Deus Ex Machina

"This is the generation of the great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently of that mortal god, to which we own under the immortal God, our peace and defense." -Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan

A Commentary on the Self-Destructive and Exploitative Nature of the Gay Community in Singapore

The following is taken from the facebook page Gay SG Confessions 

We live in the age of GRINDR, Manhunt, Planetromeo, Fridae, Trevvy, Gayroulette, Manroulette, Jack’D and other applications. We can scan someone in an instant and just scroll over if that person isn’t to our liking. All those years when we had to live in the closet, and watch our peers had their first crushes while we were 13 or 14, we try to make up for by today’s speed dating. You’d think that once when bullying was over, there’d be a reward for that whole nonsense – a certain sense of freedom, acceptance, maybe even love. How many of us realize that we’re simply being forced into another niche?

Someone once said that sex is anything about sex. I’m sure you’ve all heard that saying that “sex sells”. Why does so much of our adulthood revolve around gay sex, and why does the gay community support this to such an abnormal extent? If you log onto Fridae, you might find movie reviews, architecture news, what you’ll find most certainly are male models, bodies sculpted with various advertisements for Speedos – other websites link to a lot of gay pornography, and the other day I even saw a link for a Poppers commercial via Planetromeo. How would you ever find true love or good friendship in this sea of confusion, with all this loneliness, advertisements, sex, drugs, and baggage – all under a guise of gay social network? No wonder we remain confused and hurt.

The concept of time-wasters is ridiculous to me. So many times, while browsing dating websites, we see “no time-wasters” headline, but how much of our power we give to society by wasting our own lives? We go to the gym so would have a 6-pack while we could be getting educated. And really, would you really want a guy who’d like you solely for your looks? We waste time on adult-movies which are, in the end, a product.

The irony is this – after all those years of bullying, and being in the closet, we inhabit a community where we start to bully each other. We start treating each other as if we were examining a product. Online dating, as much as it made things easier, became ridiculous; we treat each other as if we were our own worst enemies.

We don’t treat each other like human beings anymore, rather, like products meant for evaluation. And that is the ultimate irony, for most good things in life to take root if you invest time in them. We get to like someone because we spend time in their company. We become friends by getting to know one another gradually, we fall in love because that other person makes us feel good for who we are, not by having a passionate one-night stand via Trevvy chatroom (what are YOUR stats? Intro!)

Love means generosity and giving, not greed and selfishness. It’s ironic how after so much discrimination we willingly agree to be discriminated again, and so much of it revolves around sex. Love is not about fear, baggage, vanity, and passive-aggression. Love is letting yourself be (as you are) and letting someone else be (as they are). True love or friendship takes time, good will, and patience. If your environment and/or peers don’t support that, be your own best friend, and realize just how powerful that is.

Here is an interesting example of a Hegelian “immanent” critique going on wherein the inherent contradiction of the homosexual logic forces itself into consciousness.

A gay community is by definition a community defined BY sexual attraction to a certain bodily physical form, i.e. that of one’s own sex. Why on earth are they surprised that a community defined purely by sexual attraction to a physical form should act purely upon the basis of physical looks, with the other more “romantic” and idealistic goals taking a peripheral backseat? After all, if one day we decided to canonise the concept of being sexually oriented towards tall blondes as nordosexual, would we be surprised that the nordosexual community is obsessed only with looks?

The entire complaint is incoherent. If they begin instead with the concept of friendship, generosity, love in accordance to the truth of the person, etc, then homosexuality itself would become subordinate to these other ends, which would entail that homosexuality and sexual “orientation” is insignificant and secondary in relation to these ends, and may dissolve altogether into irrelevance. This would entail the very deconstruction of the gay community itself as the gay community loses its own independent meaning and integrity, it’s raison d’être.

The either-or cannot be evaded, either homosexuality is itself inconsequential and secondary to the broader goals and meaning of friendship, romantic love, etc, or it reasserts itself as the central thing with all these other goals as peripheral and inconsequential, that is, the core thing about the gay community is precisely about being sexually attracted to a certain physical form.

Update: Although come to think of it, there might actually be a deeper ground as to the inherent “exploitive” or consumer mindset of homosexual relationships in comparison to heterosexual relationships. As I’ve argued in another post, the difference is that homosexual desire tends towards consumer satisfaction of sensation because the essential “otherness” is lost, gays after all know what it is like to experience the sexual sensations of his own gender in his partner and this desire does just satisfied. Whereas in heterosexual desire, the desire for one’s partner’s sexual sensation is never satisfied because you’ll never know what it is like to experience the sexual sensation of the opposite gender, thus the essential mystery is preserved and defies “consumption”, the course of desire can potentially “continue” and transcend the moment of sex. The post can be found here.

Advertisements

12 comments on “A Commentary on the Self-Destructive and Exploitative Nature of the Gay Community in Singapore

  1. Pingback: Daily SG: 22 Mar 2013 | The Singapore Daily

  2. leeraph
    March 22, 2013

    I suspect you have not experience romance or you’re a crap loaded virgin.

    The phenomenon described by Gay SG confessions post does not appear only in homosexual groups. Straights can be subjected to the same kind of materialist state of relationships. Relationships is demanding physically, sexually, financially, of status, of time and of energy, be it heterosexual or not. The theme of one night stands, multiple partners, pretense, “consumerism” is recurrent independent of your sexual orientation. While the author may portray a competitive scene in his community, he could only go as far as to say his annoyance and grievance is due to not being able to treat each other as proper “humans” and as “products for evaluation” coupled with, and in spite of, external bullying.

    The gay community is born out of a certain disposition. It is as much as a Chinese clan or a church or union of commerce. Maybe it is obscure to your eyes that the straight community has always been here, comprising of me, you and the majority. Maybe you are gay in a sense that you don’t realise straights are also attracted to a certain bodily form, etc. breasts and curves. But when we go to online dating sites, do we foremost examine the body count, breast and curves of the other party? This is the essence which the confession took issue upon. When we partake in clan associations, do we express obsession in our skin colour? It is quite clear that while a common feature unites a community together, we cannot deduce the common feature is the “be all and end all” of that community.

    The gay community prides itself as people attracted to their own gender, just as the straight community prides itself as people who are attracted to the opposite gender. If my straight community also revolve around sex and only sex “to an abnormal extent”, by his terms, I would complain as much as the author. Is the problem sexual orientation or view of importance of sex and physical looks in a relationship?

    There are various, if not countless, factors to be considered before going into a relationship. I think it is too naive to rate each factor relatively of one another. It may be your potential partner’s brows, fashion sense, career, interests, degree of humour, penis size, breast size, family background, financial ability, chemistry and whatnot. Sexual orientation may be necessary and consequential but insufficient factor to make a wise decision on relationship. It is not primary neither secondary, not central neither peripheral. Some people may take more notice on looks than wit, do we say wit is an inconsequential or a peripheral condition to the relationship?

    In regards to your update, I really wonder have you even kiss anyone before? Sex is not so trivial, not so dry and bland, not so textbook-ish. I daresay, even in gay sex, although you jolly know how well the sexual sensation feels like, sex is not just about the orgasm or the pleasure. The derivation of pleasure comes from mood, connection, build-up, location and so forth. Sex is not just about the sex , neither relationship is all about the sex. Satisfaction in bed is not guaranteed in homosexuals and heterosexual.

    I admit I may not replay directly to your post, there is too much nonsensical jargon to waste my time reading and reading again. In conclusion, I take offence at your post and title (“A Commentary on the Self-Destructive and Exploitative Nature of the Gay Community in Singapore”), as it implies that “nature” is only to be found in gay community; and I would argue this “nature” is present in homosexual circles or otherwise.

    Let me give you a tip: get a girlfriend.

    Like

    • Rubati
      March 22, 2013

      “I suspect you have not experience romance or you’re a crap loaded virgin.”

      Suspect away, but ad hominem hold very little purchase with me.

