jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (02/02/84)
Dear Steve: I quote you: > ccieng3!jbf was hopefully aiming for irony > Not only is it blatantly inflammatory and homophobic, it's also sexist. No, I was not aiming for irony (although irony is a side-effect) -- I was aiming for EXAMPLE. My reference was admittedly inflammatory (although not homophobic). It was meant sharply to ILLUSTRATE the practice I was arguing against. A statement obviously cannot be homophobic, so I will assume you meant to call ME homophobic. For the record, intellectually I have no objections against homosexuality. Bisexuality would appear to be the 'blessed state'. For pragmatic reasons, I favor male homosexuality (since it eliminates some of the male competition for existing female sexual partners) and slightly oppose female homosexuality (but only if I am interested in one of the females involved). When approached by gays, I refuse as politely as seems indicated (and am occasionally flattered). As sexist goes, lazy is more accurate. After I finished my inflammatory reference to gay males, I considered going 'and ...<derogatory reference to lesbians>...'. This seemed overly gratuitous -- if my point was made with the first reference, a second would have seemed more as though I were trying to deride people than to illustrate something I find unfair. In retrospect, maybe I should have: I received about 4 complaints about my neglect of the females. Not a hundred years ago, Oscar Wilde went to jail for being gay. There have been many since then. But here on net.motss one reads the same sort of techniques that have been used on gays for centuries used on people whose sexuality differs from the norm in a slightly different way. I was reminded of the religious refugees that settled in America to avoid persecution in England, and directly began to persecute anyone that differed from THEIR norm. In this group, I must admit I did expect a little more tolerance. So I wrote my previous article, hoping that some people who did not find the 'dirty old men....' reference offensive would see the offensiveness of mine, and see the parallel. By the way, I am at ccieng5, not 3. If anyone wonders about the length of articles, it may have something to do with the circumstance that when one expresses oneself elegantly and concisely, too many people misunderstand. Sigh, Azhrarn -- Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf