GP and Papaken et al,

Thank you for your clarification in your last post GP I appreciate the time you have taken to do that. I have read posts from you in the past and this seemed a bit out of character. I would like to say that on a much smaller level I do try my best to understand. When people where I live and especially where I work (academia) found out I was a mormon, the invitations for social events slowly dried up, they acted differently toward me, and I felt isolated and lonely. I secretly resented my mormonism as I saw it as a hurdle in my human connections. In a way I know how that feels. Is it the same? Of course not. But humanity is well acquainted with rejection and isolation as a whole. I'm so sorry that has happened to you because of something seemingly so normal to me. I'm an art professor and have had such prolonged and intimate friendships and interactions with so many in the LGBT community that I must not react the same way people have to you (I hope). I don't know, but I completely understand your p.o.v and agree, its terrible to live that way. I think I'll be more aware of my interactions now and make more effort to normalize anything that is not.

Papaken, to say "breeders" bred homosexuals is like saying parents are responsible for autism. Its a stretch at best and a bit narrow don't you think? DNA makes homosexuals and perhaps a bit of environment but nobody really knows, and frankly most of us don't even care how homosexuality occurs, it just does. Like brown hair or blonde. Both are ok with me.

I have three kids, I have not "bred" with my wife in order to have them. Just as you would, I assume, prefer to not have your sexual experiences reduced to a mere animal procreative act, neither would most people. Of course I'm making generalizations but I think semantics sends a message, and when referring to people in animal terms, one is not only debasing them, but making it clear that they are lesser, and their empathy is unneeded.

We all have skin in this game, whether its because family members or friends are gay, or because we are human beings that see others the same way. I don't know why I feel so passionate about this, I guess I get tired of having sand kicked in my face by both sides. I try to help and be empathetic to my LGBT friends and they spit insults to people like me, I try to teach bigots on the other side and they do the same. At some point I imagine I will just reach fatigue over the whole thing and give up, but not yet.

I really wish people would stop using the "breeders" term. Why is it that people without kids are called something breezy and positive sounding like "childfree" but people with kids are called "breeders" as though they were farm animals... Dehumanizing terminology is not ok no matter who uses it or why. People don't call black people "coloreds" for exactly the same reason that people shouldn't called those with kids "breeders."

As someone who has been part of the childfree community for many years, I will tell you that there is a *huge* differentiation between parents and "breeders" (which is a term that I do indeed see as offensive on some levels, but please bear with me) in those circles. Parents are people who actively take part in rearing their children as opposed to letting them run wild and rule the house. PNB is a commonly used abbreviation that means "parent, not breeder." The opposite number is BNP. A BNP is the one who doesn't care that their kid is running all over the restaurant pestering other customers, or potentially tripping a waiter with a tray full of hot food (for example).

With all of that said, though, to be perfectly honest -- we're mammals. Whether we pretty it up or not, when we choose to have offspring, we're breeding.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2013 05:04PM by Susan I/S.

For the record, I am gay and would never use the term "breeders". It is as derogatory as a gay slur.

I can certainly understand Gay Philosopher's frustrations about gay people facing descrimination outside of the church as well as inside of the church. He is frustrated and I hope he did not mean anything by that term. I am defending him because there was a time when I thought NO straight person could remotely understand what I was going through. Now I don't think that is the case at all. Everyone has their struggles and I think everyone has faced judgement and discrimination in their lives in one way or another.

I cannot give a big enough hug to all of you who are straight and that embrace and support your gay friends!! Truly, it means a lot. You restored my faith in humanity.

I'm not a breeder.

My wife and I are the happy and proud parents of four great kids.

Random thoughts:

1) I agree that the term "breeder" is dehumanizing and I personally don't use it outside the context of, say, academic discussion or in-group (gay) debate about gay political strategy.

2) Notwithstanding my own limitations on use of the term, I do understand that there has at times been a need for strong, radical gay movements and I won't chastise them for using this framing of the struggle while enjoying the concrete benefits of their work.