      “The phenomenon described by Gay SG confessions post does not appear only in homosexual groups. Straights can be subjected to the same kind of materialist state of relationships. Relationships is demanding physically, sexually, financially, of status, of time and of energy, be it heterosexual or not. The theme of one night stands, multiple partners, pretense, “consumerism” is recurrent independent of your sexual orientation. While the author may portray a competitive scene in his community, he could only go as far as to say his annoyance and grievance is due to not being able to treat each other as proper “humans” and as “products for evaluation” coupled with, and in spite of, external bullying.”

      I did not deny this at all. Of course the kind of materialist state exist in other groups, not just in homosexual groups. So I’m not sure what is the point of mentioning all this.

      “The gay community is born out of a certain disposition. It is as much as a Chinese clan or a church or union of commerce. Maybe it is obscure to your eyes that the straight community has always been here, comprising of me, you and the majority. Maybe you are gay in a sense that you don’t realise straights are also attracted to a certain bodily form, etc. breasts and curves. But when we go to online dating sites, do we foremost examine the body count, breast and curves of the other party? This is the essence which the confession took issue upon. When we partake in clan associations, do we express obsession in our skin colour? It is quite clear that while a common feature unites a community together, we cannot deduce the common feature is the “be all and end all” of that community.”

      The gay community is not only “born out of a certain disposition”, it is self-consciously defined by that “disposition” as well. There is no “straight community” in the way that there is a “gay community”, as in, there is no consciously self-identify community or gathering of straight people in the way that there is one for gays. In fact, for most of history, people didn’t define themselves by “sexual orientation”, therefore one can say that there were no straight or gay communities until very recently in history.

      It is one thing to describe the behaviour of individual gays or straight people, etc. It is another thing altogether to form a community over and above the individual people. The whole as they say, is more than the sum of its parts. People maybe straight without need to belong to a “straight community”, that is, self-consciously identify themselves as straight, while the gay community by definition is a community self-consciously identified by their sexual attraction to a certain bodily form.

      “The gay community prides itself as people attracted to their own gender, just as the straight community prides itself as people who are attracted to the opposite gender. If my straight community also revolve around sex and only sex “to an abnormal extent”, by his terms, I would complain as much as the author. Is the problem sexual orientation or view of importance of sex and physical looks in a relationship?”

      Erm, no, as I said, there is no such thing as a “straight community” who take pride in their sexual attractions, etc, consciously defining themselves by their straightness, etc. Maybe there are some that do, but the vast majority of straight people don’t consider their straightness to be a defining point of themselves to take “pride” in unlike members of a self-consciously identified “gay community” who make their sexual orientation a point of “pride”.

      “There are various, if not countless, factors to be considered before going into a relationship. I think it is too naive to rate each factor relatively of one another. It may be your potential partner’s brows, fashion sense, career, interests, degree of humour, penis size, breast size, family background, financial ability, chemistry and whatnot. Sexual orientation may be necessary and consequential but insufficient factor to make a wise decision on relationship. It is not primary neither secondary, not central neither peripheral. Some people may take more notice on looks than wit, do we say wit is an inconsequential or a peripheral condition to the relationship?”

      Who is to say?

      “In regards to your update, I really wonder have you even kiss anyone before? Sex is not so trivial, not so dry and bland, not so textbook-ish. I daresay, even in gay sex, although you jolly know how well the sexual sensation feels like, sex is not just about the orgasm or the pleasure. The derivation of pleasure comes from mood, connection, build-up, location and so forth. Sex is not just about the sex , neither relationship is all about the sex. Satisfaction in bed is not guaranteed in homosexuals and heterosexual.

      I admit I may not replay directly to your post, there is too much nonsensical jargon to waste my time reading and reading again. In conclusion, I take offence at your post and title (“A Commentary on the Self-Destructive and Exploitative Nature of the Gay Community in Singapore”), as it implies that “nature” is only to be found in gay community; and I would argue this “nature” is present in homosexual circles or otherwise.

      Let me give you a tip: get a girlfriend.”

      *shrug*, I never allege anything which you’ve said here, I would be pleased if you could point out which part of my other post I argued for anything you said here. Also, I’m not so sure what your complaint is exactly. Do you expect an objective third-person philosophical description of sex to literally re-enact the entire experience in the readers? There is a distinction between reading about sex and doing it, and if you’re expecting the experience of reading it to approximate the experience of doing it, well, I think this is just a category confusion. So of course reading a third-person factual description of it is dry and boring, because the point of an objective description is not to re-enact the experience but to describe it accurately, factually and objectively.

      And if you do not want to make the effort to understand my post, then you don’t really need to reply. I am always happy to clarify myself and to hear your replies and try to understand where you’re coming from, but if you’re simply going to dismiss it as “nonsense”, why even bother to begin in the first place?

      Being offended is subjective, different people are offended by different things, but the fact of your subjective offense really doesn’t mean anything to me. And only *after* you’ve made your argument and not before, will I consider your objection.

      And thanks for your tip, although I am not in the habit of taking them from strangers.

      Like

  3. leeraph
    March 24, 2013

    Not that I “do not want to make the effort to understand your post”, I did say I reread your post again and again. The thing is, by “nonsensical jargon”, I meant your words are too professional and it is failure on my part to understand what you’ve written. I will try to explain myself again with better flow.

    Firstly, the title of your post (“A Commentary on the Self-Destructive and Exploitative Nature of the Gay Community in Singapore”) is not reflective of the post that you’re commenting on. True, the author of the confession, is a homosexual; but he is not representative of the gay community at large. The most we can gather from this article is there exist a certain trend or circle of gay people who exhibits a materialist state of romance, or in your words “self-destructive and exploitative”. This material state “exist in other groups, not just homosexual groups”, to quote, so how can we deduce that, from the article, the gay community is self-destructive and exploitative in nature?

    Say, an identical confession was written by a straight person, describes using social networking apps to find sex, go clubbing for one night stands, complaining about the lack of real love, would your commentary be on the “Self-Destructive and Exploitative Nature of the Straight Community in Singapore”?

    While the author may portray a competitive scene in his community(by this I am referring to his circle of people who uses social app and have ONS, not the community-at-large), he could only go as far as to say his annoyance and grievance is due to not being able to treat each other as proper “humans” and as “products for evaluation” coupled with, and in spite of, external bullying. The fact is I know of LGBTs who cherish relationships, are faithful and almost as romantic as me. I suggest it is not constructive to highlight his gay community(circle of people) as “Self-Destructive and Exploitative”, in fact it is the sex-obsessed/body-obsessed/love-lacking community that is “Self-Destructive and Exploitative”. It just happens that the group of people are homosexuals and the author is gay. Any person who is aware of his surroundings know this materialist form of love is independent to the sexual orientation of the community. Is “gay” worth mentioning when discussing about the nature of materialism?

    So yes, I may sound trivial, but I take your headline as misleading, arguably prejudiced towards the gay community at large.

    Secondly, this “gay community” is arbitrarily defined by you. I protest, if you want to comment the “Self-Destructive and Exploitative Nature”, rather than grouping this circle of people the author described as a “gay community”, they are a “sex-seeking, body hunting, boat jumping” community. It just happens that this community is homosexual! Sexual orientation is a prerequisite factor of hunting for this sex-seeking community, and heigh, weight, humour, chemistry and IQ may well be a prerequisite factor too. Just because it is of primary consideration does not mean other factors must take a peripheral back seat.

    The author’s first complain is coherent, not so much as to identify the problem of the materialist state of romance with “gay community”, but to blame the “community”, the group/circle of people, for how they incorrectly perceive romance and relationship. The author’s second complain is also coherent – he questioned the benefit of a materialist state of “love” despite being in a gay community. Why bring unnecessary and excessive hostility by evaluating each other, when people from the outside are looking down upon us? The author never implied that this materialist state that he described is due to the community being gay.

    Thirdly, I have proposed that sexual orientation is as much a factor as “brows, fashion sense, career, interests, degree of humour, penis size, breast size, family background, financial ability, chemistry and whatnot”. Don’t you consider the gender of your partner when deciding on a relationship? Some people may emphasize on one factor or another, that is why I argued that factors may be unnecessary, and if they are necessary, they may be insufficient or sufficient. Regarding sexual orientation, it is a necessary(generally speaking) but insufficient factor.

