The Gay Thread

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Alex

Again, on what evidence other than that you think he fits some stereotype of a swishy fag? I know, gays just know. But if I accepted that I'd be down at Mistress Fantasia's having my palm read so that I'd make a killing on the stock market.

When you grow up gay and so much energy is spent on whether someone else is a compatible sexual partner, you get to be pretty finely attuned to the gaydar. It becomes second nature. Yes, there are stereotypes, but those stereotypes do serve a purpose. Of course there are people outside of those stereotypes. Of course gaydar doesn't always work. But there's a lot more to it than just blind luck.

Sorry, but a swishy guy who is obsessed with another guy to that degree? That doesn't seem the least bit gay? Come on. It may not be definitive, but it seems relatively clear to everyone but him. There's just a really, really good chance.

But when the answer to "why is it relevant whether he's gay?" is "because if he is then he's a hypocrite (with the implication that this somehow makes his behavior worse)" then I think the misuse of the word is pretty well on point.

So the distinction is just whether he's out to himself or not? I can kind of see that, i.e. he's not a hypocrite because he's criticizing other people for being gay, and he doesn't think he's gay. But then what's the correct word for someone like Larry Craig, who insists he's not gay as he taps his foot in the restroom?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

But then what's the correct word for someone like Larry Craig, who insists he's not gay as he taps his foot in the restroom?

Liar?

If I said to you right now that I'm not straight then went home and had an orgy with the Golden State Warriors dance squad, that wouldn't make me a hypocrite. Just a liar.

If Larry Craig was saying that gay activities are shameful and shouldn't be acted on no matter what while he himself shamelessly pursued that same activities. Then he's a hypocrite.

If he held that position and despite personal struggle to resist the urge, still had gay sex then he's not a hypocrite, he's merely failed to live up to his own ideals. Now, it would be great if when he told people homosexuality is a behavior that should be resisted he shared the story of his own struggles and personal failures, but not doing so still doesn't make it hypocrisy.

Sorry, but a swishy guy who is obsessed with another guy to that degree?

Maybe based on the second part, but not because of the first part. You may think the collective gay gaydar is near infallible but I've not seen great evidence of that based on the number of gay men I watched hit on my step father over the years (and if anyone responds the way I suspect someone might we'll just be back to saying that whether someone is gay is determined by vote regardless of how that person actually lives and thinks).

But regardless, there is a huge difference between "these factors increase the likelihood he is gay" (and I don't deny that such a calculation could be done) and "that man is gay because of those factors." Especially when once his homosexuality becomes assumed it is used to make other arguments about his character, motivations, and the meaning of his actions.

It just feels to me like a more local version of the old news analysis trick of saying "I don't like to speculate but maybe X is true" and then after five minutes of discussion they just begin to proceed with it no longer being speculation but fact. Even when the initial speculation ends up being correct, to me it is inimical to honest discussion.