It's bad enough when people like Bryan Fischer, soon to be formerly of the Idaho Values Alliance, spout phrases like "aberrant sexual behavior" and "dangerous, unhealthy and immoral" when writing and speaking about gay people. We've come to expect it from people like him. When you go to his website or read one of his missives in the local paper you know what you're getting.
We expect it when people like equal opportunity bigot and radio host Zeb Bell say that being gay is a "sick and perverted lifestyle" and "dirty," "vile" and "disgusting" and use words like "cockroaches" and "pervert" to describe gay people. Tune in "Zeb at the Ranch" and you know to steel yourself against some very ugly language.
We don't expect to go to a progressive blog and, on a post attempting to shed some positive light on transgender people (including Chaz Bono's recent announcement that he was a transgender man), find this [emphasis mine]:
Part of the issue is trying to figure out how gay people can like the ickey sex, but a lot of it is just foreign because we wonder, why would you NOT like what I like? What is the attraction in that same gender? Eww. It’s unknowable if you’re just not wired that way, and therefore a little scary.
When Nemesis calls gay sex offensive and distasteful (Websters) and describes same gender attraction with "eww," just because they were couched in a generally positive context, those words don't sting any less than if they had been uttered by Fischer or Bell. Whether thoughtless or malicious, words do matter.
Probably most discouraging is that this came from a supposed ally. If this is what our friends say and think about us, the road ahead for equality in Idaho is much longer and more grueling than ever expected.
My simple advice to anyone wanting to be an advocate for equality: put yourself in the other person's shoes. How would it feel if "icky" was used to describe your most intimate expression of love? And then get educated. A good place to start is with this: the GLAAD Media Reference Guide.
Update: Nemesis has posted a very gracious response to this post.
Oh, I am stung to the marrow here. I used another person's expression (that "the first thing most straight people focus on is the ickey sex angle") and I was trying to say that it's very foreign and therefore a litle scary to most straight people.
I myself do not think of it as "ickey" and at the risk of being a cliche, my best friend IS gay and I've said before on my site that I own probably the largest collection of gay videos this side of the Mississippi.
I do apologize for any misunderstanding, because you are correct, if we have friends that thoughtlessly denigrate us we are that much farther from equality.
Please accept my sincere apologies, I will accept that I did not express myself well and probably came off as very thoughtless. I appreciate that you felt moved enough to take me to task over this, and I would hope you care enough to do this again should you feel the need. (And I hope that I am never again on your bad side...)
Posted by: Nemesis | June 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM
And I'm sorry that I made light of what was said there. I just wasn't expecting the "icky" comment as I began reading that post.
Posted by: thepoliticalgame | June 21, 2009 at 12:27 PM
I think you're over-reacting. I was confused by the first paragraph, because it seemed to be presenting the "icky sex" attitude as the writer's own viewpoint. But as I read the entire post - in context - it's clear that Nemesis was just repeating the standard talking points of others. I don't think Nemesis deserved this treatment. I do know Nemesis, and have read that blog for months. Nemesis isn't the person that you present here.
Posted by: idahogie | June 21, 2009 at 09:53 PM
there's very little difference between saying gay sex is icky and gay people are perverts... and even though it's painful to have to explain that, the thing about friends (or decent people in general) is that when you tell them something they've said is offensive, they make an effort to be more conscious of their language in the future. apologies accepted.
idahogie, your point would carry more weight if she hadn't used the pronoun we in the same paragraph as the icky sex. i'm not saying nemesis set out to offend anyone, in fact it's obvious that she didn't, i'm simply saying the words used were offensive.
Posted by: MountainGoat | June 22, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Well this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. And considering that Nemesis wrote a post recently about her massive gay man porn collection, its more than a little misplaced.
Frankly the issue of icky sex should be more thoroughly explored if in just the roots of homophobia. I'm a thinking from what MG's written in the past, sex with a man is just as abhorrent to her as it is for me. I certainly don't think Nemesis meant "icky sex" is exclusive to straights. I reckon she won't write another such without flipping the scenario. But I certainly don't want to discourage her from talking about why we react strongly to a person or gender as a potential sexual partner or how that may have motivated the straight community into repression.
Posted by: Sisyphus | June 23, 2009 at 04:11 PM
sure sisyphus, let's "thoroughly explore" why gay sex is icky... and sick, gross, vile, filthy, disgusting and perverted so that all of the "normal" people can become comfortable with us. whatever happened to just accepting people for who they are? why do we have to focus on the sex? as long as you're not involved, why does anyone care what someone else likes or doesn't like?
and i fail to understand how a straight woman having a large man on man porn collection adds any credibility to her opinions... that's just me though.
Posted by: MountainGoat | June 23, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Enough already.
There are obvious biases involved in how this entire argument has played out. It has no more to do with MG's preferences than it does those of Nemesis, but that is what it has come down to because everyone is making it personal. It isn't. As I understand it, the real issue here is about being more sensitive to the feelings of others and not repeating the fears, prejudices, etc. of those who would wish to demean gays. Not repeating it no matter how well-meaning you are and how recognized you might be for gay activism.
This whole argument has only served to illustrate that what Nemesis repeated initially is not only true in the closed-minded population, but also here among supposed progressives. There is no difference between a conservative saying something even mildly racist and immediately pointing out that he/she likes Tiger Woods & Condie Rice as well as has a black friend so it is okay to say whatever racist thing they just did, and a progressive repeating something bigoted ("icky sex") followed by bloggers flocking to the defense of the progressive because so-and-so really likes gay people, has friends, la-dee-da. It's one of those things I always wonder about people on crusades or soapboxes: why ask of others what you aren't willing to do yourself? Had Nemesis (who I don't believe for a second intended this fallout or to hurt anyone's feelings) been a conservative male repeating exactly that comment about gay sex, we'd be all over that conservative male.
Like I said, this has nothing to do with the preferences or personalities involved and making it so when feelings were already hurt unintentionally only pours salt in the wound. Why couldn't we just leave it alone after MG & Nemesis discussed it and got on the same page?
Posted by: thepoliticalgame | June 24, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Meh. I was talking about the validity of her perspective, not her credibility which I don't see is in question. Her intent was to provoke some introspection which I think is laudable. In the search for civil equality the sexual act matters not. But for a movement that has some roots in the sexual revolution the open and frank discussion of sexual preferences seems to lend itself to constructive dialogue. I see no reason here to re-embrace Victorian principles or to go on progressive purity purge. Or to walk on egg shells. And I certainly don't see how not talking about it and embracing ignorance is going to open minds. But I reckon I have better things to do.
Posted by: Sisyphus | June 24, 2009 at 08:42 AM
"Her intent was to provoke some introspection which I think is laudable."
Provoking a discussion that hurt feelings and if read by a wider audience may have been perceived the wrong way is laudable? Please.
I don't think that was the intent of Nemesis at all, but since she's on vacation and she can't speak to her intent, can't we just drop it?
Posted by: thepoliticalgame | June 24, 2009 at 08:51 AM
really... watching gay porn increases the validity of one's perspective? and i still fail to understand how that makes the use of offensive language okay.
nemesis didn't realize how offensive that language was and has since apologized for it. as tpg suggests maybe we should just move on.
Posted by: MountainGoat | June 24, 2009 at 09:16 AM
i question the necessity of it (for many reasons), but exploring the nuances of gay sex and why it makes some people uncomfortable can be done without using pejorative language and for any who call themselves lgbt allies, it is necessary that they do so, otherwise they are no different to the lgbt community than fischer, bell, cramer et. al.
Posted by: MountainGoat | June 24, 2009 at 10:22 AM
I'm gonna go with MG on this whole thing. I was pretty shocked when I read it, it wasn't attributed correctly, and it was derogatory without any necessity.
And Sis, just by using the word "abhorrent", you're also crossing a line. Gay sex is sex. What you do as "sex" holds no interest to me, nor should it, so I would never even judge your sexual preferences as "nice" or "well done" or "abhorrent". I'm not sure why you had to give your personal opinion on "gay sex".
I don't know MG personally, which is my own loss, but I do know you, Sis, and that seemed pretty out of place for you. What Nemesis did was also pretty out of place, and a bit shocking to boot.
Luckily I'm not a spokesman for liberal bloggers, but I still would like to apologize to MG on my own behalf.
Posted by: Binkyboy | June 24, 2009 at 11:00 AM
I was hoping to build bridges, not define differences or split hairs. Gay folks don't like straight sex and vice versa. Maybe I've been listening to way too many Savage Love podcasts lately where all types of sex are discussed openly and brazenly, and doesn't exclude dislikes. Mike makes no bones (pun intended) about his distaste for straight sex and fully recognizes that what he does isn't everybody's cup o' tea. But he does promote honesty and gives decent relationship advice regardless of people's orientation. And given his audience you should take the sensitivity training to his door. I'd love to hear his response. And if we're to talk about it in terms of orientation as opposed to preference, why can't we talk about or feelings of why we are what we are, or otherwise promote recognition and acceptance in the hetero community. Mandating a dogmatic method to engage the topic doesn't make those feelings go away, any more than such a discussion will change one's orientation.
I get the point folks. I'll stick by my tempest in a tea pot assessment. And my introspection. I'll decline the invitation to explain context. But its little wonder we're subject to the criticism of political correctness run amok when 'icky' is offensive and the equivalent to sick, vile, perverse, dangerous, unhealthy and immoral.
I am glad that you took an opportunity to put the media reference guide out there. I found it to be useful in the past.
Posted by: Sisyphus | June 24, 2009 at 02:03 PM
You apparently didn't put the media reference guide to enough use.
Posted by: thepoliticalgame | June 24, 2009 at 02:31 PM
"Gay folks don't like straight sex and vice versa."
Your brush can't be much wider, can it?
Why does anyone have to "like" someone else's sex? The only time anyone should care is when they're buying or renting porn to watch with another person or a group of people (bachelor parties, for example).
For some reason, Sis, this just doesn't seem like you at all.
Posted by: Binkyboy | June 24, 2009 at 02:41 PM
"Why does anyone have to "like" someone else's sex?"--they don't "have" to do anything. But they may nevertheless feel that way and excluding dialogue about it seems counter intuitive to me for the sake of political correctness. Again, Nemesis could simply have flipped the scenario and asked why gay people find it 'icky' to have straight sex and probably not suffered this public drumming. And again I'll avoid the lengthy discussion relating to context. But I'm glad you see the point. There most certainly are times when it is appropriate to discuss it. And yes that quote is too broad a brush. I believe it was intentional.
It is me. Free exchange of ideas and all. I didn't see reference to 'icky' anywhere in the media guide. Indeed quite the contrary, it encouraged dialogue, not public floggings, and certainly not labeling a friend an enemy. I've been on the receiving end of those myself, some deserved, but more diplomatically handled.
MG, I'm having a dickens of a time posting these comments. They just won't load.
Posted by: Sisyphus | June 24, 2009 at 05:34 PM
So what we was said about Nemesis was a public flogging or what we're doing to you is one? Just so I can understand. Nemesis wasn't named an enemy, far from it, in fact I thought MG and Nemesis left it all on good terms. It's you and others who have continued on using the same tired words that have made a mess of the conversation. Say what you want and as openly as you like at 43SB, but respect the space of other bloggers. I don't believe MG brought up the comments made by Nemesis as a way of starting a dialogue about why straight people say what they do about gay sex and vice/versa.
Posted by: thepoliticalgame | June 24, 2009 at 05:59 PM
i don't need to know anything about a person's sexual practices to know that person deserves equality and frank discussions about sex don't add anything to that.
and sis, you once commented in a thread about use of the r-word something to the effect that if you don't know why it's offensive, i can't help you. if you don't understand why this "gay people have icky sex" comment is offensive, i can't help you.
Posted by: MountainGoat | June 24, 2009 at 06:42 PM
I don't think I can add anything of value to this discussion other than to say that for those of you who have said nice things about me, thanks so very much for your wonderful support.
For those of you who have taken me to task, kudos for having the courage to do this.
I feel like Rodney King right now, so it's time for me to stop writing on this issue. See you on another thread!
Posted by: Nemesis | June 25, 2009 at 09:37 PM
(What's "the r word"?)
Posted by: sharon fisher | June 28, 2009 at 08:10 AM