    Even if they are coined as a “gay community”, they can “begin in friendship, generosity, love in accordance to the truth of the person” while being attracted to a certain sexual orientation, or setting height, age, wealth preference. Doesn’t every relationship demands some attributes of your partner that you would expect? It does not mean because I have some materialistic preference as a prerequisite factor, generosity, faithfulness amongst other concerns of the heart must be “peripheral and inconsequential”. It also doesn’t mean if I begin in friendship, generosity and love, sexual orientation must be “secondary and insignificant”. Homosexuality and friendship are not mutually exclusive. Both are consequential and significant to him.

    If this “gay community” do not want to treat friendship, love and generosity as subordinate to their gender orientation, they can look beyond the appearance. This will allow concerns of the heart to be as important and significant without casting their sexual orientation aside. Its not an either- or situation. The “gay community” lack of appreciation of the concerns of the heart and exhibition of a “self-destructive nature” is not the effect of their sexual orientation. The “gay community” will maintain its raison d’tere, without disposing its need for love.

    I have read through the hyperlinked post of your update. I want to respond to your update:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    “a deeper ground as to the inherent “exploitive” or consumer mindset of homosexual relationships in comparison to heterosexual relationships”
    “the difference is that homosexual desire tends towards consumer satisfaction of sensation because the essential “otherness” is lost, gays after all know what it is like to experience the sexual sensations of his own gender in his partner and this desire does just satisfied. Whereas in heterosexual desire, the desire for one’s partner’s sexual sensation is never satisfied because you’ll never know what it is like to experience the sexual sensation of the opposite gender, thus the essential mystery is preserved and defies “consumption”, the course of desire can potentially “continue” and transcend the moment of sex.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Fourthly, I want to simply say, sex itself is an essential mystery. Who are you to say homosexual desire can be satisfied unlike heterosexual because gays have similar sexual sensation? Every time you bed the same person its a unique experience, and every different person you bed is also a unique experience. Who are you to say only heterosexual desires can preserve “essential mystery” because straights would never know the sexual sensation of the opposite gender? In fact, you can never know at which stage of sexual sensation your partner is at unless by chemistry or communication, regardless of the gender of your partner. That is why, I’ve suggested maybe because you have not experience first-hand, you totally don’t know what you are talking about.

    Fifthly, even if I were to concede homosexual desire tends towards consumer satisfaction(god knows what you exactly mean), its does not mean homosexual relationships are “inherently exploitative”. What about gay couples who do not engage in sex, is their “homosexual relationship” “inherently exploitative” too? A entire sex experience does not matter on biological sensation, neither does a relationship wholly depends on sexual desire.

    Like

    • Rubati
      March 25, 2013

      Not that I “do not want to make the effort to understand your post”, I did say I reread your post again and again. The thing is, by “nonsensical jargon”, I meant your words are too professional and it is failure on my part to understand what you’ve written. I will try to explain myself again with better flow.

      Well, just because something is “professional” or technical doesn’t mean that it is nonsense. I do not understand a lot of what is written in, say, Einstein’s General Relativity or the journal of linguistics, for they use professional terms, etc. But simply because I do not understand them does not follow that it is “nonsense”. It has a “sense”, just one which I do not grasp given my lack of knowledge.

      Firstly, the title of your post (“A Commentary on the Self-Destructive and Exploitative Nature of the Gay Community in Singapore”) is not reflective of the post that you’re commenting on. True, the author of the confession, is a homosexual; but he is not representative of the gay community at large. The most we can gather from this article is there exist a certain trend or circle of gay people who exhibits a materialist state of romance, or in your words “self-destructive and exploitative”. This material state “exist in other groups, not just homosexual groups”, to quote, so how can we deduce that, from the article, the gay community is self-destructive and exploitative in nature?

      Say, an identical confession was written by a straight person, describes using social networking apps to find sex, go clubbing for one night stands, complaining about the lack of real love, would your commentary be on the “Self-Destructive and Exploitative Nature of the Straight Community in Singapore”?

      Again, you do not seem to grasp the distinction between a social group or community as a whole and the parts or people which makes up of it. What does it mean to speak of something being “representative”? A mere statistical majority? Or some elected official who speaks on their behalf? Questions of “representation” are context-dependent, and I have no idea what it means to speak of whether or not something is “representative” of the gay community at large.

      What makes the gay community a “community” is the fact that they self-consciously apply label of being gay to themselves. I have black hair for example, but I do not consider myself to be part of the black haired community nor do I consciously label myself as such. And in fact, one can say that there is no black-haired community simply by virtue of the fact that no one consciously identifies themselves as such. The very existence of black-haired people does not entail the existence of a black-haired community, to constitute a social group or community, something over and above the sheer particular existence of the individuals are required, and self-conscious identification is normally what constitutes the existence of a community over and above the the individual parts.

      For example, if someone were to write that it is the nature of the Christian community to be bigoted and narrow minded, etc. A majority of Catholics for example, would not really be bothered, for although they are technically Christian in the sense of believing in a Christian God, but the Catholic Church is a community unto itself over and above the individual Christian believers, and thus while Catholics are “Christians”, but many of them would not consider themselves part of the “Christian community”.

      Thus when I speak of the “nature” of the gay community, I am merely spelling out the entailment which comes out of a conscious self-identification of being “gay”, not the being gay in itself, for it is this self-conscious identification which defines the gay community and not being gay per se.

      As for this straight person writing of social networking apps, and going clubbing, etc, let me ask, where would he write these? Is there a Straight SG confessions corresponding to that of a Gay SG confessions? That’s my whole point. There isn’t a self-consciously identified “straight community” in the way that there is a self-consciously identified “gay community”. The reason why I can write about the nature of the gay community is precisely because there exists such a community over and above the individuals whereas there isn’t such an equivalent for straight people, and also precisely this gay person does precisely consciously write what he did as a member of the gay community.

      While the author may portray a competitive scene in his community(by this I am referring to his circle of people who uses social app and have ONS, not the community-at-large), he could only go as far as to say his annoyance and grievance is due to not being able to treat each other as proper “humans” and as “products for evaluation” coupled with, and in spite of, external bullying. The fact is I know of LGBTs who cherish relationships, are faithful and almost as romantic as me. I suggest it is not constructive to highlight his gay community(circle of people) as “Self-Destructive and Exploitative”, in fact it is the sex-obsessed/body-obsessed/love-lacking community that is “Self-Destructive and Exploitative”. It just happens that the group of people are homosexuals and the author is gay. Any person who is aware of his surroundings know this materialist form of love is independent to the sexual orientation of the community. Is “gay” worth mentioning when discussing about the nature of materialism?

      So yes, I may sound trivial, but I take your headline as misleading, arguably prejudiced towards the gay community at large.

      Secondly, this “gay community” is arbitrarily defined by you. I protest, if you want to comment the “Self-Destructive and Exploitative Nature”, rather than grouping this circle of people the author described as a “gay community”, they are a “sex-seeking, body hunting, boat jumping” community. It just happens that this community is homosexual! Sexual orientation is a prerequisite factor of hunting for this sex-seeking community, and heigh, weight, humour, chemistry and IQ may well be a prerequisite factor too. Just because it is of primary consideration does not mean other factors must take a peripheral back seat.

      The author’s first complain is coherent, not so much as to identify the problem of the materialist state of romance with “gay community”, but to blame the “community”, the group/circle of people, for how they incorrectly perceive romance and relationship. The author’s second complain is also coherent – he questioned the benefit of a materialist state of “love” despite being in a gay community. Why bring unnecessary and excessive hostility by evaluating each other, when people from the outside are looking down upon us? The author never implied that this materialist state that he described is due to the community being gay.

