Join 3,377 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Get Your Straight Pride Shirts Here
July 29, 2003 11:35 AM   Subscribe

Are you a breeder and don't care who knows it? Show the world by wearing one of these delightful straight pride t-shirts. Display it at the next straight pride march!
posted by mr_crash_davis (113 comments total)

 
Why don't the straight people join in the gay pride march, making the enemy simply those who don't like screwing anything?
posted by jonmc at 11:40 AM on July 29, 2003


Eh... fuck 'em. If you swing that way :)
posted by starvingartist at 11:40 AM on July 29, 2003


clothes are for wearing.
ideas are for thinking.
posted by VulcanMike at 11:41 AM on July 29, 2003


I thought being proud of being "straight" is what gets flashers into trouble.

and on preview, i second jonmc's comment.
posted by Stynxno at 11:43 AM on July 29, 2003


IMHO, people who would wear these are as annoying as people who would wear the other type of "pride" shirts.
posted by moonbiter at 11:44 AM on July 29, 2003


All hail the Straight Pride Grand Wizard!
posted by gwint at 11:45 AM on July 29, 2003


I'm glad to see the horribly oppressed heterosexual culture finally get some recognition and respect. Maybe rich white people will find inspiration in their example and throw off their chains, too.
posted by turaho at 11:46 AM on July 29, 2003


Dammit. They didn't have a "Gay, but not strait" t-shirt!
posted by WolfDaddy at 11:46 AM on July 29, 2003


I would have figured that popular culture alone was enough straight pride. Guess not.
posted by damclean2 at 11:51 AM on July 29, 2003


These will go great with my "I'm a white male and I vote" bumper sticker.
posted by RylandDotNet at 11:51 AM on July 29, 2003


The American flag design with the 'man and woman' symbol on it tells me all I need to know about that site.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:53 AM on July 29, 2003


How about a "I watch TV" t-shirt! So no one gets confused...
posted by mildred-pitt at 11:56 AM on July 29, 2003


The worst part about this site, for me, is that it appears to be mimicking clothes that you'd find in skate shops and whatnot, meaning they're possibly targeting younger kids.

Ah, nothing like that untapped young, eXtr3m3, homophobic market to cash in on.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:03 PM on July 29, 2003


Are you a breeder ...

As a hetero male who's had a vasectomy, I find this extremely offensive. Not ALL straight people are breeders, y'know. Where's MY t-shirt? Where's MY parade?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 12:05 PM on July 29, 2003


The worst part about this site, for me, is that it appears to be mimicking clothes that you'd find in skate shops and whatnot, meaning they're possibly targeting younger kids.

Straight pride is totally gay.
posted by RylandDotNet at 12:06 PM on July 29, 2003


Is this a Joke. Or, is it just "propoghanda".
posted by seanyboy at 12:07 PM on July 29, 2003


Every sentence on the Straight Pride Parade web site sets me off on a whole new burst of giggles.

Due to the new restrictive policies and security fences set by the Pride Northwest Inc. this is the only way in which straight, pro-family Americans will be allowed to voice and celebrate their pride in heterosexuality and belief in God-ordained heterosexual lifestyle.

Those poor, repressed straights! Please, won't someone think of the hets?

Well, I will. Just not those ones.
posted by orange swan at 12:07 PM on July 29, 2003


I was all for them until I saw the links to organizations like Beverly LaHay's Concerned Women for America. But hey! At least the radical religious right is showing a sense of humor.
posted by pomegranate at 12:08 PM on July 29, 2003


The "about us" section gives us a little more insight into the motives here, I mean its one thing to be proud of who you are, but to put these two lines on the same page is a little much:

To strait things off, we (heterosexuals) are living out a "lifestyle" like billions of others who believe that family/morals/pro-creation (sic) are the backbone of our well being.

and

I am okay with who I am and I don't need you to push your views laws (sic) onto me.

So I just want to get this clear before I dismiss you, its okay for you to push your views laws (family/morals/pro-creation) onto others, but not vice versa? Has someone tried to recruit you for the gAy-Team or something man?
posted by Pollomacho at 12:09 PM on July 29, 2003


On preview, zenmasterthis - yep. I'm a lesbian trying to breed; sexuality and parenting are not all that related.
We'll see if we can find you a parade somewhere.
posted by pomegranate at 12:12 PM on July 29, 2003


(not YOU crash, the author of the page)
posted by Pollomacho at 12:12 PM on July 29, 2003


The site owner says that he believes that family/morals/procreation are the backbone of his well-being. Then he says he's not homophobic, perhaps because the word homophobia doesn't even exist in his eyes. Conclusion: he's homophobic and he needs a dictionary.

I'd be ok with this site if I thought it was just a joke, but he's clearly serious about being proud to be straight, which is really creepy. There's no inherent reason to be proud of who you want to have sex with. That's absurd. The whole Gay Pride thing makes sense if you take it as meaning pride in being openly gay in the middle of a rather homophobic culture, which is something that can be difficult and so is something you can take pride in. But it's easy to be straight, so there's not really much to be proud of.

I'm pretty sure the "straight pride" t-shirts are just intended to be a way of saying homosexuality is wrong without getting in trouble.
posted by Hildago at 12:14 PM on July 29, 2003


straight pride <> homophobia.
posted by quonsar at 12:17 PM on July 29, 2003


1. Another well meaning and liberal organisation with the word pride (NSFW) in it's name.

2. For more telling information, look at the news and the comments. Plus the whole "I'm a member of the californian Highway patrol" section had me laughing my ass off.
posted by seanyboy at 12:18 PM on July 29, 2003


Also their man/woman symbol seems to advocate unisex bathrooms more than heterosexuality.
posted by Hildago at 12:18 PM on July 29, 2003


It's about time! I'm sick of all this gay pride tripe. Get over yourselves already.
posted by timbley at 12:21 PM on July 29, 2003


I object to the term 'breeders' - I've only bred once!
posted by jamespake at 12:23 PM on July 29, 2003


Quonsar (you big loveable troll you)... In the context of this site, then straight pride = homophobia. These are not t-shirts designed so people can take pride in their sexuality, they are t-shirts designed to show they are proud not to have the same sexuality as gay people. Plus "breeders" is a deliberately controversial word.
posted by seanyboy at 12:25 PM on July 29, 2003


Oh, and Quonsar: straight pride probably does = homophobia. (sorry, I don't know the symbol for 'probably does equal').
posted by jamespake at 12:26 PM on July 29, 2003


Just going by the man/woman logo, I thought the site was there to promote unisex toilets. Um...Made in America unisex toilets, that is.
posted by Dunvegan at 12:27 PM on July 29, 2003


Who's proud to be heterosexual? I'm neither proud nor ashamed.
posted by SpaceCadet at 12:29 PM on July 29, 2003


Every day is Straight Pride Day. Heteronormativity rears its "totally accepting" head yet again.
posted by Quartermass at 12:29 PM on July 29, 2003


Lot of people missing the point of gay pride. It's about not hiding anymore, about refusing to accept the criminalization of their natures. It's pride in the self-esteem sense more than the vanity sense; of celebrating who they are rather than being ashamed of it. I've little enough use for gay pride events personally, but I applaud the principle behind it.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:30 PM on July 29, 2003


Hildago = Faster than a post preview.

Post-post view: what you said.
posted by Dunvegan at 12:30 PM on July 29, 2003


So these folks are dopes. But I find it fascinating that so many of the visitors to the site are getting their pantys in a twist over it.

Is it some kind of homosexual insecurity? "We deserve a parade, how dare you get involved?" What's the big damned deal, I wonder?

A couple of weeks ago, out Philly way, they kicked off the Gay and Lesbian film festival with an outdoor showing of the 80's film "Xanadu." It was a sing-along. And I thought to myself, this is freaking brilliant - if camp got any higher, it would need an oxygen mask.

Strange that folks that have such a fine sense of whimsey and the absurd can't see the obvious goofiness in this situation and just let it roll off their backs. As long as crap like this pisses them off, they'll never find acceptance - they're too busy building their own fortresses.

(On editing - Every Day is Gay Pride Day too, Quartermass... unless you save up all your pride in yourself for one whiz-bang parade a year. That's your call. And your prison.)
posted by Perigee at 12:31 PM on July 29, 2003


Quonsar, I think this shirt sums up their whole idea system. There is only One Way, and it is the Right Way. They are Right, You are Wrong, so stop being gay!
posted by mathowie at 12:34 PM on July 29, 2003


The whole Gay Pride thing makes sense if you take it as meaning pride in being openly gay in the middle of a rather homophobic culture, which is something that can be difficult and so is something you can take pride in. But it's easy to be straight, so there's not really much to be proud of.

I guess I should only be a Green Bay Packers fan if I live in Minnesota then.
posted by y0mbo at 12:35 PM on July 29, 2003


seanyboy and jamespake: i fucked up. i did not view the site before tossing the remark. i thought i was attacking a generalization. on reflection, the slogans and sentiment could only serve divisiveness. and on reading the site, i think that's precisely its purpose.
posted by quonsar at 12:36 PM on July 29, 2003


Perigee, I think most people here are getting uppity about the straight pride website, not some silly straight pride march. Let them march, it is silly and harmless.
posted by mathowie at 12:36 PM on July 29, 2003


(Naah - wasn't talking 'bout our folks, Matt - I was talking about the comments on the discussion board there at the site. Our folks are more together than that.)
posted by Perigee at 12:39 PM on July 29, 2003


It's about time! I'm sick of all this gay pride tripe. Get over yourselves already.

I will not feed the troll...I will not feed the troll...I will not feed the troll...

Ah, crap. I guess I just did. Oh well. While I'm at it, I can't help but notice that as soon as your opponents in the abortion debate last December started asking you to define your terms and respond to a reasoned challenge, you skipped the thread. Care to save your reputation, and explain the reason for that hostile remark? (note: not holding my breath.)
posted by Fenriss at 12:46 PM on July 29, 2003


A straight pride march is neither silly nor harmless. In every situation I have seen where a march is made on these terms (e.g. National Front marches in Bradford, Orangemen in Belfast), then there has been trouble. When people are marching for their rights, things seem to be OK. When they are marching against the rights of others, then this is both divisive and potentially explosive. I think.
posted by seanyboy at 12:47 PM on July 29, 2003


I'm a lesbian trying to breed

Did you need any help with that?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:50 PM on July 29, 2003


I'm sick of all this gay pride tripe Gay pride is about ... educating the World, commemorating gay heritage, celebrating gay culture and, liberating gay people. From here. In what sense would you consider this to be tripe?
posted by seanyboy at 12:52 PM on July 29, 2003


From the Straight Pride March page...
The heterosexual pro-family participation in this event does not endorse homosexual lifestyle; rather it will create a healthy alternative to increasingly violent counter-protests that lack in civility.

Sounds more like this is about being proud of not being gay rather than being proud of who you are. I love straight people, but this is still a bunch of religious know it alls who want to dress their intolerance up in wearing pretty clothes. And for any straight, bi, gay or whatever folks in Vancouver, you're welcome at the Pride parade this weekend.
posted by holycola at 12:54 PM on July 29, 2003


Did you need any help with that?

Are you a licensed medical professional? Or just an ass that wants to have sex with a woman who is guaranteed not to be attracted to him? I ask merely for clarification.
posted by RylandDotNet at 12:55 PM on July 29, 2003


If anything were ever to make me feel ashamed of being striaght, it's these T-shirt peddlers.
posted by adamrice at 12:55 PM on July 29, 2003


Quonsar- I thought that was probably the case - you never struck me as the homophobic type. :->. Personally, as a self-confessed straight man, I'd rather celebrate gay-pride than straight-pride. The latter just seems unnecessary and divisive whereas the former has a real message to convey.
posted by jamespake at 12:56 PM on July 29, 2003


Fair call, Seanyboy - I was kind of hoping that this wasn't the intended, based on the discussion board list that this Molly Dean Stanton (the organizer) put up:

"Think of this as a little version of March For Jesus or any similar positive event. Don't identify yourself by what you're against, but by what you are for. "

"Pride NW is particularly concerned about altercations. If any militant homosexual approaches you with messages of hatred, think what would Jesus (for those who are not Christian yet, think of Gandhi, Buddha or someone like that) do in this situation. If they shout at you, simply shout "Hallelujah!" -- happy are those persecuted for the sake of Righteousness."


And, in the end, it looks like Molly and her people never showed anyway - it was either a tweak at the Gay's expense (which only worked if they got revved up about the 'injustice' of it), or they just plain chickened out.

Either way, it seems to tell me that Both sides need to work on mending the fences.
posted by Perigee at 12:57 PM on July 29, 2003


Also. Second uk link for "straight pride march" contains interesting information on the sort of people who'd organise this sort of thing.
posted by seanyboy at 1:00 PM on July 29, 2003


In response to gay pride rainbow stickers on people's cars, some folks in Austin adorned their vehicles with taco and hot dog bumper stickers. The radio DJs who created them said that rainbow flags are how gay people hook up on the road - so this was their way of proclaiming their (hetero)sexuality and availability. I thought it was funny, though somehow missed the point. It looked to me more like the taco and hot dog stickers were attractive to people who might actually be afraid of gay people, and felt "under attack" when they saw a simple stupid rainbow flag.
Civil_Disobedient, I've got a Visa and the internet. Thanks to the wonders of cryogenics and a free market economy, that's all the help I need. Thanks though.
posted by pomegranate at 1:05 PM on July 29, 2003


some folks in Austin adorned their vehicles with taco and hot dog bumper stickers.

Now, this is where problems start. I would've felt compelled to have this guy pull over, and I woulda been really pissed when he didn't give me a hot dog.
posted by jonmc at 1:07 PM on July 29, 2003


How would people feel about this if the message was "White Pride" and "One Race" rather than "Straight Pride" and One Way"?

Sure, let them march, because that is their right... but seriously, these people should be villified and shunned by mainstream society in the same way that the KKK are.

Want a good, inclusive message that supports your sexual orientation? How about a pro-sexuality parade, with slogans like "Sexuality - It's all good." and "Wrap your love in a glove." That's a parade we could all march in...
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:08 PM on July 29, 2003


A straight pride march is neither silly nor harmless. In every situation I have seen where a march is made on these terms (e.g. National Front marches in Bradford, Orangemen in Belfast), then there has been trouble. When people are marching for their rights, things seem to be OK. When they are marching against the rights of others, then this is both divisive and potentially explosive. I think.

I agree. In this particular case it will be sexually repressed truckers looking for effeminate-looking males to heckle. Or something like that.
posted by jamespake at 1:10 PM on July 29, 2003


Oh... and for those who think that "gay pride" has gotten out of hand, just consider for a moment that you live in a world with people who have fluid sexualities... that AIDS is a diesease that is primarily heterosexual in most parts of the world... that AIDS in the US is once again on the rise... and that Gay Pride parades have led the way in educating young gay/bi/questioning people about safe sex.

So yes, you can be tired of the messages that you notice in mainstream culture about homosexuality, but if you get rid of that, you'll also weaken the safe sex message too, and leave a whole bunch of lost, sexually confused kids out there who don't know what is safe, who will be more succeptible to AIDS, and who could spread it to people you know and love.

So yes, Gay Pride indeed... especially if it is used to reinforce positive, consentual, safe expression of sexuality. That's something we can all benefit from.
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:18 PM on July 29, 2003


"When people are marching for their rights, things seem to be OK.

When they are marching against the rights of others, then this is both divisive and potentially explosive."

Are "gay pride marches" for rights?

Or are they celebrations?

Or are you saying that they are celebrations unless someone else wants to march in which case they are marching against gay rights?

Will they be sexually repressed truckers? 4X4s or 18 wheelers? Have you seen the guest list?

Like I said, prejudice and slanted thinking runs in both streams here. It's no wonder the Hatfields and McCoys are fighting
posted by Perigee at 1:19 PM on July 29, 2003


Why don't the straight people join in the gay pride march,

We do in Toronto! There's pretty much as many straight people that attend as gay and it's the best fun. t r a c y makes costumes for some of her drag queen friends and for her trouble usually ends up dressed as a kitty on a leash for one of their accessories :D
posted by zarah at 1:23 PM on July 29, 2003


I am SOOO gonna get laid wearing this shirt!
posted by UncleFes at 1:25 PM on July 29, 2003


Every day is Straight Pride Day

No no no -- unless TV lied to me, every day is Lesbian Lover Day.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:25 PM on July 29, 2003


Are "gay pride marches" for rights?
yes

Or are they celebrations?
yes - they can be two things at the same time.

Or are you saying that they are celebrations unless someone else wants to march in which case they are marching against gay rights?
I've no idea. Please rephrase question in a form I can understand.

Will they be sexually repressed truckers? 4X4s or 18 wheelers? Have you seen the guest list?
You are correct. That was a glib and stereotyped answer. Not all truckers are homophobes, and not all gay men are
effeminate. The point, however was valid.
posted by seanyboy at 1:29 PM on July 29, 2003


Perigee- Oh, come on, it's fuckin' obvious that straight people don't have to march for their sexual rights. In many cases, gay people do. The truckers reference was to some link I saw to a sexually-repressed gay truckers' comic strip on MeFi recently - it seems so apt for the people in this straight pride movement.
posted by jamespake at 1:31 PM on July 29, 2003


ROU_Xenophobe: today is actually God is so in to you right now - day
posted by seanyboy at 1:31 PM on July 29, 2003


In this particular case it will be sexually repressed truckers looking for effeminate-looking males to heckle.

This is what interstate rest stops are for.

Oh, you said heckle. I read it as suckle.
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:35 PM on July 29, 2003


Let's not start getting angry.
posted by seanyboy at 1:38 PM on July 29, 2003


Insomnia's right on the mark. I'm reminded of a quote that I saw in Leigh Rutledge's "Unnatural Quotations," but I can't find a link to the specific quote anywhere and I don't own the book.

Pride in something that's an accident of one's birth, whether it be black, white, gay or straight pride, is a dangerous concept. I'm no more proud of being straight than I am of being right-handed-- it's not something that I have control over. How can I feel pride at something that I didn't accomplish?

The proprietors of this company are probably very ugly souls, but they're making an interesting point. Perhaps someone can elaborate as to why gay pride is acceptable. Really, if there's a different way of looking at it that makes sense, I'd like to see it because my mind and my gut are conflicted on this-- sense of community with folks that are like you seems only natural, but "pride" seems like an excuse to choose sides.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:38 PM on July 29, 2003


Curley. I'll repeat... Gay pride is about ... educating the World, commemorating gay heritage, celebrating gay culture and, liberating gay people. If it helps - Don't think of it as gay pride, but think of it as Gay Not-Ashamed.
posted by seanyboy at 1:44 PM on July 29, 2003


My only point, seany, is that as long as you have both sides of a conflict with hair triggers, you're never going to come to a peace. Without going too "Yoda", fear does lead to hate - and the only way the whole (absurd) question of who is equal to whom is for one side to have the courage to just show themselves to be human, and let the damn dog sniff the hand a bit before you try to pet it.

When things get set up from the start with the absolute insistence on sinister - "Sexually Repressed truckers who want to pummel fem-boys" They're marching not to show their pride but to trample your rights - well, then they have every right to see you as an enemy... because you have decided to treat them as such.

The point IS NOT Valid. It's a generalization, and one that automatically puts you at battlestations. The fight for opinion and acceptance is won one mind at a time, and you wouldn't be able to convince me snow was cold if you came at me like I was some kind of werewolf. You essentially negated the possibility that anyone at these things are going to be friendly or even apathetic to your position - its US vs THEM.

And that's just not going to create a foundation for peace and understanding.

If you think these people are such neanderthals - and I won't argue that point - then it's up to your side to pull the compassion up and grow some hide over that thin skin of yours. Because you know damn well they won't.
posted by Perigee at 1:47 PM on July 29, 2003


I swear I hooked up with that blonde chick sporting the unisex bathroom sign baby doll tee, back in college. Ha!
posted by bmxGirl at 1:48 PM on July 29, 2003


Ummmm, well....

Naaaaah....
posted by Samizdata at 1:51 PM on July 29, 2003


Gay Not-Ashamed

Put that way, it sounds very nice. Thanks.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:51 PM on July 29, 2003


Once again, james - are we talking PRIDE or RIGHTS?

BIG difference.

RIGHTS are something you are fighting for that you don't have.


PRIDE is something you damned well better have, or you need to see somebody professional.


Now... Straight people don't have the RIGHT to PRIDE? Only gay people do? Is it that you just don't have enough pride, and hate to see it spread around? If straight people hold a PRIDE march, why would it stick in your craw? Frankly the whole PRIDE thing is an insecurity in my eyes no matter who does it - gay or straight, black or white, christian or muslim. And trust me, you don't have a lock on insecurity.

RIGHTS and PRIDE are two different issues, James - and if you want to play Republican right-wing semantic games with those two definitions... well, you see exactly where you are.
posted by Perigee at 1:53 PM on July 29, 2003


The people who buy these shirts are the same ones that complained when young that "There's a Father's day and a Mother's day but there's no Kid's day!"
posted by Dipsomaniac at 1:53 PM on July 29, 2003


Perigee, if you really think that a straight pride celebration is the innocent equivalent to a gay pride one, then perhaps you'd think a "White Pride" march is merely the innocent converse of a "Black Pride" march. Cultural and historical context matters here. The straight pride bunch are categorically not saying "we're okay", they're saying to the gays, "you're not okay."

When white supremacists demonstrate, are you going to tell black people to grow a thicker skin? White supremacists do have a right to speak and demonstrate, as do these folks. But it is important that voices be raised in opposition, not to simply be accepting as you suggest.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:59 PM on July 29, 2003


My feeling has always been that sexuality should be like underwear - everyone has it, but you don't need to go around showing to everyone.. Of course the odd person wears it on their head and runs around with nothing else. Wackos.

Mind you, I'd also like to see less scantily clad objectifications of females and males around and better role models for kids than sexed up pop singers, but again, who am I to argue against society?

Gay, straight, whatever. People should all be taught responsibility and sexual safety, as well as the moral responsibility one has in a civilised society - indoctrinate everyone with the Golden Rule from an early age I say..

Militant gays annoy me. So do militant anything, but I probably have a deep seated ickiness as to sodomy.

Also, why do homosexuals seem to have more sexualised relationships than heterosexuals? Thats what I've seen from talking to my homosexual friends, they all seem to find it harder to have a relationship without the physical aspect.

Fun for a while, but it doesn't last as well..

My 2c, byebye.
posted by Mossy at 2:00 PM on July 29, 2003


Eventually we'll have to have a day for every single person on the planet. Which will be difficult considering there's only 365 days (we'll ignore the 0.25 for this discussion). Leap year won't be much help, either. People might have to share days and that could be a real problem.

Or we could all be happy we're alive and leave it at that.
posted by tommasz at 2:02 PM on July 29, 2003


1. Truckers and femboys was a generalisation. jamespake has explained his use of that particular image, and at the time prefaced the statement with "or something like that". Which sort of implies that he knows it's a generalisation.

Homophobic people do beat up on people at gay marches. This is NOT a generalization, and was the valid point I was referencing.

I didn't use the word trample, and I don't want this discussion to be emotive.

I think it's very difficult for gay people to not see homophobic people as the enemy, but the general impression I get from gay pride marches is that they are more about education, and less about creating an aurour of tension. The patting, the peace and the understanding you talked about are being actively pursued.

If (gay and straight) people who support gay pride sometimes slip into predjudice, it is just because they are people.

Finally, sometimes you have to fight & argue & use rhetoric to get what you believe in. Nelson Mandela understood this, Martin Luthor King understood this, and Emily Pankhurst understood this. Sometimes I have to come at you like you are a werewolf. (note rhetorical last statement not backed up by any knowledge of the facts, but heh. This is Metafilter - right)
posted by seanyboy at 2:04 PM on July 29, 2003


Oh, and you're quite right about gay pride being an insecurity thing -- but not in the deprecating sense that I think you intend. They are insecure, in the sense that their rights and their place in society is not secure, but continually in question. Without meaning to, you've hit on the justification for gay pride events.

Nobody's questioning straight people's right to live and be respected in law and culture, so the straight pride thing is only raised in opposition to gay pride and has no other reasonable explanation.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:06 PM on July 29, 2003


Are you a licensed medical professional? Or just an ass that wants to have sex with a woman who is guaranteed not to be attracted to him? I ask merely for clarification.

Are you a belligerent ass? Or just an overly sensitive prick with no sense of humor? I ask merely for clarification.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:08 PM on July 29, 2003


What's wrong with being straight, white and apathetic? I can understand why minority and marginilised groups feel the need to march, i would march to if i was in that situation. but when you are fully accepeted into society, then you have no reason.

What reason have I to be proud of being straight? it's laughable.
posted by carfilhiot at 2:08 PM on July 29, 2003


Perigee - you may have it there. Rights is not equal to Pride, but sometimes pride includes the concept of rights. "We are as good as you, and we deserve the same rights as you." Compare and contrast with Straight & White pride which says "We are as better than you, and we deserve more rights than you."

I think you've hit the semantic issue on the head.
posted by seanyboy at 2:10 PM on July 29, 2003


RIGHTS and PRIDE are two different issues, James - and if you want to play Republican right-wing semantic games with those two definitions... well, you see exactly where you are.


Ha ha.

But seriously, I don't think the aim of the gay pride march is to harm anyone but I do think that the straight pride march is trying to cause harm. The former is simply expressing a right (and a pride) in something which is not necessarily accepted by the majority, the latter is trying to enforce that majority will on a minority. And gay people are nicer.
posted by jamespake at 2:13 PM on July 29, 2003


From dictionary.com A definition of pride.

- A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect.
- Pleasure or satisfaction taken in an achievement, possession, or association: parental pride.
- Arrogant or disdainful conduct or treatment; haughtiness.
- An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit.

Gay pride is about (1) straight pride is about (3)
posted by seanyboy at 2:15 PM on July 29, 2003


I'm (4)
posted by seanyboy at 2:19 PM on July 29, 2003


;Rosco: I want all of you to say hello to the Simpsons.
Steel Industry: Halloooooww!
Homer: Has the whole world gone insane?
Guy: Stand still, there's a spark in your hair!
Guy #2: Get it, get it!
Guy #3: Hot stuff, comin through!
Homer: You're all sick!
Guy: Oh, be nice!
Homer: Oh! My son doesn't stand a chance! The whole world's gone gay!
[siren sounds]
Oh my god what's happening now!?

Rosco: We work hard, we play hard.
C+C Music Factory's Everybody Dance Now starts playing,
while Homer exits, sighing)

posted by y2karl at 2:20 PM on July 29, 2003


PRIDE is something you damned well better have, or you need to see somebody professional.

Mmmm? It's one of the deadly sins you know ;-)

Also, why do homosexuals seem to have more sexualised relationships than heterosexuals?

Well, in my experience, many MSM people find it more comfortable to communicate their deepest/kinkiest/justplainmalepiggy sexual desires to someone of the same gender, making intensely sexual relationships with another man free of the strings/embarrassments/taboos/emotional commitments placed on many male-female sexual relationships. For example, many (many! Someone should do a study...) are the married men I know who love anal sex ... from the 'bottom' point of view ... but are too afraid/ashamed to ask their female partners to, uh, strap it on. So they seek out a gay man.

Not saying this is necessarily a good thing ... it encourages one to enter severe denial for one thing ... but it might help to explain why many male-male relationships, not just gay ones, are intensely focused on the sexual aspect and not the emotional/spiritual ones that we ascribe to being the true necessities for a successful long-lasting 'healthy' relationship.
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:23 PM on July 29, 2003


Ok, Sean - now lets take it to the obvious conclusion -

"We are as better than you, and we deserve more rights than you." is an asinine statement, no matter who makes it. So we have that.

Now - here's where things get hairy, and where the whole understanding thing comes in.

There Are some people - hell, lots of 'em in America - who see everything in 1st place or lesser. You can bet - and I'm pretty sure you know - people who bitch about "Miss Black America." "They're already in the Miss America Pagent - why do they have a special one just for them?" "I'll bet if there was a Miss White America, there'd be all sorts of screaming.."

Which there would be. But why?

Those folks operate on the idea that somebodyt has a shiney red balloon that makes them special, so they want a baloon too. Call 'em Sneeches.

So even if you - or the Miss Black America folks - don't Intend to send a message saying "We're special and we get to do this, and you're not allowed..." you do. And I wonder if letting these gomers do their gomer thing with their straight pride thing is in the end more tolerant OF you, thereby buying more tolerance TO you from the people who aren't already dead-set against you.

On preview...