3) It's probably seldom if ever appropriate to say that it's just as bad for a minoritized group to use prejudicial language as it is for "mainstream" groups to use prejudicial language. What's the difference? Power. Gays can't control your job, your ability to marry, your acceptance into churches and other social groups, etc. Straight people CAN and DO engage in those behaviors regardless of what names we call them. The power of language is tied to socioeconomic power and our prejudiced terms (which I don't use, as I just explained) do not have the real life impact that the prejudice of the prototypical straight white male has.

4) I can't think of any group that is more frequently reduced to a (presumed) sex act than the gay population. I find myself calling people out on this very board for doing that all the time. Straight exmos need too lose the "being" vs. "doing" gay framing. My being gay is as much about the way I write, the way I arrange my furniture, who I get warm fuzzy feelings about, etc. as it is who I want to go to bed with. I hope the folks expressing negative feelings over their lives being reduced to a biological function will consider just to what extent that is done to gays.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2013 04:42PM by Inverso.

Hi Inverso,

Thanks for the interesting post. Your third point reminded me of something that I hadn't thought about in a long time. My friend Doug was married to a woman, but they divorced after counselling failed. Doug knew that he was gay, and that nothing was going to change that. He was terribly unhappy because he felt obligated to try to engage in sex with his wife, but found it repulsive. His father-in-law asked Doug to please divorce, and Doug did.

It was then that a hearbreaking set of events unfolded. Remember that both he and his ex-wife were Mormon. When Doug divorced his wife and decided to live openly as a gay man, news spread like wildfire. His apartment was broken into, and the inside trashed. "F-AG" was spray painted inside. Lots of his possessions were destroyed. He was fired from his job. He was maybe 24 at the time. Can you even begin to imagine how much he must have suffered--the sheer stress, the fear, the rejection (including from his family)? He was one of the greatest, most courageous, honest human beings that I've ever known, and an incredibly talented writer. To have lost him to suicide eight years later is unspeakably painful.

Sticks and stones may break bones, but words and psychological torture such as shunning positively kill. I still have this sense that it can't be real. He can't be dead. I feel like I should be able to write him, to tell him how much I love him, and how incredibly important he was to me. (I'm grateful that he knew.) I wish that he could have felt about himself the way that I felt about him. If he did, he'd still be here. I can't help but think that a lack of love killed Doug. He didn't seem to belong anywhere. But he constantly kept trying, and kept trying, and kept trying. He saved me from what would have been a catastrophic relationship at one point, for which I'm again grateful beyond words. I'd give anything to have him back. My experience of the world permanently dimmed the day that I found out that Doug had died.

I keep mentioning Doug not only because he meant so much to me personally, but because he was a real, flesh-and-blood human being, who didn't do anything wrong, and was always well-intentioned. Through no fault of his own, he was born into a devoutly Mormon family. The religion's doctrines were at complete odds with the emotional health of a gay boy, and later man. And over time, the culture that rejected him, combined with an apathetic world, led to his refusal to go on living in it.

All of us are in this life together. All of us will die one day. One century from now, no one reading this will still be alive. As my grandmother used to say, "Now is your time." It's just that it's difficult to understand what to do, to strive for, in one's time. But one goal that I have is to prevent such a terrible loss and tragedy from ever happening again. That's part of the reason that JL's post in the previous thread bothered me so much. I can't bear to have another human being commmit suicide because they've been ostracized by their family for the equivalent of being left-handed.

The absurdity of it is so great that it leads me in one of two directions. The first is that our species evolved. Humans emerged through descent with modification. We're just mammals. Everything that we do, or that happens to us, has a naturalistic explanation, and so nothing ultimately matters. There's no transcendent reality. When we die (if not before), our consciousness and personality ceases to exist. There's no recourse for injustice except to fellow human beings, and that strategy doesn't seem to yield terriby satisfying results, and so generally, we suffer a whole lot, and then we perish. The end. The second direction is that we're actually spiritual beings who have incarnated into human mammal bodies to learn and grow, to love and to acquire knowledge and have experiences. And when this monstrously difficult grad school nightmare is over, we'll return wehre we came from--a much better existence. And somewhere in that light is Doug Stewart. I'll see him again. I know which of these stories I'd rather believe. I don't know which (if either) is true.

I'm sincerely sorry to anyone I've offended in using the term "breeder." I really didn't write it as a term of offense, but only because I thought that it was funny and innocuous. I won't use it again.

