(Post a new comment)

	firebad 2008-02-23 01:57 pm UTC (link)
	Hey, question. Do you like the word homosexual? I'm a bi chick in a long-term gay relationship, and for some reason, I LOATHE it. Gay is fine, queer is... eh, okay, but homosexual always makes me think of Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps. It sounds so clinical. I almost never hear it without somebody adding 'agenda' afterwards. /thoughts on hommoseckshuls (Reply to this)(Thread)

	mireille 2008-02-23 02:27 pm UTC (link)
	I'm a lesbian in a long-term relationship, and I'm fine with it. (Although I really hate the term "queer" and don't/won't use it to describe myself. Or anyone else unless they specifically ask.) (Reply to this)(Parent)

spacelogic
2008-02-23 06:23 pm UTC (link)

Only for clinical/formal settings, used with "heterosexual" and/or "bisexual." And never as a noun -- "a homosexual man" or "homosexual people" or such, but not "a homosexual."

I like gay, I like queer, I hate "lesbian" with a deep burning hatred unless it's describing a relationship (I don't want to be called a lesbian, but I'd like to see a lesbian romance in an otherwise-good sci-fi show sometime,) and these conclude my Thoughts On Homosexuality.

Re the topic of the post: There's a major following of ATWT on AfterElton.com -- enough gay men care about the show that it might just be them. I wouldn't get too excited.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

issendai
2008-02-23 06:33 pm UTC (link)

I'm not fond of it, but the options aren't great, either. "Gay" is good but it still sounds strange to hear it applied to women's relationships, "queer" has political and social connotations that don't always apply, "lesbian" makes me think of elegant women smoking through cigarette holders in 30's movies, and "dyke" is a fantastic word that I think should be made unisexual but that has bad connotations outside trendy subcultures. "Homosexual" sounds either too clinical or too I'm-scared-of-these-wild-kids-and-their-wild-ways,-let's-go-back-to-the-1880's-when-life-was-good-for-middle-class-white-males-okay?

Ah, euphemism creep, 21st-century-style.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Thoughts on the word "homosexual"

tehrin
2008-02-23 07:02 pm UTC (link)

I'm bi and I'm perfectly fine with homosexual because it's very neutral and it only matters how it's said and who's saying it. I feel the same with most identification words used to describe people in the gay community, with the exception of a few ones that I've noticed are almost only used to demean a gay, bi, or even a straight individual. I've seen other words used a lot more than "homosexual" to insult gay individuals (even the word "gay" is used as much, after all!), but ultimately, you can't let Phelps or Robertson get to you that much because it's what they want- to turn words we can use for pride or identity against us. Plus, whenever I hear "homosexual/gay agenda," I'm typically: (A)angry/laughing at what tools these people are, (B)embarrassed for them, (C)want a drink, (D) puzzled by the fact that no one has ever sent me the world domination plans*, or (E) any combination of the above.

*Then again, I'm bisexual so I'm not supposed to exist and I may have been left off the mailing list.

Apologies for sounding preachy or tl;dr.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Thoughts on the word "homosexual" firebad 2008-02-24 01:31 am UTC (link)
	You're not preachy, you're amusing. :) I will call Head Office and make sure you're mailed your copy of the 2008 Agenda. I believe Undermining Traditional Marriage and Indoctrinating Children are high on the list this year. (Reply to this)(Parent)

karmakaze
2008-02-24 01:29 am UTC (link)

I'm fine with it. It also lets you use 'heterosexual' as a descriptor, since 'straight' can also mean 'someone who does not take drugs' or even 'someone who is not a member of any given subculture'.

I can't hear "homosexual agenda" without cracking up, though. My mind always goes to "8:30am coffee; 9:00am reading of minutes; 9:15am old gay business; 10:00am new gay business..."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	firebad 2008-02-24 01:31 am UTC (link)
	10:30 am, gay coffee break... :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	miss_padfoot 2008-02-25 05:48 am UTC (link)
	Actually, you're not too far off (Reply to this)(Parent)

mute_button
2008-02-24 01:34 am UTC (link)

For me it depends on who's saying it. The word by itself doesn't bother me, but when someone says it a certain way ("a homo-sexual") it causes a strong urge to punch them in the face.

I prefer queer, at least for myself, partly because I'm not quite sure on my sexuality, so it saves me from a long rambling speech, "I guess you could call me bisexual, but ..." (And it also saves me from trying to decide how many letters to include in GLBTQIAetcetc.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	eldritch 2008-02-24 03:13 am UTC (link)
	Oddly, I dislike the word "lesbian" more than I dislike "homosexual." It reminds me of porn or something, I dunno. So... I'm more likely to describe a woman what like other women as "homosexual" or "gay" than "lesbian." [bisexual female with homosexual leanings] (Reply to this)(Parent)

	pyratejenni 2008-02-24 05:36 am UTC (link)
	Your comment reminds me of the gay commedienne who said "homosexual" made her think of old-fashioned revivals, only with "homosexual spirituals being sung down by the river -- Somewhere over the rainbow!". (Reply to this)(Parent)

amxjm
2008-02-24 08:16 am UTC (link)

For some reason this thread is reminding me of a discussion I had with somebody that was insisting that "sodomite" was the proper term for a homosexual person. Presumably he meant just homosexual men, but it had a certain generality to it.

And since I'm now required to share my personal thoughts and/or experiences, my reaction to a given word depends on the context, and I am (to keep it short) queer.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	stromatolite 2008-02-24 06:27 pm UTC (link)
	I find the word sodomite rather negative, given the Biblical connotations. (Reply to this)(Parent)

notjo
2008-02-24 12:14 pm UTC (link)

I think the reason it doesn't ping that way to me is because I'm really far far away from Phelps and his ilk, so I really only hear of them saying "God hates Fags", not "homosexual agenda", you know? I hadn't even thought of that at all when I was typing it.

Thanks for pointing it out, though - I tend to forget how the word is abused by the "OMG HOMOSEXUALS ARE EVUL!" type.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	criticalcricket 2008-02-23 03:01 pm UTC (link)
	I find that interesting given that soap operas are big dramatic morality plays. I think it says a lot for the moral compass of soap watchers if they not only approve, but want more. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	tofuknight 2008-02-23 03:47 pm UTC (link)
	I know! I personally like hearing about soap operas more than watching them, but that they want more gay sexx0rs on the show? Awesome. Though really, Nuke? They're short names for crying out loud. What's wrong with N/L or L/N for short? I'll never understand smushed shipping names, though I do enjoy the wank.:) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	evilsqueakers 2008-02-24 12:44 am UTC (link)
	Could be worse. Could be Sami/Lucas on Days, which was/is Lumi. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	dante_the_mouse 2008-02-26 02:59 am UTC (link)
	Wait, people write fic for soaps? I always assumed the fanbase was too old to be interested in fandom... but I guess the only person I know who watches soaps is my grandmother. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	evilsqueakers 2008-02-26 03:12 am UTC (link)
	Oh, they totally write a lot. List for Days, One Life, GH, and As The World Turns. Hell, even Passions has it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	trollprincess 2008-02-26 05:27 pm UTC (link)
	Well, considering Luke and Noah's been dragging a lot of younger soap fans back, there's a lot of fic being written about the two of them lately. Especially since the PTB certainly aren't going to let them get laid anytime soon. ;) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	issendai 2008-02-23 06:21 pm UTC (link)
	NOW will the RWA stop insisting that real women don't want gay in their romances? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	yoritomo_reiko 2008-02-23 09:19 pm UTC (link)
	... They what? No, really. I...WHAT? Obviously, they haven't paid any attention to fandom... (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

issendai
2008-02-23 09:41 pm UTC (link)

Yes really. There were a few kerfuffles during this past year, though I couldn't give you details because I don't follow it that closely. Basically, the RWA is run by the old guard, who want less sex in their novels and NO MANSEX EW and who will recognize the explosion of online romance presses only if their arms are twisted. Meanwhile, the new guard wants sex and more sex and LOTS more sex and mantouching and fantasy and werewolves and vampires and, in short, they look a hell of a lot like fandom. Because the book presses won't touch much of their stuff, many of them have turned to online presses, which are now expanding to fill the gap left by the death of most of the print erotica houses AND are printing their own paper books and getting them on romance-section shelves. Which causes the old guard to lose control of all bodily functions.

Combine that with a genre culture that makes fandom's Cult of Nice look like babykillers, and you have a motherlode of sweet, sweet wank.

Anyways. Yes. Women don't like mansex.

*checks pants*

...Damn. My cock hasn't grown in yet.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

yoritomo_reiko
2008-02-23 11:57 pm UTC (link)

My boobs are still way too big to be a guy.

I know a few people who work for electronic erotica publishers. I know they're always looking for more mansex. And fantasy and werewolves and vampires and...well, yes. I met them through fandom too, though.

*sighs* They really don't know women right now, which explains a lot about how far down it's all going. It's kind of sad, really.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	issendai 2008-02-24 12:22 am UTC (link)
	I was about to say that as usual, porn is on the cutting edge and regular publishers need to learn to pay attention, but the wank is about gay romance on a good old-fashioned mainstream soap opera. Heh. It's truly sad that they're not paying attention. The fact that women like gay men isn't exactly a well-kept secret. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	miss_padfoot 2008-02-25 05:51 am UTC (link)
	I assumed RWA was Republican Women of America, 'cause of the "oh no gay sex" thing, and was disappointed to find that it's not just Republicans who think gay sex is icky and won't sell. Do the romance writers not know about the popularity of slash online? (Reply to this)(Parent)

	vzg 2008-02-23 09:09 pm UTC (link)
	This almost makes me want to watch a soap opera. (Reply to this)

evilsqueakers
2008-02-24 12:57 am UTC (link)

Okay, ignoring the eyetwitching that I associate with ATWT, I can see why some people are upset. I mean, shoot. Look at AMC. They had freaking Bianca and Zoe/Zarf...and did nothing with the plot line. At least, nothing with substance (standard AMC practice). You'll notice that the gay characters on soaps are kind of here today, gone tomorrow. They last a couple years and then it's back to watching the same stripping scene with different characters.

And I don't know how mainstream soaps are anymore, since the viewership is down a good bit. For awhile, NBC was thinking of selling Days off, or canceling it entirely. The production costs are outweighed. Now, for the genre, it'd be interesting if this ended up in say, Soap Opera Digest, or Soap Opera Weekly. That'd be an interesting internet explosion, once the fans read the opinions and then got online.

(Reply to this)

Possible spoilers ahead, but ...

trollprincess
2008-02-26 05:24 pm UTC (link)

And now for added fun, they've added a ~~heavy bludgeoning plot device~~ pretty Iraqi woman who knew Noah's homophobic father into the mix. Which, her repetitive heavy-handed and annoying "Back in Iraq ..." comments aside, is looking like a set-up for more fun sexual orientation questioning and a possible green-card marriage in the works. Also, the previews for this week supposedly (I missed it and can't bring myself to watch it 'cause ... UGH) show someone tossing the F-bomb at the boys.

So they can't kiss or hug but they can have homophobic slurs thrown at them? Thanks, P&G, you're a real fucking peach.

(Four things:

1. Yes, I watch. God help me.
2. I almost typed, "homophobic sluts."
3. There's speculation that they're going to soften up the less homophobic audience members who still disapprove of the relationship and make them more sympathetic by having one of the boys beaten up for being gay. Oh, good, gay bashing. That's exactly what I want to watch when I already think the writers are pandering to homophobes.
4. I don't have thoughts on yaoi, but I do have a purse that says, "I *heart* yaoi," which is even better because it fits a book, a pen, and a notebook perfectly. Ahem.)

(Reply to this)