Jeepers sean, I thought we were getting somewhere, and then you spring that. Ok - well then the USA are liberators and Iraq were invaders, I tweak the truth and you're a damned liar, Gay people are sexually indiscrimanent and straight people are explorational. Gads, sean - when will you get off the double standard thing you don't want applied to you?
posted by Perigee at 2:25 PM on July 29, 2003


Here's the truckers reference ( it was on a recent MeFi thread but I can't remember which or who posted it ) - It's definitely not safe for work, or home (depending on your lifestyle).

Not that it proves anything, of course.
posted by jamespake at 2:30 PM on July 29, 2003


Actually I see the Miss Black American Pageant thing as being more like "Hey. We've marginalised you and yours based on the colour of your skin, and we'll continue to do so. But heh - here's a pretty shiny thing for trying to make yourself look white.",

but I understand your argument.

I think there is a difference between this "pride" issue and the more generic issue of positive discrimination (I'm also happy to use the phrase double standards). Straight pride t-shirts are not the same as gay pride t-shirts. straight pride marches are not the same as gay pride marches. If they were, then I'd have no problem with the originally linked site. I've explained why I think they are different.

I understand that some people may see them as the same thing, and if I were the owner of a straight-pride shop, then I'd take lengths to persuade people that they were the same, (imagine the furor) but they aren't.

Oh - and yes, I do believe in Double Standards. If there's a black guy after the same job as me, and he's not quite as qualified, and the job is in a predominately white environment, then I hope to hell that he gets the job.
posted by seanyboy at 2:42 PM on July 29, 2003


Perigee... Actually. Think I misinterpreted your comment. Apologies. It would be more tolerant for me to allow / condone the straight-pride marches. You are correct in this. But I believe that they would actually cause more harm / inflame more predjudice than if they were not allowed. This is opposite to gay-pride marches in that they actually reduce harm, and promote more understanding.

Like you, I just want everyone to get on. Am I tolerant enough of them to allow people to preach hatred then? No. Not at all. Never.
posted by seanyboy at 2:50 PM on July 29, 2003


Fuckin' Sneeches. I hate 'em.
posted by Hildago at 2:57 PM on July 29, 2003


carfilhiot - What's wrong with being straight, white and apathetic?

Nobody said there was...

Mossy - Militant gays annoy me. So do militant anything, but I probably have a deep seated ickiness as to sodomy.

Yes, probably.

Also, why do homosexuals seem to have more sexualised relationships than heterosexuals?

Do they? If they did I might be jealous.

Perigee -
So even if you - or the Miss Black America folks - don't Intend to send a message saying "We're special and we get to do this, and you're not allowed..." you do. And I wonder if letting these gomers do their gomer thing with their straight pride thing is in the end more tolerant OF you, thereby buying more tolerance TO you from the people who aren't already dead-set against you.

I don't think it's about that - there is a difference in terms of society's acceptance of being straight versus being gay. There is nothing about the gay pride marches which says 'you're wrong' whilst the straight pride march seems to be solely devoted to that purpose.
posted by jamespake at 3:00 PM on July 29, 2003


You guys could be right - I don't have any personal concept of the whole descrimination thing - on any level - so I may well just be coming off as some little Mary Sunshine with rose colored glasses. It's not my fight, so I haven't collected any scars.

James, you are dead-on and I agree with you - the whole "White Pride"/"Straight Pride" is shady. I have no doubt in that. The thing I'm seeing - rightly or wrongly - is that the folks you want to effect positively aren't the ones who want to blow kazoos down main street. They're lost already. My view is that the people the gay community can affect positively - those sneeches, who aren't likely to actually March or Parade, or go too far away from their remote controls - could view the gay protest of those parades/marches as (....what's that republican word....) Entitlement?

We've been hashing things out here for a couple of hours; those guys get fed by the 45 second sound byte. And as I said, I'm miles away from the front line, so you'll have to take 'em as you read 'em out there.
posted by Perigee at 3:11 PM on July 29, 2003


I don't know what a sneech is, but this thread is purely about the 'straight pride' thing. I don't know about the millions at home with their remote controls, I think, at best, they'd see gay pride as a diversion. At the most basic, I think it's just about the right for people to have fun being themselves and not shitting on anyone else's parade, unless that parade is about shitting on someone else's.
posted by jamespake at 3:39 PM on July 29, 2003


"Humanity should at least be proud of it's ability to love, no matter where or how or whom." ~Isadore Upinsky
posted by moonbird at 3:56 PM on July 29, 2003


Also, why do homosexuals seem to have more sexualised relationships than heterosexuals? Thats what I've seen from talking to my homosexual friends, they all seem to find it harder to have a relationship without the physical aspect.

We don't, for the most part, and for good and bad, have to play by the same rules as male-female couples--there's usually no holding out til the third date, or expressions of commitment necessary before one partner will consent to sex, etc...really not as much baggage attached to sex in general...

I'm very good friends with people who i met as sexual hookups in bars but we clicked better as friends...

Some of it is also a myth--people think we have sex all the time but we date, and go to movies, and hang out just like straight folks do--sometimes at least ; >

And on preview: Perigee: if you define millions of people by what happens at a pride parade, then perhaps you should reexamine. Awareness usually happens at a one-to-one level--at work, or even at places like metafilter.
posted by amberglow at 5:06 PM on July 29, 2003


Not that there's any doubt what this site stands for, but check out this link from their links section. You can read a lovely article with the teaser: "See why Gov. Gray Davis and homosexual activists are nervous about the "gay marriage" and transsexual bills."
posted by eyeballkid at 5:10 PM on July 29, 2003


"Don't think of it as gay pride, but think of it as Gay Not-Ashamed."

Exactly f*cking right. There is a real *need* in this country to let people -- especially young people -- know that any sexual identity they choose is one they don't have to be ashamed about. One that they should be able to be open about. One that they have the right to be informed about.

I've lost one gay friend to suicide. Another attempted suicide several times, and has real problems with guilt which led to alcoholism. Both of them had strict religious upbringings, and really had no sociological reason to be gay. Researchers generally agree that sexual identity is a combination of both nature and nurture. Case in point -- Nova's excellent broadcast recently "Sex: Unknown".

Anything that helps my gay friends to love and appreciate who they are, realize that they aren't alone, and educates them in safe sexual practices is a *great* thing.

Gay Pride isn't against heterosexuality. It's not reverse racism. It doesn't seek to make the whole world gay -- just accepting of those who are. They want a world fit to live in, without shame or guilt or hiding or violence or culturally devistating diseases or discrimination.

It's worth mentioning that the marchers who usually get the loudest applause on Pride Day in San Francisco are the members of PFLAG -- Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Nothing means more to the GLBT community than the unconditional love and support of their family and friends.

I am married to my college sweetheart and appear on the surface as your typical whitebread male, but having a best friend who is gay has changed my life. It has made me a better, happier, more honest, more loving person. Really, I think everyone should have a gay friend, and if you don't, maybe you should go out and make friends with one -- no sex required.

Who knows? Maybe you have a gay friend already and you don't even know about it...
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:17 PM on July 29, 2003


Hang on, the first logo looks like a loo for couples.....the second one is advertising a baseball team, right? I'm so confused!

I guess a shades of grey rainbow just woudn't do then!
posted by alicesshoe at 9:23 PM on July 29, 2003


"... I probably have a deap seated ickyness as to sodomy." - Mossy

Hee. Heheheheehee.

Sorry. I was twelve there for a second. Carry on.
posted by Tomatillo at 9:54 PM on July 29, 2003


Uh, "deep".
Twelve with the spelling skills, also.
posted by Tomatillo at 9:55 PM on July 29, 2003


Reading Perigee's longer post I was reminded of an Onion article. Close to the mark, as usual.
posted by cell at 11:56 PM on July 29, 2003


With all due respect, is it not possible to find the gay pride movement a bit too intrusive without being homophobic? Gay people still form a mere 2 (is it 2?) percent of the population, whereas gay culture occupies a significantly bigger share of media attention, and therefore of the drivel that flows from my TV and computer. No one seems to give other problems, such as racial discrimination, half the attention they deserve anymore.

I am know that there are places and groups that give gays a hard time -- at least one friend of mine was a victim of such abuse. However, I find it ridiculous, that, on the other hand, it has become an unspeakable crime to hold even moderate, generally inoffensive opinions which simply dare question the now popular glorification of homosexuality. Much the same has occurred with feminism and female empowerment. Say what you will, I do see a degree of reverse discrimination in being severely judged on having more conservative opinions -- after all, social change does not imply unequivocably shutting out past ideas. Let's remember that history is cyclical -- in the latter days of the Roman Empire, homosexuality was widely practiced.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:24 AM on July 30, 2003


Woah there.. Drawing parallels between the prevalence of homosexuality in historys most decadent civilisation and in the Roman Empire - that's one big can of worms!
posted by cell at 1:07 AM on July 30, 2003


Here's the dangers of using history to justify any moral position:

If you're going to bring history into the mix, let's remember that during the Golden Age of Athens, pedophilia (mostly boys) was considered a good and pleasant thing to do and was widely practiced.

If pedophilia worked so well for the Athenians and helped them create an incredibly lively, creative, productive, and democratic society, think about what it could do for you and your country.

By constrast, think about what happened to the Roman Empire once Christian worship was freely permitted. The western Empire greatly intensified its rate of decay and was ultimately shattered, and the eastern Empire calcified into a rigid society which was ultimately contained and then crushed by invaders.

Keep them in mind and think about what Christianity can do for you and your country.
posted by pandaharma at 1:27 AM on July 30, 2003


Krrrlson: it has become an unspeakable crime to hold even moderate, generally inoffensive opinions Ermmm. No. Where in the last 102 comments have inoffensive comments been deemed to be unspeakable. You have your opinion, I have my opinion, and we state them as well as we can. This discussion has been about the meaning and inherent intertextuality of the phrase "staright pride". It has nothing to do with finding the gay pride movement too intrusive, or with any discrimination based on moderate right wing beliefs, or indeed with the concept of a gay media owning cabal.
posted by seanyboy at 1:35 AM on July 30, 2003


And gay people are nicer

No they're not.
posted by Summer at 3:05 AM on July 30, 2003


Krrrlson -- Be careful using statistics for this as no one agrees on the actual percentage of the population that is gay. Also consider that some people when asked are going to lie, so can we really trust those numbers in the first place? Television shows don't continue to run unless they are making money and are being watched. So someone is paying attention to them. Don't make the assumption that only gay people watch queer-themed shows. I have a bunch of straight friends who love to watch Queer as Folk. In fact, they were watching it before I started to.

There's Will & Grace, Queer as Folk, and those two new shows on Bravo. What other queer programming am I missing? Yes there are shows with gay characters but are primarily shows about heterosexual people who have gay people in their spheres of influence. Do you really see these few shows in the larger context as intrusive? C'mon, fess up. You've been talking to Ann Coulter, haven't you. I guess I am also bothered by your use of the word "intrusive," as if gay people do not have the right to be represented in the media and our presence there is intruding on your sensibilities. Well, straight people have been intruding on my sensibilities for many many years now. As much as I enjoy watching queer programming because I think it's about damn time there was some, I also enjoy watching telelvision/movies about the straights.

Glorification of homosexuality . . hmmmmm. . . I strongly urge you to look at this in a different way -- and this relates to the whole point of this FPP in the first place. Is recognition and acceptance really glorification? Is Black History Month a glorification of one race over another or is it a way to recognize a demographic that has historically been stepped on? What you call glorification I call living without shame and aplogizing to no one for what I am. Let's leave morality out of it as I am sure we will disagree in a moral argument. As for social change, you are absolutely entitled to your opinions and the ability to hold onto your beliefs. But if so many people in the society you live in are moving in one direction, doesn't that make you even for a moment consider why?
posted by archimago at 5:55 AM on July 30, 2003


I'm so confused!
Nice freudian slip
posted by carfilhiot at 7:24 AM on July 30, 2003


one thing I hear often in my area from the knuckle draggers, and even some semi-in-the-know folks, about homosexuality is, "well I don't really have a problem with it so long as it's not in my face." which is funny because a.) a lot of these folks are the same kinds of folks that are still carrying the anti-political-correctness torch and that's basically a politically correct way to say you don't wanna look at homosexuals, and b.) god forbid a gay person decide that he or she doesn't want heterosexuality all up in their grill! that would be a herculean task indeed, with togas and everything.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:26 AM on July 30, 2003


Jamespeak: Sneetches are a creation of Ted Geisel. They came in two categories - Plain-belly Sneetches and those that had stars on thars.

The Star-Belly sneetches thought they were special because of their stars, and the plain belly sneetches were jealous. One day, an inventor decided to create a machine that would put Stars on plain bellies, and the soon everyone had stars. But the original Star-belly sneetches decided that they had been invaded, their specific point of pride had been sullied, and went to the same inventor to create a machine that would take Stars off the bellies of the natural-born Star-belly sneetch.

Now, of course a sneetch was a sneetch, from brain down to belly - you couldn't tell one type from the other if you were blind. But one side was desperate to be As Special, and the other side was determined to be Different and Special, and the whole thing became a continuous loop.

Now... were the star-belly sneetches to have a star-belly sneetch parade, would the sneetches with no-stars-on-thars want a parade too? Would the Star-belly sneetches complain that the no-star sneetches were trying to belittle the opulence and point of their Star-belly parade?

I love Dr. Seuss. I'll bet ya he was a humanist.
posted by Perigee at 8:04 AM on July 30, 2003


I strongly urge you to look at this in a different way

I somewhat agree with the 'glorification' notion, but the way people react today is really no different from the mid-70s when the sexual revolution had reached all the way into the heartland of the country.

I remember my mom, freshly divorced, looking for Mr. Goodbar, and being terrified of the power her quest to get laid gave to her. I remember many people complaining, endlessly, about Erica Jong or being able to talk about porn at the dinner table thanks to "Deep Throat". The notion of women being sexually empowered and even sexually predatory was very challenging, and the reactions people had then are very similar to the reactions people are having now. People get weary of talking about sex and sexuality and let's face it, many expressions of gay pride are very forthright and even blatantly in your face about sex and sexuality. I admit I've felt some distaste to some events I've attended, but it's no different from the distaste I've felt when attending some college spring break events, or Mardi Gras when the heterosexuals are behaving in the same in your face way in very large numbers.

So to feel that homosexuality is being 'glorified' right now I think is an understandable way to feel. Not that gay pride events should be self-censoring, but it'd be nice if the media would calm down a bit. There were 4 separate articles about the two Bravo shows in my local paper yesterday. And several the week before. That's a little disproportionate. Living in a moderately sized city with both a large college population full of kids coming to grips with being adults--and the embracing of sexuality that that process entails--as well as a large population of ultra-rich old money and Hollywood money--and all the politics that that implies, I find myself as a person who's out of the closet at home and at work being compared to the imagery that people are being presented through TV, movies, newspapers, magazines, and even comic books. It's sometimes a little wearying, but, to me, it's one of the obligations I took upon myself when I came out of the closet. To me, the sexual revolution didn't end with the death of disco or AIDS, it just took a little break, and now it's our turn to deal with these things just like straights had to deal with them about 30 years ago. That's part of our pride, too, and something we shouldn't be too hasty to condemn.
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:48 AM on July 30, 2003


First of all, the Roman Empire bit was merely a curious historical observation. I advise y'all to read a post before latching on to the capitalized words and writing something irrelevant.

Briefly, what you see as acceptance and recognition, I see as unnecessary glorification. Personally, I've already accepted and recognized -- and with the amount of coverage the issue is getting, I'm sure that anyone who hasn't already done so isn't going to whimsically change opinions the next time they see a pride parade.

I stand by what I said on freedom of thought: a great deal of people I know sounded truly shocked and labeled me closed-minded when I expressed my views -- for example, that I do not condone adoption of children by gay couples. The trend seems to be one of gays not only gaining equal status with straight couples, but of gaining some sort of special privilege and respect. Speaking out against them in "intellectual" circles is unthinkable. Should I need to ally myself with the Christian right because they are the only ones who will listen to my opinion? I should hope not.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:25 PM on July 30, 2003


Perhaps the very best thing to do is to have orphans killed. Because, frankly, I have very serious doubts that I'd want a child's mind to be infected by your kind of bent and prejudicial thinking, Krrrlson. I wouldn't want you and your kind to shape a mind any more than I would want to give that child to a Klansman or a Neo-Nazi.

So let's just give the little ruggers a shot and send 'em all to sleepyville.

I mean, according to a 2002 survey, the major networks have 4.33 sexual incidents per hour during prime time. Seems to me hetros groping each other ever 15 minutes from 8-11, 7 days a week suggests some glorification doesn't it?

Now... what right do hetros have to shove that crap down the homosexuals throats, and why is something remotely a blip on a radar of that size enough to flip straights out?

Frankly, straight is pretty sick. Ready for your little child to wear a belly shirt and sing along with Christina Aguilera about how she wants to sweat so she can get naked and get it off?

Want to give me a popular Gay song that advocates orgies on top 40 radio? I'll give you ten straights - no - twenty - for every single one you list.

The straight people of this world are every bit if not ten times more corrupt, morally bankrupt, and ethically deficient that the gays are, if only through strength of numbers and the power they weild.

Naah. I wouldn't let straight couples adopt. They're sicjk, and may god have mercy on their souls.
posted by Perigee at 9:30 AM on July 31, 2003


« Older I hope you have your consent forms....  |  The exciting hobby of collecti... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments