In a cover interview for the Australian edition of men's fashion glossy GQ, Taylor Lautner, the 19-year-old star of The Twilight Saga film series, was asked by the interviewer if either Gus Vant Sant or Dustin Lance Black made a pass at him when the trio were out having dinner last summer to which Lautner replied: “No, definitely not. I think they know I’m straight. But they’re great guys. They’re a lot of fun.”
The question posed by the GQ writer has since raised eyebrows; with US gay news magazine The Advocate asking “Was GQ's Question Homophobic?”
“Would GQ have asked Lautner the same question if he'd dined with two older straight women?” asked Advocate writer Jeremy Kinser.
Meanwhile in his first post on his new blog, Black wrote that he thought the question to be "unprofessional" as it perpetuates stereotypes about gay people and implies that "gay men are by nature sexual predators."
The 37-year-old outspoken LGBT activist and 2009 Academy Award winner (Best Original Screenplay) for Milk wrote: “Really Mr. GQ writer? I’m curious, will you be asking all of the handsome actors I’ve ever had the privilege of working with or meeting if I made passes at them as well? I’d love to be there when you ask Sean Penn that same question.
“Or, Mr. GQ writer, were you projecting your own unprofessional desires onto me and Gus? Perhaps? Or worse still, are you a homophobe?
“Above and beyond this clear attack on my character, I’m shocked that GQ would allow their writer to lean on the scurrilous, outdated stereotype that gay men are by nature sexual predators. I mean, would you have asked this same question if it were Diablo Cody and Kathryn Bigelow at dinner with Mr. Lautner?
“Leaning on lies, myths and stereotypes about gay people is hateful, harmful and outdated. It’s not the 1950s anymore GQ, it’s 2011 and it’s time to grow up.”
Black’s latest screenplay, J. Edgar, which stars Leonardo DiCaprio as controversial FBI founder J. Edgar Hoover, is opening in the US next month.
Printable Version
RSS Feed: 
Reader's Comments
I mean I don't want to sound harsh and of course I don't really know the EXACT wording of the question, but nonetheless it just sounds like the interviewer was asking a funny/nosy question. I tried to put myself in his shoes if someone said that about me.
Honestly I don't think this comment perpetuates any gay stereotype.
For those of you who read GQ, I suggest you consider the implications. The editors of the magazine are happy to take your cash and also imply that, given the opportunity, gay men just can't help but "go for the gusto" when there is a lushious, cream-filled twinkie in front of them. Now, excuse me; I need to puke.
Boycott GQ. And their advertisers. Send a clear message that you are gay and you are offended by their ignorance.
and GQ isn't exactly a journal of record. current issue describes lautner as 'a go-karting man-child who lives with his parents' which is pretty demeaning, in addition to having a story tactfully entitled 'generation x-plode: inside a terrorist reform school' and tips on how to get a beach body in six weeks. very much himbo territory.
so who gives a monkey's what they write? about anything.
This question is indeed homophobic and offensive. It surmises that gays would brazenly make sexual advances to any attractive man regardless of the latter's sexual orientation. Gays are more socially intelligent than that. We grow up adapting to a society where most of our sexually attractive gender (i.e. males) are not sexually attracted to us. Most gays have, thus, developed an intuitive ability to judge whom to make advances to, how, in a socially acceptable manner. I'd urge the interviewer to read Assistant Professor Kirk Snyder's "The G quotient: why gay executives are excelling as leaders" wherein research showing that gay men, generally, are significantly more socially adaptable and intuitive is reported.
Furthermore, most gays don't jump into sex the first time they meet someone over dinner, especially if the latter's sexual orientation isn't clear to them, and if there are more than two persons at the dinner. Do you expect a straight man who meets a woman and another straight man over dinner for the first time to openly ask her for sex in that setting? You wouldn't, so don't ask such stereotypical questions as though the interviewee's two gay ex-colleagues and gay people generally are bimbos.
Lastly, it is very unprofessional of the interviewer to probe into the interviewee's privacy. Whether anyone had made any sexual advances to him, or vice versa, is a private matter. Was he expecting the interviewee to expose two ex-colleagues as sexual predators or to validate a homophobic stereotype of gay people?
there's nothing 'official' about GQ interviews; the mag is about the intellectual equivalent of a drunk conversation in a nightclub.
you could learn more by reading tolstoy to a cat.
It's easy for those of you who work in countries/environments where we are "tolerated" to disregard the harmful effects of such attitudes.
Try not thinking of just your own circumstances for a minute - it may do you (and the world) a whole lot of good.
We got to be proud of who we are and stand by our values. We got to live for ourselves and not for others.
I bet if I had that copy of GQ, I'd only think the text was getting in the way of the photos. Perhaps the writer knows he needs to say something controversial, otherwise no one would bother reading what he says.
I believe that there should be a zero-tolerance policy for this stuff. Kids are still being bullied world-wide for possibly being gay. How many kids are bullied for being straight? It's this kind of writing that creates an environment where ignorance and vile mix and result in prejudice and hate with potentially lethal consequences. With causes, there are alway effects.
For comment No. 14. Your cute, got a great smile and look really deliciously fuckable....but since you are only out "to some people", it appears you are the one who might be overreacting and sensitive. Afterall, you are only GAY, right?? (Isn't using caps fun!). It's not like someone you love or even don't know can hate you for that, right????
Looks like someone is playing the victim game.
I don't read GQ so I couldn't comment on its normal editorial style. I suspect it was meant to be an innocent bit of fun - but it is these little snide comments that devalue me as a gay man.
I do hope that the editorial team of that publication look more carefully at what they publish. I wish I could boycott GQ, but I'd have to read it first ;)
Put it this way: That didn't raise a flicker of interest - or militant American Supergay Activism Outrage - when I saw that.
On the other hand, up at Home in a corner of Ireland last week, I saw one of the candidates to be Ireland's next President (who's the country's most famous gay man, and senior gay politican), simply called "a fairy" in one of the local community newspapers. Presumably, it would also have called him "a poof", "a queer" and "a faggot", if the writer had felt like it - all casually and blatantly wink-wink homophobic, because, of course, There Are No Fucking Fairies In Rural Ireland.
Seeing That casually offensive term thrown into the paper my parents read made me SO fucking angry, compared to that nonsensical question above. I mean, if I Ever see a churnalism newspaper/magazine feature where a handsome/pretty star ISN'T asked if someone else of the same/opposite sex Didn't try to flirt with them, That'll be a First, and I'll run out to buy a hat, and then run home to eat it.
Really, in the bigger picture of 'gay things', I think there are bigger battles to fight - and things worth actually being bothered about - than This non-story...
Moreover, the question is not concerning heterosexual (possibly desirable)- but homosexual ( absolutely UNDESIRABLE) - sexual advances to a Straight person.
Such acts of asking homophobic LOADED QUESTIONS are deplorable. A Loaded Question is one which contains a controversial assumption such as a presumption of guilt that limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. Whether the interviewee answered "Yes" or "No" to this question (whether his two gay ex-colleagues "flirted or made advances to him, especially of a SEXUAL nature"), presuppositions that:
1) gays are horny and make sexual advances to straight colleagues even though UNDESIRABLE;
2) gays are unashamed of making UNDESIRABLE sexual advances in front of a third party; and
3) gays are unashamed of making UNDESIRABLE sexual advances as a partnership/team to a new young colleague,
are contained in this Loaded Question.
A good example of a Loaded Question is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether a person answers directly "Yes" or "No", he would serve the questioner's agenda of creating the impression that he does beat his wife.
By the same token, whether Taylor, the interviewee, had answered "Yes" or "No" to the question (of whether his two gay ex-colleagues had made sexual advances to him), the impression that the two does make UNDESIRABLE sexual advances to young straight colleagues would have been created. Likewise, the impression that gays do #1-3 mentioned above would be created.
Fortunately, Taylor answered intelligently by challenging the presumptions in his answer. To quote Taylor, he said, "I think they know I’m straight. But they’re great guys. " He had effectively challenged the presumption that gays and his two ex-colleagues would make absolutely UUNDESIRABLE sexual advances to a straight colleague like him.
The main reason why homophobia is still prevalent in many societies is there are still many misleading presumptions about homosexuals still flowing around. Myths like:
1) gays are lustful and promiscuous;
2) gays go around preying on straight men and boys for sex;
3) gays are infected with, and cause, HIV;
4) gays are immoral;
5) gays are shameless.....
still flow around, and there are still many self-righteous fundamentalists promoting such myths, as if demonizing the LGBT community would make they feel better about themselves.
The LGBT community shouldn't let direct attacks or indirect ones like the use of Loaded Questions as explained go unchecked. Of course, our reaction should always correspond to the level of potential harm. In this particular case, I think a statement of apology, with a promise to not pose such homophobic Loaded Questions and to be more sensitive towards sexual minorities, from GQ should suffice.
Would people have been up in arms if the same question had been posed to a woman in relation to a dinner with two straight men? Of course not - and any feminist who had leaped on it as sexism would have been told to stop fretting and wear a bra.
Sure, the question was infantile and irrelevant, but who cares? Do we really use GQ as a moral barometer for the state of international civil rights? Demanding apologies for this kind of thing veers dangerously close to censorship and the infringement of free speech.
Gays in eastern Africa and the Middle East are being MURDERED BY THE STATE and we get irate about THIS?
Grow up. All of you.
It's offensive to make the assumption that a person or group would make CERTAINLY UNDESIRABLE sexual advances. It cannot be the regarded as equivalent to the assumption that a person or group would make POSSIBLY DESIRABLE sexual advances. Hence, your question "Would people have been up in arms if the same question had been posed to a woman in relation to a dinner with two straight men?" is irrelevant here. Whereas the two straight men in your question would be making POSSIBLY DESIRABLE sexual advances, which has much less moral implications, two gay men making CERTAINLY UNDESIRABLE sexual advances to a straight man has much more implications. As you know, it's one of the top lies that certain homophobes like to tell that gay men are sick because we prey on straight men and boys. In other words, they are creating fear in the public by suggesting that gays tend to make CERTAINLY UNDESIRABLE sexual advances, which is the presupposition in the Loaded Question being posed by the interviewer. Now, do you think that this presupposition should exist in the first place? The interviewer wasn't born yesterday. Didn't he know that this presupposition had been flowing around amongst the homophobes and the ignorant, and been harmful to the gay community? Didn't he know also that, even today, in certain African countries, such presuppositions had been used to justify anti-gay Bills which, if passed into law, would essentially murder/jail innocent gay men in these countries?
The GQ question was not loaded with the assumption that the two gay gentleman make passes, and the answer the actor gave allowed for an interpretation that they are *not* in the practice of doing that.
Contrast that with any possible answer to 'Have you stopped beating your wife' where answering either yes or no still leaves the unpalatable assumption in place and unchallenged.
IMHO, quite simply the reason Fridae has this non-story on the front page is that it means that a picture of an attractive young man to whom an infintesimal story regarding something to do with homosexuality can be linked, can be used to grace the site and boost the click rate.
Pretty desperate. But that's about it, peoples.
If the question is not loaded with the presupposition that gays do make CERTAINLY UNDESIRABLE sexual advances to straight colleagues, why do you think the question about whether two specific gays had made CERTAINLY UNDESIRABLE sexual advances to the interviewee would be posed?
Would one have asked a friend whether the latter's two bearded Arabic neighbors had approached him to join them as terrorists or bomb a public facility (a CERTAINLY UNDESIRABLE proposal, akin to gays' sexual advances to straight men) if he doesn't have the presupposition that bearded Arabic people tend to be terrorists?
Tit.
The discussion's focus is on the Question. GQ & the interviewer are inconsequential. The issue is whether the Question is homophobic. Whether it was GQ asking the Question, whether GQ is influential, and whether the interviewer meant to insult the gay community, does not change the fact that this is a Loaded Question, with loaded presuppositions aforementioned. And, while those asking such Loaded Questions may not be intentionally homophobic or aware of the inherently loaded homophobic presuppositions, it doesn't mean they should go unchecked. I agree that we shouldn't overreact by, for example, boycotting the magazine. The interviewer might indeed be just playful or unaware of the implications. But it doesn't mean we should stay quiet and let such Loaded Questions go unchecked. The underlying homophobic presuppositions should be pointed out and challenged.
Just as most bearded Arabic men are good citizens who don't go around bombing people (undesirable act), most gays are good people, capable of self-restraint and mutual respect, who don't go around making sexual advances to their new younger straight colleagues (undesirable act). If even the 19-year-old interviewee showed this understanding in his reply, I don't see why any mature person would pose such a question, unless he has any reason/misbelief to suspect otherwise.
It's becoming obvious that some gay men don't see the original question as problematic. I agree it's not a huge deal but why shouldn't it be examined especially since DLB has spoken out about it? What I haven't figured out is why some gay men are so quick to refuse to consider the question and its implication/s.
I've a sneaking suspicion that some gay men *do* think making passes at random straight men whether in a social or professional setting is commonplace, to be expected, or just a fact-of-life, and this requires them to examine their own attitude and behaviour.
The murder of gay people in the Middle-East and other hot-button issues affecting the global LGBT community continue to plague us, e.g. the decriminalization of sodomy between consenting adults in some draconian regimes (such as the one in Singapore), the issue of free medication for all HIV patients in unenlightened and bigoted societies (such as the one in Singapore), etc., etc.
I don't know how the rest of you define the word, "maturity", but, to my mind, an important aspect of mature behaviour is being able to see past the trivial, the petty and the melodramatic.
All we can do is extrapolate based on whatever flimsy information we have, based on 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand retrospective information.
My suspicion is that:
1. The interviewer did not have any malice or homophobic intentions.
2. But he DID have normative assumptions about how men in general or gay men in particular might behave in the company of an attractive young person.
3. These assumptions can have real life negative implications for gay men.
4. At the same time, many of these negative implications are based on our OWN normative assumptions of what constitutes appropriate sexual behaviour.
In all the aforementioned points, I mean no judgement about WHAT these assumptions are (they may or may not be accurate... e.g. "Men are horny bastards" is a normative assumption about men that has implications for the ways that men behave, and how we relate to men in general, but I am making no current comment about its accuracy).
Re: some of the previous posts
One of the normative assumptions, particularly from sunthenmoon, is that that there is something inherently wrong about gay men hitting on a straight man. We assume that this is inherently UNDESIREABLE. Why is this so? What is wrong with flirtation, even if it is unrequited? Does it immediately mean that we are predatory?
As an aside, most of my straight male friends are incredibly flattered when gay men hit on them. I'm not saying this is true of all straight men, but it certainly detracts from our underlying assumption that gay male advances are necessarily exploitative/predatory. A homophobic assumption in its own right!
Remember: Flirtation is not the same as sexual assault, though mainstream straight media too often conflates gay men's sexual expression, no matter its form, as an assault on a straight man's sense of self.
While I can understand why folks are/were offended, I was not personally offended by the interviewer's question. It smacks me as sort of a tabloid-ey investment in [gay] men's sexuality, indicative of GQ's general pandering to the mostly 'metro,' materialistic, and upwardly mobile aspirations of its hetero-male readership.
His question, to me, is not necessarily homophobic, though it CAN have homophobic implications. But once again, anything we can surmise from this article is all conjecture, and probably says a lot more about ourselves than it does anything about the interviewer's actual motivations.
http://cache.gawker.com/news/20060223dnr.jpg
Which reminds me once again, that the initial work we can do, alongside ascertaining whether the interviewer had homophobic intentions, is to also ask why it is that gay men are so zealously, disproportionately committed to this magazine to begin with.
#32: I agree that we shouldn't hold a grudge against GQ just because of this question. But it doesn't make an analysis of such social discourse irrelevant to our community. Personally, I am not going to suggest we should boycott GQ or take any hostile actions against it. It does have the freedom to ask loaded questions. But so do the gay community, in my humble opinion, the freedom to point out the loaded presuppositions, and how offensive & invalid these presuppositions are, whenever we see such homophobic presuppositions/allegations, posed by whichever person/magazine/institution, in whatever manner (i.e. direct or indirect, subtle or otherwise).
#33: I am inclined to have the same 4 suspicions. That's why I don't think a single casually posed question warrant that we hold a grudge against it.
I shall reply to your question, "One of the normative assumptions, particularly from sunthenmoon, is that that there is something inherently WRONG about gay men hitting on a straight man. We assume that this is inherently UNDESIREABLE."
Please note that I have not suggested that there is anything "inherently" right or wrong about a matter concerning morality and societal norm, which the SOCIETY- not I- determine. What I suggested are personal observations, that, at least in those societies which I am familiar with:
1) it's UNDESIRABLE (in the view of the society and the OBJECTS) for gay men to make sexual advances to straight men even after knowing that they are straight;
2) it's WRONG (in the view of the society and OBJECTS) to impose on others who are known to be clearly uninterested in one or his proposals.
In fact, in the commercial world, for the second example, rules had been laid down for telemarketers to not call persons who had expressed unwillingness to be called again. Obviously, this anecdotal evidence shows that it's a SOCIETAL (not my personal) norm that it's WRONG to impose on others who are known to be clearly uninterested in one or his UNDESIRABLE proposals. The modern society acknowledges individuals' right not to be imposed with express undesirable proposals.
