liqueur
Village Elder
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2010
- Posts
- 2,867
This is about words. I'm posting it here instead of over in one of the main forums because this is where I've seen the most chatter (and nagging) about the word “straight.”
We all know that traditionally, “straight” (an identity) meant “heterosexual”, and was used as a distinction from from “gay” or “queer” (both identities). Things got complicated when men who identified as “straight” started openly talking about sucking cock or being ass-fucked (note: both of these are activities, not identities.)
So the self-identified purists started to get shirty— “you can't call yourself straight if you do homosexual things!" “You're not being honest!" Etcetera.
These assertions could be challenged in several ways, but the most important is that the “purists” are confusing identity with activity. Nobody can challenge another person's identity; that's equivalent to you telling me what I feel. Your identity is how you perceive yourself, not how anyone else does. But I think this is an age-old problem: I think people have always thought “You are what you do.” In fact, I think “identity” is a fairly new concept, an important step in our cultural evolution.
I think “straight” men sucking cock is an age-old occurrence, as well. The only thing that's changed is the freedom to talk about it. And I'm not here to philosophize, I'm here to propose a solution to the purists’ problem (because in the end, it is their problem, not ours):
What I know is this: language is not rigid and static. Language is a living breathing thing that is constantly growing and evolving. This is not “my opinion”, this is reality. Ask any lexicographer; they'll tell you the same thing. if it weren't true, we'd still be using Samuel Johnson's 1755 Dictionary of the English Language.
What I believe is this: we are watching the term “straight” (which of course is very new in this usage anyway) be redefined before our very eyes. It no longer means “engaging in exclusively heterosexual activities” (if indeed it ever did). It now means “heteronormative in appearance, and hetero-romantic”— and has no bearing on any specific activities.
If we could accept this new definition, we could move on from some endless and circular discussions.
Your thoughts?
We all know that traditionally, “straight” (an identity) meant “heterosexual”, and was used as a distinction from from “gay” or “queer” (both identities). Things got complicated when men who identified as “straight” started openly talking about sucking cock or being ass-fucked (note: both of these are activities, not identities.)
So the self-identified purists started to get shirty— “you can't call yourself straight if you do homosexual things!" “You're not being honest!" Etcetera.
These assertions could be challenged in several ways, but the most important is that the “purists” are confusing identity with activity. Nobody can challenge another person's identity; that's equivalent to you telling me what I feel. Your identity is how you perceive yourself, not how anyone else does. But I think this is an age-old problem: I think people have always thought “You are what you do.” In fact, I think “identity” is a fairly new concept, an important step in our cultural evolution.
I think “straight” men sucking cock is an age-old occurrence, as well. The only thing that's changed is the freedom to talk about it. And I'm not here to philosophize, I'm here to propose a solution to the purists’ problem (because in the end, it is their problem, not ours):
What I know is this: language is not rigid and static. Language is a living breathing thing that is constantly growing and evolving. This is not “my opinion”, this is reality. Ask any lexicographer; they'll tell you the same thing. if it weren't true, we'd still be using Samuel Johnson's 1755 Dictionary of the English Language.
What I believe is this: we are watching the term “straight” (which of course is very new in this usage anyway) be redefined before our very eyes. It no longer means “engaging in exclusively heterosexual activities” (if indeed it ever did). It now means “heteronormative in appearance, and hetero-romantic”— and has no bearing on any specific activities.
If we could accept this new definition, we could move on from some endless and circular discussions.
Your thoughts?