      As I said, you have not sufficiently appreciated the nuanced difference between the community and the parts which makes it up. You have cited certain individuals which do not behave in the manner which I describe the “gay community”, that’s fine. But then even as you accuse me of “arbitrarily” defining the gay community, you have taken it upon yourself to define it for them too. What if some gays celebrate the way they exercise the free flow of their desire for sexual experiences, exalting their freedom from oppressive “romantic norms” and declare proudly that their sexual activity and interest is purely Epicurean appreciation of new and exciting sensual experiences and proudly identify themselves as free loving gays? Who are you to say that they are “incorrect”? Who gave you authority over the gay community to define what is “correct” or “incorrect” gay behaviour or attitudes? And to ask a broader question, who is to decide whether these free loving gays “truly” belong to the gay community or are merely a false expression of homosexuality or at least a deviation or degeneration of the same as you seem to suggest? You may deplore this “materialistic” attitude, but there is nothing about the gay community or among those who self-consciously identify themselves as gays which would by definition or implication preclude this attitude. The gay community isn’t like the Catholic Church, there can be priests who may deny certain Catholic doctrines, but there is an authoritative center, i.e. the Vatican, who can pronounce on what Catholic “norm” is and who are the deviants or heretics against the Catholic community, there is no such “Vatican” in the gay community who gets to define what being a proper gay is and I am pretty sure that they haven’t elected you “Pope” of the gay community.

      Thus, since the gay community lacks such a substantive “norm setter” of the community, and since it is defined by the seeming “bare” minimum and seems to lack the practices or institutions to police the community, therefore I believe that I am entirely justified in simply taking the bare definition of the gay community and running with it. i.e. that of sexual attraction to a physical form.

      Thirdly, I have proposed that sexual orientation is as much a factor as “brows, fashion sense, career, interests, degree of humour, penis size, breast size, family background, financial ability, chemistry and whatnot”. Don’t you consider the gender of your partner when deciding on a relationship? Some people may emphasize on one factor or another, that is why I argued that factors may be unnecessary, and if they are necessary, they may be insufficient or sufficient. Regarding sexual orientation, it is a necessary(generally speaking) but insufficient factor.

      This I flatly deny. Sexual orientation is neither necessary or sufficient for a romantic relationship as we understand it in the Western tradition. For this I refer you to this post of mine, and I invite you to peruse my other related writings on this topic here.

      Fourthly, I want to simply say, sex itself is an essential mystery. Who are you to say homosexual desire can be satisfied unlike heterosexual because gays have similar sexual sensation? Every time you bed the same person its a unique experience, and every different person you bed is also a unique experience. Who are you to say only heterosexual desires can preserve “essential mystery” because straights would never know the sexual sensation of the opposite gender? In fact, you can never know at which stage of sexual sensation your partner is at unless by chemistry or communication, regardless of the gender of your partner. That is why, I’ve suggested maybe because you have not experience first-hand, you totally don’t know what you are talking about.

      Again, I flatly deny this, and I’ve already demonstrated how I can “say” such a thing in my other post, engaging the point about unique particulars versus general types, etc. Nor did I say that you can know “which stage” of sexual sensation your partner is at when you’re doing, only that you know “what it is like”. You should try to understand my post before commenting on it.

      Like

  4. leeraph
    March 24, 2013

    To correct the last sentence: Not only sexual orientation but location, time, fatigue, hygiene, toys contributes to the sexual sensation. A relationship also does not wholly depend on sexual desire.

    Maybe this diagram is easier to digest…

    Like

  5. leeraph
    March 25, 2013

    Do you think there is a relation between the self-conscious self-identified self-labelling gay community and its self destructive, exploitative nature?

    Like

    • Rubati
      March 25, 2013

      That is my argument.

      Like

  6. maver!ck
    March 25, 2013

    how would you account for heterosexuals who exhibits the same self destructive and exploitative nature?

    Like

    • Rubati
      March 25, 2013

      I dont need to. I’m not accounting for the behaviour of individuals but of a community as a whole. To account for individual behaviour, i would need to know facts pertaining to the particular individual, but i’m not attempting to account for individual behaviour but a communal entity as a whole.

      If you want to ask me how would i account for the behaviour of the heterosexual community, my reply is, there is no heterosexual community. Read my reply to leeraph for the full explanation, he has already raised a similar point.

      Like

  7. Pingback: Sexuality, Marriage and Gays | The Rationality of Faith

  8. Pingback: Defining the Gay and the Orientation-Act Ambiguity; Engaging the Health Promotion Board FAQ Hooha | Creakings of a Cog in the Machine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on March 21, 2013 by in Sexuality and tagged .
%d bloggers like this: