comment? duplicity is a falsification intended to mislead; it is done in bad faith. ambiguation is not a falsification. referring to a wife as a partner is entirely accurate, although intentionally vague. instead of intentionally misleading, it doesn’t lead the reader anywhere. instead it allows the reader to be mislead by his or her own bigotry.
WTF, orwell does another turn in his grave. an orwellian definition is an opposite: peace is war, slavery is freedom, etc. referring to a mother or father as a parent is not an opposite. perhaps you should read 1984, before you refer to it.
I’ve posted something up on PrawfsBlawg about this:
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2005/06/what_youre_not_.html
The short of that post is this: liberals will be divided over ambiguation strategies when they can’t answer the question of whether sexual orientation is relevant to the transaction at issue, e.g., law school faculty hiring.
The ambiguation strategy of course is not without risks, though perhaps that is precisely what people like about it. I remember hearing a story about a female professor who, all through the hiring process with a law school, referred to her significant other as her “partner.” The school, which was trying to diversify its ranks in the faculty in terms of gender and sexual orientation, hired her, with many thinking quite explicitly that their hiring goals were being addressed. When the rookie professor showed up to a faculty social event with her male partner, various faculty had felt deceived and/or cheated.
dan markel, if the faculty felt deceived, they were only deceived by their own dimwitted prejudices. if their intention was to hire a lesbian professor (a pernicious discrimination against heterosexuals) then they should have been smart enough to ask the question directly instead of relying on “code words.”
it seems to us mice that the biggest problem with homosexuality is the lack of “straightforwardness” among heterosexuals in dealing with homosexuals. it seems that are more than a few heterosexuals so uncertain of their own sexuality and so afraid of “teh gay” that they can’t deal with homosexuality as the total non-issue that it should be.
Another tactic is to go around spreading myths like (1) 10% of the population is gay, (2) people who oppose homosexual rights are just afraid that they might be gay, and (3) no one’s 100% straight — everyone’s at least a little gay. If you can get all of those things out there, you’ll probably accomplish your objective.
” ambiguation is not a falsification.”
“an orwellian definition is an opposite”
Like the man said, George Orwell would be proud. Easy to see you’ve had a very recent and very Orwellian college education. Still, however, blind.
anonymous,
The answer should be self-evident from the context: heterosexuals preserving ambiguity. I simply didn’t care about the outcome, since I didn’t and don’t have a negative view of homosexuality.
Dan,
Liberals shouldn’t be using sexual orientation as a hiring qualification. Assuming that they really do believe it shouldn’t matter.
Jennifer Brown writes:
> For example, say something like “those of us who are gay…”
Jennifer,
I don’t see how this is an ambiguation. It reads to me as a straightforward lie. Short of a Clinton-esque redefinition of ‘us’, I don’t know how you could claim that the speaker is not claiming to be gay. If they (singular) do not consider themselves gay, the statement is a lie.
(consider if I rephrased that last sentence to finish ‘those of us who are gay would consider this a lie’. Would this be ambiguous? Would it improve my rhetorical position? Would it be true?)
This isn’t to say that lies cannot be an effective strategy, and perhaps if the situation is desperate enough they are warranted. But please realize that as a rhetorical tactic it is going to offend some (probably disproportionately conservative) portion of your audience.
If the end goal is to allow people to be honest about their sexual orientation without fear of discrimination, can a path that encourages duplicity and lack of trust really be the best way to achieve that? Or flipping the situation, instead of encouraging heterosexuals to conceal their sexual orientation, would you feel comfortable encouraging homosexuals to ‘ambiguate’ themselves?
I suppose what I’m trying to get at is that there’s something inherently distasteful about the duplicity in the methods suggested.
I wonder if the gay rights movement could achieve more if it sought to engage the arguments on the other side and actually change people’s minds. It seems that, rather than convincing me that their aims are those I should support, the gay rights movement would rather try psychological manipulation.
And this makes sense of course, because no one who opposes the gay rights movement is convertible by other means. Their opposition comes from prejudice, either subconscious or overt. They’re drones to be subverted, not humans to be persuaded. This is the type of attitude that turns me off to nut job activists like Ayres et al.
