Buddahaid - I see what your trying to say, but your example has a specific problem. Sexuality is in and of itself considered to be a private matter by the vast majority of society. Its between you and your partner, not you, your partner and every person in the street. Whether or not a woman in public wears a burka is exactly that - a public matter. What she does in her bedroom, and with whom (provided its a consenting adult) - is a private matter. I know those devout religious folks would say that there are moral issues there - and I agree, but its not their, or my business.

Homosexuality is - theologically speaking - morally wrong. Thats my views on it. However, I don't go judging gays over what they choose. Its not my business what they do in their bedroom. However, when they want to parade it - its nothing more than shoving it under my nose and saying "See what I do - neener neener neener - now show me some respect!" I don't care what they do in private - why do they choose to make me even KNOW about it? Ain't none of my business - but they are insistent on MAKING it my business, then wonder why they get a negative reaction from the majority of people.

Let me live and I will do the same with you - try and force me to see your private business - then don't wonder when I judge it and react to it in accordance with my own moral values. The rest of society is pretty much the same way......

:) Not a few people would say that especially when you swear by God, you are not religious at all! :woot:

Obviously, for an atheist like me theology's view of homosexuality is so irrelevant that I simply do not care to argue about it. So when I put aside all the religious implications, I must agree with Captain Haplo nevertheless, regarding the parading-thing and "let me live and etc etc...".

Last but not least my family-argument also is not because of religous views on marriage (although ethnologists certainly have something to say on that incest and homosexuality are so very often and widespread a big No-No in most historic societies, which relates to simple healthy biological contexts), but because of vital sociological and communal priorities.

I did much recommended. Though she doesn't cook rabbits she is a fine cook.

Honestly, the only thing some of you have to say on this, is that these parades are offensive, to you. That their way of showing of their existence is simply bad taste. They should have stayed indoors, out of sight, whatever.

Are you really so easily offended by scanty clad human bodies (I take it is the male bodies that worry the most...) with a bit of explicit sexual references thrown, just bcause it's in public? Ok... that happens. But then you just seem to shrug your shoulders at the violence and blatant hate these people get from other citizens and police in many countries? Not exactly the stand up guys are you now? :nope:

As your feelings of dignity and what is proper behaviour in relation to sex somehow got hurt from these parades, you seem lose all the ability to see what really happens in the streets, or what kind of abuse is going on even when there are no parades. "They should just stay quite about it, as it is sooo revolting and upsetting to any normal person with homosexuality, but as they don't get this, they got what they deserve. What can you do...*sigh*" Classic example of loss of empathy with another group of humans, because of feeling personally offended or threatened by something which is quite easy to let go, even if you don't like it yourself.

Eddie Izzard once said something like "I don't mind homophobics, as long as they keep to themselves, are quiet and don't bother anyone else."

I guees some of you guys look away, blush or feel very morally upset about the current state of society and civilization, when they show pictures from the Carnival in Rio as well... ;)

take care, I'm off for another running session.

There was a fellow called the "naked man" in Berkely in 92 who would go to class in the buff. His famed reason was to express that each individual should be able to deem what is "normal" behavior. So often it comes to this in topics like this. However, I would not think that having to sterilize the classroom chairs after naked asses have sat on them is normal in any sense of the word. The natural distraction that this would cause is also out of the question. When it comes to the issue of human sexuality again I think I agree that nature itself has dictated what is normal and supports the cycle of life. We as creatures of the earthdo not always have the luxury to determine those things. We may think we do but in the end the rules of nature will win everytime.

Lest ye not forget the Catholic Priests and a whole gang of other clergymen, wich by definitions brought upon this thread , show too deviant sexual behavior, practicing the abomination of abstinence and thus relieving their influence upon the genepool, rendering them irrelevant!

Of course we could par up some campy gay dudes with some butch lesbian ladies and resolve the hole procreation dillemma :salute:

Don't know how that would work out:hmmm:

The whole matter of the homies not getting their little boys swimming up the falopian streams has never been a real problem for the majority of homossexuals around history, sexual preference does not mean sexual exclusivity, has many jailed marauders would be able to prove :O:

Also there are many documented cases of homosexuality in mammals and birds wich cannot be acounted by anything but preference, like females displaying homosexual behaviour outside estros period or male dolphins having sex with each other, although there are females avaiable... So that mixes athings up a bit, don't it?

Anywhoo... The thread was't about if the straighs, the gays and gayettes are right wrong or whatever, it was abou the ridicule of having some tenths of police officers, rampaging on a crowd of completely inocuous people, in one of the most corrupted, MOB controlled, dangerous cities in Europe, on the pretext that those guys are SATANICLY dangerous!:har:
If that's not getting your priorities "straighted" up , I don't know what is...

Porphy - if you met me on the street, could you say at a glance whether or not I was heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or tri-sexual? No - you couldn't - and thats because its none of your concern - thus I don't "advertise" it. What you continue to fail to address is why they want to take a private choice, and make everyone else aware of it.

When people decide to act in public like they do in private, with no respect for everyone else around - including children, yes I do get "offended".

When have I ever condoned violence or hate against "these people"?

Oh - so I disagree with their throwing THEIR sexuality in my face and would rather them keep their private business exactly that - just like I do my own out of respect for my fellow citizens, and suddenly I'm some homophobic person with a double standard? Lets keep the personal insults out of this since you don't know me one bit eh?

Ok - so your saying that someone somewhere has abused all these people? So that makes it ok for them to act out and we should all just turn a blind eye to it? We should just go "oh poor people who feel so rejected by society - its ok that you trample on OUR rights because someone somewhere abused yours."????

Last time I checked - two wrongs don't make a right.


Again - NOWHERE did I ever say that the reaction listed was condoned or approved of by me. But like most folks, you seem to think that disagreement on an issue suddenly makes me some monster just because I don't go along with every point.

Well, I am not a homophobe, as I have known quite a few, and called some friend, including one very good man that this community lost. So I can't speak for any homophobes, but as a man who does have very strong moral feelings on this issue, I would say this in reply:

"I won't speak out on an issue that doesn't have anything to do with me, until - as in this case - someone MAKES it have to do with me. At that point, their decision means that they choose to try and gain my support - but they thus also must be willing to accept my refusal to support them."

Again - what we have here is that its either agree or be called homophobic and such. That kind of rhetorical trap gets kind of old. Its almost as tired as every tax hike being "for the children".

Not sure what carnival your talking about, but yes, I do have numerous concerns about the state of society and civilization. The moral depravity we have exported is one large cause of middle eastern hatred toward the west for example. Its a moral shame we pay athletes millions a year and teachers don't make enough to be above the poverty line. I could go on and on......

You do the same, I ought to run more often but I keep telling my lady that I am in shape - round is a shape after all!

Porphy, you may want to read a bit of Sigmund Freud discussing the effect and influence of taboos.

Next, taboos vary, and Brasil is not Europe or North America. You maybe have noted the cultural differences between these places, and the differences in their forms of carnival as well. Ypou could also compare public bathing and Sauna habits in America, Germany, Finland and Japan, to give a very obvious example of how different for example "public nudity" can be interpreted in different societies.

Beyond that, again I have to cover Captain Haplo's argumentation.

Two male dolphins having sex???? yeah right. Where does it go? In the "blow hole". The notion is ridiculous. When a dog humps a humans leg for example. Why is the dog doing that? It is not because he thinks your leg is hot, it is because the scent of a female dog in heat somehow got on you and the dog reacts to it. Animals are triggered by instinct and nothing more.

Well, concerning the parades, those are obviously meant to highlight a problem with how some people react and act when they hear of or meet persons that live a life as openly homosexual. I agree there is no need for a everyday "advertisement" of this kind when you meet people on the street, and I would guess most people, regardless of sexuality, doesn't do that, as you say. Just the same way as people don't shake hands and say "Hi I'm John and I'm politically a socialist". Hence, the parades are once a year, not every day.

