Homosexuality

[snoop]

I really have no idea where this belongs, but I was thinking about things this morning. I was pondering why my life was so hard, why everything was such a mystery, and then homosexuality made sense to me. Not that I'm gay, on the contrary, I am attracted to women. However, emotionally, I was wondering why I was either full on emotionally crazy as fuck, or I felt nothing at all. I hated myself because I wanted to be able to feel, it was as if I were two different people, a beast and a human. And it struck me, that's what it is to be a male in human society. To divorce yourself from your feelings so that that the ones you love, the women and children in your life, can be emotionally whole. You do this to protect them, and to protect yourself. But some people can't do this, for some, it is too much, and emotions are too overpowering. They cannot divorce themselves from their humanity and being able to feel, and honestly why should they? Back when it mattered, before we were intelligent enough to make computers and create works of art and skyscrapers, before all that, somebody had to do it, and it was the person that was most expendable as a biological imperative. But not anymore. Today is a new day, and if a man cannot divorce himself from his feelings and his humanity and be forced to feel hate in his heart, to deny his feelings, then why should he? The same goes for women, if they happen to be in situations that have caused them to shed their emotions, and for them to be strong like that to, then what problem is there? You don't even have to be gay to be like that, you just have to be a human being. That's all.

[JoannaB]

I am confused: are you saying that gay men feel more, and that gay women do not feel enough? If so, that is incorrect. I have family members and friends who are gay, and do not meet such stereotypes. The only difference that is consistently demonstrated between gay and straight people is that gay people are sexually attracted to members of same gender. One can be a straight man and cry and enjoy dancing and theater and cooking and the color pink, and one can be a gay woman and cry and dance and play with dolls and like to dress feminine. There are stereotypes, and then there are human beings who do not meet the stereotypes. Or did I completely misunderstand what you were saying? Perhaps I did, and if so, I am sorry.

[snoop]

No, it's nothing like that. I am saying, when we cut ourselves off from our emotions to simply "get over" things, the act of being "strong" or what society calls that, it leads to a strange set of emotional issues. Denying who you are isn't right, and if you feel like you love men and you are a man, or if you are a woman and love a woman, love is all the same. Why should somebody be forced to just get over shit if they don't want to? You can be as sensitive as you want, that's what I mean. These concepts of femininity and masculinity are all bullshit and archaic. They were needed once for survival, but we don't live in the wild anymore, that's what I mean. In fact, here, let me start over. It occurs to me now that what I said may be misconstrued, let me clear things up. Society's definitions of femininity and masculinity are a load of crap. People can be as sensitive to things as they want to be, I'm not saying anybody is weak or strong, but that the concepts are foolish to begin with. Everybody is strong. If you happen to be a man and love a man, or a woman and love a woman, love is love, and there's nothing you can do to change that. Once upon a time heterosexuality was needed to ensure the survival of the human race, but we've grown up since then and now we have a choice. If you're gay, I don't care, good for you. That's your business.

[JoannaB]

Ah, very good then. Sorry to have so thoroughly misunderstood before, or rather I am very glad that I thoroughly misunderstood before because this post I can thoroughly agree with what you are saying, now that I understand it better.

[Maeni]

That was one hella confusing original post... I don't think what you're trying to say has anything to do with homosexuality. I'm very sensitive and almost completely lacking competitiveness and aggressiveness... I never make the connection to homosexuality, I never think about the fact that my behavior is feminine. I believe that is how it should be. So much damage has been caused to so many people because of how important many people make masculinity and femininity out to be, when in fact you just are the way you are. Everybody is sensitive and nobody should not express their feelings. This has nothing to do with sexuality, sex or gender. It is, indeed, absolutely archaic to think it does.

[snoop]

I was relating my own experiences to what it means to fit the expectation of what society expects a male to feel and act like. I tried to relate it to others as well. It makes sense that it would be confusing to others with a different point of view, but my point stands that the expectations society has for gender roles are pretty foolish and based on an archaic method of thinking that relies solely on biological imperative. I can see how it is confusing, but could you at least try and understand where I was coming from? I know I am not the best at conveying my ideas clearly, but when other people make similar statements I usually get the gist of what they were saying because I try and understand where they are coming from. Again, it's really my fault, but I feel like there is a lack of effort on the part of others that is leading to this misunderstanding. For instance, I can look at the attempted violence a man may try and inflict on another man and simply resolve to say that the one attempting to be violent is just an idiot who doesn't think clearly and is just disrespectful and hateful, but to do so would be equally as foolish as believing that gender roles should define the actions of men and women simply because they exist. There is a reason everybody acts the way they do, and not attempting to understand the motivation behind their actions is in all honestly equally as bigoted in my eyes as somebody who hates homosexuality or an entire group of people based on the actions of a few, because in both cases neither party is attempting to understand the perspective of anyone but those who they identify with or themselves. Does that make sense? Somebody that hates bigots for being bigoted without attempting to understand the ideas behind the bigotry itself is just as bigoted. It's like people who are too willing to believe in paranormal phenomena simply because they want it to be real are just as close minded as those who claim paranormal phenomena can't exist simply because they want to believe it doesn't, and it is difficult to prove that it does. The truly open minded individual is willing to fully investigate both sides, attempt to understand the ideas and concepts behind what both sides of an argument or two different groups believe, come to an educated conclusion, but remain flexible and open to the idea that the conclusion they finally came to may in fact be wrong, it's just there simply isn't enough information to go off of currently to come to an accurate conclusion. So, again, while it was my fault for stating things in such a way that others couldn't easily relate to it, I feel as though you two didn't make much of an attempt to understand what I was saying and simply disagreed with my ideas and therefore rejected them without trying to see things from a perspective of somebody (like me) with a totally different set of life experiences, and I feel like this lack of effort is what has led to this kind of problem in the first place. Maybe I'm totally wrong here, but it's like the arguments I see between democrats and republicans. I wind up thinking both sides are pretty dumb because they make no attempts to reach a middle ground, but because I understand at least the basic elements of human psychology and recognize the fact that many others simply do not have to ability or will to try and understand a point of view other than there own, the more understanding of the individuals has to make a further attempt to word something in a way that the other side can come to agree with based on their reactions to the initial statement. Case in point, I saw JoannaB's response, realized my error, and so made an attempt to word what I was saying differently so that she and hopefully others could better understand. I provided a limited amount of data to go off of in the first place, and you came to a conclusion about what I believed that was not in fact accurate, so I provided you with more information to give you guys a clearer picture. Eventually I got you to see things my way, but I have to say it's extremely frustrating that in response to what I said, all that was said in return was that I was confusing in my original statement and that based on what you all think I meant to say, I was wrong, rather trying to brainstorm for yourselves where I could be coming from. Alas, I'm beating a dead horse now and things are never really going to change, though I wish they would, because it is only human nature. It was my responsibility to clear things up since I was the one presenting the idea, and I can accept that, but like I said, it doesn't make it any less frustrating, considering I usually try and see things from as many different vantage points as possible. Why do it if others don't? It's like wondering why you should be a nice, good person when there are lots of rude, bad people out there that do not return your kindness, but that makes you just as bad as them if you give up on being good/nice, so acting as poorly as they do is wrong, and again that fact is very frustrating.

[JoannaB]

Snoop, I do not think it is fair to accuse us to not try hard enough to understand your point of view. I did try very hard with the original post but despite that thoroughly misunderstood it, but I understood that there was a risk of misunderstanding, and so I asked you whether I had understood correctly and told you what I (mis)understood, and then you clarified your meaning, and then I understood and agreed with you. I then even read the long wall of text in further effort to understand where you are coming from. However, now I cannot agree with your complaints that I should have spent more effort trying to understand. Sorry, but I feel that I have tried pretty hard, and I think a much better approach on an online forum to a confusing post is to talk about it like we do and not to just try to reread the post - I would do that with a book whose authors are dead and thus unavailable for clarification, but not when trying to understand the point of view of a human who is available to clarify. Also I find that in a thread there is a certain extent to which every participant interacts with the original post not just with the responses, so I would expect comments to the original post even after the conversation has progressed. I completely agree that each of us approach issues in our own way and what may be confusing to one person is clear to another, and I am sure that each of us is capable of writing a post that only he or she can understand. When we post such a post while trying to talk to other people, things get confusing. And then human nature comes in and we bicker about it, and if all goes well we reach an understanding after all.

[MrPriority]

I have to agree with JoannaB here. I'm unsure why you feel there was not enough effort put into reading your post. I totally agree that both sides should try and objectively look at each others point. From their own point of view and from the other person as well. This is hard to find nowadays, sadly yes. But I don't see any of it here. In fact I'd go as far as stating quite the opposite. People did not understand your post not because they didn't put effort into it, but more likely because you posted the idea in way that is easily misunderstood (I also completely misunderstood the OP). Now instead of making a big arguement against you, she simply said that she was unsure about your meaning and even apologised beforehand. What more effort can you expect? Also, I think it's good to keep in mind here that most people don't read long texts. Not because they don't like you or don't want to understand you. It's simply hard to read it like that and most people won't even start because of that. Lastly I would like to say that if a person came in and look at your post objectively and from all angles. You still can't expect him/her to magically understand your post, no matter how hard they try. Also, it would be just as reasonable to argue that you did not see things from Joanna's point of view and therefor incorrectly assumed there was no effort put into it. Plus, text is not as good as spoken words. On forums misunderstandings are only to be expected. Hell even in day to day life misunderstandings happen all the time. Note: I am not saying you are or aren't doing any of the above. I just feel like they are important points to be made, regardless of who did what. On to the point at hand: I am still unsure what you are trying say here. I do agree with many things across your posts. I agree that society expect certain kinds of behavior from different kinds of people. And that it's certainly not for the best. Though I don't really understand where homosexuality comes in. I feel like you are directly linking homosexuality to emotions and/or the "getting over" of those emotions. Almost as if one was caused by the other. Though I don't think that is what you are trying to say, so it is a little confusing to me. I do feel that the idea of someone being strong is not so much that they put away their feelings. I'd say it is the people who can understand and cope with their feelings easily that are strong. I'd say that people who cut themselves off from emotions are not strong at all, even though they might seem so to the untrained eye. It's the human that knows him/herself and has inner peace, who can truely look at the world objectively and see it as it is. And leave emotions for what they are, whithout getting overwhelmed or cutting anything off. That is the person I would call strong.

[Maeni]

I was relating my own experiences to what it means to fit the expectation of what society expects a male to feel and act like. I tried to relate it to others as well. It makes sense that it would be confusing to others with a different point of view, but my point stands that the expectations society has for gender roles are pretty foolish and based on an archaic method of thinking that relies solely on biological imperative. I can see how it is confusing, but could you at least try and understand where I was coming from? I know I am not the best at conveying my ideas clearly, but when other people make similar statements I usually get the gist of what they were saying because I try and understand where they are coming from. Again, it's really my fault, but I feel like there is a lack of effort on the part of others that is leading to this misunderstanding. For instance, I can look at the attempted violence a man may try and inflict on another man and simply resolve to say that the one attempting to be violent is just an idiot who doesn't think clearly and is just disrespectful and hateful, but to do so would be equally as foolish as believing that gender roles should define the actions of men and women simply because they exist. There is a reason everybody acts the way they do, and not attempting to understand the motivation behind their actions is in all honestly equally as bigoted in my eyes as somebody who hates homosexuality or an entire group of people based on the actions of a few, because in both cases neither party is attempting to understand the perspective of anyone but those who they identify with or themselves. You're still being really confusing. You seem to be trying to make arguments about us not understanding you and homosexuality and society's gender ideals at the same time. I'm sorry, but I did not and I do not fully understand your posts - and I don't understand why you feel so offended when I said your post was confusing. You say usually you get the gist of what people are saying; and that's what I did? I said your post was confusing but then I continued to write a response to what I did understand. Did my response not correlate with your argument? I think it did, and so I think I did get the gist of your post. I'm not sure why you get worked up over our simple observation which is that your post left us feeling confused. Does that make sense? Somebody that hates bigots for being bigoted without attempting to understand the ideas behind the bigotry itself is just as bigoted. It's like people who are too willing to believe in paranormal phenomena simply because they want it to be real are just as close minded as those who claim paranormal phenomena can't exist simply because they want to believe it doesn't, and it is difficult to prove that it does. The truly open minded individual is willing to fully investigate both sides, attempt to understand the ideas and concepts behind what both sides of an argument or two different groups believe, come to an educated conclusion, but remain flexible and open to the idea that the conclusion they finally came to may in fact be wrong, it's just there simply isn't enough information to go off of currently to come to an accurate conclusion. This paragraph is part of an explanation of "I know I wrote it confusingly, but could you please try to just read it again and give understanding it some effort?". I feel that that very precisely shows how confusing your posts are. You're frustrated that we ostensibly didn't put enough effort into comprehending your post... Do you not think that it is slightly overkill that we went through homosexuality, violence, bigotry and paranormal phenomena just to express that feeling? So, again, while it was my fault for stating things in such a way that others couldn't easily relate to it, I feel as though you two didn't make much of an attempt to understand what I was saying and simply disagreed with my ideas and therefore rejected them Uh, I agreed with you, didn't I? I thought I did get the gist of your argument, but if you're saying that my post seemed like a disagreement, then I don't think I can get any more confused than I am. but it's like the arguments I see between democrats and republicans. Step #1: Stop pulling in hundreds of unrelated topics when you're trying to talk about one thing: Society's standards of masculinity and femininity (I think?) Case in point, I saw JoannaB's response, realized my error, and so made an attempt to word what I was saying differently so that she and hopefully others could better understand. Yes, and that second post helped me to understand what you meant. I'm glad you did that. And then I replied. ???? all that was said in return was that I was confusing in my original statement and that based on what you all think I meant to say, I was wrong What the hell, that's not even at all what I feel I said. My initial statement that your post was confusing was a small note that was supposed to simply accompany my actual response, hence why I separated my actual response with my line about being confused. I didn't say you were wrong, I attempted to flesh out and simplify what it was you were expressing: That all people, regardless of gender and sex, should be allowed to be sensitive and shouldn't be pressured into acting "manly" by suppressing their feelings. I didn't feel that that had anything to do with homosexuality, which is why I said that your argument didn't have anything to do with homosexuality. That's not me saying you're wrong, that's me saying I feel you brought up some topics that didn't have to be brought up. It's like wondering why you should be a nice, good person when there are lots of rude, bad people out there that do not return your kindness, but that makes you just as bad as them if you give up on being good/nice, so acting as poorly as they do is wrong, and again that fact is very frustrating. Suggestion: Make it a rule not to say "It's like..." I didn't expect such a backlash, so you're not alone in your frustration. I responded to your argument like I would any other: I would never respond to a thread if I felt that I had no input. If my only thought had been "I don't understand this post", I would never have replied, so I don't know why you are claiming that I merely rejected your argument, and that I didn't even attempt to understand you. I feel like you didn't even read my post?

[snoop]

Alright guys, take 2. I figured this was going to be the reaction I got, I probably just should have kept my frustration to myself, but something you all must understand about me is that I'm mildly autistic, so if my ideas don't make sense to you, I probably don't have a clue that that may be the case as I am writing them. Since I know what I mean, and I know what a lot of other people feel like toward the issue, I feel like we should instantly connect, and then when we don't, I'm left confused and frustrated. I apologize for that fact. I suppose I was just very frustrated with the situation and not really with you guys, but the truth of the matter is that if you can't understand me, it's my fault, because I'm the one with the idea in the first place. I'm sorry about that.

[JoannaB]

Snoop, it's ok to have misunderstandings though. Sometimes I feel that a misunderstanding followed by some issue resolution followed by greater understanding can ultimately be a more worthwhile experience than instant connections and agreements with no need to clarify anything further. we now know more about each other than if you had just said something and had received a bunch of "I agree!" In response to it. A friend of mine has a son who is highly functioning autistic so I know a bit about what that's like but alas not enough. My understanding is that autistic brains just work differently, but I think that that's not necessarily a bad thing. The fact that human beings have different brains is I think ultimately good for humanity. It makes us a richer species. Being different is ok. It would be worse I think if all humans were alike: no one was autistic or homo sexual or even male or female, just human without differences. I think humanity would be worse off.

[MrPriority]

Although I admire you taking the blame, I feel like misunderstandings are inevitable. As long as both sides are willing to take the effort to try and understand one another I don't think there is any blame or fault in either of them. And I agree with JoannaB that misunderstanding can often lead to greater understandings. Though please, don't refrain from stating what is on your mind. Even if people don't always understand it. Even if you know people might get mad. If you really believe something is true, then I think you have all the right to say it

[snoop]

I definitely agree with everybody in the thread, thanks guys. And trust me, I don't know how to keep my mouth shut or my fingers from typing, so you don't have to worry about that. I definitely think a filter is needed though. There were points in my life where I had no filter and I was all filter, and in both cases it turned out quite terribly. You just need to learn when to use that filter in the most intelligent manner to get the most out of life.