In Singapore's Parliament, our Prime Minister had agreed that gay people have the right to live freely in this country. This is indeed the view of the majority in my society. But I doubt he or the majority of Singaporeans would agree that we gay people also have the right to impose on men known to be straight (hence not sexually attracted to men).
The COLLECTIVE perceived ability of the gay community to show mutual respect & exercise self-restraint towards others in the society by, for example, not imposing ourselves on straight people, , is crucial to our progress in earning reciprocal respect and tolerance from the society and governments. Unfortunately, even in Singapore, there are some fundamentalists who tarnish this perceived collective ability (to show mutual respect and exercise self-restraint) of the gay community in order to justify that anti-gay laws such as s377a should be retained. Similarly, there are such people around the world who, in some cases, are even calling for new laws to be created to criminalize gays. One of their anchoring arguments is that the gay community do not have the ability to show mutual respect and exercise self-restraint and, thus, are a threat to the society.
For the reasons given, any detriment to the aforementioned perceived collective ability of the gay community, and especially those based on groundless speculations, should be rectified.
Having said that, I am not here to make moral judgment on any individual gay who makes sexual advances to his straight friend. Every individual adult is free to make his own moral judgment. I am only concerned, as a member of the gay community, about the detriment to the gay community's COLLECTIVE image.
I understand that you are concerned about the ways that the gay community is seen based on the interviewer's potential assumptions of Gus Van Sant or Dustin Lance Black making a pass at Taylor Lautner, assumptions that we are surmising based on our own interpretation of what was asked.
But once again, I am going to question your assumptions. You have stated, based on the cultures that you are familiar with, that:
"1) it's UNDESIRABLE (in the view of the society and the OBJECTS) for gay men to make sexual advances to straight men even after knowing that they are straight;
2) it's WRONG (in the view of the society and OBJECTS) to impose on others who are known to be clearly uninterested in one or his proposals."
Here we might as well offer the benefit of the doubt...
Re: 1), did the interviewer really know that either Gus Van Sant or Dustin Lance Black knew that Taylor Lautner was straight?
Re: 2)
Is making a pass on someone necessarily an 'imposition'? And then, once again, what makes us think that a straight man would be uninterested in being found attractive by another man? Once again, I question the underlying homophobic assumptions behind THAT...
There is no doubt that, in many societies, it is simply foolish and unwise for gay men to hit on straight men. But to me, this has less to do with the ethics of articulating our attraction to straight men, and has more to do with avoiding potential homophobic assault.
You have written, "The COLLECTIVE perceived ability of the gay community to show mutual respect & exercise self-restraint towards others in the society by, for example, not imposing ourselves on straight people, is crucial to our progress in earning reciprocal respect and tolerance from the society and governments. "
Once again, why the special protections for straight men when it comes to being hit on by gay men? How often does straight society discourage or punish straight men for hitting on disinterested women? Or perhaps, more equivalently, of straight women hitting on gay men?
In terms of the gay community's collective image, I realise that it is important to portray some sort of civilised, sexually non-threatening front in order to gain wider social approval (which may lead to broader legislative change)... but I do not see wider social approval or legislative change as the exclusive means by which we achieve liberation of our sexuality. Far more important in my experience of homosexuality is the freedom for all men, gay or straight, to be able to recognise and honour the beauty of one another, without fear of reprimand.
Let me emphasize again that this is not a wild-goose chase trying to figure out whether GQ had any motive. My focus in on the discourse analysis of the Question itself. Do such common questions contain any homophobic presumptions? If there are, what are these presumptions, how do they affect the image of the gay community, and how show we react? These are more important. They affect the societal attitude towards the gay community.
#36 asks, "did the interviewer really know that either Gus Van Sant or Dustin Lance Black knew that Taylor Lautner was straight?" Who knows? Instead of speculating, I’d just comment that If he didn't know anything, then I question what ground he had to suspect that the two gays might make sexual advances to a male, whom they would know probably is straight.
#36 asked "Is making a pass on someone necessary an 'imposition'? And then, once again, what makes us think that a straight man would be uninterested in being found attractive by another man? "
I think the point is it doesn't matter whether there are exceptions. What matters is the norm. Certain "straight" people may not get offended or even enjoy being offered gay sex, but the majority of straight men do not appreciate sexual advances from gays and may even consider them harassment. I shall refer you to our (Singapore's) Prime Minister’s parliamentary speech to make this point clearer.
On a side note, Gaddafi's third son was reported to have made sexual advances to a colleague in his soccer team (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/friend-caged-by-dictators-son-saadi-gaddafi-for-refusing-sex/story-e6frg6so-1226124809551). His colleague, typical of a straight man who's opposed to gay sexual advances, would rather be jailed than comply. This shows how unwelcome such gay-to-straight sexual advances can be.
Here’s the transcript of PM Lee’s speech http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2007/imp-360.htm . He said:
1) “They (gays) are free to lead their lives, FREE to pursue their social activities. But there are RESTRAINTS and we DO NOT APPROVE of them ACTIVELY PROMOTING their lifestyles TO OTHERS, or setting the tone for mainstream society. They live their lives. That is their personal life, it is their space. But the tone of the OVERALL SOCIETY, I think remains conventional, it remains straight, and we want it to remain so.”
2) “Some are convinced, passionately so, that homosexuality is an abomination, to quote Prof. Thio Li-ann's words yesterday. Others, probably MANY MORE, are UNCOMFORTABLE with homosexuals, MORE SO with PUBLIC DISPLAY of homosexual behaviour. Yet others are more tolerant and accepting.”
3) “I should therefore say that as a matter of reality, that the more the gay activists push this agenda, the stronger will be the push back from conservative forces in our society, as we are beginning to see already in this debate and over the last few weeks and months.”
In particularly those countries, such as Singapore, where gays are still not well-accepted, in order to earn more tolerance and acceptance from the society and the governments, it’s important that the gay community exercise mutual respect towards the OVERALL SOCIETY, which REMAINS STRAIGHT & CONVENTIONAL. The public should perceive that the gay community are capable of exercising self-RESTRAINT on PUBLIC DISPLAY and ACTIVE PROMOTION (e.g. making sexual advances to straight men) so that their approval of letting us live FREE can be earned. The more we push for “rights” such as that to PROMOTE gay sex to the overall society (e.g. making sexual advances to straight men), the stronger will be the push back from conservative forces in our society.
Has showing mutual respect to others who don't appreciate our sexual advances got to do with just "avoiding potential homophobic assault." (to OURSELVES)? I think it's to do more with RESPECT for OTHERS. We live in a society with different groups, who co-exist in harmony because each can show mutual respect for others and exercise self-restraints. Take the example of making sexual advances to straight men. Certain “straight” people may welcome them, but the OVERALL SOCIETY remains conventional and straight. Hence, the likelihood that such advances would be unwelcome certain exceeds that that they would be welcome.
Again, I am not here to make moral judgment on specific people. I am only concerned, as mentioned, about the society's perception on, and attitude to, the gay community. Does the society perceive that the gay community are capable of exercising self-restraint and mutual respect? Are the OVERALL SOCIETY able to generally feel safe getting close to gay colleagues and friends without fear of harassment? Are straight women generally able to feel safe introducing their boyfriends or husbands to gays without worrying about the straight men being harassed? These societal attitude towards the gay community determines how much space that the gay community can get in these countries.
Whether it’s justified/fair that the gay community are burdened with additional required restraints, it remains that unless we can collectively demonstrate self-restraint to the OVERALL SOCIETY, the governments’ attitude towards us will worsen, and that may cost us the space and freedom we had earned. But to me, I take such burden as a responsibility. We all are born with certain responsibilities to our parents, countries, and so forth. Because we were born to and brought up by our parents, we have the responsibility to take care of them. Because many of us were born as Singaporean males, we have the responsibility to serve the National Service. Some were born to rich parents, and they benefit financially from their parents. Others were born to poorer parents who hadn't provided them with education, yet expect to be taken care of during their retirement. Males born in Singapore and Taiwan are required to serve the National Service (usually in the military), but those born elsewhere mostly aren't. It may look unfair or unjust, but it remains our responsibility to play such roles as sons/citizens properly.
Thus, because we are born different as the straight majority, we have the responsibility to show mutual respect towards the OVERALL SOCIETY by exercising certain self-restraints unique to, and expected of, the gay community (mentioned above in the quoted PM Lee’s speech). As educated and mature people, gay men are certainly capable of becoming responsible citizens and, in so doing, earning more tolerance and acceptance from the society and their governments.
It seems we have differing ways of approaching integration of the gay community to the broader society, but I don't think our ways are mutually exclusive.
On the one hand, I agree with you: It is important to respect that everybody has differing levels of comfort with regard to sexuality, and that we can advance overall acceptance of gay people (men in particular) by straying away from flagrant displays of aggressive gay male sexuality.
On the other hand, I also think that it is equally important that we continue to question (not necessarily undermine) what the norms are in the first place, that structure society's perceptions of propriety.
I admire the virtues of self-restraint and mutual respect, as you have named, but I also am committed to the values of freedom of expression and the bouyancy and playfulness of sexuality (which includes the freedom to flirt without fear of reprieve)... Sometimes we walk a thin tightrope in balancing these, especially in diverse or difficult jurisdictions and social/cultural contexts.
To that end, I respect your response to this article about GQ. I am privileged to live in a country (Australia) where I can legally explore my sexuality without interference from the state. Having grown up in Singapore, I am aware that the situation where you currently live is very different. So, as you clearly recognise, we will require very different cultural orientations to achieve the ends that we both wish for.
Thank you for the dialogue!
whether one might impute loaded presuppostions or not, to arabs or gays or whatever, your error is in conflating a question where two possible answers could be given, one of which leaves the implicit allegation in place, and one of which negates it, with the 'have you stopped beating your wife example'. no possible answer to that question can displace the allegation that the target beat his wife. that's the difference.
In a Loaded Question, there is no "allegation". Instead, there are 3 basic characteristics*:
1) Assumptions/Presumption;
2) LIMITS direct replies;
3) often Serves questioner's agenda.
Note that in the famous example of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" there is no "allegation" ( allege= STATE with assurance without proof) . Instead, there are "assumptions"/"presumptions". (assume=suppose= CONSIDER (something) as a possibility suggested or an idea). The questioner CONSIDERS as a possibility the object had beaten his wife, but does not STATE with assurance without proof that he had beaten his wise.
Additionally, the questioner limits direct replies to:
1) Yes: I have stopped beating my wife
2) No: I have not stopped beating my wife.
Lastly, the question serves the questioner's agenda of creating the impression that the object beats his wife.
Similarly, this question, "Did either Gus Vant Sant or Dustin Lance Black make a pass at you when the three of you were out having dinner last summer?", has these three characteristics.
1st, it CONSIDERS as a possibility that the two gays made a pass at the object;
2nd, it limits the limits direct replies to:
1) Yes: either of Gus or Dustin made a pass at me
2) No: neither of Gus nor Dustin made a pass at ME (but perhaps OTHER new young male colleagues who're probably straight?)
3rd, it creates the impression that it's reasonable to speculate that the two gays had together made a pass at a new young male colleague who's probably straight over dinner. Whether there was an agenda, of course, we don't know. If there was no basis for such speculation, I then wonder why he would pose this question. Was it customary for GQ to pose such questions to a male actor who'd dined with two straight female colleagues? If not, why pose this question during this interview if it's not because the interviewee had dined with two openly gay colleagues? Even though I would give the benefit of the doubt to the interviewer, this question in itself appears to possess the characteristics of a loaded question as explained. The impression stated in the 3rd point would be created whether the questioner had an agenda.
*To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question ,
1) A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial ASSUMPTION such as a PRESUMPTION of guilt.[1]
2) Such questions are used rhetorically, so that the question LIMITS direct replies to be those that SERVE the questioner's AGENDA.
the other option possible from a negative answer to the GQ question is that the directors do not make passes at any young males at all.
that is not a possible option in the wife beating example, and this is why conflating the one with the other is in error.
Let me cite the wiki entry that explains what 'Loaded Question" means. Beside the very straightforward example of "Have you beaten your wife", there are other forms of "Loaded Question".
Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language :
"The term "LOADED QUESTION" is sometimes used to refer to LOADED LANGUAGE that is phrased as a question. This type of question does not necessarily contain a fallacious presupposition, but rather this usage refers to the question having an UNSPOKEN and often EMOTIVE IMPLICATION. For example, "ARE YOU A MURDERER?" would be such a loaded question, as "murder" has a very NEGATIVE CONNOTATION. Such a question MAY be asked merely to harass or upset the respondent with no intention of listening to their reply, or asked with the full expectation that the respondent will predictably deny it."
As I explained many times above, asking whether the two gays had made sexual advances to the interviewee who's probably straight would have "UNSPOKEN and often EMOTIVE IMPLICATION" and "NEGATIVE CONNOTATION". This mirrors the wikipedia example, in which it doesn't matter that the object could answer "NO, I am not a murderer". The question in itself has "UNSPOKEN and often EMOTIVE IMPLICATION" and "NEGATIVE CONNOTATION", hence qualifies as a Loaded Question (Loaded Language phrased as a question). The only difference between the GQ question and the wiki's simple example (Are you a murderer?) is that a third party (the two gay ex-colleagues, rather than the interviewee) is more likely to be harassed or upset instead of the person being posed the question, since the "UNSPOKEN and often EMOTIVE IMPLICATION" and "NEGATIVE CONNOTATION" seem to relate to the third party more. The questioner asked about the two gays' conduct, not the interviewee's, whereas in the "Are you a murderer?" wikipedia example, it's the object's conduct that's being questioned. And, in fact, in the GQ saga, the third party did feel he was harassed and upset, so he had called the question a 'homophobic question'.
I hope it's clearer now why I think it still qualifies as a Loaded Question even though it is not exactly similar to the straightforward classical example of Loaded Question.
The sad outcome of such sorry fiasco? It might trigger INCREASED homophobia amongst straight people, or worse, justify the "gay agenda" fears of religious organizations- I bet you guys they will pounce on this juicy chance to demonize the gay community even further ('see those 'gay Nazis'; they can't stand anybody disagreeing with them/ clamp down on free speech whilst demanding it for themselves; such hypocrites") ...and we all know they'll do it even though they know full well the majority of actual gay people are totally UNLIKE gay-rights activists. Wouldn't they? Just look at their track record... we've to ask ourselves: who eventually suffers? Not the sensitive gay activists, nor GQ, nor Taylor Lautner, nor you or me...it will be the next generation of young glbt people in this vicious cycle all over again!
Dorland's Medical Dictionary defines assertiveness as: "a form of behavior characterized by a confident declaration or affirmation of a statement without need of proof; this AFFIRM"S the PERSON's RIGHTS or point of view WITHOUT either AGGRESSIVELY THREATENING the rights of ANOTHER (assuming a position of dominance) or submissively permitting another to ignore or deny one's rights or point of view."
We should always exercise some self-RESTRAINT as discussed and show mutual RESPECT to the OVERALL SOCIETY. At the same time, we do not need to submissively permit others to ignore or deny our rights to be respected and NOT ascribed NEGATIVE CONNOTATION for no good reason. We should affirm our rights by challenging such NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS (e.g. in the form of Loaded Question as described and explained) and express our disgust, yet be careful not to overreact by aggressively threatening (e.g. rally for boycott) .
1) in what way could I substantiate that such rhetoric qualifies as a Loaded Question. I took time to explain what LQ means: the forms & characteristics;
2) what negative connotations are contained in such rhetoric, and whether the connotations should be regarded as being negative if some of us don't even see them as such;
3) whether I was making moral judgment on people making sexual advances;
4) why such negative connotations matters to the gay community despite that some of us don't even judge them as being morally negative.
It's a discussion of my Discourse Analysis & Clarification on my Personal Value, not a wild-goose chase or call for Aggression towards GQ, and certainly not ranting.
There's more to life than just pouring out an entire diarrhoea of "discourse" over a quote from some frivolous celebrity trash-mag rofl ..relax, brutha! Enjoy life!!! Stop & smell the roses...or enjoy the coffee, whichever you prefer.
#61: Your vulgarism is uncalled for. If you think that my comments are "diarrhoea", you don't have to smell them, unless smelling diarrhoea is what you enjoy. But you don't have the right to insult me or tell me what to do.
Re: #58
Bashing sunthenmoon seems as similarly pointless as sunthenmoon's supposed 'demented' ramblings on GQ. Neither sunthenmoon's analysis of GQ nor our aggressive, ad hominem attacks of sunthenmoon will help people in Africa / Middle East.
The invokation of Africa and the Middle East seems a patronising and disrespectful attempt by folks who live in neither regions to dismiss the ongoing engagement of sunthenmoon, one of our community members, in what had otherwise begun as healthy dialogue.
The title is "Dustin Lance Black slams magazine writer for possibly "homophobic" question". So, the three topics of relevance are:
1) Dustin;
2) GQ magazine/writer; and
3) 'homophobic' question (a form of rhetoric).
I have been more concerned about #3 (i.e. homophobic rhetoric). Many books had been written on this topic, and one example is "Homophobia: the state of sexual bigotry today" (not written by me), in which the issue of homophobic loaded questions & rhetoric is addressed.
What a self-righteous narcissist. I really pity your family, friends, romantic partners, and anyone else close to you- you gonna suck them into your 'black hole"...and bleed them all high and dry some day.
Please log in to use this feature.