<p>Um, drb, me? That was my first post on this thread. 
</p>
<p>^sorry, my mistake, it was higherlead’s posts that I was responding to. I apologize for the mistaken identification.</p>
<p>^you mean higherlead.</p>
<p>lol…i guess i am mistaking ID too. it was deleted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the words above! 
I apologize for misinterpreting your motive.</p>
<p>I don’t really care if it is Barney Frank, Bishop Mahoney, Michael George, or some totally unknown invert who is doing it. I just want him to get the heck out of the parks and restrooms. If he wants to diddle someone or be diddled he can get a room.</p>
<p>'tisthetruth:“SmileDarling, I’ve heard the same mentality from racists.” (way back - post #27)</p>
<p>Wow- I am just reading this thread for the first time and think that was uncalled for. I don’t see her comment that way. I also think it was really nice of Doubleplay to offer to rename the thread, but It doesn’t look like an offensive title to me. Throughout my life there have been instances where stuff happened that might be questionable, and the issue always arose about how that action could reflect on others. That was all Doubleplay and Smiledarling were talking about, IMHO.</p>
<p>Once when I was in college some dormmates who were graduating burned university furniture in a bonfire. We lived in a cluster situation, and I was so freaked that Residential Life would think I was involved. I wrote a letter and asked that the stupid actions of a few please not influence how the rest of our dorm community was viewed.</p>
<p>While I am a straight person who is very supportive of gay rights (even gay marriage), I do agree that promiscuous public behavior by some gay people can reflect negatively on the rest of the gay community. Some gay people are parents, raising children in a way which is very child-centered and traditional. But people who are strugling with supporting gay rights, and may not know gay people first hand, read about this kind of stuff in the news and make assumptions. </p>
<p>For me? I don’t care what people do in the bushes, frankly. There are so many bigger things going on in the world to worry about than other poeple’s sexual exploits. If they are doing it in a private way, why should it matter to anyone? I know - it is in a public restroom. I get it. But whatever. As long as people are keeping their behavior there private, it doesn’t matter to me. I’ve never caught anyone doing anything. </p>
<p>I think cops like to catch gays or straights in compromising situations. I swear it’s fun for a lot of them. I have heard cops joking about this stuff, so I know at least some of them think it is funny. If I were a cop, and saw a car parked with steamy windows, I’d leave them alone. Maybe I wouldn’t make a very good cop.</p>
<p>Thanks for the support spideygirl. I felt the same way when I first read tisthetruth’s comment. I still disagree with his comment regarding the use of the word community but it’s no longer important for me to dispute it.</p>
<p>Thanks for the support spideygirl. I felt the same way when I first read tisthetruth’s comment. I still disagree with his comment regarding the use of the word community but it’s no longer important for me to dispute it.</p>
<p>I would encourage both of you to re-read my post. I applauded SmileDarling for acknowledging that although the actions (positive or negative) of some people are perceived to reflect on others who happened to share characteristics with those people, this shouldn’t be the case. Also, I would like to reiterate that I did not call her racist but that the mentality she described (which, again, is when the actions of certain people are perceived to reflect on other people who just happened to share some random characteristic with them) could lead the person holding that mentality down a slippery slope. I did not say that she was the one who possessed that mentality-- she came up with that conclusion on her own.</p>
<p>Also, spideygirl, your case involved a community made up of the members of your dorm cluster. I argued that the men having sex with each others in bathrooms also formed a community but that gays, as a whole, do not. Those who were not involved in this ordeal should be excluded from the community of men who engage in public bathroom sex (“community” is based on the agreed-upon definition by scholars…I expounded on this in a previous post). For example, there are pre-teens who are not involved in public bathroom sex but who happen to be gay. They should not be lumped together with those who are involved in public bathroom sex to make up the so-called “gay community.” In your case, you argued that the actions of several people in your dorm community should not reflect on other members who were not involved. My request is similar, except that there is no “gay community” in the first place to reflect the effect of the actions on. This is why the definition of community is important. The only community that should be blamed is the community of people made up (strictly) of men who engage in public bathroom sex with each other, and many of them aren’t even gay.</p>
<p>SmileDarling, I asked you a few questions in my previous post that I was hoping you could answer. And actually, it is still important for you to explain what you mean by “community,” because according to the definition you cited, heterosexuals make up a community, and yet you deny that this is the case.</p>
<p>Tisthetruth: “although the actions (positive or negative) of some people are perceived to reflect on others who happened to share characteristics with those people, this shouldn’t be the case.” </p>
<p>Of course, I agree with this. However, how things are is different than how things should be. In the real world, human beings do ascribe characteristics to individuals which are derived from generalizations about perceived communities to which those individuals belong. The notion of any community, by the way, is formed by perception and usage of the term more than anything else. In this particular instance, the term “gay community” has been embraced by a large number of both sexually conservative and sexually promiscuous homosexuals in the quest for political gains which would benefit both. I hope we can agree that when individuals choose to label themselves as members of a community, that designation carries a particular significance.</p>
<p>FYI…if the “racist” comments were perceived by more than one person to be critical of Smiledarling, than you might want to consider the validity of others being taken aback. Since you explained your intention, it doesn’t really matter now. For the future, the way you phrase things makes all the difference.</p>
<p>I know for sure that it is common from a usage standpoint to consider people who are gay to be members of the “gay community”. If your point was that it is wrong for gay people to be grouped that way (how things should be versus how things are), I understand. It might be wrong in some respects. However, I think that while separating gays with conservative sexual lifestyles from those with promiscuous ones might serve some purpose in how gays are perceived, it could also harm the movement to promote not only tolerance but true acceptance of alternative lifestyles. Fragmenting an already tiny minority would, in my opinion, dilute political clout. </p>
<p>I also suspect that way fewer straight people are having sex in bathrooms, most likely because they don’t have to deal with the lifestyle challenges that go with an alternative sexual preference. Additionally, my gut tells me that people who truly discriminate against gays really don’t care whether they are living a life quite similar to the 1950’s family, or having sex in bathrooms. It’s all sinful, wrong. or weird to them. It also could be argued that the closer many gays get to replicating a traditional hetero llifestyle, the more heated the anti-gays become (consider the marriage debate). That very discrimination (against all homosexual behavior, conservative or flamboyant) is what formed the community in the first place. Necessity is the mother of invention. There really isn’t much of a benefit to trying to change the perception that a “gay community” exists.</p>
<p>Maybe this belongs in the “I don’t get it thread” but I didn’t really get why the title of this thread was such a concern, until I read everyone’s thoughts. I agree.</p>
<p>If I were to bring in some news about negative or antisocial behavior by evangelicals under a thread title like this, the complaints would be out of this world. Ditto if one did it about “the white community” etc.</p>