The topic of homosexuality continues to occupy far too many column
inches. Here's a recent example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/03/do0303.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

To me, what people wish to get up to in the privacy of their own homes
is entirely their affair, so long as it is all consensual. That
obviously isn't everybody's view.

Lesbianism doesn't come in for quite the same bashing as male
homosexuality. The shirt-lifter, turd-burgler, nancy-boy etc. etc.
terminology isn't applied to them. There is an element of objection
from some quarters, but much muted.

It seems to me that buggery is the issue behind much of this. It is
the buggering of people that anti-homosexuals appear to be concerned
with.

There is, in my view, no need for anybody to 'come out', to make a
public display of their private activities or perchances, but, to help
the embattled homosexuals, mightn't it be a kindness for some popular
heterosexual figures to 'come out' about their enjoyment of buggery?
After all it's an innocent enough activity.

Man who enjoy buggering women (with full consent, of course), and
women who enjoy being buggered (with consent, of course) as  well as,
perhaps. women who enjoy buggering other men or women using
prostheses, might make public statements of their 'outing'.

Wouldn't this do something to mitigate the anti-homosexual feeling?

On May 3, 6:53 pm, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> The topic of homosexuality continues to occupy far too many column
> inches. Here's a recent example:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/03...> To me, what people wish to get up to in the privacy of their own homes
> is entirely their affair, so long as it is all consensual. That
> obviously isn't everybody's view.
>
> Lesbianism doesn't come in for quite the same bashing as male
> homosexuality. The shirt-lifter, turd-burgler, nancy-boy etc. etc.
> terminology isn't applied to them. There is an element of objection
> from some quarters, but much muted.
>
> It seems to me that buggery is the issue behind much of this. It is
> the buggering of people that anti-homosexuals appear to be concerned
> with.
>
> There is, in my view, no need for anybody to 'come out', to make a
> public display of their private activities or perchances, but, to help
> the embattled homosexuals, mightn't it be a kindness for some popular
> heterosexual figures to 'come out' about their enjoyment of buggery?
> After all it's an innocent enough activity.
>
> Man who enjoy buggering women (with full consent, of course), and
> women who enjoy being buggered (with consent, of course) as  well as,
> perhaps. women who enjoy buggering other men or women using
> prostheses, might make public statements of their 'outing'.
>
> Wouldn't this do something to mitigate the anti-homosexual feeling?

Trust you to bet to the bottom of the matter!

Lance

On 3 May, 17:53, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> The topic of homosexuality continues to occupy far too many column
> inches. Here's a recent example:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/03...> To me, what people wish to get up to in the privacy of their own homes
> is entirely their affair, so long as it is all consensual. That
> obviously isn't everybody's view.
>
> Lesbianism doesn't come in for quite the same bashing as male
> homosexuality. The shirt-lifter, turd-burgler, nancy-boy etc. etc.
> terminology isn't applied to them. There is an element of objection
> from some quarters, but much muted.
>
> It seems to me that buggery is the issue behind much of this. It is
> the buggering of people that anti-homosexuals appear to be concerned
> with.
>
> There is, in my view, no need for anybody to 'come out', to make a
> public display of their private activities or perchances, but, to help
> the embattled homosexuals, mightn't it be a kindness for some popular
> heterosexual figures to 'come out' about their enjoyment of buggery?
> After all it's an innocent enough activity.
>
> Man who enjoy buggering women (with full consent, of course), and
> women who enjoy being buggered (with consent, of course) as  well as,
> perhaps. women who enjoy buggering other men or women using
> prostheses, might make public statements of their 'outing'.
>
> Wouldn't this do something to mitigate the anti-homosexual feeling?

I'm rather naive on this subject.  Is buggery sometimes a rather messy
business?   Aren't objections to buggery partly because of
associations with faeces etc?   Why should people 'come out' about
this,  if not also 'coming out' about other sexual practices such as
masturbation, cunnilingus, sado-masochism, cross-dressing, and so on?

Dave

On May 4, 10:09 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
>
> I'm rather naive on this subject.  Is buggery sometimes a rather messy
> business?   Aren't objections to buggery partly because of
> associations with faeces etc?   Why should people 'come out' about
> this,  if not also 'coming out' about other sexual practices such as
> masturbation, cunnilingus, sado-masochism, cross-dressing, and so on?
>
As a Martian, I'm not at all sure about the details, I've heard that
sex is often a messy business, so much so that somebody, apparently,
claimed that if it wasn't it wasn't working..

Yes, it would be altruistic for heterosexuals to 'come out' about
this. I'm not really sure why people felt the need to 'come out' about
being homosexual, but it clearly is important to some, almost a
cottage industry, if you excuse the pun.

My thought was really concerned with reducing the social stigma
certain activities carry with them. If they are victimless, and held
in private, I can't see why anybody would object. Paedophillia is
objected to because of its non-consensual and damaging nature, which
is quite understandable. Bestiality too seems fairly highly
disapproved of, but that seems less clear cut having sex with animals
seems marginally less damaging than eating them.

Homosexuality, though, seems to carry a fairly large stigma, long
after it has become legal, despite it being, as far as I can see,
pretty innocuous (STDs being a side effect that consent to most forms
of sexual activity can raise as a risk). I was just (when reading an
article on the subject) struck by a method that might reduce this
stigma - but, as I say, I think it hasn't happened and is probably
still born as it would require pretty pure altruism - unless somebody
had, say, a relative who was homosexual, then there'd be some self-
interest.

On 4 May, 21:29, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On May 4, 10:09 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
> > I'm rather naive on this subject.  Is buggery sometimes a rather messy> > business?   Aren't objections to buggery partly because of
> > associations with faeces etc?   Why should people 'come out' about
> > this,  if not also 'coming out' about other sexual practices such as
> > masturbation, cunnilingus, sado-masochism, cross-dressing, and so on?
>
> As a Martian, I'm not at all sure about the details, I've heard that
> sex is often a messy business, so much so that somebody, apparently,
> claimed that if it wasn't it wasn't working..
>
> Yes, it would be altruistic for heterosexuals to 'come out' about
> this. I'm not really sure why people felt the need to 'come out' about
> being homosexual, but it clearly is important to some, almost a
> cottage industry, if you excuse the pun.
>
> My thought was really concerned with reducing the social stigma
> certain activities carry with them. If they are victimless, and held
> in private, I can't see why anybody would object. Paedophillia is
> objected to because of its non-consensual and damaging nature, which
> is quite understandable. Bestiality too seems fairly highly
> disapproved of, but that seems less clear cut having sex with animals
> seems marginally less damaging than eating them.
>
> Homosexuality, though, seems to carry a fairly large stigma, long
> after it has become legal, despite it being, as far as I can see,
> pretty innocuous (STDs being a side effect that consent to most forms
> of sexual activity can raise as a risk). I was just (when reading an
> article on the subject) struck by a method that might reduce this
> stigma - but, as I say, I think it hasn't happened and is probably
> still born as it would require pretty pure altruism - unless somebody
> had, say, a relative who was homosexual, then there'd be some self-
> interest.

Preference for a same-sex partner can' t easily be kept secret,  so
there can be good reasons for'coming out'.  The precise details of the
sexual behaviour practised can remain private.

Dave

On
>
> Preference for a same-sex partner can' t easily be kept secret,  so
> there can be good reasons for'coming out'.  The precise details of the
> sexual behaviour practised can remain private.
>
Yes, I see that logic - though people have long 'shared digs' with
somebody of the same sex or 'had a companion' There's a sexual
asymetry there too, though, as it is less often suspected of being in
a homosexual relationship in the case of two women than two men,
perhaps for the same reason as I've given.

On May 5, 7:22 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On
>
> > Preference for a same-sex partner can' t easily be kept secret,  so
> > there can be good reasons for'coming out'.  The precise details of the> > sexual behaviour practised can remain private.
>
> Yes, I see that logic - though people have long 'shared digs' with
> somebody of the same sex or 'had a companion' There's a sexual
> asymetry there too, though, as it is less often suspected of being in
> a homosexual relationship in the case of two women than two men,
> perhaps for the same reason as I've given.

Keeping anything secret can impose a strain on a person. Daniel
Wegner's ironic theory of thought suppression makes this clear. If you
resolve not to mention the wart on your mother-in-law's nose at dinner
table you can do this quite successfully if you are not stressed. But
if you are stressed, the effort to suppress the unwanted thought
actually makes the thought more accessible, with the result that a
person concerned will blurt out the very thing they resolved not to
say.

