[lit-ideas] Re: Correction and Weight Watchers (1974)

  • From: andy amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 12:46:49 -0400 (GMT-04:00)

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: May 9, 2004 12:00 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Correction and Weight Watchers (1974)

>> Uh, Andy, hmmm.    How many gay guys do you know personally?

> A.A.  Personally?  As in up front and personal?  Let's see.  Probably
about as many as I know serial killers. <

Yes, that's what I assumed from your post.

> But does that mean the FBI can't profile serial killers and know generally
what drives them? <

I have no idea what the accuracy rate of criminal psychological profiling
is, but even if it's high, the profiles are made through in-depth,
historical  knowledge of specific personality types, not through accepting
stereotypes about them.  Homosexuals are not a specific personality type,
they are as varied in personality as the heterosexual population -- and
that's my point.

A.A.  Homosexuals do have things in common, to wit, they like drag, they wear 
skirts with no underwear (based on past Gay Days in Disneyworld), they are very 
youth and appearance oriented, they are among the biggest consumers of sex 
related drugs such as Viagra, much of it bought on the internet, and so on.  
This is common knowledge.  Now the question becomes, why such an emphasis on 
youth and appearance, why the need for skirts when even women wear pants most 
of the time, and so on.

> Do you really think that being something gives people any clue to why they
do what they do, or can't stop themselves from doing what they don't want to
do? <

If you weren't such a new member, you'd know that the last thing I trust is
self-knowledge.  And I'm not sure what that has to do with the question
anyway.  I'm not saying that you have to BE a homosexual in order to pass
judgment on them, I'm saying you need to KNOW some homosexuals, then you
wouldn't think of passing judgment on them any more so than passing judgment
on Italians or Americans.

A.A.  Or I'd have to know some serial killers or some drug addicts or some 
prostitutes.  There are traits groups have in common, including ethnic groups, 
such as Italians or Americans, that are very different from other groups and 
are easily identified.  While individuals within any group are different, 
groups tend to be fairly homogeneous in values and norms.  And, unless you 
believe that things happen without cause, can we agree that these guys self 
select for a reason, into this general lifestyle called "gay" which chooses to 
emphasize a lot of sex and appearance for its mainstays.  

> So, in short, yes, I think observing is often a better way to know
something than to be in the midst of it. <

Yes, every prejudice thinks it knows all it needs to know.  All I'm
suggesting is that your TV sitcom observations of homosexuality leave a bit
to be desired, if you'll forgive my saying so.

A.A.  Actually, I much prefer the History Channel.  Or CNN (for all its 
faults).  Or even Judge Judy to get a really close glimpse of the masses.  I 
have never watched even Friends and do not mourn its passing.  Since I do 
industrial copywriting, I keep up with the culture only as much as I need to 
for small talk.  Beyond that I break out in hives so I have to quit and soothe 
myself with the Weather Channel.  Therefore, any information about homosexuals 
I have is not gathered from sit coms.  

Laura (no, not Petrach's Laura) is hounding me to do the Mother's Day thing.   
So, I gotta make like a banana and split.


Mike Geary
a queer city if ever there was one
and gay, too!

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: