Doogie Howser 'MO

[Chris_Doane]

Heh, well the current parade out of the closet continues. Color me shocked

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P...-11-03-22-36-26

You're next Anderson Cooper...

Edited November 4, 2006 by CD/BP

[ocnblu]

Yeah, Doogie's been doing the Doggie. Not a huge shock as the gay press has been hinting at this for years.

It's pretty hilarious to see the determined denial in the congregation members interviewed in the Evangelical leader's gay scandal... even after a partial admission right off the bat. Shades of "I did not inhale..."

For me (and please don't be too angry with what I'm about to say), between this, other isolated incidents and the whole Catholic abuse debacle, organized religion has become a joke. The faithful look like fools in the face of all this. Believe in God if it is right for you, read your texts, interpret them for yourselves, but don't depend on others to dictate what your faith should look like.

Which takes us back to this: real, secure straight guys are too busy chasing pu**y to even care what gay guys are doing. And that's just fine. It's all these overly-fascinated haters that you have to watch. They're like ticking time bombs, and it's sad.

[Croc]

so he's gay...big f@#king deal

[Paolino]

I swear, I should keep track of how many times my gaydar is right. I pegged him YEARS ago. And TR Knight :AH-HA_wink:

[NOS2006]

so he's gay...big f@#king deal

212035[/snapback]

Isn't it great how somebody got paid money to interview him and write a little blog about how he's openly gay? So very dumb.

[regfootball]

Which takes us back to this:  real, secure straight guys are too busy chasing pu**y to even care what gay guys are doing.  And that's just fine.

212033[/snapback]

it all tastes good, some of us like Italian, and some like Mexican. Both are zesty though!

that's what makes America great. except toyota. toyota blows.

Edited November 4, 2006 by regfootball

[Flybrian]

Makes his ranting in Harold and Kumar even more ironic

[usonia]

I never thought twice about Doogie being gay. My gaydar never was well developed.

I hate to admit it, but I do get some amount of pleasure from this whole Haggart fiasco. I know I shouldn't benefit from the troubles of other people, but he's such a freakin' hypocrite, I can't help it. I do feel sorry for his wife and his family for what they are going through.

The softie in me even feels a small amount of sympathy for him. Even though his situation was of his own making, I can't imagine being in that position. I would have had a mental meltdown ages ago.

[lakefire]

Which takes us back to this:  real, secure straight guys are too busy chasing pu**y to even care what gay guys are doing.  And that's just fine. 

212033[/snapback]

So that's what I've been doing the past many years?

[Drew Dowdell]

You're next Anderson Cooper...

212005[/snapback]

Anderson Cooper doesn't actively hide it. Just because he hasn't been on the cover of Time with "Yep! I'm Gay!" doesn't mean he's not out.

[ocnblu]

It's really goofy that anyone would allow themselves to be on the cover of Time or People with that kind of headline. Can't he just bring a cute guy to an awards dinner or something? That Backstreet Boy looked like such a dweeb doing that. His bf is hot though.

[trinacriabob]

Always late and clueless...just read it on the front page of msn.com last night. Did not read the article. Had neither the time nor desire.

The parade of who's into dudes (both voluntary and involuntary disclosure) has been rather boring lately. So what.

Gimme some of those LESBIANS in the entertainment world coming out. Not much of that lately. Sorry, but lesbians have that EDGE that gay guys don't. And it makes me very combative toward them...there's one at work who is a complete bitch that I got into some hefty trouble about 3 weeks ago...she is the aknowledged "resident troublemaker" in the firm and an executive in the firm "alluded" to the fact that she is on the brink of dismissal for work and conduct reasons, so I am not off-base here. All the lezzies that come out have that hardness about them (Rosie, Jodie, Melissa, Ellen and K.D. Lang)...all so brittle and calloused in their own way. The gay guys are nowhere near as provocative.

Edited November 5, 2006 by trinacriabob

[razoredge]

It's really goofy that anyone would allow themselves to be on the cover of Time or People with that kind of headline.