Inverso, Douggie was really, really intelligent. At one point, he'd gotten into law school, and attended for a year before deciding that he didn't want to pursue it. Before he died, he had gotten into an MBA program and attended for at least a year. Desite these things, he never had a career, only jobs. And it really makes me wonder why, and think about heterosexist power--power that he never shared in. Doug couldn't hide that he was gay. If you got to know him, you'd know. It would have been easy to discriminate against him. Maybe that's why he never really even tried to start a career, although I think he would have accomplished it had he gotten his MBA. (When I finished my own MBA, I dedicated it to Doug. That, more than anything, is why I did it; I somehow wanted to carry the torch forward, and I consider it his accomplishment just as much as mine.) I remember him telling me once that he had moved to a different city in Utah, and was looking for a place to live. At one point, he went to inspect a house that had two existing straight roommates. He liked it, but after he walked out, he overheard--and he believed that this was intentional--the two boys making derogatory remarks about gays. They had no intention of ever rooming with him.

If you're rejected from society, discriminated against in housing, limited to low-wage jobs, never find what you want most in life--the romantic partner of your dreams--and never find a social niche to nourish your powerful mind and give you emotional support and encouragement and inspiration, when you ultimately have no one to rely on but yourself and you receive steady messages that you're worthless, how long can you last? How long would you want to stay alive in such an apparently cruel world?

A very close friend of mine, after hearing about Douggie's suicide, said to me that there are so many ways to start over. I will never, ever forget that. I was really hurting from Doug's loss at the time, and my friend was right. There are so many ways to start over. It applied to Doug. It applies to us--all of us. There are so many ways to start over. Surviving life *requires* us to become heroes.

People cope with great suffering in different ways, and those ways might vary over time. Some of us get angry. All of us get frustrated. Some might get depressed or anxious. Others might overeat, take drugs, hoard, beat their pets, attempt suicide, or any number of things. It's impossible to compare suffering acrosss individuals. The same events might trigger radically different responses in someone who is resilient and someone who is vulnerable. I think Douggie did the best that he could for a very long time, but got to a place where no one could reach him, and I think that all of us who knew and loved him feel--and are--responsible for that.

We're all in this life together, and our time is limited. I don't know how to react to the incredible hostility that MJ directs against me. The articles that he, himself, cites, if you read them, cite contradictory studies, thus invalidating their purported headline conclusions. I don't desire to argue to win an academic debate. My point is much simpler. Gay men are being harmed through overt acts and neglect. Lesbians are being harmed through neglect and overt acts. And if either group thinks that they have it bad, I shudder to think about what it would be like to be transgendered.

MJ accuses me of holding pity parties. I'll give these "parties" up in a second if the universe will give me Doug back! All of us depend on each other. It's all right to make mistakes. We all do. But I like to think that in the long haul, we all want to make our world better--both for ourselves and each other. It doesn't make sense to constantly try to add to others' suffering. We should be doing the opposite. MJ Ridicule Circles don't improve the world, but they do waste time and cause wreckless and thoughtless harm. Stop. If you can't stop the evil within you, what good is stopping the evil outside of you?

I try to understand why there's so much hatred of us. What did we ever do to those who hate us--largely strangers? I try to make sense of it in my own head, and look for evolutionary explanations because it's difficult to imagine why there would be world-wide hatred of gays. The halting nature of improvement (which now stands at begrudging toleration in some countries) makes me wonder whether there are sex-linked genetic traits that prime--even though they don't determine--what results in anti-gay behavior. Genes are rarely the whole story. The environment plays a role. I just want to know to what extent anti-gayism has some type of genetic driver, and to what extent it's learned, so that we can make meaningful interventions to prevent further suicides and untold suffering.

Regarding your fifth point, yes, to call or think of someone as homosexual is to reduce his or her existence to a sexual act, which is insane and obsene. In the academic journal, Sexuality & Culture (2011) 15:80-99, Robert W. Mitchell and Alan L. Ellis published a study entitled: "In the Eye of the Beholder: Knowledge that a Man is Gay Promotes American College Students' Attributions of Cross-Gender Characteristics." They said that when students learned that someone was gay, they viewed him as less likable and more feminine than when they assumed the "default condition," that he was straight. Labels most definitely alter perceptions, and they can cause remarkable harm. I so greatly admire Doug for having had the courage to live openly and be who he was. This dovetails with what a previous lesbian poster said, that homophobia (anti-gayism) is linked to sexism. Yes, it clearly is. The article says that straight males are afraid of being thought of as gay because that would diminish their power. They might engage in anti-gayism to reaffirm their heterosexuality and their claim to power, which has very real advantages. The only good news from the article is that in 2011, the decrease in likeability upon learning that a male is gay is less than it was in the 1970's. But there remains a decrease. Imagine fighting against negative perceptions. You're still the same person. You haven't changed. But how straights see you--and how they treat you, no matter how subtle the shift--changes.

It's hard to try to convey the nature of our predicament as gay men to straight men. Many are accepting to some degree. Many aren't. The involuntary shame and fear that many of us who are gay feel is very real. Imagine being ashamed of having brown hair--I mean, really, truly feeling embarrassed and inadequate, and torturing yourself emotionally over it. It's not that all of us are like this, but some of us--perhaps many of us--are. Hatred directed against us becomes hatred transformed within us and that we then direct, even if unconsciously, against ourselves.

I appreciate every straight male who defends gay men. Each shining example of that adds great light to the world--and hope. It adds a twig to a small fire that, if large enough, could warm the disaffected and hurt and prevent countless gay men and lesbians from suicide.

I want to close by repeating something that I wrote in my earlier thread. It's for straight men. Imagine being gay. Your friends marry and have children. You lose touch with many of them as they get caught up in their own lives. Your own family rejects you. You're the black sheep. You try your best at life, but never manage to find The One, and you're pretty lonely, so you direct your energies into your career, and do the best that you can with the hand that you've been dealt. At the age of 53, your parents have died. Your sister doesn't talk to you; she's embarrassed to have a gay brother. You don't have any brothers. You're diagnosed with melanoma. You've got a battle ahead, and you know that at the end of it, you could die. You don't know if you'll be cured, or fight it for five years or ten, and then lose the battle.

You go to the doctor, and they explain the options. Checking out, you're asked to fill out a few forms, one of which is a card that asks for the name, address, and phone number for an emergency contact. You don't have a wife. There's no name to put down. The thought of inventing a name, address, and phone number crosses your mind in a fit of panic and despair. You want to be spared the embarrassment of declaring that there *isn't* anyone--that there not only isn't anyone to take care of decisions for you should you become incapacitated, but that there isn't anyone to even care. What would the nurse think? "Why doesn't this seemingly nice man have anyone to care about him? What kind of a man is he?" What kind of life would you have to look forward to as you battle melanoma?

Is the situation that I've painted really all that much different from being gay and dying of loneliness by suicide? The circumstances may be different, but the stress and suffering and uncertainty and fear seem all too familiar.

How many straight men have ever had to pause for one second and consider whom to put down on an emergency card?

The real tragedy of being gay is not having an emergency contact to write down. That's what real hatred is. That's what real ostracism is. That's what real invisibility is. That's what "being gay" in America today largely means. And it's unspeakably cruel, and we have to end it.

We need emergency contacts.

The dark side of heterosexist power is that we're not allowed in.

What if it were you, instead of us?

Steve

GP, I pointed out factual errors in your claims and provide supportive documentation. This is not ridicule, this is pointing out REALITY. So, stop your lies about what I have said.

Here is where I use DOCUMENTED EVIDENCED to correct your lies about married gay people, and you IGNORE:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,909597,909633#msg-909633

Here is where I provide evidence to discredit your insinuations that gays are not happy or successful that you IGNORE:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,909597,909629#msg-909629

GP, it is NOT me that shows you are wrong, it is tons of readily available evidence that you ignore that showed your hateful views as wrong.

Are you now saying that in the past you did not repeatedly post that it was "impossible for gay men to connect"?

The sooner you accept REALITY and stop believing your depressed nightmares the better off you will be.

So, stop your lies about me, and find out the FACTS. I am but the MESSENGER



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2013 10:44PM by MJ.

Do you suppose that I can ever reach your own lofty level of happiness and social adjustment, MJ?

No, you can only take snide remarks at me. Why is that GP? Why do you hide from the the facts about what the gay community really is? Why do you seem so desperate to hold on to your flawed negative view of the gay community?

At least I can get a fucking date, many of them, in fact. I can have and have had long term relationships. YOU?

I am a gay man that can and often does connect with other gay men. YOU?

I am well connected to the gay community and have a diverse group of gay and straight friends, you?

I have worked many years to build a gay community that is safe and proud? You? Don't make me laugh, I haven't see you do anything except tear down the community.

I have had quite a good time in life, with some bad times. But over all I can quite certainly say I am happy, YOU?

Be HONEST.

So, how about addressing the EVIDENCE that I presented that contradicts your claims about the gay community instead of childishly trying to make this about me?



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2013 11:05PM by MJ.

I had a gay friend who referred to me as a breeder. I was offended. I told him I would never refer to him as a f*g or fairy or any other derogatory term and I would appreciate it if he didn't call me a breeder. He admitted he had never really thought of it that way. And he has since ceased even using that word.

"Breeder" is meant to be disparaging. It's the corollary of all the slur words against homosexuals, of which there are many.

IMO, breeder really should apply to families with > 3 kids. I mean, 3 kids is enuf to maintain the population.

so it's ok to disparage families with four or more kids? How does that work? jeez.

4 or more is adding to the overpopulation problem = duh!

I'm a breeder. I've got 5. I enjoyed the breeding process. And mothering. It doesn't offend me, the term. Probably because it isn't a religious thing for me. I didn't have that many because of religion. I had 3 boys and wanted a girl so I went for a 4th and got a girl. I divorced. Then remarried a guy with no kids who wanted one. So I had one more. A girl. Did I have too many? Probably yes. But now that they are all here I love them all so much. So what can I say? I'm a breeder.

Personally, I prefer the phrase "homosexually challenged." ;)

Slut,Molly, bitch, apostate, evil, wicked, cracker, something nasty in spanish, whore, yuppie, white trash, rich bitch, JAP(jewish american princess) Hasty Hills Hag, and now a breeder.

These are just a few of the derogatory and insulting things i've been called in lifetime. I'm sure there are a few more that I don't know about. As you can see a lot of them contradict each other. Some of them are very regional and won't mean anything to most if not all of you. None of them fit me either. Being called a JAP was very insulting to me. I don't think anyone should be called that. The funny thing is, i'm not jewish, and i've never been a princess. Hasty Hills Hag is what they called the rich housewives from Hasty Hills. I certainly wasn't rich, and I have never lived in Hasty Hills. I was called that while making a flower delivery to a customer. People slap all kinds of labels on me. Usually it's people who have no idea where I'm from, who I am or what i've been through. It makes them look mean and ignorant. Referring to me as a breeder because i'm a hetero female that had 2 kids is no different.

I've been called puta, whore, b--t---d, jew, bitch, mixed, white, wetback, n____, crazy, weird, and now a breeder-
what a F* in perfect world- after defending my gay boyfriend until he died, and after his death, publically professionally defending bi and gay teens in the homeless shelter & public high school I teach at- and my lesbian baby sitter, security guard, and oldest friend-

Seriously- hate speech like that makes me want to turn it upside down on the entire gay community. Despite my intersex kid & their trans friend-
F that- before I am polite in public again on this board 0r in the presence of bi and gay trans folk anywhere- they WILL be polite first
or just F * it- everyone. I am DONE.
This mother of an intersex adult & and high school teacher is f* DONE.
done defending anyone.

Come to this board to receive that much hate? I'm not thinking so. Wear your own hate.

The original poster can take their hate wear a mirror bounce it back at you for ever and ever and every where you are... I deserve love.
I have not loved this long this much to wear your hate. WEar it yourself.

should ANYONE support ANY of them ANYWHERE

Even less the radical gay community.

My gay "ex" husband is a breeder, too.

Head of Shiz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GP and Papaken et al,
>
> I have read posts from you in the past and
> this seemed a bit out of character.

Funny, to me, his post was totally in keeping with his character. It was a revival of the old GP and his hateful whining about the gay community. His constant whining that it was impossible for gay men to connect, how horrible it was to be gay, etc.. It basically boiled down to him blaming all his problems on the gay community.

Then as now, his complaints and observations about the gay community are easily dismissed with very easily obtainable information, which GP ignores in favor of chatting with all the people he can drag into his pitty party.

No, sorry, this is not a barb at GP, it is something that has been observed over and over by more than just me. Any REAL friends of GP's would kick his ass for using blatantly FALSE hateful slurs against both the straight and gay community in order to throw one of his pitty parties.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2013 08:15PM by MJ.

That's less than I was expecting, for the extra long time it took.

Thanks, now I understand why no one's afraid of me kicking their ass.

Not that I think you have this problem, but the last guy I knew who enjoyed defining and impugning others' character could be the face of the don't list in a book entitled "How to Have Good Character."

But you do. And I have pointed out more than one lie GP used to demean the whole gay community, but that is just great by you because he is your friend, right?

So, GP is demeaning the gay community AND the heterosexual community, pretty much everyone except for bi and asexual and to try to correct him AND YOU is making digs. Tell it to someone that would buy that BS.

And I will use your pandering to make any point I want. Don't like it, too bad.

I would repost the EVIDENCE that I used to show where GP lied about the gay community, but I am sure you will ignore it just as GP does.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2013 10:43PM by MJ.

So, obviously, I did not ignore your evidence. If you thought I did, then you would be stupid as well as presumptuous.

Maybe you can get Tal to help you with not being presumptuous. I don't want to be presumptuous, either, but if I'm not mistaken, he can also help you grasp concepts--for example, the concept of being selective about the points to which one chooses to respond. That's something I do, for a variety of reasons like, oh, say, preserving a relationship or expecting that others will pick certain points and do a better job ... or not wanting to be presumptuous, or not feeling strongly enough to comment.

Sometimes I just need to make time for grasping concepts that have not yet been explained to me, painfully aware as I am that grasping concepts is essential to not looking stupid.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2013 11:35PM by munchybotaz.

Maybe you could get Tal to teach you how to support a community and not support a person using lies to tear it down.

and never learning anything. That's your job.

Sadly it may be time to bring this up, but I knew GP when he was a missionary 20 years ago. I didn't judge then or now, but he never gave me a second thought nor anyone else back then. Seeing no growth in him as an adult is unfortunate. I thought after figuring out who he was IRL that it might be interesting catching up through RfM...nope. He can self loathe like he did as an Elder in Zion.

Hi Yaqoob,

I was never a missionary.

Best,

Steve

BTW, although you've confused me with someone else, I'm curious about your experiences of twenty years ago. If you're interested in sharing, please write me at gayphilosopher at gmaildotcom.

Thanks,

Steve

Nobody should be calling anyone names here. It's as simple as that.

My only familiarity with the term 'breeders' is in the context of satanic panic (a topic in a course I teach).

The term 'breeders' was first coined by Lauren Stratford in her book 'Satan's Underground' in 1988. Breeders were young girls held captive and raped, forced to bear children who would be used in Satanic ritual sacrifice. Straford has been thoroughly debunked as a fraud, and she later surfaced as a fake holocaust survivor.

(Link: http://www.answers.org/satan/stratford.html )

So I don't like the term breeders being applied to anyone.

I can see that frustrated childfree people (I am assuming only childfree gays would be disparaging), who are getting tired of criticism from parents might come up with a disparaging term for their harassers. I used to be childfree, and did not intend ever having kids (I finally compromised with my hubby at the age of 36, and often wish I hadn't), and would often get snarky comments from parents who claimed to be doing the hard work raising the kids who would pay my pension in my old age. Now I am a parent, I tell the childfree that I am jealous. I would hope that 'breeder' is not a term aimed at any hetero people by gays, that just doesn't make sense, most of the Gays I know have had or intend to have kids by one means or another (Marriage is for all in my country now).

Maybe there is a term out there with less baggage.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/29/2013 11:06PM by spanner.

Is GP.

In 30+ years of activism I have only seen or heard it used as a derogatory label for straights.

That isn't helpful.

Efforts to promote gay marriage would only be harmed by that term.