I think the same process operates with any secret. If you are an ex-
convict and have not "come out" then you will constantly need to
monitor everything you say and do so as not to reveal that you were
once in prison. This can be done under ordinary circumstances (though
part of your attention is always diverted to monitoring what you
think, do and say), but it can become impossible if a person is
stressed at the same time.

The gay person is similarly stressed if he or she is not open about
his or her sexuality. One reason to "come out" then is just to relieve
one of the constant self-conscious burden of monitoring one's own
thoughts and words and actions - it can be a great relief to reveal a
secret that (because it is concealed and requires constant vigilance)
can gradually become an obsession.

Different secrets can be the subject of more or less prejudice. I
suspect being an ex-convict is probably worse than being gay.

Why are male gays more subject to prejudice than female gays? The most
common answer, for what it is worth, is that masculinity is something
that is seen as being fragile - it is something earned through tough
action, etc. So boys are always being taunted about being sissies, or
the like, because their masculinity can't be taken for granted. But
feminity is just taken as a given. Being a tomboy does not usually
result in taunts. What, for example, would be the feminine equivalent
of "sissy"? So a male gay is seen as a threat to the hard-won
masculinity of all the males around him, and thus evokes ridicule from
other males as a way of protecting themselves from the threat. But a
lesbian is just seen as an anomaly, she doesn't necessarily threaten
the feminity of other women...

Lance

On May 5, 2:09 pm, Lance  wrote:
>
>
> Why are male gays more subject to prejudice than female gays? The most
> common answer, for what it is worth, is that masculinity is something
> that is seen as being fragile - it is something earned through tough
> action, etc. So boys are always being taunted about being sissies, or
> the like, because their masculinity can't be taken for granted. But
> feminity is just taken as a given. Being a tomboy does not usually
> result in taunts. What, for example, would be the feminine equivalent
> of "sissy"? So a male gay is seen as a threat to the hard-won
> masculinity of all the males around him, and thus evokes ridicule from
> other males as a way of protecting themselves from the threat. But a
> lesbian is just seen as an anomaly, she doesn't necessarily threaten
> the feminity of other women...
>
I understand that, but I don't think that 'tomboy' is that neutral,
girls might like it when young, but not usually as they get a little
older.

Boys are more overtly competitive, so, if masculinity is the ultimate
aim of all this competitiveness, then it does fit. Macho behaviour, as
I think we've remarked here before, seems most common in more
matriarchal societies - which fits too, as the masculinity is more
under threat than in a more patriarchal society. This'd go some way to
explain the increase in violence seen in the UK over the past few
decades. Not only do boys have little to do (as you pointed out the
other day), but, since they are on the dole while there has been an
element of sexual cleansing of the workplace (the BMJ this past week
asked whether it was a good thing to have such a large proportion of
female doctors - the increased violence in the youth might be one
reason why it isn't), they haven't much option to demonstrate their
masculinity than macho posing and violence. I suppose, if you take the
long view, it's something of an irony that feminism should lead to
increased violence.

On 5 May, 13:09, Lance  wrote:
> On May 5, 7:22 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
> > On
>
> > > Preference for a same-sex partner can' t easily be kept secret,  so
> > > there can be good reasons for'coming out'.  The precise details of the
> > > sexual behaviour practised can remain private.
>
> > Yes, I see that logic - though people have long 'shared digs' with
> > somebody of the same sex or 'had a companion' There's a sexual
> > asymetry there too, though, as it is less often suspected of being in
> > a homosexual relationship in the case of two women than two men,
> > perhaps for the same reason as I've given.
>
> Keeping anything secret can impose a strain on a person. Daniel
> Wegner's ironic theory of thought suppression makes this clear. If you
> resolve not to mention the wart on your mother-in-law's nose at dinner
> table you can do this quite successfully if you are not stressed. But
> if you are stressed, the effort to suppress the unwanted thought
> actually makes the thought more accessible, with the result that a
> person concerned will blurt out the very thing they resolved not to
> say.
>
> I think the same process operates with any secret. If you are an ex-
> convict and have not "come out" then you will constantly need to
> monitor everything you say and do so as not to reveal that you were
> once in prison. This can be done under ordinary circumstances (though
> part of your attention is always diverted to monitoring what you
> think, do and say), but it can become impossible if a person is
> stressed at the same time.
>
> The gay person is similarly stressed if he or she is not open about
> his or her sexuality. One reason to "come out" then is just to relieve
> one of the constant self-conscious burden of monitoring one's own
> thoughts and words and actions - it can be a great relief to reveal a
> secret that (because it is concealed and requires constant vigilance)
> can gradually become an obsession.
>
> Different secrets can be the subject of more or less prejudice. I
> suspect being an ex-convict is probably worse than being gay.
>
> Why are male gays more subject to prejudice than female gays? The most
> common answer, for what it is worth, is that masculinity is something
> that is seen as being fragile - it is something earned through tough
> action, etc. So boys are always being taunted about being sissies, or
> the like, because their masculinity can't be taken for granted. But
> feminity is just taken as a given. Being a tomboy does not usually
> result in taunts. What, for example, would be the feminine equivalent
> of "sissy"? So a male gay is seen as a threat to the hard-won
> masculinity of all the males around him, and thus evokes ridicule from
> other males as a way of protecting themselves from the threat. But a
> lesbian is just seen as an anomaly, she doesn't necessarily threaten
> the feminity of other women...
>
> Lance

Is 'effeminate' more insulting than 'butch' ?

On May 5, 10:08 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
> Is 'effeminate' more insulting than 'butch' ?
>
You raise an interesting question. Is it possible to order words in
terms of the level of insult they contain? Obviously it differs
according to language ('wanker' has little force where it isn't
understood, for example). I wonder if it is possible, in the abstract,
to produce an ordered list for a group sharing a common language.

I'm not sure that it is, though the article on the ordering of
dictionaries by complexity that Lance posted might have some bearing -
a complex insult is, likely to have a different force from a simple
one.

I'd have thought though, that so much depends on context that such
orderings would, apart from extremes ('silly billy' is likely always
to be considerably less insulting than 'turd'), have little meaning.

'Butch' would have little force applied to Marylin Munroe because it
would hold little weight, it might have been less welcome to, say,
Golda Meir or some of those East German shot-put champions (where it
would probably be a rather brave thing to say). Similarly for
'effeminate'.

Insults usually only have an effect if there is an element of truth in
them.

On May 5, 5:22 pm, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On May 5, 2:09 pm, Lance  wrote:
>
> > Why are male gays more subject to prejudice than female gays? The most
> > common answer, for what it is worth, is that masculinity is something
> > that is seen as being fragile - it is something earned through tough
> > action, etc. So boys are always being taunted about being sissies, or
> > the like, because their masculinity can't be taken for granted. But
> > feminity is just taken as a given. Being a tomboy does not usually
> > result in taunts. What, for example, would be the feminine equivalent
> > of "sissy"? So a male gay is seen as a threat to the hard-won
> > masculinity of all the males around him, and thus evokes ridicule from
> > other males as a way of protecting themselves from the threat. But a
> > lesbian is just seen as an anomaly, she doesn't necessarily threaten
> > the feminity of other women...
>
> I understand that, but I don't think that 'tomboy' is that neutral,
> girls might like it when young, but not usually as they get a little
> older.
>
> Boys are more overtly competitive, so, if masculinity is the ultimate
> aim of all this competitiveness, then it does fit. Macho behaviour, as
> I think we've remarked here before, seems most common in more
> matriarchal societies - which fits too, as the masculinity is more
> under threat than in a more patriarchal society. This'd go some way to
> explain the increase in violence seen in the UK over the past few
> decades. Not only do boys have little to do (as you pointed out the
> other day), but, since they are on the dole while there has been an
> element of sexual cleansing of the workplace (the BMJ this past week
> asked whether it was a good thing to have such a large proportion of
> female doctors - the increased violence in the youth might be one
> reason why it isn't), they haven't much option to demonstrate their
> masculinity than macho posing and violence. I suppose, if you take the
> long view, it's something of an irony that feminism should lead to
> increased violence.

Boys also need more care and supervision than girls do. They mature
later than girls, and are more active and less diligent than girls. So
for boys to do well at school they tend to require more supervision.
Modern child rearing tends to mean that both parents work, and girls
are thus advantaged because they will do what they are supposed to
(e.g., homework) without supervision more often than will boys. This
explains the widening gap between the school performance of boys and
girls.

Of course all those girls will eventually have to choose one of the
ill educated yobos for a life partner...

Lance

On May 5, 10:08 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
> On 5 May, 13:09, Lance  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 7:22 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
> > > On
>
> > > > Preference for a same-sex partner can' t easily be kept secret,  so
> > > > there can be good reasons for'coming out'.  The precise details of the
> > > > sexual behaviour practised can remain private.
>
> > > Yes, I see that logic - though people have long 'shared digs' with
> > > somebody of the same sex or 'had a companion' There's a sexual
> > > asymetry there too, though, as it is less often suspected of being in
> > > a homosexual relationship in the case of two women than two men,
> > > perhaps for the same reason as I've given.
>
> > Keeping anything secret can impose a strain on a person. Daniel
> > Wegner's ironic theory of thought suppression makes this clear. If you
> > resolve not to mention the wart on your mother-in-law's nose at dinner
> > table you can do this quite successfully if you are not stressed. But
> > if you are stressed, the effort to suppress the unwanted thought
> > actually makes the thought more accessible, with the result that a
> > person concerned will blurt out the very thing they resolved not to
> > say.
>
> > I think the same process operates with any secret. If you are an ex-
> > convict and have not "come out" then you will constantly need to
> > monitor everything you say and do so as not to reveal that you were
> > once in prison. This can be done under ordinary circumstances (though
> > part of your attention is always diverted to monitoring what you
> > think, do and say), but it can become impossible if a person is
> > stressed at the same time.
>
> > The gay person is similarly stressed if he or she is not open about
> > his or her sexuality. One reason to "come out" then is just to relieve
> > one of the constant self-conscious burden of monitoring one's own
> > thoughts and words and actions - it can be a great relief to reveal a
> > secret that (because it is concealed and requires constant vigilance)
> > can gradually become an obsession.
>
> > Different secrets can be the subject of more or less prejudice. I
> > suspect being an ex-convict is probably worse than being gay.
>
> > Why are male gays more subject to prejudice than female gays? The most
> > common answer, for what it is worth, is that masculinity is something
> > that is seen as being fragile - it is something earned through tough
> > action, etc. So boys are always being taunted about being sissies, or
> > the like, because their masculinity can't be taken for granted. But
> > feminity is just taken as a given. Being a tomboy does not usually
> > result in taunts. What, for example, would be the feminine equivalent
> > of "sissy"? So a male gay is seen as a threat to the hard-won
> > masculinity of all the males around him, and thus evokes ridicule from
> > other males as a way of protecting themselves from the threat. But a
> > lesbian is just seen as an anomaly, she doesn't necessarily threaten
> > the feminity of other women...
>
> > Lance
>
> Is 'effeminate' more insulting than 'butch' ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Good point.

Still, I think 'butch' is more often used by mean about women than by
women about women. In other words it is a comment on sexual
desirability in (perhaps frustrated) male eyes rather than a claim by
other females that some woman does not meet the standards of
femininity. 'Sissy' on the other hand is used by males in connection
with other males.

Lance

On May 6, 3:37 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On May 5, 10:08 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
> > Is 'effeminate' more insulting than 'butch' ?
>
> You raise an interesting question. Is it possible to order words in
> terms of the level of insult they contain?

I think it is possible.

Lance

Obviously it differs
> according to language ('wanker' has little force where it isn't
> understood, for example). I wonder if it is possible, in the abstract,
> to produce an ordered list for a group sharing a common language.
>
> I'm not sure that it is, though the article on the ordering of
> dictionaries by complexity that Lance posted might have some bearing -
> a complex insult is, likely to have a different force from a simple
> one.
>
> I'd have thought though, that so much depends on context that such
> orderings would, apart from extremes ('silly billy' is likely always
> to be considerably less insulting than 'turd'), have little meaning.
>
> 'Butch' would have little force applied to Marylin Munroe because it
> would hold little weight, it might have been less welcome to, say,
> Golda Meir or some of those East German shot-put champions (where it
> would probably be a rather brave thing to say). Similarly for
> 'effeminate'.
>
> Insults usually only have an effect if there is an element of truth in
> them.