Sure, everyone one can get offended, I probably get offended by stuff you find nothing to worry about.
What I don't like is the personal reaction to the parades that wish them to just go away, be out of sight, simply because they are concerned with a group that have sexual preferences in common and show by their very explicit performance, that this is what the problem of tolerance is about. The stay low attitude it often, to me, a clear extension of a more general attitude against homosexuals to repress them, and that strategy has been kept used against this group for a very long time. It's a I don't want to see, I don't want to know, not my problem policy, coupled with quite bland reactions to violence and abuse, which I don't like. It's like looking at the parade and say how awful, and on the street corner to your right some one from the parade gets beaten up. I think some of you cry out about the wrong thing in relation to these parades. No, you don't condone violence, but you and others sometimes seem more upset about the nudity than the violence and hate that surrounds the parades, which gets directed at the group parading.

I haven't called you or any one else in this thread homophobic, you seem to infer that from the quote from Eddie Izzard, which illustrated the logic of the stay out of sight attitude in a humorous but illuminating way. Perhaps it just hit the mark, and you thought I thereby labelled you homophobic?


What rights of yours are getting abused in these parades, which in most countries only happen once a year? Have some formal rights of yours actually have been "trampled" upon? The parades highlights (by acting out) issues around the real rights for a real group of people in society, it's not about acting out because of feeling rejected. The latter is your take on it.

As soon signs of homosexuality is spotted in public, the reaction is often very intolerant, even violent, from some people or in many countries (it does not have to be a parade). In light of that I find it not fully convincing when people say, "I accept their choice and I don't condone violence against people, but I don't like this kind of sexuality so please don't show your existence in public".
I agree, the parades are quite spectacular, some find them vulgar, no surprise. But my point is that the "stay out of public" is very easy to use against anything where persons openly show where they belong when it comes to sexuality. Imagine that quite innocent signs of love for a woman on your part could even trigger severe violence upon you and here, and that you two at the same time were being asked to stay out of public, maybe one day you and your wife would join a parade as well to reclaim some public space lost during the years?

We have been through the homophobia and condoning of violence thing already, so I wont repeat myself there.
Of course you don't have to actively support homosexuality, but one could voice support for a group of people that sometimes find themselves hunted down the street, getting kicked out of work, etc because of showing signs of their sexual preferences, which sometimes mean no more than you and I would do on a night out with ladies around, or walking in the park with a girlfriend.


That one was a bit of a joke, but with a bit of serious side to it as well. The Carnival in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil is quite famous for the lightly clad women. But also a lot of men go very light on the clothing. Both men and woman do "act out" as well. But people usally don't protest about this for some reason. That's why I brought it up, public display of sexuality and almost naked bodies is sometimes very much approved of, without the cry offence, at least not from the same people that find a gay parade disturbing. :cool:
In a way you could say that some of the homo parades have a lot of inspiration from this one, but with a take on it which doesn't conform with heterosexual preferences.

Ah, thats a good one. I should perhaps use that one on occasions as well! :yep:

[quote=Skybird;1103873]Skybird, I have read some works by Freud, including Totem and Taboo. I can't say Freud is my favourite thinker. Especially Totem and Taboo is a weak book in my view. But it is a quite along time ago I read it, so maybe I should do a revisit.

Yes, sure Carnivals are not the same everywhere. My point was only to show, as you say, different examples of displays of public nudity and explicit sexuality.
Saunas is a good example. I was very surprised when my English friends insisted on having their swimming trousers on in the sauna! :-?

But there you have it: the explanation why public display of sexual-related actions, or public nudity, raises anger in our society if it is done outside the compromise of banning it to tolerated situational and locational contexts: special bars, sexshops etc. Because our society is like it is, and it is not that of a far away country where maybe it may be different. In Europe and North America, it is seen as a provocation, and breaking of a social taboo. No wonder then that it triggers hostile reactions. If getting provoked, quite many people turn aggressive. It is a form of self-defense.

BTW, some Western law codes forbid public nudity and/or public actions with a sexual reference. ;) that is also true for you quoted Brasil, where an obligatory "minimum dress" code has been established for beaches years ago, after too many people were complaining about too much naked skin.

Porphy.
When you made the statement "Not very stand up guys" I took that as a personal slam when you wouldn't have enough knowledge to know whether or not I am a stand up guy or not. I see now it was not meant personally, though its wording made it appear as if it was aimed at any who disagree with every single point.

Now - lets deal with the meat of the issue.

You bring up the exact point I am trying to get across here. Let me play devil's advocate here - and pretend that I am "violently" anti-gay. *For the record I do not agree with targeting violence against anyone based only on their race, religion or sexual preference.* Now - lets say I am prone to attack someone I find out is openly gay. If thats the case, is it any suprise that a gathering of gays would illicit a violent response? No its not. The fact is there ARE people in the world who react with hatred toward ALL kinds of people, for reasons ranging from sexual orientation, color of skin, and religion, to other even more petty reasons such as the car they drive or the shoes they wear. Thats a blasted shame, but its fact none the less. But here is the problem - this idea that gay parades are about highlighting the treatment of gays by the rest of society is pure, unadulterated bull.

If it was about how gays are treated - then how does it help highlight the problem when the people taking part in the parade INTENTIONALLY act in an offensive manner? If it was about getting recognition for true wrongs perpetrated by others, how does running around barely clad and making out with someone in the middle of the street address that problem?

The article you posted said the following:

Funny - its not called the Slavic Antiviolence Parade is it? Or the Slavic Lets End Gay Bashing Parade? No - its called the "Slavic Gay Pride" parade. And the reason for that is that its NOT about addressing violence. Sure, there were a few anti-violence signs, but the majority?

Nice try in the attempt to cover the real purpose. Even the article itself tries to make the same arguement you do - that it was an antiviolence parade. They screwed up when they quoted one of the organizers though - because HE left no doubt as to its purpose.

I happen to live in what is called the San Fransico of the East Coast. We have more homosexuals here per capita than SF does. The majority of them are decent people who just want to live their lives and let others live as well. However, you do have the few agitators like the organizer of this event, and those who follow folks like them, that take a political agenda and CREATE situations where bad things can happen on purpose, just so they can look like victims.

There have been many "parades" and such here - and they are alot more often than once a year. The funny thing is, the counter-protesters are usually the ones that get attacked physically - not the other way around. And when the attackers get arrested, they scream police brutality and repression due to their sexual preference. Its just a few bad eggs, but it makes the community LESS accepting, not the other way around.

Also - if you read the article with an objective eye -it talks about how the police put their arms behind their backs and maybe even twisted a wrist or two. Oh my goodness - how horrible. What the article doesn't tell you is that is a standard way to control someone who is being taken into custody, its a standard way of gaining leverage and physical control. The same cops would do the exact same thing with any other person they arrested. Also - and I speak from personal experience on this - roughly 95% or more of the people arrested or taken into custody in some form will resist. However, only 3-5 percent of them will resist VIOLENTLY. So its very few that have to be manhandled and forced by pain to hold the heck still. But most will squirm, move their wrists to keep the cuffs off, shift away, etc - and those are reasons to exert leverage within reason. Even the protesters themselves gave descriptions that were NOT excessive.

Ultimately - those who live their private life private, just as the rest of society does regardless of the sexual choice, will continue to enjoy the protection of a civil and accepting society. Those who choose to take their private life and force it in front of eyes of the rest of society with intentional, outlandish behavior, are going to continue to find themselves ostracized and rejected from the majority of that society.

When these few bad apples decide to respect the rights of society, society will be more inclined to accept them. Those that already do, have vastly less problems in society for that very reason.

[quote=Skybird;1103992]Skybird, I would think the taboo is more about homosexuality in public, rather than about sexuality and nudity in general though, the public display of the latter is quite widespread in many western countries, although always channeled in special ways, as you say.
I don't myself find everything intimate and sexual displayed in public just fine. Actually I'm a guy that easily find people of today too loud, rude or inconsiderate about their surroundings. But I find it hard to be that upset or offended by a prearranged parade that make a point of being a bit vulgar or over the top.
In a way a parade has a sort of situational and locational context you talk about, and that makes it very much more tolerable, even when in public. A parade is a social institution used in different ways, many times political and cultural, and here the political and cultural message is dressed up in exactly that way which trigger the intolerance one wants to see challanged. That is abuse, violence and repression against a group of people with a different sexuality. This public strategy is as old as taboos I would think. :yep:

That is why I find it a bit too much like shrugging shoulders, when you say that this is how it works. Ok, and then? Throughout history you could find countless examples of successful claims from political and social movements, that would be simply absurd to reject today, with reference to the fact that when people get offended they get agressive as a kind of self defense. There are limitis and taboos that control public agression and violence in a society as well...
The conclusion that the gay provokers should just go away or stay invisible, when the slightest sign of their sexuality can trigger the same aggressive behaviour as the very provocation of the parade, that is simply naive and a non progressive attitude to me. Of course the thought that everyone will instantly accept you when parading for example is also naive. But somehow I don't think many people in the parades count on the latter, but I would think that they don't accept the stay low, stay out of sight approach as a good way to change the sometimes well spread tendency to trigger violence and abuse simply by people getting offended by their very existence in a society.

Certainly it is called "minimal dress code" for a reason... :o

cheers Porphy

[quote=CaptainHaplo;1104002]Porphy.
Captain, I think most of my way of reasoning when it comes to this issue, is connected to the fact that homosexuality tends to trigger abuse and harassment, even when persons are very low key, out of the way about it. And I don't mean in the streets only. (That there are people prone to violence and hate for the most petty reasons is both a fact and sad indeed. But I don't think anyone is really surprised at the reactions to the parades in many places)
The problem, as I see it, is that some people find the very existence of homosexuality so offensive as to react with both aggression, abuse or moral condemnation. Being openly gay in their view is the same as to exist as homosexual at all.
That is why the strategy to improve recognition and acceptance, in a given society, through being non existent/visible in public will not work. You simply have to bring the issue out in the open, that is in this case making homosexuality something that is accepted in public to the same degree as accepted heterosexual behaviour.
Sure the parades are a bit over the top for many people, and one can have doubts about if this is the best way to reach the goal. But as I said to Skybird, the strategy to go public and challenge taboos and values is as old as taboos themselves. To challenge something you might have to be a bit excessive, and you certainly need to do it intentionally.

Hmm, I never posted any article...


I haven't made the argument that the parade was anti violence to it's purpose. I'm not even discussing said article, so I'm not sure how much of this is about my view really. I'm discussing violence in connection to parades, be they called Slavic Gay Pride or something else, sure. I'm also discussing violence, abuse and condemnation against a group of people in general, which goes hand in hand with the attitude that they should preferably not be visible as openly homosexual in public, in parades or otherwise, to get a better recognition. This is a reasoning I find doubtful, but I also agree that seeking to start violent trouble is simply low. But to say that all parades have this purpose, or that they just add fuel to the fire, is also to go a bit too far. My view is that parades should be tolerated, even if that means public display of homosexuality, but of course with some sense to it. I don't see the point of a gay pride parade where everyone looks and behaves as heterosexuals.

I can't really comment on all that, as this obviously is a lot about your home turf, literally. I find some of your views quite reasonable, but remain doubtful about a few things, which have to be the way my writing on the subject ends for tonight!

Going rock climbing again tomorrow, so I need my sleep to be focused. :yep:

cheers Porphy