From: pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: To Laura
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:11:57 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <1992Sep10.003828.17449@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>
>(me)
>>I do not see a corresponding desire in the gay community to distance 
>>ourselves from negative stereotypes of gays (other than the child molester 
>>stereotype that Clayton would have us all buy into).  

Why should I change my likes because other people don't like them?
I may not care for a certain set of behaviours, but the people who are
doing it are well within thier rights to act that way. 

>(me)
>>Let me ask you this:  do you believe that negative gay stereotypes even 
>>exist?  What are some examples?
>
>/(markm)
>/yes.  you.
>
>Cute.  
>
>But you fail to address the point.  Should gays willingly act out
>the negative stereotypes that society has?

I can't control someone else's views. What if the 'society at large'
decided that tatoos were maiming the body, and that people shouldn't
have tattoos becaue THEY didn't like them? Would you go along just to
gain a sort of acceptance? 

If someone is going to accept me, I want it to be without strings. I
offer the same deal in return. 

>(me)
>>Masculinity and femininity are on a broad spectrum, and it would
>>be a boring and dull world indeed if all the men were supermasculine,
>>and all the women were superfeminine.  That is not what I am
>>objecting to.  No one should have to apologize for what and who
>>they are.

Not even the effemina males?

>AFFECTED BEHAVIOR IS NOT AN INHERENT PART OF THE PERSON'S NATURE.  
>"Affected" means intentional, deliberate, with the intent of impressing
>or showing off.  It's role-playing, pure and simple.

Here you are making a judgement. You are saying that it is outside the 
realm of possibility that a given set of human behaviour is natural.
If you wish to continue this assertion, provide some evidence or references.
This is the crux of your argument, and if it doen't stand, then the rest of
your argument also falls. 

Unless you can prove that nelly behaviour on the part of males is unnatural,
you really aren't getting anywhere.

>When it comes to what people really are by nature, no apologies.  When it 
>comes to behavior or habits that are deliberately selected, then yes:  these
>are up for debate and criticism, and people can be taken to task for it.

Who said it was your job? Who said it was ANYONES buisness?

>If someone has the obnoxious habit of interrupting you when you speak,
>do you just accept it as their way of "finding happiness"?  Or do you
>let them know?

You can say something, but I really hope that you don't expect them to
change just because you said something about it. You may not like it,
but tough bunnies.

>That's why I can give my roommate hell for the way he keeps house.  
>That's why he can give me hell for how loud I play music.  Your personal, 
>deliberate behaviors are most certainly up for discussion.  

Once agian, they may be up for discussion, but nobody is under any onus
to change the way they are to please anyone but themselves. Don't like it?
Then don't hang around people who you don't like. That requires YOU to
change. It is the utmost in gall to expect THEM to change.

Scott


-- 
Scott Moir / Pentangle / Satyr ______ # "There's really only one requirement 
pentangl@Ursa-Major.spdcc.com  \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+) s+ m r p+     \/\/  # "What's that?"
These are my opinions, not SPDCC's    # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbs