What if...

[Everose]

I don't feel females stressed their differences to obtain the rights they have.

Nor were they encouraged to hide the fact they were female in order for society to accept them.

At least I've never heard of a "closet female".
Though it seems a likely place to find one.

AfterBurn, imo the point was originally about flaunting, or stressing a difference. Not about hiding.

I have relatives and friends who have sexual preferences that differ from mine. I want them to have the same rights I have. We have many things in common, the major one being we are human beings with a lot of the same needs. Stressing those things in common instead of those ways we differ may help them obtain the rights they deserve.

[Busyman]

Nor were they encouraged to hide the fact they were female in order for society to accept them.

At least I've never heard of a "closet female".
Though it seems a likely place to find one.

AfterBurn, imo the point was originally about flaunting, or stressing a difference. Not about hiding.

I have relatives and friends who have sexual preferences that differ from mine. I want them to have the same rights I have. We have many things in common, the major one being we are human beings with a lot of the same needs and a right to them.

So you are cool with folks having polygamous marriages then.

[j2k4]

I doubt you would change your personality "to be accepted". You do of course hit the problematic nail squarely on the head.

"If you want to be accepted stop being you"

This is not acceptance and the only correct response should be a big F**k you.


But then when I see or hear a camp gay person I don't feel the need to imagine him having sex and I doubt they wish that I did.

I didn't say "I don't accept...", now, did I?

I said, "I accept on my terms..." which does not make me a bad, racist or bigoted person; it makes me just like you, vid.

If you deny my logic, then how can you even argue with me?

"Acceptance" would preclude argument, you see.

Neither did I say anything to the effect of, "I can't be in the presence of a gay person without imagining them having gay sex...".

For once and all, this is about the media, not me.

[j2k4]

I mean ' a taboo out of the way' as in;
There is no desire to see men having a sexual relationship, in fact, most men I know find it disturbing in one way or another and would frown upon anything alike shown freely on television.


As for that same issue that most men don't like the idea of two men having intercourse and the gay community wanting exactly that...

I'm not too sure about that one, but maybe it's some sort of objection to modern sexism. After all, no one would object to seeing some girl on girl action, so why shouldn't we watch men on men action as well?

Hmmm.

Girl on girl doesn't do as much for me as I gather it does others, it seems.

If it's about fantasizing (and it is, right?), I can't mentally insinuate myself into that particular situation.

I'd have thought "out of the way" meant the taboo of the depiction of gay sex in a mainstream movie, and if that is indeed the intent, it can only be concluded by conducting an enforced viewing on the part of straight males, because if they don't attend on their own, the taboo cannot be said to have been done away with.

By extension, the gay lobby could only discard the taboo when such a movie actually does make Matrix-money, and they can assume every movie-fan in the country has seen it because it's a great movie, instead of having stayed away for "other" reasons.

Merely awarding Oscars will not have the desired effect, I don't think.

[Everose]

AfterBurn, imo the point was originally about flaunting, or stressing a difference. Not about hiding.

I have relatives and friends who have sexual preferences that differ from mine. I want them to have the same rights I have. We have many things in common, the major one being we are human beings with a lot of the same needs and a right to them.

So you are cool with folks having polygamous marriages then.

I don't have a problem with that, Busy.

[tantric]

AfterBurn, imo the point was originally about flaunting, or stressing a difference. Not about hiding.

I was only attempting to elucidate.

Rather than comparing apple to apples, you were liking tomatoes to bananas.



But a fruit's a fruit I suppose.

[Everose]

AfterBurn, imo the point was originally about flaunting, or stressing a difference. Not about hiding.

I was only attempting to elucidate.

Rather than comparing apple to apples, you were liking tomatoes to bananas.



But a fruit's a fruit I suppose.

Actually, I wouldn't call either a fruit.

[Skweeky1]

Cuz it's just icky.

I don't think it's icky...
My point is...
I don't have the desire to watch any hardcore pornography whereas my boyfriend does seem to enjoy things like that.
I do, however, enjoy watching erotic movies (Emanuelle and the likes) or even erotic pictures.
I also enjoy flipping through a Maplethorpe book.
BUT, I enjoy those things at two different levels. One on a sexual level, the other on an artistic level.
Maybe that's the way to look at it...

[j2k4]

Cuz it's just icky.

I don't think it's icky...
My point is...
I don't have the desire to watch any hardcore pornography whereas my boyfriend does seem to enjoy things like that.
I do, however, enjoy watching erotic movies (Emanuelle and the likes) or even erotic pictures.
I also enjoy flipping through a Maplethorpe book.
BUT, I enjoy those things at two different levels. One on a sexual level, the other on an artistic level.
Maybe that's the way to look at it...

Two points, then:

1. The Oscars are cinematic awards, given to foment interest among the hoi polloi, who aren't sufficiently gifted to appreciate a category (were it to exist) titled Greatest Artistic Achievement.

2. Were the Oscars awarded on artistic merit alone, they would sink/rise to a level of interest well beyond the public's ability/inclination to engage.

In fact, I think they're almost there now...