WTF:
You make your points well, but why sign off with the silly insult that encourages others to discount what you have to say? I disagree with their tactics, but I don’t doubt that Brown and Ayres are intelligent and genuine and care enough about this issue to go to the trouble of writing a book about it. Yes they are activitists, and as a result they are the one’s who are going to be helping to define future public policy. Why when given a chance to engage with them would you instead flip them off? I understand your frustration, but please apologize…
–nate
Great points. So here’s a question to ponder… where do you draw the line? How many people are truly willing to put up or shut up in the name of liberty?
There is a witch hunt going on in the US, Australia, and especially Britain and it’s not about closeted gays. With the nonsense in the catholic church coming to light (and I truly believe this is going to be revealed in a decade to be another “Rugratz Daycare” case of mass hysteria) how many people would be willing to tolerate “ambiguity” about an admiration of the young form?
According to the FBI’s own numbers less than half the child abuse cases are of a sexual nature. Most are neglect or other forms of abuse, and most happens in the kid’s own home by someone placed in authority over the child. But those are not the cases that get the high profile news coverage, those are not the facts that get addressed by the evening news “protecting your kids from child predators” reports that run during sweeps weeks.
We are about to raise a generation of seriously dysfunctional kids over all this. People I have known for years are now afraid to touch children at all, to approach children who appear lost in public places, children who are close to them they now shirk from physical contact. How far do we allow this pedo paranoia to go?
Imagine that I work for Ono-Sendai, and in a discussion with a collegue working at Maas at a trade show, we get to talking about our employers practices with regards to flex-time, daycare, and other assistance-to-parents measures. My colleague makes a remark suggesting that a gay couple would not require these accomodations. I respond with “Those of us who are gay would disagree with that.” In this case, I am clearly stating that I am a member of a group (employees of Ono-Sendai) which has gay members. I am not disclosing my own orientation, but if they assume that by “us” I mean “gay employees of Ono-Sendai” rather than “employees of Ono-Sendai,” it’s certainly not because I said so. In fact, to make sure of my honesty in ambiguation, I could instead say “Those of us at Ono-Sendai who are gay…” That seems to me to be much more honest than the more general example given above.
I agree that ambiguation is an effective strategy.
But I also think it should be applied to religious identity as well. Unfortunately, those who identify with some sort of religious identity (I include atheists in this category as well) are usually blind to this. They don’t see the consequences of procaliming that they are Xists who practice Xism.
And this makes sense of course, because no one who opposes the gay rights movement is convertible by other means. Their opposition comes from prejudice, either subconscious or overt. They’re drones to be subverted, not humans to be persuaded.
WTF, do you oppose equal rights for homosexuals? if you oppose gay marriage, why?
Like the man said, George Orwell would be proud. Easy to see you’ve had a very recent and very Orwellian college education. Still, however, blind.
vanderleun, georgia tech class of 1984 (no pun intended.) we read orwell’s book 1984 in 2001 and again everytime we read a white house press briefing. the three blind mice cannot be deceived by what our eyes do not see, you have to appeal to our reason and logic.
how many people would be willing to tolerate “ambiguity” about an admiration of the young form?
none. zero. it is appalling that you confuse paedophelia with homosexuality. NO ONE who supports gay rights supports child abuse. it is an insult to intelligent debate to make such an assertion.
I don’t see how this is an ambiguation. It reads to me as a straightforward lie.
agree 100% nate. referring to our wife as our partner is an ambiguation. referring to ourselves as gay (although we are indeed quite merry) would be a duplicitious falsificiation worthy of your proscription.
brown and ayres you have your work cut out for you. in uncle tom’s cabin, harriet beecher stowe observered that biblical passages were the primary argument FOR slavery. people who refer to the bible to support discrimination against homosexuals are no different. they are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of liberty, and the wrong side of humanity.
ambiguation is an interesting theoretical exercise, but why use subtle word games when you have the club of american history to fight this disgusting bigotry?
Dear Misters Mice,
I hesitate to make this argument, given the recent events in Dr. Lessig’s life, but it’s really a sticking point for me, so I would like some help at least seeing others’ point of views…
I believe your most recent comment starts to get at the reason WTF desires to debate directly the issues rather than using “psychological manipulation” (which really, I would just call an extended thought experiment, or “theoretical exercise” as you have). However, you’re right: Brown and Ayres do have their work cut out for them, because these types of thougt exercises do little to convince me, one of the primary people they seem to be trying to convince. One of my main hang ups with opposing religious discrimintation against homosexuals (read: “Supporting gay marriage…”) is what you shrugged off:
“[I]t is appalling that you confuse paedophelia with homosexuality. NO ONE who supports gay rights supports child abuse.” The rather sweeping generalization there aside, why do you find it appalling to confuse pedophelia with homosexuality?
In the same way that there is a genetic predispoisition for homosexuality, there is also a genetic predisposition to love children. In the same way your cultural context is predispositioned to think that those of us who find same-sex partners to be sexually desirable are to be made fun of, taunt and humilate, it also makes fun of, taunts and humiliates those of us who find children to be desirable for sexual purposes. In the same way that we are seeking to change the societal norms of morality in order to embrace behavior and being that was formerly decried and despised when practiced by those of us who enjoy homosexual sex, those of us who enjoy sex with children can make a rational argument that we should accept them for who they are.
Herein lies my some-what postmodern problem: if we move the line of what we consider to be sexually moral (a presupposition that Brown and Ayers have already made, which I haven’t been convinced to make yet) where do we move it to? Why is it okay to move it past homosexuality but not past pedophilia?
Do not think for a second I am defending the victimization of children. It’s not my intent to trivialize the real suffering heaped upon many children at the hands of people who would, through force, inflict upon them behaviour which they neither welcome nor understand.
But this “zero tolerance” nonsense is the driving force behind an increasingly sickening society. We HAVE to be tolerant. These people are not witches, they are not all out to do evil.
Some are – just as some are out to do evil to women, to the elderly, to anyone they can get over. Those who would “do evil” need to be held accountable and removed from society if they prove a danger. But not all pedophiles are out to “do evil.” Many never harm a child. Countless people who are attracted to children would never consider the notion of bringing harm to a child even if that means denying themselves a fulfilling life given the “cultural norms” they are forced to live within.
And these people – many of them good, honest, compassionate people with a sincere love and desire to help children – are caught up in the very same “zero tolerance” persecution that TBM expressed above. How many people? It is impossible to know, as the current political environment defies ALL attempts at even approaching the subject through objective discourse – just look at what happened with Dr. Jocelyn Elders, for example.
Herein lies my some-what postmodern problem: if we move the line of what we consider to be sexually moral (a presupposition that Brown and Ayers have already made, which I haven’t been convinced to make yet) where do we move it to?
what YOU consider sexually moral, A Nony Mouse. to our way of thinking, there is no line. insofar as cultural norms are concerned homosexuality is (or should be) exactly equal to heterosexuality. get over it.
what we object (strongly) to is when talk about homosexuality turns into talk about paedophilia as if the two are somehow related, as if respecting homosexuals means (or leads to) acceptance of polygamy, beastiality, man-boy love, etc. this strawman does not deserve to be discussed on the same page (or in the same thread) as homosexuality.
Gay like Michael – see our answer above.
this thread is worn. mice out.
I know you’re gone now, and that the thread is worn out, Misters Mice, but I still don’t understand what the straw man of my argument is. I honestly, and seriously, would like to understand where the part of my argument that is faulty is: why is the societal condoning of one “alternative lifestyle” any different than the condoning of another? What is the difference? Please, please, please, tell me how this distinction plays out.
Please show it to me, because I’m just not capable of making that distinction logically, and this is probably due to my own cultural context. When you dismiss me with a straw man that I’m not intentionally hiding, it’s hard for me to see the problem…
What “lifestyle?”
I’m sorry if this sounds too confrontational but that’s really old. I am straight, do I lead a “straight lifestyle?” My neighbors are gay, they are monogamous and have been for years, one is an engineer and the other works for a studio. What is their “lifestyle?” I sit around the house and drink wine and listen to Judy Garland records with them, I collect musicals myself and I can sing for you selections from “Oklahoma” and “The Music Man.” Which “lifestyle” do I lead?
Gayness is not a “lifetsyle” it is simply part of who one is — for whatever reason.
I apologize… Sorry, I haven’t checked this thread in a while, and I’m still working on that “don’t post when you’re temper is still flaring” thing.
I am trying to make sense of my own thoughts on this topic, and it angers me when I perceive that the more intelligent people on one side of an issue would rather try to manipulate me than explain themselves.
Profs. Ayres and Brown, and anyone else I’ve offended, I’m sorry.
What I don’t get is why this reply won’t post…
Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE related.
Well, that worked.. what is up with this comment board?
