Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: "The Invisible Partners"
Message-ID: <1342@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 27-Jul-85 23:12:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1342
Posted: Sat Jul 27 23:12:44 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Jul-85 07:17:55 EDT
References: <2135@pucc-h>, <230@bbncc5.UUCP> <2155@pucc-h>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 111

> It is a bit saddening when I post an article which is intended to show that
> I have a new degree of understanding of possible causes for people to be
> gay -- when I try to show that, though I still consider homosexuality
> suboptimal, I am making an effort to understand those who are in that
> lifestyle -- and I am met with a flame. [SARGENT]

And, I think, rightfully so.  You are not "making an effort" to understand,
you seem to be making an effort to fit other people into your worldview AGAIN.
(i.e., "I had this problem, therefore these new classifications that I've read
about that I like for describing my own life, MUST apply to everyone else!")

> It seems that no one wants to believe that a person can change (or be
> changed) considerably for the better in a period of only a few months.

We might want to believe, but just asserting "I've changed" and showing real
evidence of it are two different things (though I've come to realize your
ability to equivalence YOUR viewpoint, no matter how tainted, to "WHAT IS!").

> Steve Dyer, it is your
> choice to be infuriated rather than to calmly correct any inaccurate
> statements that I may have made...or are they really not inaccurate at
> all, and hitting too close to home?

I guess this can be taking as proof of how little Jeff really has changed.
"Nyah, you don't like what I have to say, it must be because it's true, nyah!"
Remember the last time you offered this wisdom?  About how whenever someone
offers "heated denials" about something, it MUST be the truth?  Remember what
your response was when I pointed out how quickly you yelled "LIAR!" when I
mentioned how your beliefs were rooted in wishful thinking?  Your response was
"......."  Come on, Jeff.  Your tendency toward psychological projection of
your own faults and feelings automatically onto others has become as well-
known as the line-eater bug.

>> Note that I'm not arguing with the issue that some men may display
>> qualities which are traditionally considered "feminine", but rather that
>> 1.) this reflects more on the classification system than on the person.
>> 2.) this issue is entirely orthogonal to the person's sexual preference.

> So, if #2 is true, why was the paragraph preceding that so flaming (by
> virtue [or vice] of its implying a calumnious accusation)?  If, as you
> yourself state, a heterosexual man can display archetypally feminine
> qualities, why take issue with the fact that someone else has stated the
> same thing?

Because of YOUR implication that homosexuality IS ipso facto an outgrowth of
this same thing.  Fact is, I have my doubts as to why some people choose
homosexuality; I personally think a lot of gays DO feel stigmatized about being
labelled contrary to their sex (men labelled "feminine", women labelled
"masculine") and choose a gay lifestyle because of that. (Of course not all
people so labelled do this.)  But that doesn't speak for those homosexuals who
simply choose to be gay because it is what they want.  And in either case, it
is nothing to look down on as "suboptimal" just because you don't like it.

>> Jeff Sargent, more than anyone else, has been responsible for foolish
>> statements about gay people in the midst of his public self-analysis.
>> Too bad Jeff seems incapable of showing sensitivity in this issue,
>> for he does it again and again and again and again...  

> You will note that my self-analysis has been public only minimally in
> recent months, partly because I have a group of actual people that I meet
> with once a week for mutual support, and partly because net.singles did
> not meet my needs (quite the opposite; there seemed to be a flame-throwing
> contest going on for a while).  As I wrote above, I was trying to show
> sensitivity; if you didn't take it that way, that's YOUR problem.

"I'm trying to show sensitivity!  Can't you fuckin' understand that?" said
one man to another man whose throat he had his hands wrapped around.  Talking
about being sensitive is one thing.  Being sensitive is another.

>>Jeff just can't seem to get away from the "gay" thing, generally posed in the
>>form of a statement about gay people (invariably perjorative) loosely tied to
>>an issue he is currently struggling with.

> Pejorativeness is in the eye of the beholder.  This concept certainly helped
> me to start integrating the archetypally masculine side of me into my life;
> and I figured that a concept which was directly on target and helpful for me
> stood a good chance of being generally true.  After all, I *am* a human being.

Well...  :-?  Since gays are the group your statements are "pejorative" about,
I'd say they have a right to be upset.  Of course pejorativeness is in the eye
of the beholder!  In your eyes (i.e., what for you is apparently the only
"correct" view of the world), for sure it's not upsetting.  To not recognize
how obnoxious it is to those you are referring to is the height of
insensitivity!

> Basically I'm saying this:  As I reach a state of greater personal wholeness
> and integration, the homosexual desires I have felt in the past recede more
> and more, and the heterosexual desires get (sometimes inconveniently)
> stronger.

Translation:  As you are more pleased with your own self-image as analyzed,
your homosexual desires recede (of course they do, you hate and despise them,
what else could be expected from a positive self-image for you:  to have
such desires would invariably CAUSE a negative self-image!).  Your cart is in
front of your horse.

> I would invite you to examine yourself honestly and see how well-integrated
> you really are.  Start with these data:  You put me in a stereotype of myself
> which is months out of date, and you reacted angrily to a statement intended
> to show understanding and sensitivity.

Intended, indeed.  But lacking in any real sensitivity.  I'm with Dyer:  you
really haven't changed.  I was just about to mail a note of congratulations for
the "suggestion" note you had posted, thinking you might be seeing things a
bit more clearly than the old days with the rosary-colored glasses (oh god
that was a bad one!), but no.  It was not to be.  Not stereotyping at all.
Actually witnessing little or no real change despite the changes that YOU
may subjectively perceive.
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr