That idiot Crowder vs reality

[Cunt]

I understand what you are asking,

No you don't.

Let's blame me.

Gayness could be accurately described as a person feeling that they are gay.

That last bit...that seems to be your answer.

To you, 'gay' means my cousin was gay LONG before this year, when he decided to indulge in homosexual activity. Is that correct?

What YOU mean by 'gay' here might be his spirit of gayness, while others may define it only by actions.

That goes for gays, and non-gays, I think. Oh, and observers, just to include everyone.

[pErvinalia]

I understand what you are asking,

No you don't.

Let's blame me.

Gayness could be accurately described as a person feeling that they are gay.

That last bit...that seems to be your answer.

To you, 'gay' means my cousin was gay LONG before this year, when he decided to indulge in homosexual activity. Is that correct?

Well no. It's up to him and his view of his identity throughout his life as to whether he was/is gay or not.

What YOU mean by 'gay' here might be his spirit of gayness, while others may define it only by actions.

Again, what others think of his sexuality is irrelevant.

Let's try this. Can you explain why what others think about a person's gayness is relevant to the question of whether gayness can be taught or is innate?

[pErvinalia]

I mean sucking a cock would probably strongly correlate to gayness or bi-ness. But I'm not sure why it matters what I think about his gayness.

[Cunt]

I missed again.

You just said 'gayness'.

Did YOU mean your definition (anyone who 'feels' gay in their mind) or another definition (anyone who has sucked a cock)?

That's the difference I'm asking about. The definition of 'gayness'. From there, it may be easier to answer questions about it.

But Crowder is DEFINITELY pretty gay. I haven't seen his latest exploits (I think he sneaks into an event as a fat lady) but it's almost certain to be as gay as canasta.

[pErvinalia]

Well I've been clear that anyone else's opinion of whether someone is gay is irrelevant. It's utterly irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. So I'm not sure why you keep going on about it. Are you disturbed by the idea that you might not be able to identify some gay people?

[Cunt]

You used the word, gay again. Which way did you mean it?

[pErvinalia]

Gayness could be accurately described as a person feeling that they are gay.

[Cunt]

so you mean it is the feeling on the inside, whether expressed in action, or not?

Is that correct? So a firmly celibate, same-sex-attracted person would be gay, by that definition?

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, sure.

[Cunt]

Thanks.

Let's call that 'feeling gay'.

There is another gay - 'taking willfully homosexual action'.

To me, knowing both meanings get called 'gay', it complicates a lot of questions like 'is being gay a choice?'

Take Crowder. If taken at his word, he is banging a lady he loves, made a couple babies, smokes cigars, drinks whisky, lifts weights and originated in Canada.

He couldn't be gayer if he said 'Hi, I'm Patrick and I'll be your flight attendant'

[pErvinalia]

Thanks.

Let's call that 'feeling gay'.

There is another gay - 'taking willfully homosexual action'.

That can be a subset. It also could be experimentation without being broadly gay.

I expect homosexuality is innate, but that doesn't preclude people being confused or in denial. It also doesn't preclude people choosing to try some gay for a bit of a thrill.

[Brian Peacock]

Is someone who never acts on their urge still considered 'gay'? Is someone who does the acts, but never likes it, still considered 'gay'?

What's the relevance of what other people think? Surely all that matters is what the individual thinks of their sexual orientation.

Someone wants to talk about a subject including the word 'gay', so I want to be clear about what it means to this discussion.

You don't have to understand, but can keep heckling. I'd wonder where you went if you didn't.

Nah. After you introduced the subject someone asked you to reflect on whether you accepted the premise of certain attitudes, which presume that children can be unduly influenced to be gay at school, and to such an extent that their needs to be a special requirement in law defining the bounds of how teachers interact with their pupils on personal issues like sexuality and sexual expression so that children are not influenced to misled into being something they are not, or should not be. Your 'but nobody can define gay' schtik is a distraction, one that presumes, for convenience, that 'gay' is somehow an ambiguous term or novel concept.

If you want to discuss what it means to be gay then you can start an honest discussion by saying what you think it means to be (presumable) heterosexual. Is your sexuality and your sexual expression something you were taught, or a free choice that somebody could or did unduly influence you over?

You don't seem to want this kind of serious, honest discussion though, do you? What interests you is how people are 'owning the libs' for criticising or opposing a law which is supposed to stop children from being turned into something the right-wing blog- and vlogosphere believe is wrong - gay.

[Brian Peacock]

Thanks.

Let's call that 'feeling gay'.

There is another gay - 'taking willfully homosexual action'.

To me, knowing both meanings get called 'gay', it complicates a lot of questions like 'is being gay a choice?'

Take Crowder. If taken at his word, he is banging a lady he loves, made a couple babies, smokes cigars, drinks whisky, lifts weights and originated in Canada.

He couldn't be gayer if he said 'Hi, I'm Patrick and I'll be your flight attendant'

Actually, I find this genuinely interesting. You think that being gay (and by implication, hetro, bi, or whatever) is performative - which is to say that it's about acting in a certain way. For instance: if a man who is always and only ever attracted to other men never acts on those impulses and instead leads a 'regular' life, marries a women, has kids, never talks about it to anyone, and only gives the impression of being as 'straight as a die', and I guess is OK with all that, is he actually a gay? Wouldn't he be, to all intents and purposes, straight?

I can't say I'd given that much thought, but I think he probably would be. What says you?

[Hermit]

if a man who is always and only ever attracted to other men never acts on those impulses and instead leads a 'regular' life, marries a women, has kids, never talks about it to anyone, and only gives the impression of being as 'straight as a die', and I guess is OK with all that, is he actually a gay? Wouldn't he be, to all intents and purposes, straight?

No. Gayness is a matter of sexual preference for having sex with members of the same sex, regardless of whether or not that preference is acted upon. Conversely, someone who sucks another man's cock or lets him fuck up the arse solely in order to get enough money for the next fix is not gay.

What makes you think that men who marry women, have kids, never talk about it to anyone, and only give the impression of being as 'straight as a die' are actually OK with all that, rather than suppressing their homosexual desires because of the social pressure to conform?

[Brian Peacock]

Well I've been clear that anyone else's opinion of whether someone is gay is irrelevant. It's utterly irrelevant to the point you are trying to make. So I'm not sure why you keep going on about it. Are you disturbed by the idea that you might not be able to identify some gay people?

I think bogging the discussion down in definitions is way for Cnut to feel that he's making a rational and logical contribution to the discussion. First we have to identify terms, right? Thing is, you and I, along with the overwhelming majority of humanity have no problem understanding what 'gay' means. It's not an ambiguous term. It's not a disputed term. It's not an unusual descriptor, nor does it represent a novel or contested concept. I think he's just pretending it's important so he doesn't have to think about questions about whether his sexuality or sexual expression is something that was taught to him, or that it's something which he had a free choice over which could've have been unduly influenced by others. There's a few reasons why this might be the case. One might be that 'owning the libs' over this is considered more important than actually thinking about the issue and understanding it from another's point of view and experience. One might be that thinking about this challenges or undermines views about what it means to be a 'real' man or woman etc rooted in a basic insecurity about one's ability to meet or live up to those kinds of societal norms. And another might just be about feeling more comfortable in environments which don't ask these kinds of questions, for personal reasons...