Sorry, I am determined to get this posted…
It was not so long ago Homosexuality was considered a disease, people were thought to have been “made” this way and could be “unmade” or “cured” of their “mental illness.” paranoia was rampant, homosexuals were – ARE – widely feared to be in the business of “indoctrinating” children or preying upon them.
This is hideous. there is no contact info to tell anyone of the problem and the board just keeps replying with
An error occurred:
You must define a Comment Pending template.
Lifestyle: I put the quotes “alternative lifestyle” because I’m at work and I couldn’t think of a better way of saying, “non-consenting-adults-and-heterosexual approach to sexuality.”
Sorry. I didn’t mean to offend with that turn of phrase…
At any rate, it looks like this discussion and attempt at having my (unwitting) straw man burnt, or at least at having my question answered has utterly failed. Hopefully me and the Misters Mice will be able to find some other occassion where I can be enlightened.
Let me make this clear one more time, I’m not trying to troll, I’m just trying to see the logical distinction here, which I’m clearly missing due to my cultural background.
A Nony Mouse asked:
I think the obvious difference between the two is that the latter implies “children”. Of course, we should immediately put aside a definition of “child” according to age – as that would miss the point entirely and produce a superficial look at the matter. To me, what is implied by the term “child” is one who has not psychologically and emotionally developed to a sufficient enough level in order to discern that someone may be manipulating them. You go on to say –
I am curious as to what you mean by “love”. To me, love goes hand in hand with respect and selflessness. If I flirt with a child in order to get that child to gratify my sexual desires, am I acting in a “loving” way to that child? Am I caring for and respecting that child? One deserves, do they not?, an opportunity to emotionally grow without being coerced (no matter how gently it may appear on the surface) to perform sexual acts in order to satiate an adult’s desires. Love has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual gratification. There is nothing wrong with sexual desire – please don’t get me wrong – but do not equate the act of sex with love. The way you have used the word “love” makes one think that loving children is like loving chocolate or a television show or a bottle of wine. Children are thinking, feeling, cognitively and emotionally undeveloped human beings. And although this unfortunately all-too-often occurs, they are not objects for adult, sexual use.
In fact, neither are other adults. We only tolerate the objectivism of adult human beings because we see that your average adult has the mental capacity to decide for themselves if they want to enter into
A) a relationship based on sexual gratification without love
or
B) a loving relationship that may or may not include sexual gratification
I hope I have made myself clear.
Thanks for being candid, Mr. Rock. I used the word “love” because as you say: “[pedophilia] implies children” the philia part implies “love.” The linguistic oddity of the adoption of the wrong word for love from greek for this awful condition aside, I should have put quotes around it. I understand the potential for coercion, and I appreciate your highlighting the key difference there. I apologize to anybody I might have offended by bringing this up in this way: I chose pedophilia because it had already been introduced into the discussion, and somebody (The Mice?) was avoiding discussing it’s relationship.
Since I’ve always framed the debate in this manner, and nobody has ever wanted to debate me on facts, I’ve never been able to see how badly the semantically loaded terms I was using seem to bias my point. Thanks for helping me to see that.
That being said, I now understand what my actual point is, but since I’ve worn the thread out pretty badly coming to this understanding, I don’t know if anybody is willing to still talk about it. What it boils down to is this: if we change laws which validate one particular type of sexual relationship which is entirely based on sexual preference to validate one other type of sexual relationship, still based on sexual preference, how are we not still discrimintating against other types of sexual preference, whatever they may be, by not validating them as well?
While I know see the straw nature of my comparison to pedophilia, I’m still left with my question… Any takers?
A. Nony Mouse:
I would like to attempt to answer your question but I am not clear as to what that question is. You are saying we have laws that “validate” a type of sexual relationship. And you are asking “if we change” those laws that “validate one particular type of sexual expression” (making certain sexual acts illegal?) in order to “validate one other type of sexual realtionship” —
And that is where I am confused. How could making a certain sexual relationship illegal actually validate another? If you would be so kind to reword your question – perhaps use an example?
I’d agree with this principle, in general. However, as a non-pairbonded heterosexual who has tends to get more passes from members of the same sex than from the opposite, I hope you’ll pardon my efforts to limit people’s confusion about me. Evidently enough people are confused about me already. =)
Ashley Mac NJ Porn Photographs,
Adult