The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
Forced "Out"
starboardlight:
--- Quote from: Aussie Chris on July 29, 2006, 12:50:10 am ---But to be angry and to find fault makes us just as much a victim. There are times when this is appropriate, but there are times when all we are doing is seeing something that is only there because we want it to be there (like "man" in "human"), and we are just playing our own part in spreading the disease of negative thoughts. If Oprah was here and was reading this, seeing us twist "I'm not gay" into a statement that she is against gays, I'm sure she would be hurt by it.
--- End quote ---
You're right. It most likely was not her intention to be hurtful. But I still think that it's okay for us to point out to her that it's still hurts for young gays and lesbians to hear it. (if that is indeed the words she chose). Both you and I have travel long roads to come to the place we are. We have it in us to just let it slide off our backs. But the young teens still dealing with coming to terms do not have the security that we have achieved. I would love it if these teens didn't to travel as long a road as you and I have, in order to find their place in the world and to feel secure in their sexuality. I would love it if Oprah who holds herself as role model to actually be a role model for gay teens as well as for the rest of America.
silkncense:
Nipith -
Is your point that you believe Oprah IS gay & is denying it - or that her wording of "I'm not gay" is negative somehow & the wording "I am straight" would have been less hurtful to young gays? I would also like to say I don't know if Oprah actually said anything, but Gayle, her friend who is the media's suspected partner stated, "We are not gay. If we were, you would absolutely know, we would talk about it." (Or words to that effect).
David - I would hope that any "Celebrity" (or not, for that matter) that is gay would not have to hide away in their home rather than enjoy going to a nightclub, etc. The reason Rock Hudson appeared to keep "his secret" was that the media in that time did not publicize the fact he was gay. Information now makes it clear it was well known throughout the entertainment industry as it was for other gay entertainers. The media (and public) now is cannabalistic - always looking for a scoop of any sort, whether true or not, whether hurtful or not - I think it is a sad state personally.
--- Quote --- narrow minded biggots that will say:"Oh he/she is Gay? What a waste!".
--- End quote ---
This point was discussed on the "Gaydar" thread - I think this is often misconstrued as a negative, offensive comment. Tone and facial impression would play an important role, but when a straight person of the oppositie sex makes this statement, I believe it is often because they can't fantasize a "life happily everafter" with the person who is gay.
Regarding Lance Bass - a woman who had his posters, every picture, etc of him wrote a piece in the Seattle Times yesterday. It was CLEAR by the tone of the entire article that she is happy for him & wants the best for him. "No doubt former Lance lovers the world over are heartbroken. I would know. I used to be one of them." (When he was in the band & she was a teen). Later in the piece her friend said, "I am so disappointed. I really am." And she wrote, "Oh me too."
Now if you heard the last two statements you may believe the speakers are disappointed in the fact of Lance being gay rather than disappointed that Lance IS gay & therefore they - to quote ednbarby (Barb) had "No shot"...ever.
David:
--- Quote from: silkncense on July 29, 2006, 11:36:18 am ---Now if you heard the last two statements you may believe the speakers are disappointed in the fact of Lance being gay rather than disappointed that Lance IS gay & therefore they - to quote ednbarby (Barb) had "No shot"...ever.
--- End quote ---
LOL ! well, as for the concept of "No shot ever", Tell you what, even if Jake Gyllenhaal himself said he was openly gay as of now, I'd still know that I'd have"No shot ever" !!!!
starboardlight:
--- Quote from: silkncense on July 29, 2006, 11:36:18 am ---Nipith -
Is your point that you believe Oprah IS gay & is denying it - or that her wording of "I'm not gay" is negative somehow & the wording "I am straight" would have been less hurtful to young gays? I would also like to say I don't know if Oprah actually said anything, but Gayle, her friend who is the media's suspected partner stated, "We are not gay. If we were, you would absolutely know, we would talk about it." (Or words to that effect).
--- End quote ---
LJ, I'm glad we're having this conversation here among friends. You know me well enough to know that I'm not so set in my views that I can't be convinced. I do remember as a college student coming out when celebs would publicly say "I'm NOT gay!" I was angry at the whole thing. Richard and Cindy's full page ad in the NYTimes, specifically left a bad taste. They shouldn't have had to address the issue, but the way they went about it was not helpful to those of us who still struggle with the stigma. My point isn't that Oprah is gay & is denying it. I believe it's not my business unless she makes it my business. I think our debates gets us to think about how our words carry meanings that we didn't realize are there. The quote you gave from her friend Gayle actually shows some heart, so I'm glad to hear it.
ednbarby:
Sorry to be so negative about Oprah, y'all. I don't care for her - haven't for a long time (no kidding, right?) and I flew off the handle in her general direction.
That said, yes, LJ, I would have preferred it if Gayle had said "We are straight and very close friends" instead of "We are not gay, we're just very close friends." I just think that in every situation, it's better to say what you are than what you are not. There are just negative connotations attached to denying something in my mind. People regularly say "I'm not a bigot" or "I'm not a racist" or "I'm not against mixed marriages." Saying these things clearly implies (and should) that people who are those things are lesser people than the speaker is trying to paint him or herself as being, right? So when I hear "I'm not gay," I can't help but think the person saying it is implying, whether that is his or her intention or not (and I'm sure it's almost always not) that it is undesirable to be gay. I don't think I'm reading too much negativity into it in seeing it that way - I think I'm just responding to the language and what it implies when it's used one way versus another.
Similarly, there are subtle differences in the way a straight woman might say about a gay man she finds attractive "what a waste." If a straight woman says, "What a loss for straight women everywhere" or "Our loss is gay men's gain" (or any derivation thereof that clearly implies that), then that's perfectly acceptable to me. Or if she says it like, "Damn - I was hoping to have a shot at him," that is, too. But when she's a co-worker, for example, who has clearly told you in the past that she would never date a guy she works with and then says to you one day, as one of mine did, "I hope the next guy that sits across from me isn't gay," that's implying something entirely different.
I swear I'm really not one of these sticklers for political correctness like I come off as being - I really do give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to these kinds of things. But when such implications come up again and again from the same person, I start to think that if it looks like a bigot and quacks like a bigot, it probably is a bigot.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version