From: mykel.alvis@the-matrix.com (Mykel Alvis) 
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Women in CP/Indus 1/2
Date: 18 Nov 92 10:49:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: mykel.alvis@the-matrix.com (Mykel Alvis) 

> majority standards, sexual practices aside).  My SO's male friends are,

RH> What are "majority standards?"  And what made you the expert on them?

Lighten up, Bob. I qualified that I'm only an individual, with a limited 
exposure to several dozens of people I *KNOW* to be homosexuals and close
contact with only a smaller percentage of them.  As far as majority
standards go, I see thousands of people each day that don't act that way
so I assume that the rest of the world is something like that.  Not an 
expert, just awake.

> except for 4 exceptions, homosexuals.  It's just a side effect of her
> profession, *THEY* say (not she says).

RH> What profession?  Dance?  Even if so, I don't think you've presented
  > a very intelligent assessment of how most homosexuals "act."  Did you

No, she's in grad school, so she's a waitress, of course :).  And I'm afraid
I've made a pretty thorough (sp?) assessment based on my *personal* experience.
Sorry if I made a sweeping generalization, but in cases of over 30 instances,
those percentages indicate a trend.  Maybe the gay men that I know added
to the ones she knows are a sub-group, but I don't think that likely.
And I don' know *those* people any more than I do you.  Less, even.  But
my point regards the flaming queen facade, not what they do in their jobs.
I happen to know several gay men in all the above professions, and I know
them to be at the worst, compentent professionals.  And when they leave the
office/whatever, the facade goes up.  And no difference is made if I'm 
wrong about them being in the minority.  The original post that I replied to
stated that, if memory serves (and usually doesn't), stated that gay men
were categorized as to behavior and that a sweeping generalization was made
(incorrectly) regarding them.  I was merely posting a reply.

>                                         Of this group of 40 or more gay
> men, there are *maybe* 10 that act within the confines of normal society
> enough for me (and many of *MY* friends) to interact with comfortably.  The

RH> Well, I guess the other 30 guys aren't friends of yours, huh?
Pretty, much.  So?  If I choose not to be made uncomfortable with overtly
flamboyant queen behavior, that's my choice.  But that's not an excluder.
I consider (nearly) all of them to be on friendly terms with me (I dunno,
now that this thread is going:).  
  > Maybe you should try to understand where the more flamboyant homosexuals
  > are coming from and defend them from assholes like Eddie Murphy and
Not my problem, dude. I'm going into criminal psych, not adjustment.  I
defend the gay community from bashing as much as possible, but I find it
very difficult to follow why this behavior occurs.  Consequently, I have a 
much harder time accepting it.  Existentialist to the core that I am, I'll
help as much as possible, but they made their choices to stay in the fringe
and if it creates abuse for them, their behavior patterns aren't set in stone 
any more than mine are.  Living on the fringes of any group places a small
to medium sized target on your chest.  Sometimes people will shoot.
I'm not sure what *really* makes me uncomfortable with them, but after years
of discussion on the subject, I know I'm not alone.
  > Andrew Dice Clay.  Maybe they don't want to act _like_ you (presuming
I would think that they don't have to act _like_ me to act normally.
  > you act "normally").  Are they hurting you?  Maybe hurting your reputation?
I do act "normally", as *I* see that term.  And I know that not everyone does 
act normally, as *they* see it.
I assert this: When someone chooses to act radically apart from the norm, not 
considering wandering gurus and visions from $DIETY but a behavior that's as 
easy to put on as a suit of clothes, then this is an attention-ploy at
its simplest.
No, they aren't hurting me.   No, they don't hurt my reputation, shoddy as
that probably is :).  But I lack understanding, which causes radical misfires
in me cortex.  Like I said above, I don't really know what causes me to be
irritated with such behavior.  Could be that it bothers me not to know 
everything, could be that it I'm mildly homophobic, could be that it bothers
me to see people doing something that I consider degrading to them and I 
just can't really keep my nose out of their business.
But my introspection isn't something I care to post too much of here.

  > If the answer to both those questions is "no," then maybe burn a little
  > incense and try to be tolerant. Jeez.

Tolerance, sir, has been a thing I have shown more of a great deal of.  I also
retain a freedom of choice and evaluation of my surroundings that comes
*way* before the attitude meter says it's time to be more understanding.
I tolerate this behavior, but it's pretty degrading to be _tolerated_, IMO. 
I just cannot believe that the pertinent (sp?) behavior is anything but a 
mask to deny their true selves.  Sort of a spit in the face of the society 
that shuns them.  

That'll work.  "Spit in the face now, and someday they'll accept us"
Doubtful.
-Mykel

Note: For all the readers/possible contributors to this thread.  If you want 
to make comments about whether homosexuality is, in general, acceptable, 
please start another thread.  This *particular* discussion is regarding whether
a subset of homosexuals is a minority or not, and some ramifications of that.
It's not an open invitation for gay-bashing.  Thanks.

 -- SPEED 1.20 [NR]: As King Arthur said: Some days it all seems so feudal.
                                                                                                            
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk