Want to do crossfit games

[dpinsen]

I think that the vast majority of heterosexual men have a visceral aversion to the idea of having homosex. I think the vast majority of these same men don't dwell on the topic enough to actually hate anybody for having homosex, and that the idea that this hatred is based on a fear of themselves secretly desiring to engage in homosex themselves is laughable. A few baptist preachers, sure. Robert Jeffress certainly. But not most of us. No ma'am.

This raises related questions: why do some lefties mock conservatives as closeted gays? If there's nothing wrong with being gay, then what is there to mock? Seems a little inconsistent.

[Gunnhild Bruno]

I think that the vast majority of heterosexual men have a visceral aversion to the idea of having homosex. I think the vast majority of these same men don't dwell on the topic enough to actually hate anybody for having homosex, and that the idea that this hatred is based on a fear of themselves secretly desiring to engage in homosex themselves is laughable. A few baptist preachers, sure. Robert Jeffress certainly. But not most of us. No ma'am.

I think most people have a visceral aversion to the idea of having sex with someone they find sexually unappealing for whatever reason. There's a difference between that and feeling disgust or contempt for people whose sexual interests differ from one's own.

For example, a straight woman may find the idea of eating pussy thoroughly unappealing, just as the idea of interacting with dick may gross out a gay woman. However, the straight woman's "visceral aversion" when it comes to the idea of performing the aforementioned sex act myself doesn't mean she has a "visceral aversion" to people--male or female--who do enjoy engaging in that sort of activity. That's probably the difference between simple disgust and moral disgust.

Even if she did feel a visceral aversion to lesbians, it doesn't necessarily mean she feels it's OK to talk about them as though they're the punchline of jokes, or subhumans who don't matter. And even if she did feel that it's OK to talk shit about lesbians, it doesn't mean that she feels they should be barred from enjoying legal and social equality.

It's not as though there's a simple either-or when it comes to moral disgust and how one consciously or subconsciously classifies people.

I think the vast majority of these same men don't dwell on the topic enough to actually hate anybody for having homosex

Your friends may be philosophically inclined to want to let people live as they want, and/or they may inhabit niches in which gays are not much on the mind. But a simple look around at the rest of the world--including quite a few of the people on this forum--would indicate that you're probably too generous in your assessment; a lot of men do seem to spend quite a lot of time fretting about homosexuality and railing against it and complaining about having to picture or think about having man on man buttsex, despite the fact that nobody really makes them do so.

the idea that this hatred is based on a fear of themselves secretly desiring to engage in homosex themselves is laughable. A few baptist preachers, sure. Robert Jeffress certainly. But not most of us. No ma'am.

I agree with this. Although there's probably some truth to it, especially with some people who have severe and very public negative reactions to homosexuality, I think this is a cliche that pleases the socially liberal because it's thought to piss off "homophobes". People are perfectly capable of feeling disgust for those who are different from them while not fearing there is any similarity at all between them. The anxiety that is the root of a lot of moral disgust is frequently very different from a simple "protesting too much".

Some people who study this stuff distinguish between "homophobia", meaning people who actually feel dread at the idea of having to interact with or think about gays, and "homonegativity", which is a broader term that comprises homophobia.

[Mark Rippetoe]

The "crux of the matter" for you is the right of members of your forum to toss around anti-gay slurs without fear of being labeled as homophobes, because you don't feel that the term is semantically precise enough? Really?

Really. I don't think you get to decide what I mean, what I think, what I feel, or what I'm afraid of, just because you want me to like a different bunch of things than you do. Really.

It's kind of ironic, because today (as on many other days) I was reading something that made me shake my head in amazement at the lack of professionalism and self-awareness displayed by CrossFit HQ and their supporters. And then I read this thread, which started out making fun of CrossFit, but which may as well be the bizarro world version of the same shit.

Sorry we disappointed you. Maybe HQ has it right after all.

Your friends may be philosophically inclined to want to let people live as they want, and/or they may inhabit niches in which gays are not much on the mind. But a simple look around at the rest of the world--including quite a few of the people on this forum--would indicate that you're probably too generous in your assessment; a lot of men do seem to spend quite a lot of time fretting about homosexuality and railing against it and complaining about having to picture or think about having man on man buttsex, despite the fact that nobody really makes them do so.

Moslems are outside my area of responsibility.

[David_G]

Moslems are outside my area of responsibility.

I knew this thread should be locked a few pages ago.
Is the new topic now executions of gay people in Iran? Iraq?

This topic could metamorphose for weeks...

[Gunnhild Bruno]

This raises related questions: why do some lefties mock conservatives as closeted gays? If there's nothing wrong with being gay, then what is there to mock? Seems a little inconsistent.

I guess Steve Sailer doesn't have an opinion on this, which is why you don't know?

[LudwigVan]

Really. I don't think you get to decide what I mean, what I think, what I feel, or what I'm afraid of, just because you want me to like a different bunch of things than you do. Really.

I just think it's awfully interesting how some folks suddenly get all prescriptivist when it comes to certain terms like "homophobia" and then claim it has nothing to do with their feelings about gays; no, it's just about the purity of the language or somesuch.

But in English, unlike in French, we don't have a government bureaucracy deciding on the official definitions of words (something that I'm sure you appreciate). Thus, meaning is determined by usage, and the following definition of "homophobia" is given by Merriam-Webster, which aligns closely with the definition in several other dictionaries and with common usage in my experience:

"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

making the semantic objection rather moot.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Right. You guys have changed the meaning of the word. Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, etc. Which begs the question: when will we all get comfortable with homosexuals?

[Brian Harlin]

Right. You guys have changed the meaning of the word. Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive, etc. Which begs the question: when will we all get comfortable with homosexuals?

Depends on how you define comfortable.

[dpinsen]

I guess Steve Sailer doesn't have an opinion on this, which is why you don't know?

I don't know if he has an opinion on it or not. Nice to see you're still among the living, Simma.

[Oncelost77]

I just think it's awfully interesting how some folks suddenly get all prescriptivist when it comes to certain terms like "homophobia" and then claim it has nothing to do with their feelings about gays; no, it's just about the purity of the language or somesuch.

But in English, unlike in French, we don't have a government bureaucracy deciding on the official definitions of words (something that I'm sure you appreciate). Thus, meaning is determined by usage, and the following definition of "homophobia" is given by Merriam-Webster, which aligns closely with the definition in several other dictionaries and with common usage in my experience:

"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

making the semantic objection rather moot.

What about gay, queer or fag? Who assigns that usage? All seemingly pejorative to some but not all. "That guy is queerer than a 3 dollar bill" can mean many things. He eats his own poop, beats off to Justin Bieber posters, collects soiled panties, likes boys, is a Patriots fan, etc...

Also, the homophobia part came up because someone used the word gay to describe CF. Then they were assessed as homophobic due to the use of the word. If using gay is sufficient enough to consider someone discriminating, averse to or fearful of homosexuals, then a lot of middle/high school, college kids need to be informed. I'm sure they don't know it but you can tell them enough and they will start believing. Oh, that is what y'all are doing. Telling us we have a problem and should remedy it. Just like my psychiatrist telling me I have PTSD, it is her opinion but it doesn't make it true.

Labeling people homophobes is a bad as labeling people anything, isn't it? Or is it okay because it supports an agenda? Everyone has an agenda and to think one side or the other is more altruistic is naive.