Again, the root is that performing sexual favors for someone you are supporting or defending is in shame. The source of this shame, is that society sees such an action in a negative light. If you say someone supporting someone is sucking them off, it implies that they are taking a shameful action that if discovered they would be embarrassed.
It weaponizes society’s homophobia to silence others. On top of being rude, it’s based in misogyny and homophobia.
It wouldn’t be homophobic to claim you were kissing a woman’s ass. It would still be rooted in sexual shame, which has misognyistic roots. I told you quite plainly that I openly display my pronouns and am a pansexual man, saying I am sucking someone’s dick is homophobic in this case.
So the only way to use a sexually charged analogy for sidling without being homophobic is to ensure the sexual act differed from the subject’s sexual preference if they’re homosexual, bisexual, or pansexual, but aligned with their sexual preference if they’re heterosexual?
Also, I thought pronouns only assisted in determining gender. How could I know your sexual preference simply by knowing your gender?
I’m pretty sure you’re asking for more awareness and consideration than most people are willing to provide.
That gets rid of the bulk of the homophobia, technically, but the basis is typically rooted in misogyny regardless and using sexually charged analogies as sources of shame in general should be avoided. I’m not asking for awareness, I’m asking that insults be purely related to the topic at hand and not based on immutable characteristics. Notice how I brushed aside accusations of being a “tankie?” Such an insult is silly, but doesn’t assert sexual shame.
It’s a very common insult, so it’s difficult to address directly. When analyzing an insult, you have to analyze why it’s insulting. Why is it that sexual acts based on service specifically are common? Because the service aspect is primary. They specifically didn’t say I was “railing Castro” or anything, such an accusation implies dominance and manliness, in a way, while being submissive is shameful. It brings to mind the historical treatment of women as subservient to men, and the historical classification of homosexual men as “feminized.”
Consider it this way: why would someone not want to be accused of sucking someone off, vs being accused of being a loyal dog? Where is the distinction? The latter focuses on dehumanization, the former focuses on sexual hierarchy, misogyny, and homophobia.
Submission is indeed the point of the insult. When going into a conversation with the intent to insult based on subservience, the manner you present it determines the source of the insult facor. The message “you are submissive” isn’t insulting by itself, so the necessity is to twist it in a manner that hurts. Sexuality is, in its modern form, pretty impossible to detangle from notions of shame brought out by homophobia and patriarchy, hence why I am against it wholecloth.
Again, the root is that performing sexual favors for someone you are supporting or defending is in shame. The source of this shame, is that society sees such an action in a negative light. If you say someone supporting someone is sucking them off, it implies that they are taking a shameful action that if discovered they would be embarrassed.
It weaponizes society’s homophobia to silence others. On top of being rude, it’s based in misogyny and homophobia.
How is it homophobic if someone told me, a straight man, that I’m kissing a woman’s ass? How do you even know my sexual preference in the first place?
I could understand claims of sexism in general, but homophobia is not all-encompassing to your point of shame.
It wouldn’t be homophobic to claim you were kissing a woman’s ass. It would still be rooted in sexual shame, which has misognyistic roots. I told you quite plainly that I openly display my pronouns and am a pansexual man, saying I am sucking someone’s dick is homophobic in this case.
So the only way to use a sexually charged analogy for sidling without being homophobic is to ensure the sexual act differed from the subject’s sexual preference if they’re homosexual, bisexual, or pansexual, but aligned with their sexual preference if they’re heterosexual?
Also, I thought pronouns only assisted in determining gender. How could I know your sexual preference simply by knowing your gender?
I’m pretty sure you’re asking for more awareness and consideration than most people are willing to provide.
That gets rid of the bulk of the homophobia, technically, but the basis is typically rooted in misogyny regardless and using sexually charged analogies as sources of shame in general should be avoided. I’m not asking for awareness, I’m asking that insults be purely related to the topic at hand and not based on immutable characteristics. Notice how I brushed aside accusations of being a “tankie?” Such an insult is silly, but doesn’t assert sexual shame.
I mean, your opinion is fair. I’m just struggling to comprehend how to simply position the change in a way that is both clear and equitable.
It’s a very common insult, so it’s difficult to address directly. When analyzing an insult, you have to analyze why it’s insulting. Why is it that sexual acts based on service specifically are common? Because the service aspect is primary. They specifically didn’t say I was “railing Castro” or anything, such an accusation implies dominance and manliness, in a way, while being submissive is shameful. It brings to mind the historical treatment of women as subservient to men, and the historical classification of homosexual men as “feminized.”
Consider it this way: why would someone not want to be accused of sucking someone off, vs being accused of being a loyal dog? Where is the distinction? The latter focuses on dehumanization, the former focuses on sexual hierarchy, misogyny, and homophobia.
I think submission is the point. Like kissing ass or cucking, the analogy is meant to express subservience. One-sided sexual favors fit the bill.
The problem may be in determining which submissive acts are appropriate for all sexual preferences.
Submission is indeed the point of the insult. When going into a conversation with the intent to insult based on subservience, the manner you present it determines the source of the insult facor. The message “you are submissive” isn’t insulting by itself, so the necessity is to twist it in a manner that hurts. Sexuality is, in its modern form, pretty impossible to detangle from notions of shame brought out by homophobia and patriarchy, hence why I am against it wholecloth.