Who is Queer?

[Never]

Queer is a lovely word I stumbled upon years ago. It covers a wide range of sexual proclivities and activates without the clumsiness of acronyms. I use it much more in my writings than in my speech, however, as I prefer to talk on specifics. I find the spur of the moment ideas expressed in speech stumble when applied to broad and complex topics.

Anyways, who is queer? Or, who belongs to the GBLTWJASS (Gay BLT with jalapenos and special sauce) community?

Gays: male and female.
Bisexuals: male and female
Trans: transsexual and transgender
Poly: polysexual and polyamorous

There are also pansexuals and omnisexuals. I'm not certain what they are but Etoile has that in her signature line and she tends to know what she's talking about.

What exactly does this group have in common? Well, they tend to hang out together. That's not the most unifying of themes, however. How about they're people who do things in bed that are different from the norm but don't consider these acts just 'kinks' but part of their lifestyle or identity? I like that idea but it seems to leave out the trans and that's just not nice. Okay, but culture has always linked one's plumbing to one's bedroom activities so maybe it make sense in a larger cultural, historical view?

What about the BDSMers and the bestiality folks? Or the pedophiles? Many of them view their activities and proclivities as being part of their lifestyle and identity.

I have no problem labeling BDSMers (is there a non-acronym word for them?) as part of queer community. Historically, there's always been a link, a common ground between the two and BDSM certainly fits the description I gave. Well, some participants do. What if they don't want to be considered queer, though? Perhaps queer and BDSM are just two different parts of a larger alternative sexuality community?

What about bestiality and pedophilias? I don't like them ergo I don't want them in my queer community. I don't want to feel a need to support their sexuality or donate to their cause. The lack of consent in both cases makes me a bit ill and it does nothing but harm society's acceptance of the queer community on both a political and cultural level.

Then again, when did queer mean 'valid' sexuality? I'm now stumbling into the same area as pagans who refuse to acknowledge Satanists (as opposed to Luciferians) as pagans because it would make them 'look bad'.

Ahh, help me out people. I'm confused.

 

[sexy-girl]

i've never really felt that the word queer suited me ... and i've never really known why

i'm gay and i've messed around with some kinks so it could apply to me quite easily


but i think your post makes me realize why i'm unsure about the word applying to me ... i don't really know who else is queer or what it means to be queer

 

[John Doe]

that's because it's a contrived concept based on political motives.

Either it attempts to establish and 'Us and Them' mentality or a form of it, the 'straight and everyone else', though from the other side.

Frankly I think it perpetuates prejudice, ignorance and segregation. It's "oh, well it's not that you don't want us around because we fuck other guys in the ass or enjoy a healthy beating once in a while, WE don't want to mix or associate with YOU," occasionally to the extent to imply or outright state that "we're more tolerant than you and better than you, and we have more fun."

 

[Raimondin]

What about bestiality and pedophilias? I don't like them ergo I don't want them in my queer community. I don't want to feel a need to support their sexuality or donate to their cause. The lack of consent in both cases makes me a bit ill and it does nothing but harm society's acceptance of the queer community on both a political and cultural level.

Then again, when did queer mean 'valid' sexuality? I'm now stumbling into the same area as pagans who refuse to acknowledge Satanists (as opposed to Luciferians) as pagans because it would make them 'look bad'.

Ahh, help me out people. I'm confused.

Maybe there's need for a Miscellaneous category. If you're not str8, gay, bi, or transgender, then maybe that's where all the rest would fit.

I don't think pediophiles, bestiality or maybe even BDSM should be included within what is Queer. True, it seems society or culture has unfortunately included all those other ones as being Gay or Queer. That really bothers me. I think this is what happens when sexuality is politcized because it's almost like making it crimminal. Before there was the word Gay there was the word Queer. Maybe "Gay" made same-sex sexuality a little more valid.
I'm Gay (or Queer). I'm not str8, Bi, or transgender. I'm Gay. I feel comfortable with that, and that's enough for me. Others might not feel this way. though. I do feel culture has always played a big part in sexuality. I don't know. I could be wrong.

 

[Never]

Stuponfucious,
So, if someone started a thread about dog loving or the proper way to anally fist your loved one, you'd think it was perfectly within the purview of the GLBT forum?

 

[Queersetti]

that's because it's a contrived concept based on political motives.

Either it attempts to establish and 'Us and Them' mentality or a form of it, the 'straight and everyone else', though from the other side.

Frankly I think it perpetuates prejudice, ignorance and segregation. It's "oh, well it's not that you don't want us around because we fuck other guys in the ass or enjoy a healthy beating once in a while, WE don't want to mix or associate with YOU," occasionally to the extent to imply or outright state that "we're more tolerant than you and better than you, and we have more fun."

I completely disagree.
I think the word has become popular because it is inclusive, not exclusive. It defies any easy definition, and therefore, anyone who feels that they don't belong to some sort of "normal" mainstream is free to apply it to themselves.

 

[John Doe]

Stuponfucious,
So, if someone started a thread about dog loving or the proper way to anally fist your loved one, you'd think it was perfectly within the purview of the GLBT forum?

No, how did you get that idea?

I said nothing about bestiality or pedophilia, or anal fisting or whatever, let alone did I say they belong lumped together. In fact, if anything I thought I was saying the opposite, that I disagreed with the 'straight and everyone else' concept.

In any case, zoophilia and pedophilia are nonconsensual paraphilias, like exposing oneself in public, and as such I do not consider them to be valid sexual preferences.

 

[John Doe]

I completely disagree.
I think the word has become popular because it is inclusive, not exclusive. It defies any easy definition, and therefore, anyone who feels that they don't belong to some sort of "normal" mainstream is free to apply it to themselves.

It excludes the mainstream. You just said so.

 

[Queersetti]

It excludes the mainstream. You just said so.

Any category, by definition, exists in relationship to it's other.

My point was that "Queer" is exclusive within the alphabet soup of GLBTBDSMLMNOP. It's use became common because people wanted to find commonalities with other groups, rather than define themselves as members of exclusive groups.

Of course, it's a tenable argument to state that there should be no categorization at all, but such a position is antithetical to any discussion of issues that effect some people more than others.

If I understand you correctly, it's your position that any categorization serves the interest of prejudice by drawing lines between groups. I sympathize with that view, but feel that the other side of the coin is equally, if not more valid. Refusing to recognize distinctions allows the dominant groups in a culture to force those who do not conform to their standards into invisibility.

 

[Equinoxe]

I am absolutely inclined to agree with Stuponfucious on this one.

First off, paedophilia and zoophilia do not belong in any acceptable company as they are, like rape, all about nonconsent (and not the pretend or fictional kind).

Secondly, the word "Queer" means (according to dictionary.com):
1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
2. Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
3. Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.
4. Slang. Fake; counterfeit.
5. Feeling slightly ill; queasy.
6. Offensive Slang. Homosexual.
7. Usage Problem. Of or relating to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, or transgendered people.

Reading those definitions, the term has an inherently negative connotation to it. Whilst certainly GLBT persons are "different" in a sense, this is "different and not good."

Of course, insulting terms are sometimes turned around by the community they are aimed at, but I don't think that it is necessarily a good thing.

In the end, I think it only furthers the isolation of the GLBT community, which is not a naturally existing entity in and off itself and which is plagued by its isolation. It is one that arose out of opposition (if society as a whole accepted homosexuality, bisexuality, and various gender identity problems there wouldn't be, in the sense we are discussing, a GLBT community). So, I think it's all a bit contrived. Ultimately, contrived for a good reason, but nevertheless contrived.

So whatever title is applied is going to be likewise. And it seems to be missing the point.

 

[John Doe]

Of course, it's a tenable argument to state that there should be no categorization at all, but such a position is antithetical to any discussion of issues that effect some people more than others.

I don't think it's tenable at all, but maybe that's just because I'm intersted in science and I understand the need and desire to label and categorize things.

If I understand you correctly,

You don't but I'm getting to that.

it's your position that any categorization serves the interest of prejudice by drawing lines between groups. I sympathize with that view, but feel that the other side of the coin is equally, if not more valid. Refusing to recognize distinctions allows the dominant groups in a culture to force those who do not conform to their standards into invisibility.

No, my position is that binary categorization serves that interest. Instead of black and white, I think shades of grey is more realistic and inclusive. So, in that respect, one could argue that only reocgnizing one other non-mainstream category refuses to recognize distinctions.

 

[Equinoxe]

No, my position is that binary categorization serves that interest. Instead of black and white, I think shades of grey is more realistic and inclusive. So, in that respect, one could argue that only reocgnizing one other non-mainstream category refuses to recognize distinctions.

That's what I meant, I swear. My computer was hijacked by magickal creatures who forced me to type something else.

 

[John Doe]

That's what I meant, I swear. My computer was hijacked by magickal creatures who forced me to type something else.

Don't worry about it. the two things you spoke to, nonconsensual paraphilias and the GLBT community isolating itself, you interpreted correctly and I agree with your elaborations.

 

[deezire1900]

I like to be called "one of them" it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, like High school when I lost all my friends for loving another woman.

 

[Never]

Stuponfucious:
" No, how did you get that idea?"
Your third paragraph was difficult for me to understand. You seemed to be reacting to the gay community looking down on other sexualities. In light of what you're saying to Queerseti, I take it that it was supposed to be the type of opinion someone who said they were of the 'queer community' would have of a straight person?

 

[Never]

I like to be called "one of them" it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, like High school when I lost all my friends for loving another woman.

Did she drive an Escalade? It would be worth it if she did.. I don't think I could lose all my friends over a woman who drove a Hummer 2.

 

[Queersetti]

I am absolutely inclined to agree with Stuponfucious on this one.

First off, paedophilia and zoophilia do not belong in any acceptable company as they are, like rape, all about nonconsent (and not the pretend or fictional kind).

Secondly, the word "Queer" means (according to dictionary.com):
1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
2. Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
3. Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.
4. Slang. Fake; counterfeit.
5. Feeling slightly ill; queasy.
6. Offensive Slang. Homosexual.
7. Usage Problem. Of or relating to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, or transgendered people.

Reading those definitions, the term has an inherently negative connotation to it. Whilst certainly GLBT persons are "different" in a sense, this is "different and not good."

Of course, insulting terms are sometimes turned around by the community they are aimed at, but I don't think that it is necessarily a good thing.

In the end, I think it only furthers the isolation of the GLBT community, which is not a naturally existing entity in and off itself and which is plagued by its isolation. It is one that arose out of opposition (if society as a whole accepted homosexuality, bisexuality, and various gender identity problems there wouldn't be, in the sense we are discussing, a GLBT community). So, I think it's all a bit contrived. Ultimately, contrived for a good reason, but nevertheless contrived.

So whatever title is applied is going to be likewise. And it seems to be missing the point.

Obviously, I am one of those who believes in claiming the word and making it mean what we want it to mean. I find it a powerful symbolic victory to do so. It say that *I* define who I am, whether society likes it or not.

I am curious as to why you feel that claiming and using the word furthers isolation. I hope you will expand on that thought.

 

[Pookie]

... Secondly, the word "Queer" means (according to dictionary.com):
1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
2. Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
3. Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.
4. Slang. Fake; counterfeit.
5. Feeling slightly ill; queasy.
6. Offensive Slang. Homosexual.
7. Usage Problem. Of or relating to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, or transgendered people.

Reading those definitions, the term has an inherently negative connotation to it. Whilst certainly GLBT persons are "different" in a sense, this is "different and not good."...

Personally, I've never viewed being different from the expected or what some consider "normal" as being a bad thing. Some of the most beautiful things in the world are odd, eccentric, or unconventional. Granted, some have attached offensive meanings to the word. Does that mean the meanings that are not negative/offensive are no longer valid?

There are bad connotations associated with being called an "American" in many places in the world. Those people have attached their own negative connotations to the word. Should the citizens of the US no longer use that to identify themselves with? I don't think so.

 

[John Doe]

Stuponfucious:
" No, how did you get that idea?"
Your third paragraph was difficult for me to understand. You seemed to be reacting to the gay community looking down on other sexualities. In light of what you're saying to Queerseti, I take it that it was supposed to be the type of opinion someone who said they were of the 'queer community' would have of a straight person?

An opinion they might have, yes. Prejudice and condescension aren't limited to members of the mainstream.

 

[sexy-girl]

one thing i do like about the queer word is straight people can assoiciate themselves with being queer also

 

[Queersetti]

I don't think it's tenable at all, but maybe that's just because I'm intersted in science and I understand the need and desire to label and categorize things.



You don't but I'm getting to that.


No, my position is that binary categorization serves that interest. Instead of black and white, I think shades of grey is more realistic and inclusive. So, in that respect, one could argue that only reocgnizing one other non-mainstream category refuses to recognize distinctions.

Thank for clarifying.

I don't see this as you do, although I see some merit to your point. As I stated earlier, I think the strength of the word "queer" is that it defies a clear definition. Society can pigeonhole what it means to be a lesbian, or to be tranaexual, etc, but what in the hell exactly is a queer?

 

[Queersetti]

one thing i do like about the queer word is straight people can assoiciate themselves with being queer also

Thank you!

 

[John Doe]

Did she drive an Escalade? It would be worth it if she did.. I don't think I could lose all my friends over a woman who drove a Hummer 2.

Civilian Hummers are just...icky.

 

[John Doe]

Thank for clarifying.

I don't see this as you do, although I see some merit to your point. As I stated earlier, I think the strength of the word "queer" is that it defies a clear definition. Society can pigeonhole what it means to be a lesbian, or to be tranaexual, etc, but what in the hell exactly is a queer?

I don't understand why being ambiguous is a good thing. The more slippery and unknowable something is, the less apt we are to accept it. That's human nature. Fear of the unknown.

 

[John Doe]

one thing i do like about the queer word is straight people can assoiciate themselves with being queer also

You should tell them that then, because I don't think most of them know that.

this is what happens when you go about purposely changing the meaning of a word over mere months or weeks. People don't know what the hell you're talking about anymore.