Thread: Sochi Olympics and the Law against Gays in Russia +

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

"A fish doesn't know that it lives in water."

A fish doesn't know that it lives in water.

Well, yes, but does the fish know that it was born?

People don't live forever. And the world doesn't exist only for the lifespan of a single person who observes the life from the cave of his own mind. People die and to survive the humanity MUST produce newly born human beings. As the sky is blue and the water is wet, the new birth can be given ONLY by a female human cooperated with a male human. Giving a birth for a woman means a lot of risk: risk of health damage and death, risk to lose job, risk to lose all the social activity and social connections, risk to ruin her own entire life. But despite all the risks the birth is urgently needed. This is a strategic need for the entire humankind to survive. And the only encouraging for a woman to risk her life in the name of the society is actually a small ring of a shining metal on her finger, the white dress which she will put on only once, and the hand of a male who is the only possible insurance of her risking her life for the entire humanity to survive.

Do you believe that stripping away these tiny signs of respect (which are probably the only things that keep the life on the Earth), by applying them to all the others who want to behave the same way but are not ready in any way to provide newly born human beings, will encourage the female humans to give more births?

Since we are in the Olympic thread: wouldn't the showing-up of the gays behaving like a couple cause the same effect if the sportsmen participating in the Olympic game, all of them, would be granted with the gold medals despite that the winner was only one? Would the Olympic Games survive as a competition if the "PC" will cause us not to honor the winner, who put their life to achieve the significant results, but to honor all the participants despite their achievements?

Do you believe that stripping away these tiny signs of respect (which are probably the only things that keep the life on the Earth), by applying them to all the others who want to behave the same way but are not ready in any way to provide newly born human beings, will encourage the female humans to give more births?

Speaking as a woman, I do not feel in the slightest that my "signs of respect" have been "stripped away" by gays finally being allowed to experience the same marital hell which heterosexuals "enjoy." So if gays want to get married, and bicker and quarrel and get divorced and have custody battles and legal drama - by all means let them!

My "respect" as a female has been stripped away more by a society which praises all that is male and masculine, and shames all that is female and feminine.

Aggressiveness, toughness, ambition, power - these are masculine traits which society glorifies

Passiveness, gentleness, sensitivity, compassion, cooperation - these are feminine traits which society only pays lip service to, but does not really honor.

I do not believe that granting equality to another minority group in any way hurts my own fight for equality as a woman. And I also do not believe that my value as a human being who happens to be female, should be relegated to being a vessel for a man's sperm and incubating baby humans, either.

I spent long years as a journalist and witnessed so many things in my life that I could never describe all of them even if I wrote a thousand books. But I never had children. Some people look at me and think that is sad and shameful, but I do not feel ashamed for my life. Why should every woman consider it her "duty" to have children? There are already eight billion human beings on this planet. That number is so vast it is almost impossible to calculate. We are already overgrazing our planet and yet people are screaming "let's have MORE babies!" as if we had a whole other planet to unleash our population on.

There is nothing wrong with choosing not to have babies. And I do not believe that my entire value in the world is summed up in a wedding ring or a white dress.

If those are the only tokens of appreciation society can bestow on a woman, then the problem is not gays, the problem is SOCIETY and its backward and male-identified view of women as sex objects, brood-mares and cleaning maids.

omg! Celebrity gossip, news photos, babies, couples, hotties, and more - omg! from Yahoo


Cher Turns Down Offer to Perform at Russian Olympics Because of Homophobic Laws


I wonder who is big oligarch?

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

Since we are in the Olympic thread: wouldn't the showing-up of the gays behaving like a couple cause the same effect if the sportsmen participating in the Olympic game, all of them, would be granted with the gold medals despite that the winner was only one?

At the Olympics, they don't give out gold medals only; they also award silver and bronze medals. This doesn't take away from the honor of the gold medalist; it simply recognizes that the 2nd and 3rd place athletes also gave world-class performances.

As I've argued previously, I don't believe it's a great idea to call same-sex relationships "marriage." As a gay person, I'm not interested in imitating the traditions of heterosexual weddings with two little grooms or brides on top of a big cake; and if I were in a long-term relationship with a man, I certainly wouldn't think that one of us is "playing husband" and the other is "playing wife."

But nonetheless, I think that same-sex couples (as citizens) can claim a right to have their relationship legally recognized by the government to which they pay their taxes. And I have no problem with saying that traditional heterosexual marriage is the "gold standard," while same-sex unions are a "silver standard." I don't believe that it degrades me or my relationships to call it "silver," and to recognize that heterosexual procreation is MORE IMPORTANT for society as a whole.

Originally Posted by Lampada

omg! Celebrity gossip, news photos, babies, couples, hotties, and more - omg! from Yahoo


Cher Turns Down Offer to Perform at Russian Olympics Because of Homophobic Laws


I wonder who is big oligarch?

I saw that story and it struck me that Cher could have agreed to perform, and that she could have used the opportunity to make a statement by dedicating her song to Russia's gays and lesbians. What would they do, arrest her?

Originally Posted by Deborski

I saw that story and it struck me that Cher could have agreed to perform, and that she could have used the opportunity to make a statement by dedicating her song to Russia's gays and lesbians.

Make a statement to whom? Among some gay men -- at least in the English-speaking world -- Cher has a sort of cult following as a "Diva," but do most non-gay Russians today even care who she is or what she says? (Her last really big hit, "Believe," was in the late 1990s.) So, once again, is the point of all this to make LGBT Westerners feel flattered, special, important as they're watching the Olympics on television in Europe and North America?

Or is the point of this so that Cher can sell tickets to American gay men when they bring her out in a motorized wheelchair for her "No, Wait, THIS Is My Farewell Tour and This Time I Really Mean That It's the Last One", sometime around 2035?

I thought the goal was to be helpful to LGBT people within Russian society!

PS. Okay, hmmm... I just Googled and apparently she did tour Moscow and St. Petersburg in 2004.

PPS. And, admittedly, there will always be a place in my heart for "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves". But even so, would she really be able to change-the-hearts-and-minds of the Russian public?

PPPS. But on the other hand, I think it's a great idea in a South Park-ish way, in the spirit of Mecha-Streisand.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Make a statement to whom? Among some gay men -- at least in the English-speaking world -- Cher has a sort of cult following as a "Diva," but do most non-gay Russians today even care who she is or what she says? (Her last really big hit, "Believe," was in the late 1990s.) So, once again, is the point of all this to make LGBT Westerners feel flattered, special, important as they're watching the Olympics on television in Europe and North America?

*shrug* It was just a thought.

Guess I can't win for losing.

Bowing out of the discussion again. No matter who I support, I am wrong.

Originally Posted by Deborski

...Guess I can't win for losing.

Bowing out of the discussion again. No matter who I support, I am wrong.

Потому что можно доказать, что угодно, точно также можно доказать и обратное (софизм). Just have to pick your fights or side.

Aggressiveness, toughness, ambition, power - these are masculine traits which society glorifies

I think women are muuuch tougher, even if they seem "белые и пушистые". And as ambitious as men. And there will not be planes, TV, Internet, ... without ambitions.

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

I think women are muuuch tougher, even if they seem "белые и пушистые". And as ambitious as men. And there will not be planes, TV, Internet, ... without ambitions.

I'd rather say more practical and down-to-earth.

I wouldn't say so. Otherwise how would you explain jewelry?
But in relation to relationships - may be.

Originally Posted by Deborski

I also do not believe that my value as a human being who happens to be female, should be relegated to being a vessel for a man's sperm and incubating baby humans, either.

You got me totally wrong.

I've not stated what a woman should or should not do, must a woman to have babies or not. It is totally her own business only. I addressed the attitude of the society to the Public Display of Affection (PDA) for straights and gays. The wedding ring and holding hand is also a sort of PDA under the discussion.

The different attitude rises from the different expected income to the society. If the society sees a PDA of a heterosexual couple it expects the income in the form of a baby (not every PDA results in this but some amount of it does). Seeing it many time society became reflecting unconsciously that PDA means babies and encourage the PDA (of course if it is a sort of a weird society that needs babies). The more PDA, the more babies. So the PDA encouragement is a sort of benefit which was granted by a society to a heterosexual couple for a new baby to be born. Then if the society sees the PDA of a homosexual couple it reflects about babies but at the same time realizes that there will not be any babies at all. So the society thinks that it was cheated and discourages the homosexual PDA (especially if the homosexual couples demand the same benefits that were granted to the heterosexual couples for creating babies). If a couple disclosures its PDA to the society then the couple gives a message to the society and the society responds to the message back whether it approves the message or not. The society addresses its strategic needs. There is nothing homophobic or antigay in this, this is just about the public display of affection and its influence onto the society.

Originally Posted by Deborski

I do not believe that granting equality to another minority group in any way hurts my own fight for equality as a woman.

It is not about granting equality. It is about granting benefits (PDA encouragement) for some achievements (babies). If somebody did something he got some benefits (or salary). What kind of equality can be if someone did nothing and ask for the same benefits (or salary)?

Есть некий парадокс в том, что Америка не любит коммунизм, но любит искать обиженных людей. Тактика коммунистических партий как раз в этом и состоит: найти обиженных и сделать революцию их силами (пролетариат, уголовники и т.д.). У нас в России идеи социализма и защиты угнетённых была популярна даже среди дворян. Но только до революции и гражданской войны. Но сейчас у многих россиян есть иммунитет от революций. Когда КПРФ говорит, что рабочего человека притесняют и поэтому нужно менять власть, я иду и голосую за Единую Россию. Когда США говорят мне, что в РФ обижают ЛГБТ (а также сирот), то у меня срабатывает тот же рефлекс.

Originally Posted by Юрка

... я иду и голосую за Единую Россию.... то у меня срабатывает тот же рефлекс.

Корреспондент: - За кого вы будете голосовать на выборах?
Mужик: - Да зае...
Корреспондент, перебивая: - Правильно! За "Единую Россию"!

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

I think women are muuuch tougher, even if they seem "белые и пушистые". And as ambitious as men. And there will not be planes, TV, Internet, ... without ambitions.

There is no question that women can be tough, ambitious and all the other masculine traits can also be applied. I'm not saying women can't be tough. I'm saying that masculine qualities are the ones society values. The other qualities, compassion, kindness, nurturing, gentleness, cooperation - are equally important but society only gives them lip service. In reality, the compassionate one is not the one promoted at work, the ambitious one is. In reality, our countries do not cooperate with each other, they compete and try to out-do each other. I am saying that I think our world would be a better place if society valued feminine qualities as highly as it values masculine qualities.

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

I wouldn't say so. Otherwise how would you explain jewelry?
But in relation to relationships - may be.

I have never owned an expensive piece of jewelry in my life, or a real diamond.

Originally Posted by CoffeeCup

You got me totally wrong.

I've not stated what a woman should or should not do, must a woman to have babies or not. It is totally her own business only. I addressed the attitude of the society to the Public Display of Affection (PDA) for straights and gays. The wedding ring and holding hand is also a sort of PDA under the discussion.

It is not about granting equality. It is about granting benefits (PDA encouragement) for some achievements (babies). If somebody did something he got some benefits (or salary). What kind of equality can be if someone did nothing and ask for the same benefits (or salary)?

Let's agree to disagree. I will just say that I do not understand any mindset which thinks that "public displays of affection" are something that should be "allowed" or "not allowed."

When I was a lonely 20-something living in Leningrad, I saw many young Soviet couples kissing (and more) on the late-night metro and it didn't make me think "oh how sweet, they will have a baby!" It made me think, "God I am lonely. I wish I had a boyfriend!" Seeing two men kiss does not in any way threaten me as a heterosexual woman. If they want to kiss, I don't care and it doesn't bother me anymore than watching those young couples making out in Russia did. I'd rather people not have sex in public of course, I don't need to watch the entire act, but people kissing doesn't offend me. I've dated guys in both Russia and America, and the American guys were actually the least likely to kiss me in public. One of my American boyfriends also referred to this as "PDA's" and he was embarrassed if I took his hand in public. I've never understood that mindset and I never will. To each, their own. As for me, I'd like to see more people kissing and holding hands in public and I find that far less offensive than people who fight in public, or rage and belittle each other in public, or humiliate someone in public.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Вот тоже смешно: 10 вопросов П

I enjoyed reading this, but I certainly don't agree with everything the author said!

Regarding the percentage of the population that is bisexual, Kinsey and his disciples argued that sexual orientation can be mapped onto a standard-looking bell curve something like this:



That is, with a small number of "total homosexuals" on the left, an approximately equal number of "total heterosexuals" on the right, and a huge mountain of "equal-opportunity bisexuals" in the middle.

But other researchers have claimed that the actual bell curve for orientation is shaped more like this -- it's upside-down, and also asymmetric from left to right:



Here, there's a small mountain of homosexuals on the left, a larger mountain of heterosexuals on the right, and a VALLEY of bisexuals in between -- in other words, bisexuals are RARER than homosexuals. (Although in reality, the "hetero peak" is possibly ten times as tall as the "homo peak" -- not twice as tall, as in this example.)

If Kinsey was correct, then there is possibly a huge number of "hidden bisexuals", like the enormous mass of an iceberg underneath the water, though we can only see the tip of the iceberg. But if the "inverse bell curve" model is correct, then the 2-5% estimate for the number of homosexuals represents most of the non-heterosexual population -- in other words, there's NOT a gigantic number of bisexuals who are waiting to come out of the closet as soon as same-sex marriage is legalized, and thereby cause a demographic catastrophe.

As to which bell curve more closely represents reality -- honestly, I have no idea.

PS. I'd heard some of the author's points made by other people in English, but two things from the link that were totally new to me: First, the funny-but-disgusting neologism гетераст -- obviously meant to be an equivalent to the rude slang word "breeder" used by English-speaking gays, but to me it sounds even worse!

Second, the author implies that King Saul may have felt a homoerotic attraction to David: ""Он [Давид] был белокур, с красивыми глазами и приятным лицем. [...] и очень понравился ему [Саулу]" (1 Samuel 16:12 and16:21). I have certainly heard the hypothesis that David and Jonathan (Saul's son) may have had a "chastely homoerotic" affection between them, or that D & J were even lovers. But this is the first time I've seen the suggestion that there was a "triangle of jealousy" between Saul, Jonathan, and David. The Bible makes clear enough that King Saul envied David because he knew that David was destined to be a greater king, but of course зависть (envy) and ревность (jealousy) are two different things. And, honestly, I think that the author misquotes the verses to make it seem that Saul took special notice of David's good looks.

PPS. If you're looking for an "ancient gay romance", I think the textual evidence is much stronger for Gilgamesh and Enkidu than for Jonathan and David. (Even Gilgamesh and Enkidu can be interpreted as platonic heterosexual friends, not male lovers -- but the "hints" of homosexuality are a bit louder in that case.)

If you're looking for an "ancient gay romance"

And even if you're NOT looking for one, this amazing 11-minute "claymation" film (UK, 1995, directed by Barry Purves) depicting Achilles and Patroklos as living statues is definitely worth a look:



It's not really "safe for children" and would presumably give Putin a heart attack -- although if you've seen the puppet sex in Team America, by comparison THIS looks like «Крокодил Гена»!

BREAKING NEWS Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:55 AM EDT

Pope Bluntly Faults Church’s Focus on Gays and Abortion

...“Some of the things in it really surprised me,” Father Martin said. “He seems even more of a free-thinker than I thought — creative, experimental, willing to live on the margins, push boundaries back a little bit.”...