 |
Comments |
|
 | Friday, November 6, 2009 at 16:47:12 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Ritu
This is great! Thanks for sharing. |
|
| Friday, November 6, 2009 at 17:13:43 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Brandon Killen
E-mail: killenb(at)gmail.com
URL: http://brandonkillen.wordpress.com
I think that it's very interesting that when Jerry says "I'm gay.", he thinks that he's expressing not just his sexual orientation, but an entire perspective and mindset. As a gay man, I disagree. When I say I'm gay, I'm not necessarily associating my sexual orientation with my lifestyle or my perspectives on life. I'm gay, to me, is simply saying that I am sexual oriented towards men - period. I reject the idea that one's sexual orientation (like one's race) must necessarily entail a mindset or a lifestyle. |
|
| Friday, November 6, 2009 at 21:03:52 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Richard
I tried watching the video from his blog but it also wouldn't work for me. It worked from noodlefood though.
Brandon I think you might have misunderstood what he was saying. He wasn't saying him being gay inherently comes *with* a particular multicultural set of views of life. I think he was saying that the sexual aspect is only one single aspect of himself on top of many other multi-faceted characteristics that he portrays. |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 1:16:15 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: sara
Interesting. This person has a blog? Where is it? |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 1:31:07 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Brandon Killen
E-mail: killenb(at)gmail.com
URL: http://brandonkillen.wordpress.com
Richard, I watched the video several times to make sure I understood what he was saying correctly.
He said that when he tells someone he's gay, he is saying that he is stating his "psycho-sexual identity", while many people just focus on the sexual identity. He then goes further stating, "I am stating all of my cultural, all of my aesthetic, all of my ethical, of all my perspectives - all of that comes with me saying that I am gay." From my own perspective on my homosexuality, I vehemently disagree with a statement of this kind, it would not apply to my life.
I do not blur the label of my sexual orientation with other aspects of my life. "Gay" simply means I am attracted to men. I do not attach any more significance to the term. Perhaps "gay" for him is a label denoting cultural, aesthetic, and ethical(?) views. But I cannot see how that is logical use of the term unless members of the gay community share similar views and lifestyles, which is certainly not the case. Furthermore, by attaching "gay" with a particular set of values or lifestyles, you effectively contribute to the exclusion and the stereotyping of that community - something that the homosexual community does not need any more of. |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 10:43:58 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Sajid
"I am stating all of my cultural, all of my aesthetic, all of my ethical, of all my perspectives - all of that comes with me saying that I am gay."
I am not gay but I have had a gay roommate before and I think I must agree with the statement. If ethics is what is good for you, then your choice in a romantic partner is part of ethics for you. The same for aesthetic and cultural preferences--Homosexuals have their own unique culture (and I don't mean flamboyant gay culture, just their own way of interacting with people based on their own unique psycho-sexual identity) and of course the aesthetic preferences of a homosexual male can be radically different from a heterosexual male.
I guess he should not have said "all" of my cultural or "all" of my ethical as humans are much more than their sexual identity. In fact, by using the word "all" he is explicitly contradicting himself because if the word "gay" identified so much about him then it stands to reason that the first thing people would think about gay people is indeed the fact that they are gay (a fact he resented just a little bit earlier in the video).
I personally think he was just being sloppy and what he meant to say was that homosexuality is more than just a regular man sleeping with men and to understand homosexuals you have to understand them as human beings with all of their unique aesthetic, cultural and ethical attributes based on their slightly different sexuality. This makes sense of course because, after all, we don't look at women as "men who sleep with men", but as women based on their own unique natures.
I will not comment on how much a person's sexuality affects his aesthetics and ethics as I am not really sure. Also, when I use the word ethics here I want to clarify that nothing fundamental changes about ethics. The standard of ethics is still the person's happiness. It's just that different things make a homosexual happy than a heterosexual and thus the ethical standards will be slightly different in practice. The same goes for the word culture--just as all female gatherings are usually different from all male gatherings, so will all gay gatherings acquire their own unique flavor. This does not mean than gay athletic culture will have more in common with gay art culture and less with hetero athletic culture. Also, there are plenty of cultural aspects that are completely independent of sexuality. I don't know too much about how these situations work and they probably vary greatly from individual to individual and social group to social group. |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 12:22:47 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Brandon Killen
E-mail: killenb(at)gmail.com
URL: http://brandonkillen.wordpress.com
Sajid, you are absolutely right that one's choice of a romantic partner is part of ethics. But my ethics does not stem from the fact that I am gay, but from the fact that I am *human*. Every human has a sexual component to their nature, every human is in some way sexually oriented (whether one gender, both genders, or neither gender). Every human has that in common. One's sexual orientation does not give rise to the ethical scenarios of romantic love - one's humanity does. A handy distinction here is between sexual orientation and sexual attraction. A lot of research supports the idea that sexual orientation is beyond a person's control, it develops naturally through a combination of biological and psychological processes. Sexual attraction on the other hand is predominately an emotional response and is conditioned by one's thoughts, in other words, sexual attraction can be altered, controlled, programmed, etc.
And as I said earlier, I do not blur my sexual orientation with other aspects of my life. My sexual orientation is beyond my control - but many other aspects of my life are not. I must take full responsibility for my ethical decisions, my aesthetic preferences, what I say and how I say it, etc. By tying all of those areas to sexual orientation I am effectively saying that much of my life is biologically/psychologically determined.
Finally, if he was merely wanting to express the idea that people are more than their sexual orientations, then yes, he was being extremely sloppy. If a homosexual wants to express the intricacy and individuality of his life, he should not begin by packaging all important aspects of his life under a single label "gay". He should just simply say: I am more than my sexual orientation. Here's why... |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 13:52:59 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Sajid
"But my ethics does not stem from the fact that I am gay, but from the fact that I am *human*. Every human has a sexual component to their nature, every human is in some way sexually oriented (whether one gender, both genders, or neither gender). Every human has that in common. One's sexual orientation does not give rise to the ethical scenarios of romantic love - one's humanity does."
I agree, but the particular flavor of sexual attraction DOES depend on the sexual orientation of the person in question. And this is really the main issue. No one ever denies the essential humanity of homosexuals. However, most bigots consider homosexuals to be a perversion of the natural expression of humanity. I think it is important to realize that the particular fashion a homosexual male expresses his sexual, romantic and even certain cultural preferences IS related to the fact that there are innate physiological differences between a homosexual and heterosexual male. A failure to realize this results in judging homosexual males by heterosexual male standards which then leads to all sorts of ridiculous and completely unfounded "moral" conclusions.
In post #6 I said:
"I will not comment on how much a person's sexuality affects his aesthetics and ethics as I am not really sure. Also, when I use the word ethics here I want to clarify that nothing fundamental changes about ethics. The standard of ethics is still the person's happiness. It's just that different things make a homosexual happy than a heterosexual and thus the ethical standards will be slightly different in practice. The same goes for the word culture--just as all female gatherings are usually different from all male gatherings, so will all gay gatherings acquire their own unique flavor. This does not mean than gay athletic culture will have more in common with gay art culture and less with hetero athletic culture. Also, there are plenty of cultural aspects that are completely independent of sexuality. I don't know too much about how these situations work and they probably vary greatly from individual to individual and social group to social group."
And that is all I mean by culture and ethics. Sexual orientation is just a different flavor of humanity and I was never (and would never) trying to suggest otherwise. |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 14:33:12 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Brandon Killen
E-mail: killenb(at)gmail.com
URL: http://brandonkillen.wordpress.com
"I agree, but the particular flavor of sexual attraction DOES depend on the sexual orientation of the person in question." This is true only in a very, very broad manner. Sexual orientation will fuel your preference for gender, but it is what you find sexually attractive that deals with you "particular flavor". To make that concrete, homosexuality orients me to prefer men. However, what I find sexually attractive is muscular, intelligent, dark haired, assertive, dominant men. My sexual orientation does not innately give me those preferences.
