Non-stereotypical gays are threatening

I don't get how this discussion went from non stereotypical gays are threatening to who had it worse non' stereotypical and stereotypical gays ?
First of all I know and most people know stereotypical gays get discriminated worst and I was just stating a point of why then this whole mess got started with you can hide because you fit in with straight people stuff . Aren't we suppose to be working together ? because we both experience discrimination but in different ways . I don't mind if some one corrects me on something but then turning around and using to bash me or people like me is wrong I didn't reply for a while because I had to cool off for a while .
It's one thing if you disagree but try not be say mean things or bash people to get your point cross .

 

Non-stereotypical gays might "challenge the belief that you can spot gays easily", but no, that does not make them threatening. The fact that they are gay still makes them threatening to society, but the fact that they otherwise conform to heterosexual norms in all other aspects of their life makes them inherently non-threatening in those regards.

The problem you describe of femme lesbians and bisexuals being sexually harassed is true, but that has nothing to do with them being 'threatening' in any way. Femme, non-stereotypical lesbians and bi girls are going to be targeted because they can blend in as straight girls, conforming to the norms of what an attractive straight girl should look like, thus making them targets for creepy straight men- just like straight girls are. A creepy straight man's fantasy of being able to 'turn' a femme lesbian straight contributes to their targeting. But this really is a completely different topic from the claims made in your OP.

And seriously, I think the literal pain of being beaten to death on the street, experiences that stereotypical gays face every day, far outweighs the "pain" of being told "it's just a phase" that non-stereotypical gays and lesbians may face. Please put things into perspective.

 

I think the two are threatening in different ways: the "stereotypical" gay man goes against how a man is "supposed" to express himself, in a way that is considered feminine, and therefore inferior, while the "straight acting" gay man shows that not all gay men are these wimpy fairies that everyone seems to think are the only ones around. They prove that gay men and straight men AREN'T that different, and if the next guy can be gay, who is to say someone who would otherwise consider themselves straight isn't?

Disagree with the part about one being more "at risk" than the other, since a homophobe isn't going to care how "masculine" you are, or how distanced you are from the scene and community. If you take it up the *** or suck ****, you're a f*gg*t, end of story, and that's enough for some people to make an example out of you. If anything, those in typical male environments are that much closer to the danger, and actually engaging in male-male sexual activities is seen as far worse than simply expressing yourself in a feminine way.

And bisexual men, like those masculine, straight acting gay men, show just how ridiculous the idea that gay and straight men are two completely different species is (a myth continued by both sides). I think they're seen as "double agents" in a way, when you have those on both sides who are determined to have nothing with the other, only to see one freely mingling with both (or neither). This is one reason they face to much pressure to choose a side, but at the same time being seen as less of men than heterosexuals (the idea is that they engage in "feminine" sexual acts).

Finally, butch lesbians, like trans men, are not nearly as stigmatized as feminine gay men or trans women, since they're adopting a "masculine" identity, which is seen as a logical step up, and is approved by society. The closer a man (or male-bodied individual) is to being a "woman", the less approval and support he'll receive, whereas femininity is seen as the default for women. Either way, we all threaten the power structure by simply refusing to assimilate.

 

Yes, he does. Because at one point, he identified as and genuinely considered himself to be bisexual. And despite his current identification, he does support us. He's not like other gay men who have this callous disregard for our suffering (often at their hands)...

 

I've always dressed in my own weird style, which has changed and rearranged over time...but what's odd, is that it's been other gays who often seem most threatened, because it doesn't fit in with how they think gays should dress, even if they're flashy. It isn't preppy enough, or something, and as it involves a lot of thrift-store finds, and is kinda scruffy, I often feel like I'm threatening the idea that gays must be fashion hounds, willing to spend a fortune on name brands. When I had a purple Mohawk, it was never anyone gay who thought it was cool.

So of all odd things, most of the compliments I get on how I dress come from straight people, with gay people mainly just sorta rolling their eyes at my weird vintage podge-podge of fashions that change day to day. I'm not sure why, but of the males here in the arts district, I see more straight/bi guys who dress in what I would call an 'expressive' manner, than gays, who seem to cleave more to a prescribed set of approved gay 'looks', from preppy to macho, but seldom being very edgy or inventive. A quick scan of the gay bars here and other places I've visited, and the 'fashions' are even more limited, as of they were gay uniforms, or which one has only so many choices, bright or otherwise. I still see a lot of what I'd call TV stereotypes, and it's sad, because I think under all this, individual expression is paying a high cost.

 

What are we discussing in this thread, really, when it comes down to it?

 

I totally agree with you. Straight-acting gay men are not any less at risk just because they blend in more easily. The moment there is any indication they are gay they face the same risks. Bigots don't care how masculine or feminine you are. Being fey only makes it easier for them to "identify" you as gay. They'll turn on and make an example of any one who they think is gay, regardless of whether you hew to straight norms or not.

And the thing about effeminate gay men and butch lesbians being less "threatening" is because it makes it easier for bigots not only to identify "gayness", but to associate it with abnormality, disease, etc. Homosexuality arising in otherwise "normal" and "straight-acting" folks is very threatening in another sense because it destroys their notion that only weirdos, fairies and freaks are gay.

 

Unfortunately most parents seem to think that any children they will have will be heterosexual, and then they make a big fuss out of nothing when it turns out to be otherwise.

 

Actually, bigots do care about femininity. Breaking gender norms is usually the problem people have with being gay. Feminine men do that regardless of sexuality, and feminine men get attacked.

And if masculine men can blend in, then we're at less risk than feminine men for the exact reason that we blend in. Being at risk all the time increases the chances of danger more than being at risk only when showing affection to your partner. Femininity isn't concealable. Don't pretend that femininity isn't related; to most people femininity and homosexuality are the same thing. They don't make exceptions for masculine gay men once found out, but that doesn't mean we're equally at risk as feminine men.

 

Except if you're openly gay, you never truly "blend in", since you'll be known by your orientation first. Plenty of men are feminine, are called names, and abused, but it's the ones who are seriously suspected or known for being gay that receive the worst treatment from homophobes, so unless you're a walking stereotype (a minority among minorities), that alone plays only a part.

Speaking of femininity, being the receptive partner during male-male sex is considered a "woman's" role, one reason there's such a stigma against bottoms in many parts of the world today. It's not taboo in countries like Mexico and Turkey to be the "top", you're still a man, you're still straight, and this same double standard existed in Greece thousands of years ago. This is the "shameful" and "dirty" act that most people have in their minds when they hear the word, since they reduce an orientation to those alone.

How many times have I heard something similar to, "Well, Y might look/act like a f*gg*t, but Z literally takes it up the *ss"? or, "I know we always called him gay, but who would have thought it was true?" If we're comparing something like wearing tight pants, crying during movies, or being an artist to BEING the one thing no man ever wants to be accused of, it's not a contest, even if they share the same sexist origins.

 

Not everyone who fits the gay stereotype is gay, I know plenty of straight people who 'look' gay.

 

And why is that bad? People should be able to see gay people are just like everyone else, not aliens from another planet. Maybe that will take away at least some homophobia.

 

I think there are enough reasons posted in this thread to prove that being non-straight itself can be seen as a threat (in different ways).

Anyway it seems that this topic changed to whether if it life is harder as the " in your face" or "Straight accting" kind of person. I think that both things can be very hard, while being stereotypically gay exposes you to a lot of discrimination and even violence (cause you know... it seems evident that you are non straight) Being Straight acting and "in the closet" is not a nice thing....oh, come on! we all know how painful it is to live a lie. Hearing people you love making painful comments, feeling alone, not being able to find other people like you in real life...

You are who you are and thats it! I don't see the need to make a contest out of it... I am pretty sure "both types" have reasons why they would have wished they belonged to " the other group".

Anyway all the steretypes debate is really complex.. who created the stereotypes to begin with?

P.D. In a previous post i read that sexism in general benefits all kind of men. I think that is not right at all, the stupid concept of women being the weaker gender and treating women as object doesn't only hurt women. It also affect straight men and
it directly affects gay men too.The easiest example is in the context of sex. Being the "bottom" is often seen by many people as degrading because, in a heterosexual relationship it is what the woman does. But well this is totally off-topic I guess.

 

I guess this is a matter of cultural norms--in the US where homophobia is rooted in fundamentalist religious belief, it's not whether you conform to hetero norms that matters (top/dominant/masculine vs. bottom/submissive/feminine). The mere fact of liking and participating in gay sex is enough to stigmatize you in the eyes of bigots. Even if you're not the receptive partner, you're still gay, unnatural and immoral.

 

Depends on who you ask. I've been told by one person "I normally don't like fags, but you - you're one of the good ones." And I've been told by another person (who obviously didn't know) "You gotta watch out who you talk to - you never know who might end up being a fag."

The main point, of course, is that they're both utterly misguided.

Lex

 

This absolutely. I think the challenges are different for people who either do or don't fit the gay stereotype, but I don't see the point in arguing about which is harder.

 

I agree with stocking, I feel like this thread derailed a bit and has turned into a battle on who has it worse. I know everyone's experiences are different but you should discredit someone elses pain as lesser than you own you guys.

So to answer the OP I think "straight acting" people may not experience the same problems as someone who is all in your face but they will experience their own set of problems though. And the idea that parents will think "my kid can't be gay" purely based on the fact that they conform to gender roles is seen alot, and that "straight acting" gays would challenge that belief just as much as someone who isn't "straight acting" challenges "gender norms" at large.

I just think it's counterproductive to argue over who has it worse and shaming others on this thread.

 

What about for the people like me, who act straight, or are stereotypically gay, depending on my mood. Am I a double threat to society, then? Or not a threat at all, because I counter balance myself by being both.

In my opinion the homophobic straight people are the threats to society. Not us gays. After all, the homophobic straight people are the ones bullying, gay-bashing, threatening, possibly even killing the rainbow community. Why are they not a threat to society?

 

That's the way the OP was set up to begin with. It was fundamentally problematic.