Not goofy.....thats a gay attention whore "hey everybody look at me...hehehehehe"

The thing about gay guys poping up in religion.......is so obvious......my daughter and I just had a talk about this for her psychology class. I cant believe so many people dont get it. It will be great when the religious repression of same sex people ends and they stop running to God to try to be cured.

One of the men I rented this house from and then bought it from was a Catholic priest.......if he wasnt born gay Ill eat my old socks. He had the voice, the features, all the characteristics. He was also one great guy. When he first bought the house and came to see me, he lowered my rent. Then when he held the mortgage it had a "spring mud season" clause in it so I could fall behind during spring as long as I caught right back up over the summer. I sure hope he has not had any alterboy urges, I actually figure him to be above that.

My sisters first boyfriend..........if he was not gay.......Ill eat another sock. He had all the characteristics. He was ultra religious and so became my sister. Shortly after they went off to college, he broke their relationship off and went into what ever school its called for Methodist Ministers. My theory is that he had some experience occur and ran to hide behind God and be cured of his "sins".

This is my 100% belief, these guys are scared by their tendencies and scared by a lifetime of religious badgering that makes them feel sinful. So they run to God in hopes of being cured and loosing all sexual tendencies. Well....ya know what.....we're all human and sex is a very powerful part of our makeup. Some just cant hold up and .........ew!........look to young boys.....ew!........for relief? Thats kinda freeky........the young boy thing........I dont think I should have gone there. But anyhow I dont believe they all started out as pedofiles, just scared gay men going to the wrong place in search of santuary.

Perhaps this is another form of "timebomb"

However as has been proven "comming out of the closet" is not all its cracked up to be.

[ocnblu]

Razor, for all your sharp edges, that was actually a pretty insightful post, imo. I believe pretty much the same thing about a lot of clergy. Opression and repression are very harmful phenomena, and it makes sense that some people would immerse themselves in religion to take their mind off their worldly needs, if they themselves deem those needs sinful. But God himself (if you believe in him, if not, biology) made us sexual beings. We cannot run from that forever. So many pathologies root in sexual repression.

[trinacriabob]

Razor, for all your sharp edges, that was actually a pretty insightful post, imo 

212317[/snapback]

Damn you, PB, does that mean razor makes insightful posts and I don't??? :AH-HA_wink:

[ocnblu]

Bobby, your edges aren't sharp. They're soft and feminine, like a Summer's Eve.

[trinacriabob]

Bobby, your edges aren't sharp.  They're soft and feminine, like a Summer's Eve.  

212328[/snapback]

Typical a-hole always on the lookout for "clues"...just as I pointed out in a previous post.

[ocnblu]

Will you quit? Nothing in my post suggests anything about your sex thing. You put it there, I didn't.

[Enzora]

Razor, for all your sharp edges, that was actually a pretty insightful post, imo.  I believe pretty much the same thing about a lot of clergy.  Opression and repression are very harmful phenomena, and it makes sense that some people would immerse themselves in religion to take their mind off their worldly needs, if they themselves deem those needs sinful.  But God himself (if you believe in him, if not, biology) made us sexual beings.  We cannot run from that forever.  So many pathologies root in sexual repression.

212317[/snapback]

Yup. Unfortunately, I doubt an organization like the Catholic Church would be very cooperative in a psychological study to get some concrete evidence about this sort of stuff.

[razoredge]

I saw a program concerning sexuality and repression of it and the current one we are comming out of dated to, I believe the "Victorian" period. I didnt strike it all to memory and it was a few years ago. Prior to that everyone was nothin but a bunch of perverts.........too......... We all know the Romans were'nt shy........they even had giant open........public restrooms............now that was sick.

[Chris_Doane]

Typical a-hole always on the lookout for "clues"...just as I pointed out in a previous post.

212331[/snapback]

Sorry but if anyone is an a-hole lately, its you.

Maybe you should try this:

[ocnblu]

Razor, you just went dull on me. Peeing and pooping aren't "sick"... lack of them are, however. I guess for the Romans it was no big deal because everybody did it. Just look to little kids for guidance... when they have to go, they just speak up and tell their mommy or daddy.

Having said that... I am the most poopshy person I know when in a public restroom. The room has to be empty before I do what I need to do. And public restrooms without piped-in music, don't get me started... :AH-HA_wink:

[trinacriabob]

Yup.  Unfortunately, I doubt an organization like the Catholic Church would be very cooperative in a psychological study to get some concrete evidence about this sort of stuff.

212333[/snapback]

OK, this has turned the tide toward religion. I'm a loosely practicing Catholic (it suits me better than do the other religions). I've always thought that the clergy should be allowed to marry. It would increase the number called to that vocation who may have avoided it because of the celibacy requirement, would proportionately decrease the number of those who are in it for the "wrong" reason and would equalize the Catholic church with the other Christian denominations where this is allowed -- even the closest kin, which is the Greek Orthodox church, where their clergy can marry.

Still, through 16 years of Catholic school, I've never encountered any "problems," as most of the religious people (and most of the teachers/profs were actually lay people) were there to help me and educate me. I'd like to think they did a good job. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. However, I will add that some of the religious people were slightly "odd," for whatever that's worth.

[Enzora]

Razor, you just went dull on me.  Peeing and pooping aren't "sick"... lack of them are, however.  I guess for the Romans it was no big deal because everybody did it. 

212338[/snapback]

And when your sewage system doubles as your streets, you probably get less fussy about such things.

[trinacriabob]

Sorry but if anyone is an a-hole lately, its you.

Maybe you should try this:

212336[/snapback]

Thanks, Chris.

[Chris_Doane]

Thanks, Chris.

212341[/snapback]

You're welcome.

[Enzora]

OK, this has turned the tide toward religion.  I'm a loosely practicing Catholic (it suits me better than do the other religions). I've always thought that the clergy should be allowed to marry.  It would increase the number called to that vocation who may have avoided it because of the celibacy requirement, would  proportionately decrease the number of those who are in it for the "wrong" reason and would equalize the Catholic church with the other Christian denominations where this is allowed -- even the closest kin, which is the Greek Orthodox church, where their clergy can marry.

Still, through 16 years of Catholic school, I've never encountered any "problems," as most of the religious people (and most of the teachers/profs were actually lay people) were there to help me and educate me.  I'd like to think they did a good job.  I'd do it again in a heartbeat.  However, I will add that some of the religious people were slightly "odd," for whatever that's worth.

212339[/snapback]

I was raised Catholic as well, was an altar boy, and never had any problems either. In fact, the priest at the church I grew up at is still one of the people I most admire. But there is one man I went to church with who's the classic old school southern, not out of the closet because he doesn't need to be, because everyone knows it, and just carries on with their happy denial, who was pressured by his family to go into the priesthood, but didn't.

The Catholic Church is a fascinating organization, as much a political entity as religious (See: Benedict's comments on Muslims) that's quite progressive in some ways, yet held back in many others, due to tradition and its sheer size.

[Flybrian]

What's with the low-key anihomosity in here?

[ocnblu]

Hahaha, Fly, you're brilliant. That extra "ho" made it a whole new word! Edited November 6, 2006 by ocnblu

[razoredge]

Heated running water and flush toilets rule !

Priests and Nuns should be allowed to marry and "have a life", how can we have people guiding us when they "have not been there". To me it seems the Catholic religion is so out of touch with socioty. Yet extremes "sins" are OK so long as you confess, you can always be forgivin and start anew. So maybe if Priests and Nuns marry, then go to confession once a month and confess their marraige, they will be forgiven and can go on and live a "sinful" but natural life for another month.

Its all so confusing

[usonia]

Related to this topic, did anyone see the episode of 'American Dad' last night? That was just way too funny.

[the_yellow_dart]

For me (and please don't be too angry with what I'm about to say), between this, other isolated incidents and the whole Catholic abuse debacle, organized religion has become a joke.  The faithful look like fools in the face of all this.  Believe in God if it is right for you, read your texts, interpret them for yourselves, but don't depend on others to dictate what your faith should look like.

212033[/snapback]

Quoted for truth

Which takes us back to this:  real, secure straight guys are too busy chasing pu**y to even care what gay guys are doing.  And that's just fine.  It's all these overly-fascinated haters that you have to watch.  They're like ticking time bombs, and it's sad.[/b]

212033[/snapback]

This will hit some selected straight guys - those who were fans of the show. If you care enough about a celebrity because you are a fan, you will care about their sexuality, because their person interests you. I would be interested to know if certain musicians came out of the closet - not because I want to bash them, but because I am genuinely interested in finding out about their life, and all the "Behind the Music"-type details.

Gimme some of those LESBIANS in the entertainment world coming out.  Not much of that lately.

212263[/snapback]

The gay community needs a lot more support than the lesbian community. All the homophobes go after men, for some dumb reason.

[Croc]

All the homophobes go after men, for some dumb reason.

212544[/snapback]

That is so far from the truth! Back in HS 3 girls in the group I hung out with a lot ended up being bisexual or lesbian...and each of them had to endure quite a bit.

[the_yellow_dart]

That is so far from the truth!  Back in HS 3 girls in the group I hung out with a lot ended up being bisexual or lesbian...and each of them had to endure quite a bit.

212547[/snapback]

OK, so there are exceptions - I'm not saying lesbians live hassle-free lives. However, men do seem to get a lot more flack than women for being gay.

[The O.C.]

I for one.....think he is sexier than hell......!

[Croc]

OK, so there are exceptions - I'm not saying lesbians live hassle-free lives. However, men do seem to get a lot more flack than women for being gay.

212573[/snapback]

At least to your knowledge.

[Mr.Krinkle]

so, who gets the toaster?

[ocnblu]

Come on Croc, it is common knowledge that gay men are reviled more than gay women.

Put into one perspective, more straight men have a fantasy about two women getting together than straight women have about two men. Think about it.

More narrow-minded people see gay men as weak and gay women as strong.

When there are no opposite-sex people around, women are allowed, some may say expected, to rely on each other, where men are supposed to be stoic and self-reliant.

Women are given carte blanche to show affection toward each other, to compliment each other on physicality. Men are conditioned to never voice an opinion about another's appearance.

There is a whole world out there to prove Mr. Dart's hypothesis.

Edited November 6, 2006 by ocnblu

[the_yellow_dart]

I seem to have aquired a Croc-sheild named ocnblu....

[ocnblu]

Sorry to interfere, Mr. Dart. It's just that when an unnecessarily contrary-to-common sense comment is made, I tend to speak up about it. :AH-HA_wink:

[sciguy_0504]

Some people like to make it out like religion is the sole force against homosexuality but I disagree. The religious bigots are vocal about their opposition but you're forgetting about the silent majority. There are some things that will not be accepted in society, at least openly, and some people see that as a good thing. I am not religious but I have an overall favorable view of religion (at least most of them) because it is the last group of people to judge others on their actions, words, opinions, etc. It is the last blockade against acceptance of anything and everything. There is a difference between good/evil and black/white. All you have to do is look at Europe to see how multiculturalism and that "accept anything and everything" mentality destroys cultures and countries.

I know Wikipedia isn't viewed as a reliable source but this is an well supported article on multiculturalism: how it begun, what it is about and the reactions to it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

I believe if people would stop feeling the need to come out of the closet and scream to the heavens that they are gay (celebrities and normal people alike) the gay community would gain more acceptance. If you don't want people to focus on sexual orientation and make a big deal about it, why are you doing it? Personally, as a bisexual person, I see no need for those disgusting gay pride parades or rainbow flags, etc. I learned the other day bisexuals even have their own symbol and flag! Give me a break.

I would also like to point out there are gay bigots who are just as bad as religious bigots. Take Rosie O'Donnell (sp?) for instance. Her comment about Christians being a bigger threat than Muslims gave me a laugh. I guess she hasn't heard what Muslims do to homosexuals. I'll give her a hint: it's a lot worse than not supporting gay marriage.

[razoredge]

EXCELLENT POST ! sciguy, if you can believe I said that. Truth to the bone! We are all so f@#kin sick and tired of all this $h! being thrown in our face. There is far to much attentioin whoring going on with this "gay community". To the point of being aggressive, highly aggressive, they need to get over themselves and get on with life and out of our face. Its not our fault, nor should it be our problem.

The real problem is how the Man is keeping us Leftys down ! We were once beaten and had our fingers broke for writting in the hand of the devil..........little has changed, they still try to make us write with our papers turned 90* so our friggin letters slope the "correct" way. They insist on making us sit next to Righties while eating rather than our rightful place at the head of the table. They make us reach across the plate to get to our drinks. There in never a full selection of proper handed guitars to choose from in music stores. Siccors cut into the fingers. When have you ever seen a cup holder or ash tray located on the left side of the drivers seat ? Have you ever seen a rightie switch hands to shake with a lefty......NOOOO!...its always us bending over backwards to make things easy for ol rightie......after all they are a bit challenged

Stupid left brainers anyhow..........its no wonder the world is in such a shambles.

But you will never hear a lefty complain, start a parade, carry on in the streets, march on Washington, waste countless tax payers dollars in an effort to validate our situation..............NO !............NOT LEFTY !.........we just go on about our marry way knowing the rest of you's are inferior !

Here....heres a little dance for lefty.........

[razoredge]

Come on Croc, it is common knowledge that gay men are reviled more than gay women. 

Put into one perspective, more straight men have a fantasy about two women getting together than straight women have about two men.  Think about it.

More narrow-minded people see gay men as weak and gay women as strong.

When there are no opposite-sex people around, women are allowed, some may say expected, to rely on each other, where men are supposed to be stoic and self-reliant.

Women are given carte blanche to show affection toward each other, to compliment each other on physicality.  Men are conditioned to never voice an opinion about another's appearance.

There is a whole world out there to prove Mr. Dart's hypothesis. 

212752[/snapback]

You dont understand any of this ? Its so obvious what the difference is between women and men in natural affection, nuturing and their needs for "touch". Anyhow the acceptence is not that of a bull dyke and a typical feminine woman.........its always of two feminine women. Bull dykes disgust us too, theres something wrong upstairs with a woman that tapes her chest flat, gets a crue cut and wears mens clothes and army boots. That sure as hell is no turn on for straight men at least typical straight men. Its fully loaded, bisexual women that us straight guys are alright with, they are just horny highly sexual women, all of which is a plus.

The few highly sexual girls I have known have stated being turned on by the idea of two guys........truth ! We all know women have more of a thing about their sexual secrecy than men. Its very hard to get a "fantacy" out of a woman, for some damn reason the few (four intimate relationships) I have gotten one out of ....it has been of bisexual men...

Finally "Doogie" is no charm, not a good looking man, not manly at all, and certainly no replacement for a woman, sorry

[Croc]

Come on Croc, it is common knowledge that gay men are reviled more than gay women.

I think the religious right condemns both pretty equally. Gay men are just far more visible than lesbians. It is far more socially acceptable for women to be unmarried to a member of the opposite sex than men, though. Men are suspected as gay if they don't date and get married. I definitely remember a media brouhaha when Anne Heche and Ellen Degeneres came out together. I'm also pretty sure it caused Ellen's career to tank on TV for 5 years.

Put into one perspective, more straight men have a fantasy about two women getting together than straight women have about two men.  Think about it.

Do you have credible research on this? Because I have many many female friends who think two gay guys are really hot together. Just sayin...I think it depends on whom you talk to.

More narrow-minded people see gay men as weak and gay women as strong.

Yet societal pressures generally vilify strong women, gay or straight.

When there are no opposite-sex people around, women are allowed, some may say expected, to rely on each other, where men are supposed to be stoic and self-reliant.

Now this is just flat-out wrong. Men feel a need to appear strong to the opposite sex, but I think popular, common phrases like "bros before hos" and "help a brother out" pretty much show men stick together too. Name a man who refuses "guys night out." Football and beer? The entire existence of the Fraternity system is proof that guys form bonds with other guys and help each other out.

