Comments on: Homosexuality : Ab Normal?

By: Alter Kant

Alter Kant — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:42:23 +0000

You mean AlternatIVE Lifestyle, sugar.

By: PAUL

PAUL — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:03:08 +0000

Having found your site by sheer chance i would like to say on the Homosexuality issue what is normal ? how do you know that homosexuality isnt real and heterosexuality the deviation , our education leads us to believe these things , but there are many things we learn in life that simply just dont add up , as a christian who has read the bible , the bible is full of inconsistencies , people should be allowed to be who or what they are wihout having to live in fear , people who use labels such as queer or puff or lezza show their total ignorance and contempt for the very people they claim to have “pity” for , Gay men and women dont want pity they just want to be allowed to live theri life in peace and harmony with others , what about the wrongdoings of adulterers/adultresses or those who have sex with children , or those members of society who have sex with their own family members including their parents , these are far worse evils than the supposed evil dirty homosexuals out there , live your life , be free , respect others and they in turn will respect you , dont use labels

By: Never Mind

Never Mind — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:52:17 +0000

I cannot believe people like KR exist for real! Why is it so important for us to associate everything with gender? Is the feeling of love so simple that it can be overshadowed by genitalia? Well I guess for people who compare love making with baking, it does matter after all. But just a little question pops-up what if you did not want to make the dough? What if all you wanted was some love and companionship for a change?

By: Just Me

Just Me — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:26:20 +0000

Shoving one’s cucumber into another male’s boom box cannot be normal. Likewise shoving one’s tongue like Sakshi here into a girlfriend’s crotch cannot be normal.

But to each its own. I now understand what Sakshi means. She likes girls, well she likes girls. It is her business not ours.

By: asuph

asuph — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:55:13 +0000

Normative: a social construction meant to keep our patriarchal class based social order in place.

What is the source of this definition? Will as society which have moved beyond patriarchal/class based order cease to have a normative?

If everything becomes part of the normative, does everything include hate, bigotry, misogyny, homophobia?

I think the process of defining a word to suite one’s whim is not a good starting point for any reasonable debate.

regards,
asuph.

By: “Out”ing the truth…./ Blogathon Day 5 : Gender « Writing on the Mirror

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:43:35 +0000

[...] Sakshi Juneja’s post and a reply to it from Asuph and a response to that from Sakshi [...]

By: moallif

moallif — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:20:28 +0000

Ok Asuph. Here’s what I believe. There seems to be a semantic disagreement between us, and since this is hardly the space to argue that, I’ll be concise.
Normative: a social construction meant to keep our patriarchal class based social order in place.
Ideal/ Value: The discourse of ethics, once again, socially constructed (in that it isn’t divinely ordained, or ‘natural’, as it is touted to be), variable (as you yourself point out), but ultimately a matter of discursive praxis.
The Normative isn’t the ideal. Calling it that is confusing two discourses (albeit interlinked) for one and the same. Further, if our aim is to analyse social structures, uncritically valuing the normative for being an ideal will hardly end discrimination.
And finally: there’s a difference between forms of sex, and sexual orientation. How can you group them together??
As for the orientations becoming part of the normative, yes, i believe they should. Because, that’s how it is: everything becomes part of the normative. But our efforts to always critique the normative shouldn’t end.

By: asuph

asuph — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:35:22 +0000

Moallif:

> Asuph: this is why I’d disagree with your assumption that normative is social ‘value’ (in its positive connotation). Clearly people like Kathi Roll value heterosexuality and see what such valuing leads to: not just downright filth, but also the worst sort of bigotry and chauvinism.

It’s not my “assumption” that normative is a social value. It’s the definition of normative. And since we’re talking about what is socially normative, it cannot be anything but what is of “value” to the society (as perceived by the society as a whole, if there is such a thing?). So I’d like to know what exactly you disagree with. The definition?

Normative is used generally in the sense of something that society will pitch as an ideal, prescriptive or prohibitive rules that preserve/lead towards the ideal. So it doesn’t matter what Kathi Roll values (that’s a red-herring of an argument, sorry). S/he might value using gutter language in the name of homophobia, for instance. That doesn’t become part of the normative. (Will s/he get endorsement for that sort of behavior from the generally respected elders/leaders in the society for instance? I doubt). Heterosexuality is not normative because Kathi Roll values it, but because, as I hinted in my post, a monogamous heterosexual relationship between married couple is typically valued by the society as a whole. However you dislike the way Kathi Roll puts it, there is a plain common sense truth in it. Society selfishly values its continuation: the reason why motherhood is such a “normative” big deal. Not unwed mothers, mind you — because that’s not seen as a stable environment for nurturing of kid(s). And that is why extra-marital sex, oral sex (between heterosexuals even), anal sex (ditto), pre-marital sex (ditto), incest (ditto) is not in normative. It’s not wishful thinking that will get them there, either.

By the argument that’s made in this post, and which you say you agree with completely, all these above forms of sex should be in the normative? Right?

regards,
asuph.

By: Gurd Khao

Gurd Khao — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:58:31 +0000

Nothing more funny than fags and dyke in ~~heat~~ hysteria

By: Moallif

Moallif — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:16:15 +0000

Kathi Roll,
This post is meant mostly for you. For people for whom heterosexuality is normative.
Asuph: this is why I’d disagree with your assumption that normative is social ‘value’ (in its positive connotation). Clearly people like Kathi Roll value heterosexuality and see what such valuing leads to: not just downright filth, but also the worst sort of bigotry and chauvinism. I particularly relished his reference to biological clocks and spit not leading to pregnancy! (Seriously KR, are you for REAL?)
KR, you’re the textbook example of what discrimination non-normative sexualities face, and this is how it’s done: the criticism is crass, corporeal, and aimed to humiliate. Oddly enough, (and this is where you’re stupidity ceases to amaze me), you actually think your words carry any import in this space. Even if your comeback comment is a internecine attempt to label me a ‘dyke’, you must understand, it doesn’t matter. Because you don’t matter.
And oh yeah, I’m totally with Asuph on this one: you’re handling the fool really well Sakshi. Keep it up.