It is not polite to comment on other peoples appearance or character without their consent. It is rude, can be either intrusive or manipulative, even if it is a compliment, and it is none of your business. I often, for example, have people compliment me in ways that are contrary to how I view myself, and I always resent uninvited comments on what I'm like or what I should do. I don't want or need a sound track or commentary to explain to me what I am doing. And that can include being hit on, though that depends a lot on how it's done.

And I'm not worried or afraid of being attacked.

the fear is based upon an understanding of certain male behavior.
Good for Sullivan for pointing this out.

how disgusting homosexuality was. When I asked him why he was so upset about it he said "The thought of some man making advances, putting his hands on me, propositioning me is just disgusting. It's revolting!" I laughed and said, "Dad, it happens to me and other women all the time. We just learn to deal with it."

They're also afraid of losing the respect of other men, which they crave. To men who view women as possessions, a pretty wife is a status symbol, something to impress other men with. It's about power, and they see gay men as powerless and they have a lot of fear about being seen as powerless by other men. They're afraid of being looked upon as a mere possession of someone else. That's why it's so often true that a man's attitude toward gay men is a very good indicator of how much respect he has for women.

It's something I've noticed again and again. Homophobes generally don't respect women. They have such rigid ideas of sexual conformity that anything, or anyone, that steps outside the boundaries of their notions of what constitutes normal male or female behavior is labeled a deviant. Witness the way they excoriated Hilary Clinton and other strong women with rumors of lesbianism. Feminists are labeled "femiNazis" and Rush Limbaugh characterized them as all being ugly and not able to get husbands. I guess to an extent most men look up to cops, firefighters, soldiers and for, that matter, so do women. How many action movies or romance novels are there where the hero is an everyday ordinary college professor? And no, by that I don't mean Indiana Jones. But, homophobes take it to a more extreme level. Any man who appreciates the arts is suspect. Female jocks are viewed with suspicion. When I joined the military, the conventional wisdom was that women enlisted for one of three reasons: a) they were so ugly that they figured the male-rich military was the best place to find a husband b) they were nymphos, and c) they were lesbians, or unfeminine, which to them is the same thing. You are 100% right. Homophobia and misogyny seem to be flip sides of the same coin in many men.

Guys.. If you want a visceral understanding of a very real and present aspect of our lives... please let it sink in.

before men evolve past treating women like "antelope in a game preserve".

Whenever I am physically attracted to a woman, I remember that no woman wants a fat middle aged man with undersized "junk" (and that's what the penis is...junk) attracted to her. So whatever it takes, I suppress those filthy feelings and try to avoid her. Fortunately, I work with people by phone, not in person, so it is rare nowadays I even have to deal with women in person other than at the store. Then it is keep my mouth shut as much as possible and don't look at her. Just get my stuff and go back to my sad lonely life of reading too much news and posting on DU.

No one thinks you should have to feel that way.

Between spending time reading radical feminist sites like "Rage Against The Manchine" and "I Blame The Patriarchy", and my former roommate telling me that lusting after an unwilling woman, or looking at sexy pictures, was rape just as much as physically attacking her, and seeing women avoiding me in fear, I have realized that no matter what, no matter how gentle of a soul I am, or strive to be, that I am a monster because I have a penis.

I am not saying every woman sees me that way. But time and time again, it has been pointed out here and other places the mere fact of my existence as a fat scruffy middle aged man is a threat to at least some women - even if only to their emotional well being. I have no desire to ever force myself on a woman, but I have come to realize the mere act of saying hello can be considered a threat.

often young men going through their sexual prime will become aroused by another male.
With the moors in a "christian society founded by god"homosexuality is a sin against god and by proxy every citizen and the state itself,
the subject in question here will self-admonish and lash out at others perceived as having these same shared feelings.

The next time that you witness an aggressive bigot toward homosexuals,ask yourself if the above may explain this behavior or is it the fear of submission to the desires of a competitor.
Either way,it is not a pretty picture but is one that bears reflection on who we are as a society,which was supposedly based upon inalienable rights of fair treatment with all(bar none)being equal.
DOMA is discrimination and is therefor unconstitutional.

How did the word homophobia come about? Homophobes don't fear homosexuals. They hate and despise them with the entire fiber of their being. Too bad there isn't a word that reflects this level of bigotry and hate.

It was proposed in a book called "After The Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the90's." However, the term never caught on in any considerable way.

As for "homophobia," I believe it popped up in the late '50's (1958 I think). The "phobia" does not refer to the psychological fear, but rather is a sociological term.

The secret is that they know they have separated themselves from a group that has become the focus of abuse, and must reinforce that because they know we all have the capacity to be excited by a member of the same sex. I'm not saying it's primary; we are born with strong preferences and identities. But heterosexual people can be turned on by members of the same sex. Some people are just not as insecure about whether they will be accepted by others and so don't have to reinforce their identities by banding against an "other".

That's what I think.

I used to use this statement in presentations. But, years ago started to realize it is overly simple and it is sexist in its own right. Homophobia and misogyny are tightly associated in certain respects and areas, but homophobia is not simply an off-shoot/expression of homophobia. This statement is useful in situations where education is to be minimal.

I think a lot of it is similar to racism and xenophobia in that it is hatred of people who are somehow different.

sexual fantasies is to engage in sex with two women who are sexually involved with each other.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but only that this is an interesting way to manifest hatred of lesbians.

So it's about women who really need a man and are putting on a show for him where as women that won't sleep with a guy are often called lesbians in a derogatory sense.

Granted there is some lesbian porn that doesn't involve guys, but I believe a majority of that (like porn in general) is directed toward a male audience. I would suspect that lesbian porn directed toward a female audience would receive a similar reaction to the calling a woman a lesbian if she won't sleep with you.

Granted given my relative lack of experience with porn in general, I could be full of it, but that's what I think.

there's really no reason for a woman to bring in a third party for this, it just complicates things unnecessarily.

From my POV, it's usually about two women who are profiting from their specific knowledge of men's sexual fantasies. Some men seem to enjoy interacting, some seem to enjoy watching, most seem to like both.

Many female sex workers are lesbian, but engage in sex with men for profit, despite the fact that they are not sexually attracted to men.

I guess we could say that this is a form of needing a man; but I suspect not in the same sense of need you intended in your post.

I'm curious, do you think it is because of the fact that a woman is born lesbian, ie, is naturally romantically/sexually attracted to women, that homophobic men are inclined to hate her?

Or do you believe it is because lesbians engage in sexual activity with other women that inclines homophobic men to hate them?

Is it how lesbians are born, or their sexual activities, that incline homophobes to hate them?

susceptible to the man's charms. But men are okay with the physicality of lesbianism...they understand it because, after all, men like women's bodies, too, so why shouldn't they? They seem okay with the physical part. Woman-on-woman sex is even part of porno for straight men.

They find the man-on-man physicality disgusting...I think that's what some men mean when they use that word. When they see a gay man, they envision that man having anal sex with another man, which a straight man can't deal with. Although....some understand the "need" for that in prison, I've heard a couple of straight men say. Not approval, but they understand that more, since there are no women around. Go figure.

As long as their young, thin, and pretty, they love lesbians.

Their objections are not ideological or religious: They are so insecure, they're threated by any man who is different.

Period.

homophobic straight men who are threatened by any man who is different, not all straight men.

Any one know its origin ?

Well said.

The article is using sexism to discourage homophobia.

This whole thing is a crock of shit that deliberately perpetuates bigoted stereotypes constantly used against gay men for the purpose of furthering a purely feminist agenda. Assumptions, open bigotry, and condescension, and then some, all rolled up into a tidy pack of unapologetic filth.

I have a lot more to say, but I won't unless I'm asked to post it, because my dismissal of it is as contemptuous as it is angry, and none of you will like it at all.

I'm so angry I can barely contain myself. Thanks, kpete.

Thanks awfully.

What a fucking bigoted piece. The more I reread it, the more insulted and angry I get.

Was he suppose to wax philosophically from the POV of a homosexual? Exactly HOW would that have encouraged young heterosexual males to be more introspective of their actions and attitudes?

What I am hearing is that the reason you dislike it is that the article suggests that, like heterosexual men, you're sex mad potential rapists.

Your reaction strikes me as healthy in a way that suggests you, unlike straight men, haven't been browbeaten into accepting the stereotypes directed at you.

I have no doubt that this is a gross oversimplification, but I'm honestly asking for clarification.

Not real keen on homophobia, but teens (the subject of the article) say all kinds of stupid stuff.

That particular stereotype appears twice, in the first and third quotes. It is particularly odious in the first, in which the teacher- a presumably heterosexual female- assigns an undesired expression of "potential rape" power exerted by the gay passenger against her male student. It is apparent, by her leading, single question, that she directed her student to the conclusion she wanted him to reach: that the gay passenger in the cab was a potentially overpowering figure to her student, physically and sexually.

It reads, to be blunt, like a script.

That's actually a form of not-so-very subtle abuse, to both her student and the absent source of the topic (not to mention, to the reader themselves). It does not address any other possible social or cultural influences regarding homosexuals or homosexual behavior the student may have been exposed to, or any incorrect information or honestly ignorant positions that student may have held, or learned. Essentially, that teacher hear what she wanted to hear: that the male student, exposed to an advance from a gay man, felt the same as a heterosexual woman receiving an unwanted advance from a heterosexual man.

That is vile. It is exactly the sort of absolutely incorrect conflation of behaviors I have long expected from actual homophobes. Gay men do not behave toward women the way misogynistic heterosexual men behave. We just, very simply, do not think that way. Radical feminists will insist that is not true, and we do in fact act like that, but we don't. We simply do not see ourselves as being in any way "better" or "higher on the ladder" than heterosexuals, male or female. We don't hit on random men on the street. We have had that driven home, repeatedly, over and over, for centuries. There is, simply put, no truth at all to the entire idea. We get beaten and killed for that behavior.

In the last quote, the heterosexual man who was the "victim" of a gay male "catcaller" "had to" dive into a Qdoba restaurant to "escape" it. I'm using scare quotes here because I am almost certain this simply never happened, or if it did, the writer left out the part where he said no, and it stopped. We don't do that unless we're comfortable in our surroundings, and unless this happened in the Castro district or Boystown in Chicago or perhaps a few other "big city" places I can name it's simply unbelievable on its face. If we're that comfortable in our surroundings, it's because we're in an area known for a high concentration of homosexuals in the local population. Even the most "out" gay men I know or have met will severely "tone it down" in unfamiliar surroundings.

Heterosexuals who knowingly visit such areas know they're in a "gay part of town", full stop. Tourists not "in the know" learn as much, very quickly (picture a church mom at the Folsom Street Fair. If you want an eyeful, go Google). That whole last quoted section reeks of fiction written around a heterosexual's (perhaps honestly) ignorant conception of how gay men who are comfortable with themselves and their local surroundings behave in public. Maybe (qualifier here used with extreme reservations) it actually did happen, but I have a strong feeling some very pertinent details, place and date chiefest among them, were deliberately left out. Under normal circumstances, we are simply not that bold, and will stop, right away, if asked. Those of us who don't are looked upon by others of us with a lot of scorn. Most of the gay men I know will actually go into "protective buddy" mode once that's made clear to us. Heterosexual women who have visited gay bars will know what I'm getting at here. We usually know almost immediately that our "advances" are unwanted and we will stop, because we don't want to be beaten or killed.

Most of us, the vast majority I've met, are hypersensitive to the fact that our very existence is anathema to some, precisely because we do not know who feels that way about us in a crowd.

I take extreme issue with the article's title itself. That is not and never was any even faintly accurate definition of homophobia. The terms 'homophobe' and 'homophobia' imply a great many nonsexual, but rather social and cultural preconceptions, constructs, laws, memes, perceived behaviors, assumptions, presumptions, and a particularly hateful and bigoted imagining of sexual attraction and focus as a core "goal" that it is astonishing whomever wrote that title could possibly, in 2013, believe it to be anything near an accurate definition. The title itself is one of the very reasons some of us take issue with the term "homosecual" itself, because it places the focus on our sexual behavior, as though it were our all of everything. Furthermore, gay men are not women; a great many of us are far more "manly" or "masculine" than the most laser-straight of heterosexual men (and those straight men who such gay man damned well know it, and we know they know it), and it is only the very most isolated heterosexual, long unexposed to and long isolated from actual homosexuals, who would believe that title's undercurrent of stereotypical, bigoted implication.

This article makes me angry, and in a bunch of ways. I cannot believe it's being accepted and applauded, here on DU, a anything close to truth.

And now I've said more than I meant to say in the first place. Thanks for making me angry enough to rip this to shreds, because I wanted to in the first place. It was cathartic, and after reading this pile of offal, I badly needed to speak my mind.

who paints a picture of a grown man hitting on a very much underage child and calls that 'gay' instead of pedophilla. 14 years old, in a cab and a much larger adult 'makes a pass'. I thought teachers had to report child abuse? This one seems to exploit that information as a device of her own agenda, which is questionable. What she describes is a crime in the US and in the UK. Illegal to proposition children in taxi cabs.
Ignorant teacher.

Very well said. Kudos for one of the best pieces of writing to grace this forum in quite some time.

Considering that post was an angry reaction to something akin to excrement. It was beautifully done.

Rest assured, he does not speak for me or a great many other gay men. Note the examples he used and the POV they are told from.

Apply your own reasoning and you will have to admit that you, assuredly, do not speak for him. When you state that "This whole thing is a crock of shit [...] for the purpose of furthering a purely feminist agenda", you can't and don't know his agenda.

that logic is completely gone within the first few sentences. So many inconsistencies beginning with why women hate gays and why lesbians are also hated. Anyone who doesn't think lesbians are hated are fooling themselves.

Somehow I managed to make it through without freaking out.

Should I be worried now? I mean I am flattered when anyone hits on me, but should I now pretend to be a teen and act like certain things are 'icky' or 'gross' now or can I be an adult and treat the situation like an adult?

Someone tell me please.

beyond that, as others have pointed out, bigoted or perpetuating nasty stereotypes about Gay people.

Granted, I suppose there is a potential added intimidation factor when one person is quite a bit larger and stronger than the other - as tends to be the case with men approaching women, more so than other scenarios. And no one should have to put up with unwanted attention when they've already said no.

Still, the OP does present things in a way that arguably encourages homophobia, or at the least, a distorted view of sexuality. Presenting sexual motives, perhaps unintentionally, in terms of predator/prey. There's a good reason why guys who think that way are considered creeps (at least by me).

Beyond that, I think it's worth noting that all instances of people "hitting on" other people, are not created equal. Some are fine, some are boundary crossing or even threatening. Ideologically-driven attempts to pathologize ALL sexual interactions between adults based upon the gender or orientation of one or both of said adults, are ridiculous.

and it goes without saying that an adult "hitting on" a minor is not the same thing as an interaction between, again, two adults.

I saw it more as applying a common sense analysis of the main post. We missed things we should have caught, because we too viewed things with bias.

But it's important to listen to what others have to say.

I used the word, we, to say that all humans have a certain bias in them. Just by living our individual life; each one different, yet similar.

There isn't one gay perspective any more than there is one straight perspective.

And people can be right on some things and wrong on others, and also reevaluate their views based upon changing circumstances or personal growth, as Mr. Sullivan has demonstrated.

Sullivan didn't write any of the blurbs, nor did he write an opinion piece/reaction to the blurbs he posted. One can assume he posted those blurbs as examples of "the horrors of catcalling", in which case, it, IMO, makes Occulus' outrage that much more poignant.

and he posted it. If he wanted to critique the letters, he would have done so. Many here seem to have missed the quite obvious point that the young man's reaction is a product of his own fears rather than a reflection of the actual behavior of gay men.

We don't know what Sullivan's reaction was, so his sexual orientation isn't an issue. Also, as pointed out, WD said "a" not "the", which makes a big difference. Also the last blurb, as I said, if Sullivan posted that as a "horror of catcalling" it was flat out homophobic swill!

It makes no comments on the actual behavior of gay men. It talks about the fear of straight men toward gay men. Are you asserting that there exist no teenage boys in America whose homophobia makes them nervous around gay men?

Then he "complains" to his wife after eating a shit burrito because of the "horrors of catcalling." So why would Sully use that as an example of the "horrors?" Do you think that homophobia is all about gay men being predators and straight men finally feeling terrified they are being treated like women?

and others isms and bigotry. Homophobia or Islamophobia or sexism or racism. All of those comprise many things. They involve gay men like Matthew Shepard being murdered, or girls like Amanda Berry, Gina de Jesus, and Michelle Knight being locked in a house for ten years. They also involve language and popular misconceptions. Bigotry takes on many forms, as I assume you yourself have experienced.

I understand that for some nothing is more repulsive than to compared to a woman or have their experience somehow considered in any way similar.

If you have issues with Sullivan's blog, you should really take it up with him. He does appear to read his letters.

I don't know why some bigotry carries the "-ism" suffix, as opposed to the "-phobia" suffix, some have different incarnations (misandry, misogyny). I reckon that some it may have to do with how it sounds. I do know the '-phobia' causes some consternation with a number of people because people claim they aren't "afraid of" gays, Muslims, etc. It is because the suffix being used is a sociological term, and not the psychological one, though, I have seen cases where the person involved could very well be diagnosed with the psychological pathology.

It is understandable that for some they try to tie their particular "bigotry" into everything, and make it take a forefront, when other issues are being discussed. It is a fancy way to "jingle keys" and create a "look over there" situation.

As for talking to Sullivan, I see no need for your unsolicited advice. I made comments on THIS site and it doesn't require me making comments anywhere else, nor does it negate what I have said in relations to what others have said here.

Okay. I understand that it's far more entertaining to badger me for something I had no hand in writing or publishing.

I tend to think bigotry is bigotry. It's about asserting and maintaining power. Some people choose certain groups to target because they think they can somehow justify it, but in another context they would target different groups. The impulse comes from the same place.

doesn't strike me as logical.

Here we are back to my original point. You and Occulus are accusing a gay man of being homophobic. It is his blog. Well, actually he accused feminists, but the source is not a feminist blog. It's Andrew Sullivan's. Yet somehow it provides an opportunity for denouncing feminists. What else is new?

I said Sullivan's sexuality wasn't an issue.

I don't know about Occulus, but I didn't accuse Sullivan of being homophobic. I said the blurbs were! As for feminists, I said nothing about them, so your jumping in this thread is now quite obvious. What else is new, right?

That is precisely what he said. He attributed the homophobia to feminists. And you yourself invoked his commentary. And then you wrote this:

I didn't "invoke" his commentary nor any demon spirits. You are trying your best to twist this into something it isn't. You made one false accusation after another. The basic comment I made to you originally, before you started jiggling keys all over the place, is that Sullivan's sexual orientation is not an issue (it is the same as what separates a crime from a hate crime). If you don't like Occulus' comments, then why haven't you addressed any of his posts?

You responded to my post to another member. You asked for a question and I responded. If you don't want to know what I think, don't ask me. It's pretty simple.

I wasn't claiming your responses to me was the "jumping in" part. See, you are doing it again...taking one thing and twisting it into something it is not!

Your remarks have been disingenuous and have desperately tried to change the topic into something else. I thought, for a moment, you were actually going to discuss the subject, but it is clear you are not; so I will no longer indulge this foolish game.

Writing is about communication. Obviously you did not communicate your point clearly, but rather that clarifying what you meant, you accuse me of nefarious intent. That truly is unfortunate, but it does suggest you really aren't interested in dialog of any kind. So I will not insist further.

perspective.

as well as the professional synchophant of power asshole warmonger gay persons perspective.

once by an extraordinarily handsome gentleman. It didn't make uncomfortable one iota - after all, it's a compliment.

I politely declined, but thanked him for the compliment.

Life is all about taking things in stride.

Generally I find they are (rightly) a lot more nervous than I am. And they do make excellent friends.

1. It assumes that the man in the taxi was sexually aggressive in his advancement. When in reality he may have come on softly and perfectly nicely, the other man just realized he was still being hit on and being homophobic was disgusted.

2. It assumes there is no possible nice way to "hit on someone". Even saying 'Hi' to a pretty girl is still hitting on her and most girls know it. That doesn't mean that the person saying HI is aggressive, mean or violent in the least. Is it wrong to want to have a romantic relationship with someone?

3. It reaffirms the mans homophobia. Rarely is homophobia about the fear of being sexually aggressed, it's about the fear of the different, the "odd" about which you have no control.

4. Reading between the lines it opens the way to the idea that all forms of being hit on are disgusting, regardless of severity or intent. And that IMHO isn't right.

In the minds of some very angry, obsessed people.

In the rest of the world, people who are a wee bit more balanced consider it a normal part of the way people try to meet each.

"No thanks" is always an option -until the ability to read minds is gained by humans, that is.

The article in the OP makes several problematic assumptions, and I agree with the criticisms of it. But who the hell actually made a comparison like the one you're claiming? If they did, then they're insane, but I kind of doubt they exist. At least on DU.

They're talking about repeated, unwanted attention that becomes annoying, even distressing, over time. It's (usually) not the fault of any one individual guy.

I don't necessarily care for the "antelope in a game preserve" analogy myself. But it doesn't mean they're equating approaching someone with shooting them. That would be ridiculous.

But that is exactly what the antelope in a game preserve analogy is saying.

As to the issue of "repeated, unwanted attention"...the point is that, for a woman, it may appear repeated if she is not differentiating between men that approach her. Yes, an attractive woman may get approached repeated times by different men, but to the men approaching her for the first time, there is no way to know that.

Should men, when they see a woman they want to say hello to, infer that she probably gets approached a lot and therefore not make any approach no matter how polite ("May I buy you a cup of coffee?&quot .

So yes, the "hunting" analogy is quite literally comparing approaching a woman to stalking game with the intent to kill.

It is pathologizing normal social interaction.

No one is saying that it's never acceptable to approach a stranger. I certainly wouldn't say that. Part of what they're doing on that blog is attempting to distinguish between benign and not-so-benign interactions.

And what are you so worried about anyway? It's just somebody's opinion.

Whey are you "worried" about my opinion? See how that works?

And I say this with no personal animus whatsoever. I just wonder, oftentimes, why people on message boards seem to take mere statements of opinion so personally. You're probably no worse than the average, in that respect.

Have a good one.

Aren't you married? How does it have anything to do with you in any way?

But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about it.

If your attitude to me is "Why worry about it? It has nothing to do with you." then I can say that same thing to you times 1,000.

My comments have nothing the fuck to do with you so why don't YOU just tune out or shut up?

You seem to take this things very personally. It appears to me that you take any post about patriarchy, rape, or gender relations of any kind as an indictment of you personally, which puzzles me. You thus react emotionally and don't make an effort to understand the ideas expressed.

In fact, ironically, it was YOU who tried to make it about me by pointing out that I am married.

No, I am in fact out of the game -which proves that it is not because it involves me personally that I have any interest.

I have always been fascinated by society and culture. It is why I made anthropology my field of study. My interest is further deepened because now that I see America from an outside perspective, I am truly fascinated by the overboard, nearly cartoon-like nature of some sub-cultures within it.

The irony here is that I think it is in fact you who makes it "all about them".

You are projecting onto me your own tendency to conflate your personal experiences with how the rest of society does -or should- view things.

to a certain extent. It would be hard to avoid that, but I see no other way to interpret why you should become so upset whenever a woman dares to discuss rape on this board. You respond as though you are the aggrieved party rather than those who are being raped. You obviously despise the fact that women talk about sexism in our own culture.

Whatever. Your other post is right. I really should just quit reading what you write.

You are skilled in mischaracterizations, I give you that. I do not "get upset when people post about rape". That is simply untrue and is yet another projection that, for whatever reason, you seem to feel you want to believe.

Read my posts all you want, but please stop with your incessant cries of "Why do you always make it about you?"

If people ONLY posted, on a Message Board, about things that specifically related to them, there would be no messages at all.

Almost starts seem like a willful misreading of things, after a while.

It happens a lot. The other explanations that come to my mind are less generous than willful misreading.

that I am a rapist, right?

You are vile.

Reply 68 in this thread uses the language of sweeping generalizations about straight men being exactly this sort of evil. It would be nice to see some responsibility on the part of those that would unfairly lump all straight males in the same hurtful and misogynystic group. The author of the reply is showing thier own bigotry towards straight males- all bigotry is wrong.

nt

Here, though, I tend to think that the important thing isn't who's projecting what onto whom, but more the bare fact that violence and abuse are so widespread. Somewhere between 1 in 6 and 1 in 3 women, over a lifetime, will be sexually assaulted. And yes, I know men are far more likely to be murdered than women, but the vast majority of murderers are also men.

The point isn't that all men are to blame for the violent acts of some - I would be the first to object if anyone suggested as much - but simply that there's something wrong with our society. Very, very wrong. I don't pretend to have definitive answers but I would never question the importance of raising these issues.

You seem like a decent person, certainly not violent or abusive. So why do you always seem to object when the subject is brought up? It's hard not to think that you're taking it all personally, when you're so vehement in your responses.

But I dispute your underlying statement that I take them personally.

I'm not a mind-reader after all...

Look above and see the "not so veiled" implication that I must be a rapist.

It is THAT kind of thing that makes it personal.

The reality is that we are all for equal rights, but some groups need to create an enemy so as to have a "foil" to work against.

That is an excellent example of how such things are done.