Musicals and masculinity- Page 5

[wickedkiwi]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 7:17pm

good point.

however, i insist that at least you get to BE gay.

[toodramatic]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 7:56pm

"As long as straight people need reassurance of their heterosexuality at the expense of those of us are gay, all of this is directly related."

I don't need reassurance that I'm straight. Let me say that right off the bat. I don't think I ever really seemed to come off as needing reassurance, but whatev. Inevitably what we're really dealing with right now is semantics. To my knowledge pretty much everyone on this board has signed on to what that great Justice of the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia has called the "homosexual agenda." I say great. I am a staunch advocate of gay rights.

Why are you guys pouncing on your allies for making a different point than yourself. In the end we all are in general agrement about the "homosexual agenda."

You should be arguing with that group of drunk hicks waiting in the pick up truck. Don't worry I got your back.

ooh that "Not that there's anything wrong with that" episode of seinfeld just came on we should all watch and get a good LAUGH.

Updated On: 9/9/05 at 07:56 PM

[Kringas]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 9:16pm

I'm not pouncing on you, toodramatic. Nothing I said was directed at you. This thread was started by someone looking for reassurance. He even said "thanks for the reassurance" on the first page. There are plenty of straight people out there who don't believe there's a "homosexual agenda" or a "gay lifestyle." You may well be one of them. But the fact remains that this thread is entitled, "Musicals and Masculinity" and the first comment says, "i find that loving musicals casts certain aspersions on my masculinity - despite being straight as a die," immediately equating masculinity with heterosexuality and femininity with homosexuality.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/9/05 at 11:21pm

Thus, sanda--everything I've said IS directly related. And, I'm not bringing bitterness into this thread--I'm bringing passion for what I believe. I think that's what all of us bring into issues like these. I'm going to continue showing you respect, and I hope you will do the same for me.

[London Boy]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 8:18am

You are, of course, correct. There is no correlation between 'masculinity' and homosexuality. The word was very poorly chosen - one based on cliches, rather than rational thought.

A short anecdote, if i may:

I was talking to my girlfriend the other day and she said that she "loves the company of gay guys." This, to me, seemed completely irational. I concluded this - If people are to be defined by their sexuality, race, religion or sex, then we miss the point at hand about what people actually are. I explained to her that someone's sexuality was not their defining characteristic. I tried to explain that there are extremely boring, self-centered, vaccuous gay men and women, just as there are extremely boring, self-centred, vaccuous straight men and women.

The point, i think, is this. If we place emphasis on what a person is, rather than who they are, we miss the point of getting along in life. Recently in the British news there has been talk of changing the 'definition' of racial and national groups from things such as 'Muslim' to 'British Muslim' to aid intergration; a practice that is widely used and accepted in the USA and Canada. However, it seems that this is just another way to label someone based on ethnicity or religion, so that they may be defined by what they are, and sudjegated accordingly. To me this is unnaceptable. Instead of labelling someone as 'asian-British' couldn't people be assumed to be 'British' - a term to encompass all the veriety of cultures, ethnicity, and nationalities in this country? I don't know.

Maybe i'm wrong. Maybe people do need to feel special, that their culture is valued, cherished, and kept. As for homosexuality, i don't believe that being gay neccesarily defines a person. God knows i've met some incredibly nice, and some incredibly boring gay guys. I would hope that people have more character than to be defined by what they are, otherwise stereotypes will prevail and people will be defined by their supposed group, rather than their character - Liking theatre will be stereotypically cast as 'gay' and the subsistance and acceptance of all peoples - in both who people are, what people are like as people, and what people do will be tarnished, flushed, and minimalised.

[sanda]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 8:56pm

What I want to say is that I don't like gay people precheaching gay rights in a topic that is not related. Why, because in this post, straight people do not veto your right. This post did not say "I anti Gay rights!" You are angry about unfair treatment, go to fight with the one who did it. There are a lot and you can find them easily. I hate child got beaten, no matter the reason is whether he is gay or simply unpopular. But, I think in this post, no one beat gay. No one veto your right. Straight man don't like to be called " Gay". That opinion did not violate your right, so stop blame people who do no harm to you. What you do only turn those neutral or pro gay right people against you.

For me, I don't support or against Gay rights. Why, because I am not political. Gay issue is not related to me and I have right to not care. ( OK, you can say again "If you don't defend others' right, you lose your right someday." I know. I know.) Since this board is about musical, could we leave politics for a while?

jrb, I know you are passionate. Honestly speaking, I encourage you to put your passion into some political debate or real fight. From the past post in this thread, I didnot find straight people were as "passionate" as you. That is a truly waste for your energy. And since you don't "Backoff" me any more, you earn my respect back as well.

Best wishes.

[ForTheLoveOfLea]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 9:17pm

I'm actually discovering there to more and more straight fellas in the theatre world these days, as opposed to the stereotype. Gay theatre majors are actually a minority in my school. Just an observation.