Women are given carte blanche to show affection toward each other, to compliment each other on physicality.  Men are conditioned to never voice an opinion about another's appearance.

Guys do it too, just differently. We say "nice shirt" and pass a beer instead of throwing our hands to our mouths and screaming "OH! MY! GOD!!!! I LOVE THAT SHIRT!!!" As far as never voicing an opinion about another's appearance...yea you prolly won't hear too many hetero guys saying "that dude was kinda hot" but you'll most certainly hear a "man that dude was RIPPED!" from time to time...

There is a whole world out there to prove Mr. Dart's hypothesis. 

212752[/snapback]

Yea, if you only look for what you want to see.

See, I got into a lot of trouble at lunch back in HS for making (in retrospect) asinine statements like "lesbians have it better than gay men." How many lesbians are you really close too, blu? Just curious...

Edited November 7, 2006 by Croc

[Croc]

You dont understand any of this ? Its so obvious what the difference is between women and men in natural affection, nuturing and their needs for "touch". Anyhow the acceptence is not that of a bull dyke and a typical feminine woman.........its always of two feminine women. Bull dykes disgust us too, theres something wrong upstairs with a woman that tapes her chest flat, gets a crue cut and wears mens clothes and army boots. That sure as hell is no turn on for straight men at least typical straight men. Its fully loaded, bisexual women that us straight guys are alright with, they are just horny highly sexual women, all of which is a plus.

The few highly sexual girls I have known have stated being turned on by the idea of two guys........truth ! We all know women have more of a thing about their sexual secrecy than men. Its very hard to get a "fantacy" out of a woman, for some damn reason the few (four intimate relationships) I have gotten one out of ....it has been of bisexual men...  

Finally "Doogie" is no charm, not a good looking man, not manly at all, and certainly no replacement for a woman, sorry

212880[/snapback]

BINGO!! THANK YOU!!

[Croc]

I believe if people would stop feeling the need to come out of the closet and scream to the heavens that they are gay (celebrities and normal people alike) the gay community would gain more acceptance.  If you don't want people to focus on sexual orientation and make a big deal about it, why are you doing it?  Personally, as a bisexual person, I see no need for those disgusting gay pride parades or rainbow flags, etc.  I learned the other day bisexuals even have their own symbol and flag!  Give me a break.

212837[/snapback]

Wow I agree with a lot of what you've written there. I've never understood the whole "coming out" thing myself, and my bisexual/lesbian friends and even a couple of my gay fraternity brothers have tried to explain it as some "personal thing that really helps some people"...but I don't feel this overwhelming need to have a straight pride march, shout from the rooftops that I'm straight, or make a flag about it...I just live my life as who I am.

Then again, this whole myspace revolution of "personal expression" seems to be all the rage these days...

[Cory Wolfe]

Sorry Razor... I'm ambidextrous, so I'm not sure I see your point.

Anywho, Sciguy, I simply disagree. Maybe it's having grown up in a town where homosexuality is looked down upon moreso than in others. Maybe it's that I've had to put up with countless homophobic BS day in and day out. Maybe it's having to hide what I am in fear of confrontation for so long. Maybe it's seeing my friend get punched for no reason other than being "a f@#king faggot". Maybe all that has made me more passionate on this subject. This issue is just something that shouldn't be an issue at all. It should be accepted and it shouldn't be a big deal. It not being accepted and being a big deal in the first place has made the gay community what it is. It's all for getting the rights and equality that's deserved. Being silent and not being vocal about it is not going to get that. You need to be heard. That's why we have gay pride parades and why people make it a big deal when coming out. It's not, however, being made any bigger of a deal than it already is. It's no different than in the past with the african american rights movement and the woman's rights movement... or even before that with the religious movements, the grounds for which the US was founded. Now it's the heart of the gay rights movement. Nothing has changed, nothing is new, and nothing has been made into a bigger deal than any other... It's just the next step.

[trinacriabob]

Damn, I get out of a night time graduate accounting class and this thread is still raging.

As much as I like to give ocnblu $h! and as suspicious as he is, I will have to agree with what he said on one issue about societal views: gay men are seen as weak and lesbians are seen as strong. That is, if the gay men are effeminate and the lesbians are masculine. That's how they would be noticed...those who adhere to typical gender roles are more likely to blend in until they TELL US. I disagree on your assessment of the rigidity with which same gender acknowledgment takes place. That USED to be the case. Yes, ALL women have always been allowed to express affection and admiration. That is relaxing for men. All men know what is exemplary (looks, athletic ability, confidence) within their gender. You will now hear "Yeah, we just hired this new person - has good work experience, well-spoken, handsome...I think he'll do well" said by men. In Europe, they are super-relaxed about giving such compliments.

I think the reason for this dichotomy is that if a man is effeminate or weak, he is LESS than what he is supposed to be as a male specimen. On the other hand, if a woman is tough and can take a "bull by the horns," she is MORE than what is ascribed to the female gender. Society always rewards those that are MORE than what they are supposed to be, though in the case of lesbians, that might not be as true because it is usually accompanied by surliness, combativeness and a purposeful desire to act and look less than feminine (I'm talking about bull dykes, now).

I write an awful lot of negative comments about lesbians and few to none about (gay, bisexual, hetero) men and women who don't flaunt their sexuality. The reason I have an issue with lesbians is that I have met many MEAN ones and have had to work for some. Since they are not planning to have a man take care of them, some of them gravitate toward professions and can climb in accounting, architecture and law firms because they won't be rearing children and may not be involved in relationships. How would what lesbians do in bed affect my life? It doesn't. However, if they hate men, have a chip on their shoulder and are interested in keeping me down in my place, then I am impacted, aren't I? Prejudice is well-founded when you are on the receiving end of exclusionary treatment, and this includes some religious sects (Mormons, for instance, are highly nepotistic and hire their own. Well, gee, that impacts me, doesn't it?)

Back to sexuality, I think it is probably true that gay men get more flack than lesbians. However, in my place of work, deviating from the sexual baseline of heterosexuality, so to speak, is only met with coolness when it is (1) nauseatingly apparent, and (2) accompanied by a bad character and attitude. In that case, it is one slightly tomboyish and angry (probable) lesbian that is highly disliked by most people. And why do people dislike her? Because she is a bitch and not because of who she sleeps with.

The problem I see is that society makes this too big of a deal. A few people on the site are real big about proclaiming their sexual proclivities. That's fine. Sometimes, it's humorous. Sometimes, it's excessive. Aren't you much, much more than that so that it becomes something not even worth mentioning? I mean, you have a job, hobbies, skills and interests that what you do for 20 to 30 minutes and, on an occasional basis, shouldn't even define you?

That's my belief... people are much more than their sexuality. This stuff is interesting because having grown up in both the US and in Europe (4 years), there are big differences in the uptightness levels around this whole issue. Still, when it comes to lesbians, I prefer to err on the side of caution.

Edited November 7, 2006 by trinacriabob

[Z-06]

The answer to the question,

Why Gay men are despised more than women can be answered by one simple counter question.

Given a choice what would you (as a hetero sexual male) like to watch, a lesbian porn or sausage-fest gay porn?

In human world Dicks Rule (literally and physically), so it is obvious when dicks start to like dicks there is gonna be friction.

[Croc]

Yea...I personally find the stereotypical flaming gay personality very, very irritating. The bitchy, bull dyke/feminazi stereotype is equally annoying...

But there are far more flaming gay guys than feminazi lesbians in the world...and also since many more masculine lesbians are more low-key (as in knowing when to Chill Out) and in general operate at a lower frequency than flaming gay guys, yea the gay guys get more attention...and if that attention is negative then yes more negative attention...but I really don't think Americans overwhelmingly "don't disapprove of" lesbians but are revolted by gay men. I just don't see it. My friends have been assaulted and called nasty names with "dyke" keyed on their cars far too many times for me to believe that.