Comments on: The Daily Agenda for Sunday, December 2

By: JCF

JCF — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:08:19 +0000

He is then no longer ashamed of his longings and activities, enjoys them, and considers the people we call normal as narrow-minded.

Thank God this is becoming (to coin a phrase ;-/) the “new normal”!

By: JCF

JCF — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:00:10 +0000

I lost it at “Manly B. Root”! I know the subject matter isn’t funny, but still…

By: The Lauderdale

The Lauderdale — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 05:45:00 +0000

I shall probably be obsessive in my hobbies whatever the social climate. ;)

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 19:50:05 +0000

I find Root’s categorization fascinating and relevant. Of course social acceptance has shifted the size of the categories, but we still have:

1. Gays and lesbians

2. Gay Christians Side B and Exodus (currently)

3. Various bachelor uncles and spinster aunts with obsessive hobbies (I think this is what he’s getting at but I’m not sure why it would be embarrassing)

4. Restored Hope Network and PFOX. But also here are the extreme anti-gay activists who seem to have personalized reasons for their zeal. Peter LaBarbera and George Rekers come to mind.

Which makes me wonder: is there a link between the growth of social acceptance and the decrease in the collectors of Rosewood pottery?

By: Ben In Oakland

Ben In Oakland — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:41:41 +0000

BTW, I say that as a former probation officer, now nearly 30 years ago. I was quite the sensation back in the late 70′s. The other gay P.O.’s were known, but kept very quiet, even in san Francisco. The only exceptions were myself and V., who later had a sex change operation.

I was so brashly out and so obviously masculine that it was a bit disconcerting to many of the P.O.’s, two of whom tried to have me fired.It didn’t work. I was too good at what I did.

Good times.

By: Ben In Oakland

Ben In Oakland — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:38:15 +0000

You’ve got to be kidding. Manly Root? Sounds like a porn star of the 1890′s. Still, somewhat enlightened for the times.

By: Hyhybt

Hyhybt — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 17:35:27 +0000

“I’m going to pause here to wonder aloud what he meant when he said that giving examples of sublimation “might cause embarrassment.””—Well, he says it’s because his audience is “nonmedical.” I can’t know for certain what he meant, of course, but there are a lot of people who, when they hear a description of a new disease, start seeing it everywhere, especially if it’s mental. If he gave examples (whatever he had in mind) then people who don’t quite get that converses don’t always follow could easily go “hey, soandso likes that. He must be one of them homos.” Or soandso might think he’s being called one… and possibly, at least by the logic in the article, then fear he’s in the fourth category of psychotics because he’s sure he’s never been interested in men. Or he might confront Dr. Root about it, which would have been embarrassing.

Like this old joke, which doesn’t really work because the professor’s reasoning is pretty bad too:
http://miteshasher.blogspot.com/2010/03/most-popular-jokes-joke-do-you-have-dog.html