Wait. What was the first word?

Yes, there is. But not the one you're thinking (it doesn't mean what you think it means).

Use your imagination...

No, that's three words

I was a nerd, geek, and slightly effeminate. Trust me, it was bullying. I was fortunate that I never had to deal with anyone who was a seriously sociopathic bully, but yes, my entire school existence was underscored by regular low-grade bullying, continually being derided for appearing "faggy" being among the many ugly things thrown my way.

I was a well adjusted kid with and relatively secure. I actually still remember clearly the day it struck me, "Wait a minute, how is it that you calling me gay is supposed to be an insult? If it's true, then you're just calling me what I am, so whatever. If it's not true, then I know it's not true, so who gives a crap?"

But you know what? Day in, day out knowing that, no matter what, there are people who are simply going to refuse to believe what you know to be true about your own identity sucks. It wears you down. And if JW is going to play the "you're not in my shoes card" then this is where I'm playing it. I don't care how secure in your sexuality (or any aspect of your personality) you are, years of being challenged on it is something I would wish on no one.

I'm not equating being misidentified as gay with actual homophobic hatred aimed at homosexuals. But arguing about that just brings to mind the people who dismiss the movement for gay rights with, "Get over it, you're not treated as badly as the slaves were." Again, tell Billy Lucas's parents that it's just "a little annoying".

Obviously the people who are angry at Shervill for what he said and are decrying him as a "closet case" are not doing so in the same spirit as kids who call slightly mincing boys "fags". But while the precise spirit is different, there is still an undercurrent of judgment and derision. "Closet case" is hardly a term of endearment. No, you're not saying he's bad or more worthy of ridicule for being gay. But you ARE saying he's bad or more worthy of ridicule for hiding the "fact" that he's gay. And it strikes me as hypocritical to simultaneously see all of the anti gay-bullying fervor combined with what I see as a mirror image use of sexuality and personal identity to shame someone.

Which is all far more in depth than this all deserves, and more thought I cared to apply to the a*hole, but the questions were posed.

Abundant Visible Alex Mojo. I love when you fight for proper word usage. :snap:

I don't see it that way. They aren't being shamed BECAUSE they are gay, but because their actions are..... ironic. (Don'tcha think?) When George Rekers, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, etc. are rallying against homos with every fiber of their being while having their "luggage lifted" by teenage twinks on their off-time, they SHOULD be shamed for being closet cases.

It is what they DO that is hypocritical, lying, ironic, whatever. Not what they ARE.

Yes (not speaking for GD here, he may not agree), but the key difference is that we knew for sure they were engaging, gleefully apparently, in the behavior they publicly condemned.

Not quite the same as pre-emptively deciding that another person must also be doing that, based on no other evidence than stereotypes, and then using it as an additional cudgel against them.

Now we're going 'round in circles. We're talking about a man who has a serious obsession with another man. There are plenty of examples of people who rally against gay people -- loudly -- when they are gay themselves due to self loathing or religious BS (whether or not they are acting on their sexual desires).

Every gay person has had to deal with being closeted and/or being in denial about their sexuality. It is not difficult in many situations to pick up on those behaviors in other people.

And I still don't think that ALL stereotypes are bad. I have lots (and lots) of things about me that are stereotypically gay. So what?

Would I think that Shirvell is gay from his mannerisms if I ran into him on the street? I don't know. But knowing that he has a blog dedicated to the daily activities of a cute gay college student, plus the way he carries himself... you can't help but think, gee, this guy is in serious denial.

Could he just be a totally batsh!t crazy straight dude? Sure. But I think that's the less likely explanation. Nobody has to catch him downloading Sean Cody videos to think that the scale tips in the other direction.

And I think that's what it comes down to. Some people (cough*straights*cough) think it's hypocritical stereotyping, and other people (um, all the gays in the world) are pretty sure he's a closet case in the same way we can assume who's male and who's female on the street - - though of all people, we should know that some of those are not what gender they seem.


The assumption is still valid, and Shrivell is not worthy of a more thorough examination. He's gay as the day is long, we can tell. And to the extent we might be wrong, so fvcking what? It's not like I call him on his home number to fag taunt him. He will never have an inkling of my thoughts and feelings and ironic/hypocritical/clipper ship assumptions.