|
|
|
July 30, 2005
Definition to die for?
One of the young men charged with murdering male-to-female teenager Gwen Araujo (with whom he'd had sexual relations) explained to the court what was on his mind: "Your whole life you think you're a heterosexual. Then you get pleasure from a homosexual. It disgusted me," he said.If these statements are true, then the young man was more upset by how he might be defined than anything else. Obviously, he attached enormous value to the definition -- and theory -- of heterosexuality. It seems he attached more value to this theory than to human life. In the process, he also allowed a definition written by others to define and eclipse his own view of himself -- in a strange process of self-brainwashing. (That's the scariest aspect of this case, and what prompted me to write this post.) I'm at a bit of a loss to understand this kind of massive insecurity. Such insane weakness masquerading as masculine strength. I mean, even accepting the defense argument that he was "tricked" by the trans teen into thinking "he" was a "she," why would such a trick cause someone to question his sexuality, unless there was already some underlying question? (And what sort of insanity dictates that all people must have a "sexuality" which is open to "question"?) No one likes being fooled, but by definition, when you are fooled, it does not reflect on the real you -- unless you want it to. I notice that there were several young men involved in this murder, and they probably goaded each other on by peer pressure. In cases like this, I'm always tempted to play devil's advocate, and ask whether anything remotely like this would happen if a homosexual man were "tricked" into heterosexual sex. (Obviously, the idea of a murder occasioned by "straight panic" is laughable.) Quite some time ago, in the context of reality show trickery leading to murder, I asked, Is it worse for heterosexual men to be "humiliated and mocked" for suspicion of homosexuality than it is for homosexuals themselves? If so, why?Not that any of this provides a valid defense to murder, but I am constantly astounded that people take unstable, unscientific definitions -- of comparatively recent origin -- deadly seriously. posted by Eric on 07.30.05 at 09:17 AM
Comments
Well, I got in trouble for saying that I consider sex between two persons with penises to be homosexual sex, so I just don't know anymore. Eric Scheie · July 31, 2005 12:09 AM I define a woman by her curvaceousness and facial features (which is what attracts me to her), a man by his more angular/linear visage, rather than by their private parts. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · July 31, 2005 12:14 AM A penis is only an enlarged clitoris.... Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · July 31, 2005 12:16 AM Who was it who said "Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears"? CGHill · July 31, 2005 09:52 PM I don't think any of it - homo or hetero or christian or muslim or black or white - whatever compare & contrast methodology one cares to focus on .. It's not WHAT or WHOM is being compared and contrasted . . . it's the rotten stinking deceit by some, & the glorification of humiliation by others, that is so very, very vile. Let's pretend . . . let's pretend a sleazy television show did up a deceit to convince people that Thomas Sowell wasn't a real man, but actually an invention cooked up between me and Jane Fonda. Under this invented deceit, sometimes Ms. Fonda would act the part of Sowell, sometimes I would. The TV sleaze boys get their audience convinced that this is true. I would be irritated at the deceit, but not offended by the suggestion that I was Sowell . .if I had half Sowell's brains, I'd be twice as smart and make a lot more $$. I would be nauseated to think that others thought me a collaborator of Fonda's. Fonda, whose income and status are dependent on her appearance and left-wing cant, would probably be very humiliated - the more so as the leftwing crowd is so quick to eat their own. Sowell probably wouldn't be charmed either. What constitutes humiliation is very, very personal. Making a buck, or getting your jollies, by humiliating others is very, very sick and vile. Period. It's no excuse for murder, but it is a reason. I can certainly understand the desire to commit murder under such circumstances - but it's not a desire a decent person caves in to. Look, there was a case a few years back . . a woman had sex with a guy in a ski mask, somehow the guy convinced her that he was her boyfriend or husband, whatever. . . the guy was convicted of rape, and rightly so . . . Humans are not toys, and should not be treated as such. Persnickety · August 1, 2005 05:00 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
If you look like a woman, then you are a woman. That's how I see it.