[amasis]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 9:29pm

For me, I don't support or against Gay rights. Why, because I am not political. Gay issue is not related to me and I have right to not care. ( OK, you can say again "If you don't defend others' right, you lose your right someday." I know. I know.)

Wow. I am a woman. Women's rights can sometimes still be an issue in the area of the world where I was born, especially in the poor areas. I am imagining a man saying to me: "I am neither for nor against women's rights. It's not related to me and I have a right to not care." I think I'd be tempted to kick him in the balls.
Updated On: 9/10/05 at 09:29 PM

[sanda]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 9:32pm

Well, I won't kick him. That sounds like some feminist bitch.

[amasis]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 9:43pm

Apathy angers me - especially if it helps promotes injustice . But since you are like that yourself, I guess you won't be justified to get all pissed when someone is apathetic about an injustice committed against you. (Assuming you're a woman).
Updated On: 9/10/05 at 09:43 PM

[sanda]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 9:51pm

I am only angry when someone DID commit an injustice to me. I am not angry to anyone or talk about my anger to others who are not related. That is called victimizing. (is that right, or victimization? I am confused again.)

[amasis]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 10:18pm

I am confused again.

In so many ways.

The point isn't whether or not something has been done against you. This attitude people have, where they say "It doesn't affect me so I don't care" -- is a huge problem in this society. THAT is what I was commenting on in my first post. People support all kinds of bad decisions and bad policies without thinking of their consequences on the suffering of others, because hey, they have no direct effect on you, and who cares about everyone else, right? But ok, this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, so I'll stop now.
Updated On: 9/10/05 at 10:18 PM

[whatyouown223]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 10:46pm

I'm really upset with this stereotype, and I'm afraid to even mention theatre when people ask what my hobbies are, etc. At least at school. It really hurts when Di2, a performer on this board who probably works with many gays, called me a fag several times through PMs. It was totally uncalled for and I reported her for abuse.

[Kringas]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 10:48pm

What I want to say is that I don't like gay people precheaching gay rights in a topic that is not related.

It all goes hand in hand. I don't think that I (or jrb or anyone else on this thread) is "preaching" gay rights any more than we're preaching good grammar. We're simply discussing the implicit connotations of the phrasing of the query at the beginning of this thread. I realize that this thread wasn't started to bash gays. It's about stereotypes. And some of the language used on this thread perpetuates other stereotypes. So, it is all related.

You are angry about unfair treatment, go to fight with the one who did it. There are a lot and you can find them easily. Sure, a lot of us are angry, but I'm not angry with anyone who posted on this thread and I'm not angry about this thread. Perhaps one might argue that this thread got derailed, though as I've stated above, I think the issues being discussed in this thread were directly raised by this thread.

Straight man don't like to be called " Gay". I understand that. A good portion of this thread has been devoted to that. Toodramatic, London Boy and others have made very good points about it.

Much of the "anger" that you see on here was derived from the seemingly implicit notion that masculinity and homosexuality are mutually exclusive and much of the discussion has been devoted to that, which again is related to the topic ("Musicals and Masculinity").

That opinion did not violate your right, so stop blame people who do no harm to you. Who is blaming anyone? It's a discussion board. We're having an interesting discussion.

What you do only turn those neutral or pro gay right people against you. I'm not sure if it's a singular "you" or a royal "you." In any case, even if the gayest of the gay of us on here (now there's an idea for a thread - "BWW - Who is the gayest of the gay?") were spouting nonsense or something offensive that caused a "neutral" or "pro gay" person to turn against "us" (that's a royal "us"), then so be it. It would be as asinine as me deciding that I hated all straight people because of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, or people who say "Gay issue is not related to me and I have right to not care."

What would you have us do, then, Sanda? Should we gays sit back and not bite the "pro gay" hands that feed us? Should we just sit back and keep our mouths shut? Is that your solution to breaking down stereotypes? I may be wrong (and please correct me if I am), but that's exactly what I'm getting from your most recent posts.

[Kringas]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 11:05pm

I was talking to my girlfriend the other day and she said that she "loves the company of gay guys."

A lot of women feel that way and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. I know that there are things that my female friends get from me that they don't get from their straight male friends, and vice versa. It's really only a problem if someone is deliberately seeking any specific group of people to befriend simply because they're gay (or black, or Jewish, etc). I've been friends with people who were clearly friends with me because they wanted a "gay" friend, as though I were an accessory. It doesn't sound like that's what your girlfriend means (though since I don't know either of you, I'm only guessing). Perhaps she just loves the company of the gay men she knows. Trust me, there are plenty of sh!tty gay guys out there, too.

As for homosexuality, i don't believe that being gay necessarily defines a person. It doesn't always. nor does it doesn't have to. I think it's a fine line and it's an issue that comes up a lot within the gay community. The thing is, while I don't believe I am someone who makes my being gay the single most defining thing about me, there are others who do. And who I am to judge them? Whether you realize it or not, as a heterosexual you're almost always defined by that. It's not implicit and not generally talked about because heterosexuality is perceived as the norm. Because homosexuality deviates (god, I really wanted to use a better word there) from the "norm," often what is perceived as making one's homosexuality their calling card is no different from heterosexuals making it their calling card. Many people are immune to it, because the word is heterocentric (that's not pointing a finger or crying oppression. It just is).

It's much easier to not be defined by the group you fall into when you're in the majority. That's all.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/10/05 at 11:41pm

Sanda--you have taken my posts WAY out of proportion. And consequently, you have somehow derived an concise opinion of me from this one thread. You have NO notion of who I am and what I stand for.

I will say again that all that has been discussed here HAS been relevant even if you have not deemed it to be. I am thankful that Kringas has taken the time to eloquently defend this so that I don't have to.

I don't wish to debate this any further with you, sanda, as you and I seem to have a great communication gap. And, I find your investment in my posts on this thread or this thread altogether to be ironic given your great apathy.

Updated On: 9/10/05 at 11:41 PM

[gumbo2]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 12:02am

may i just say: i LOVE musical theatre, its my life, i love going to theatre and performing, and i am definitely straight. no one has ever questioned my sexual preference, tho i am anything but "masculine". i take pleasure in blasting my MT cd's in my car when i pull up at a red light. ive never been worried, or even given a thought as to whether or not people think im gay. it doesnt matter to me. and as far as connecting homosexuality with femininity and all that, i know i would give anything to be able to dance like some of those guys on stage and in ballet. for me, i dont care if someone is gay or not, but watching a guy dance on stage is beautiful, and to do that doesnt seem feminine to me at all, just a beautiful artform. so, all this talk of gay lifestyles and straight lifestyles and masculinity...i think its all irrelevant when talking about theatre

[Forester]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 10:05am

I knew he was different in his sexuality
I went to his parties as a straight minority
It never seemed a threat to my masculinity
He only introduced me to a wider reality
-Neil Peart

[sanda]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 11:44am

Kringas,

Thanks for your elaborate answer about my post. What do I want gays do? I don't want anything. That is not my intention. You decide what you guys want to do. What I am doing is to give out what I am thinking honestly. You decide whether there is some reason inside or simply nonsence. I read your post and know what you really feel. I can be persuaded by you or hold my position stubbornly. That is up to me. If I only say, " I support Gay right! I care a lot about this issue. " That is not true and I won't respect myself even if it may earn some respect from you.

jrb, if my opinion makes you feel angry and don't want to discuss more about it. That is fine.

amasis, you misunderstood me. My confusion is referring to my grammar, whether I should use "victimizing" or "victimization".

[MyDreamsRecurring]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 11:59am

the general population doesn't know sh*t about broadway. if anyone comments, burn them Rent cds. that's what i do. it's a good way to introduce people who are used to rock music to broadway.

Updated On: 9/11/05 at 11:59 AM

[London Boy]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 12:29pm

"It's much easier to not be defined by the group you fall into when you're in the majority. That's all."

Yes. It is easier not to be defined when you're in the majority because the majority makes the defnintions. Indeed, one can see it in the very colloquially used, yet widely spread, terminology of 'Gay' and 'Straight' - the opposite of straight being bent and, therefore, implicitly wrong. If people are not to be defined by what they are, rather than who they are, there needs to be a dramatic overhaul of perceptions in the majority, and the minority. If the gay community presents itself as 'different' the majority will treat it as different.

It seems to me that the push needs to be towards tacit acceptance that homosexuality is a norm affecting a complete change in attitude from the whole of society. This push has to come from both the majority and the minority groups, even down to words such as 'straight.'

[London Boy]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 12:33pm

PS: I wouldn't burn anyone a copy of Rent - that musical was a turd.

[MyDreamsRecurring]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 12:33pm

Birds seem find the whole "Les Mis then some dinner," date pretty irresistable.

hahaha, my best friend Keri and I had a discussion yesterday about this. Why aren't more straight men in theater? It's a great way to meet girls!

[Kringas]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 1:36pm

If people are not to be defined by what they are, rather than who they are, there needs to be a dramatic overhaul of perceptions in the majority, and the minority. If the gay community presents itself as 'different' the majority will treat it as different.

Well, I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure I agree 100%. Fundamentally, gays are different from straights - gay people are attracted to members of their own sex, straight people are attracted to members of the opposite sex. Any difference beyond that are purely circumstantial and no amount of gay assimilation is going to change that fact.

Ultimately, a lot of the problem boils down to the fact that a lot of straight people are grossed out by the idea of two men having sex (Yes, some are grossed out at the thought of two women having sex, but the prolific amount of lesbian porn marketed towards straight men shows that there is a double standard). Until enough people realize that, regardless of how they feel about it, two gay people having sex impacts their lives in absolutely no detrimental way, a lot of these problems will still continue.

Updated On: 9/11/05 at 01:36 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/11/05 at 11:25pm

Kringas--you speak the truth!

Sanda--not angry, just out of Advil, darlin'.