I agree that it is important to recognize "innate physiological differences" between men and women, homosexuals and heterosexuals, etc. But I do not think that those innate physiological differences necessarily entail set ways of expression. Not all gay men exhibit a lisp, not all lesbians sing baritone. Heterosexual men, as well as homosexual men, can both portray feminine features. In the end, there is too much variability of individual expression among people to simply point to the metaphysical differences between people and say, "That's why."
And I know that you were not suggesting that homosexuals were not fully human. What I said was merely to illustrate the fact that sexual orientation does not set ethical principles. The entirety of human nature sets such principles, and I would go further and assert that one's particular sexual orientation does not set certain ethical principles, rather the fact that human sexuality and sexual orientation exist set ethical principles. |
|
| Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 14:58:51 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Sajid
"What I said was merely to illustrate the fact that sexual orientation does not set ethical principles. The entirety of human nature sets such principles, and I would go further and assert that one's particular sexual orientation does not set certain ethical principles, rather the fact that human sexuality and sexual orientation exist set ethical principles."
I agree with this statement. Yes there is a wide variety of differences between people and my own experiences tells me the same. I am not trying to stereotype nor am I in favor of it by any means.
"But I do not think that those innate physiological differences necessarily entail set ways of expression."
However, I must disagree with this. Innate physiological differences mean different things are important to you. The question here of course is how much and how relevant the details are. I actually do not have enough information to answer this and the few gay guys I have been in contact with were usually the serious intellectual and studious types not very different at all from plenty of my other friends and myself. In fact I wouldn't have known they were gay if they hadn't told me.
I am not sure what I am arguing here really so its time for me to bow out of this discussion. I do appreciate your comments, Brandon. |
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 15:04:19 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Jerry
E-mail: jerryanomo(at)gmail.com
URL: http://ergosum.wordpress.com
Diana, thanks for posting this video.
About the statement I made that has become the topic of this thread, I agree that perhaps I could have framed my sentence more precisely in the video--but do keep in mind that what you saw was barely a 7-10 minute edit of a 2-hour discussion that we had in reality.
My main argument is that one's sexual orientation is much more than one's sexual identity. One's orientation, much like Sajid said above, does involve psychological, aesthetic, and cultural influences. First, I am unpersuaded that sexual orientation is entirely or largely physiological. Given my exposure to a variety of cultures--both among sexual minorities and across heterosexual communities around the world--I am persuaded to believe that sexual orientation is the result of a complex and deeply subconscious mix of influences that may also involve some elements of physiological stimuli such as pre-natal hormonal influences playing along with cultural, environmental, and psychological factors.
Given the above, I believe that it is practically impossible to isolate each of the psychological, cultural, and environmental influences that play a role in the kind of perspective or lens one adopts in looking at the world as a sexual being. Surely, intellectually and philosophically, we can identify and codify a set of objective principles to live by as *human* beings. But, it is at the deeply personal and highly complex levels of love, romance, art, sex, notions of beauty, etc. where the unidentified or subconscious influences reveal their traces.
Here, too, objectivity is possible--but objectivity must not be confused with uniformity. For instance, while on a basic level I will only find romantic art pleasurable due to my ingrained philosophical affinity to objective art, on a personal level, I will find only those specimens of romantic art that also appeal to my *personal* taste for the dramatic, the grandiose, the overwhelming, the superlative, the highly stylized. These latter elements, I believe, are in the realm of the personal, which, I argue, is not necessarily immune to the psycho-sexual identity one has. My penchant for the vibrantly colorful might actually be an unconscious influence of my homosexual aesthetic. As another example, observe that gay men typically have a style of dressing and fashion that is distinctly different from those of straight men. I suspect that sexual orientation has a role to play in manner in which one views the world. And this perspective is perfectly compatible with and can be guided along a framework that is also objective and universal. |
|
| Sunday, November 8, 2009 at 15:10:17 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Jerry
E-mail: jerryanomo(at)gmail.com
URL: http://ergosum.wordpress.com
By the way, here's the YouTube link for those of you who had trouble watching the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7tVWM7ScBs&feature=youtube_gdata |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
