From:    Diane Vera
To:      Heq
Subject: Gay vs. hetero "public displays"

See my forthcoming message to you in MUNDANE.
.
I too am offended by MOST "public displays" of heterosexuality (not
ALL such displays, as I will explain in my message in MUNDANE).  What
bothers me is  *NOT*  heterosexuality itself, but rather the
*attitudes*  that all too often accompany heterosexuality in this
male-supremacist society.  I wonder if homosexuality seems more
"sophisticated" and "refined" to you because, if the partners are of
the same sex, it's less likely that one partner will regard the other
as an inferior creature, and hence the interaction usually has fewer
bad-vibes undertones.
.
Now, everyone, let's continue this thread in MUNDANE ....

From:    Heq
To:      Random                                   Msg #130, 03-Mar-91  07:30am
Subject: Re: public display

  You're deliberately misreading what I wrote. We were discussing personal
feelings towards public displays of passion. If one dislikes public display,
that's not bigotry, it's just dislike. Is one now to apologize for that as
well? I gave a reason for my dislike which is a FEELING. Why do you now
inappropriately bring in logic to refute the feeling? "Gut reactions" don't
necessarily coincide with reality. To suggest otherwise is in itself
illogical, my friend.

However, if you mean to suggest that I am innately prejudiced towards
heterosexual self-pride, of course I am. All minorities are prejudiced against
majority chauvinism because the majority must be monitored to keep it from
bullying the minority. Moreover, since there are too many people in the world,
heterosexuality at this stage in the world's history should no longer
automatically be accepted as the "best" orientation. It leads to unwanted,
unnecessary reproduction.

It's anti-social.

I wish this generation would come down off its highly inflated moral
self-congratulation with regard to "tolerance".  One cannot help what
the body is and does, but attitudes of the mind should be constantly
updated on the basis of what is appropriate for their changing context.
It is sensible to be unprejudiced with regad to race or sexual practices,
but it is counter-productive to defend the majority condition with too
much vigor.

As for Heinlein's categories -- Heinlein himself was a typical male chauvinist
jock and a jerk when it comes to sex. One sex is considerably closer to
reality than seven. Even two is an exaggeration.


From:    Diane Vera
To:      Random                                   Msg #26, 03-Mar-91  07:57pm
Subject: Gay vs. hetero "public display"

In a February 18 message to Mark Chao in MagickNet (wrong echo!  tsk!
tsk! tsk!), Heq wrote:
.
			 Heq >    I wonder why it is that you, a heterosexual, also
			 get put off by "passionate displays" of hets.  I dislike
			 public displays from both groups, but my gut reaction is
			 that heterosexuality is a giving way to mere animal
			 instinct, whereas homosexuality is more sophisticated?
			 human? developed? refined?  Can't find the best word.
.
Of course, Heq got jumped on.  It was inevitable that someone would
say, not merely that Heq is bigoted, but that  Heq's  *just as*
bigoted as Atrox!  This someone happened to be you in your February 25
message to Heq (also in MagickNet!  tsk! tsk! tsk!).   For all their
complaints about how "oversensitive" minorities are, the privileged
sure can be sensitive on those rare occasions when it's THEIR turn.
.
I too oppose anti-heterosexual prejudice  -  of which I myself am
sometimes a victim.  I am bisexual, and as such am not fully accepted
within the lesbian community.  But let's keep things in perspective.
.
I think perhaps I can understand where Heq's gut reaction is coming
from.  As I said to Heq earlier today in MagickNet (tsk! tsk! tsk! on
me too!  -  but I wanted to provide continuity between the thread
there and the thread here, plus a teaser to get interested readers to
look at MUNDANE), I too am offended by MOST "public displays" of
heterosexuality  -  but not ALL such displays (as I will clarify
below).
.
What bothers me is  *not*  heterosexuality itself, but rather the
attitudes that all too often accompany heterosexuality in this
male-supremacist society.  Patriarchal sexual attitudes are still
deeply embedded in today's culture, even our very language:  the man
"has" the woman, she's "been had", and to "get screwed" means to have
something bad happen to you.
.
I am NOT offended by hetero "public displays" between feminist-minded
women and feminist-minded men, who unfortunately are not very common.
I also am NOT offended by "public displays" at S/M clubs, as long as
it's clear that however much erotic "humiliation" is being inflicted,
the dominant still respects the submissive as a human being.
Fortunately, the agreed-upon ethic of the S/M world (at least within
the more organized sector thereof)  *IS*  conducive to such mutual
respect.

From:    Diane Vera
To:      Heq                                      Msg #27, 03-Mar-91  08:01pm
Subject: Gay vs. hetero "public displays"

In your March 3 message to Random in the MagickNet MAGICK echo, you
wrote:
.
			 Heq >  It is sensible to be unprejudiced with regard to
			 race or sexual practices, but it is counter-productive to
			 defend the majority condition with too much vigor.
.
Thank you for that statement!  It looks like I'm about to get
embroiled in a similar argument here in MUNDANE.  See the message I'll
soon be writing to Tony Iannotti on "False Symmetry" below.
.
See also my message to Random above (here in MUNDANE).  It contains
the explanation I promised in my message to you in MagickNet.
.
I think perhaps I can understand your gut reaction against
heterosexual "public display".  I wonder if homosexuality seems more
"sophisticated" and "refined" to you because, if the partners are of
the same sex, it's less likely that one partner will regard the other
as an inferior creature, and hence the interaction usually has fewer
bad-vibes undertones.
.
In a February 25 message to you in MagickNet, Random correctly pointed
out that heterosexuality  *isn't*  more "animalistic" than
homosexuality, since there are plenty of nonhuman animals that
"indulge in homoerotic behaviour".   As we all know, the misconception
that all non-human animals are hetero is a standard argument of
*anti-gay*  bigots, who say homosexuality is "unnatural".   While I
disagree with your apparent anti-heterosexual prejudice, I enjoyed the
way you turned the "unnatural" argument on its head.

From:    Heq
To:      Diane Vera                               Msg #41, 07-Mar-91  02:42am
Subject: Re: Gay vs. hetero "public displays"

 Your idea that my feelings against het display involve reaction to
inferior/superior roles strikes me as very intelligent. I wish I
could say that this is the reason I'm repelled by it, but the truth
is my
"gut reaction" is more likely to based on the underlying assumption that it is
good, proper, healthy, "correct", etc. to be het -- hence display
merely emphasizes that.  On the other hand homosexual display is considered
wrong, "unnatural", etc. and hence socially incorrect. I think it is this that
arouses my reaction against hets.  They seem arrogant and smug to me, not
worthy of respect or sympathy.

From:    Charles Nemo
To:      Heq                                      Msg #42, 07-Mar-91  05:29pm
Subject: Re: Gay vs. hetero "public displays"

Well said.  I am convinced that it is not just the heterosexuals expressing
superiority.  More basically it is the xtian monotheistic value system that
condemns everything different.  As I mentioned in another posting recently,
fundamentalist xtianity is the perfect vehicle for projecting evil onto
different sexualities, races, religions, politics, etc.  People of different
races probably have the toughest time of all, since color can't be hidden in
most cases.  One can generally disguise one's sexual preference, religion,
politics, etc., although it is tremendously damaging to self-esteem to do so.
Environmentalists, pacifists, Satanists, etc. probably all get tired of smug
treatment by the great vanilla fundie majority....