Is there a gay accent in English?

At last some common ground! My post was indeed aimed against the very nasty, very divisive and totally skewed and illogical brand of feminism as promoted by the likes of that Harman woman.

In 1170 King Henry II uttered the immortal words in reference to Thomas a' Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury at the time: "Will no one rid us of this turbulent priest!"

Well, there are plenty of people in Britain (the vast majority of them male) mouthing the very same words but this time in the direction of whis sad and vey misguided woman.

I really shouldn't be angry at Harman as she includes gay people in the list of those needing full protection in law in her upcoming Sexual Equalities Bill. But I am angry - as I don't believe gay people need the kind of "protection" she is planning.

This dangerous woman is planning a war against heterosexual men and it very much appears that it is such men she is targetting in all her crazy proposals...such as the current plans to include ONLY men in the newly devised Register of Offenders in cases of Domestic Violence. She is either totally unaware, or, more likely, chooses to ignore and overlook, the fact that large numbers of hetero men in relationships with women suffer at the hands of violent and abusive women, too - the incidence of this is much more frequent than people generally realise, and in many case all the details and publicity is greatly suppressed, often under the influence of the type of feminist pressure groups Harman so prominently supports.

She also plans to ensure that no woman in the UK can ever be charged with murder, irrespective of the nature and circumstances of the offence. Manslaughter would have to be the maximum charge imposed against a woman according to this deranged Labour MP for Camberwell and Peckham, and incredibly - the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the House!

On the other hand - no such "charity" will be granted towards men in exactly the same circmstances...the charge of murder will still apply.

In Harman's World things would oook very bleak indeed for heterosexual white males, and heaven help them if they are married - her rule of law would offer no protection of offers of mitigation at all, no matter what.

That is why I suggested to you that you contact Harriet Harman, MP for the answers you sought earlier. The best of British luck to you, pal! ;-)

I found your post both disturbing and interesting Damian, particularly the part about the female violence being suppressed.

I learned on my uni course(Psychology and Criminology) that the majority of assaults on police officers are commited by drunken women.
I plan to email this information to that bitter harridan then take refuge in a nearby fortress to escape the vengeful feminist hordes. I think I will need all the British(and indeed multi-national) luck I can get my chauvanistic hands on.

I don't understand why Harriet Harman is so terrifying to Brits. Obviously, her policies are going to make her unpopular to any heterozexual male. At the same time, this wild, harmful feminism is as disgusting to most women as it is to men. Even those specific groups she targets, such as homosexuals don't support her, if Damian is any indiction. Maybe 1/10 of the population is on her side, so I can't see how she'll ever get any of her lunatic laws passed. Why worry?

Granted, I don't have a perfect understanding of British law, so if there is some way around all of this, I'd love to to hear it.

Well, this is amazing. I visit the forum every once in a while, I used to do it a lot more often before it got plagued with haters and spam and posts that contain little but linguistic content.
It is hilarious how each time I get in here, may it be a month, a week, a trimester, whatever measure of time of your choice there is ALWAYS (and please do notice the caps - they're for visual effect :P) a post about gays, about African Americans, about Latinos, about a particular ethnic group, sexual orientation, religion, etc. I'm not saying this is wrong, because I understand how these differences between human beings may change the way one speaks and uses the language. My point is that, without taking into account a few serious users, which obviously love what they do in here and from whom I've read stupendous posts with rich content and value, most people tend to discriminate and stereotype, and I'm not talking about implicit cultural discrimination, I'm talking of full size banners I HATE NIGGERS and the sort.
To these people, xenophobia, racism, homophobia aren't compatible with democracy, and we all love and treasure this beautiful lifestyle (because it's not just a government system, it's a lifestyle). If you're looking to discriminate against some particular group, I'm quite sure you'll find on the Internet a forum that hates that group, because terribly there are still people like you out there. You might consider join a racist political party. There are plenty of options for you. But a forum about the English language and linguistics IS NOT THE PLACE FOR YOU TO SHOW OFF YOUR HATRED. Being that said, thank you.
To the others, the educated and cultured people that roam this forum, thank you for sharing your knowledge as a hobby, as it enriches us all.

There's no democracy in USA. One person = one vote, that would be democracy. Beautiful lifestyle? Please.

<At last some common ground! My post was indeed aimed against the very nasty, very divisive and totally skewed and illogical brand of feminism as promoted by the likes of that Harman woman.>

There are few things more undignified than a vociferous obsession with a minor and transient public figure.

Take a deep breath and untwist them, Damian.

I like radical feminism in the sense that it's a breath of fresh air against political correctness. Those politically correct men deserve to be mistreated by their wives.

"There's no democracy in USA. One person = one vote, that would be democracy. "

I have to agree.

Even though my preferred candidate won with the help of the Electoral College, I have always deemed it undemocratic; voters in small states have more of a say than voters in big states, and voters in swing states have the most power of all. Moreover, many voters are effectively disenfranchised.

Why this archaic, utterly undemocratic institution lives on is completely beyond me.

<<I like radical feminism in the sense that it's a breath of fresh air against political correctness. Those politically correct men deserve to be mistreated by their wives. >>


No, no, no. Radical feminism is as politically correct as it gets. To discriminate against white, middle-class males is not at all anti-PC, in fact, it is a classic hallmark of political correctness.

Harriet Harman

"A common theme for cartoons of me is that of the ­terrible fate befalling helpless men at my hands. But this is really funny. I’ve bitten some man’s head off and his balls are on a plate. The cause I’ve always espoused is equality. People may be fearful of it, but change is threatening"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/gallery/2008/sep/24/labour.harrietharman?picture=337909488




To make a difference a politician sometimes has to take an extreme position. I am not a huge fan of Harriet Harman but there is nothing wrong in what she is doing.


"Harriet Harman was born in London in 1950. She is a solicitor and the longest serving of all current female MPs, representing Camberwell and Peckham. Since 2007, she has been deputy leader and chair of the Labour party, as well as leader of the House of Commons, lord privy seal and minister for women and equality. She lives in south London with her husband. They have three grown-up children." Interview by Stephen Emms

Chaque homme a besoin de liberté.

Damien sounds like a right wing propagandist to me.

Oh, good heavens. I leave you people alone for a few days and all kinds of silliness and stupidity breaks out like its some kind of social disease.

Shumio, as usual, your ignorance of the world at large leaves me positively astonished (and we Americans get the bad rap)-- you would think I would have gotten used to it by now. There are many cultures and religions that not only accept homosexuality but, in certain instances, they promote it. Many of the Shamanic religions of the world consider the "homosexual" sacred and some even include homosexual acts as a rite of passage into adult hood.

Pre-Columbian native Americans perceived homosexuals, "two spirited people", as holy. They were thought to have an ability to move between worlds. This same thing can be said about the pre-Abrahamic religions of Europe. For instance, prior to his return from the underworld, the mythic poet, Orpheus, was strictly "heterosexual". After returning from the world of the dead, he was "homosexual".

In Egypt, Hermes Trismegistus was born from the "homosexual" relationship between the two sun gods, Horace and Thoth. Hermes Trismegistus was said to have gone on to write the emerald tablet (foundations of Alchemy and Kabala).

In Papua New Guinea an ancient tribe, The Big Namba, cling to the belief that sperm is sacred, powerful, and limited in its abundance. It is therefore necessary for the warriors of the tribes to inseminate the youths so that they may pass into manhood.

In the Christian bible as well as the Talmud the characterization of the relationship between David and David is often seen as homoerotic as well as the "wrestling of Jacob with the angel. You can see the eroticization of these figures in many artistic renderings.

Donatello's David (See how the swan wing on Goliath's helmet curves up David's thigh): http://www.wga.hu/art/d/donatell/1_early/david/2david_2.jpg

Jacob and the Angel:
http://www.i-youniverse.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/leloir_-_jacob_wrestling_with_the_angel.jpg

Why, Shumio, there is even a famous story of "the cut sleeve" in your own culture. The story goes that a Chinese emperor woke early and, upon seeing his male lover's beautiful body draped over his own silk sleeve (a mark of his status and power), preferred to cut off that sleeve than wake his lover.

In the dialogs of Plato you will also find that the philosopher credits a pair of male lovers with founding the first know "democracy" (the Athenian Republic on which both the Roman and American Republics were later based). There names were Harmodius and Aristogeiton. a famous statue of the pair was set before the acropolis, I believe (don't quote me), that Xerxes took the statues during his conquest. History has it that Alexander the Great of Macedonia, who preferred men, retrieved the statues and returned them to Athens.

Statues of Harmodius and Aristogaiton: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Harmodius_and_Aristogeiton.jpg/250px-Harmodius_and_Aristogeiton.jpg



Now, for another matter. Someone was claiming that homophobia seemed as natural if not more so than homosexuality. As a "homosexual", I cannot agree with this person more. It has long been known that difference and ignorance are the greatest catalysts of fear. So, it is quite natural that people who are unfamiliar with homosexuals and largely ignorant of human sexuality, aside from the grunting act itself, should fear it. As for the "natural" state of homosexuality . . . well, it is as natural as heterosexuality, which is saying very little indeed. As shown both by contemporary philosophy as well as well as science itself, no binary or category is true in essence (look at taxonomy). Our languages and our own minds find it easier to stick a label on something whether that label accurately describes that object or not. This is basic linguistics. Often times we become so attached to these labels that we forget that they are arbitrary, that in reality the world is made up of continuums rather than categories.

The best contemporary science shows that there is no gene for heterosexuality . . . and there is no gene for homosexuality. That is not to say that who one is attracted to is not, in some way innate, or biological. Given the evidence we have, the differences in brain size, we must acknowledge that there are essential differences between those who are drawn to the same sex and those who are drawn to the opposite. Current science has found that prenatal, hormonal chemistry is largely responsible for this difference. In other words, the "homosexual and the "heterosexual's" brains develop differently in the womb (this is considered mainstream science). Yet, this does not account for everything, rather this simply sets up a predisposition. Otherwise, identical twins would always be of the same sexuality . . . which is not the case. No, there can be identical twins where one, sadly, turns out to be a breeder.

Now we get in to the messy mesh of another categorical binary, nature and nurture (why can we never figure out that it is a combination of the two). Our best scientific knowledge at this time states indicates that sexuality (both heterosexual and homosexual) is, indeed, the result of a combination of nature and nurture.

And, as Derida indicates, whenever there is a binary--whether it be black and white; night and day; absence and existence; female and male; or homosexual and heterosexual--there is always one privileged over the other.

* The reason I put scare quotes around "homosexual" and heterosexual" varies by instance. There was no concept of heterosexual and homosexual prior to the 19th century. In examples that precede the coining of these terms, I use the scare quotes to illustrate that these terms are a-historical. When i use the scare quotes in examples after the 19th century, it is to illustrate the inaccuracy of these terms in truly describing human sexuality.

Sorry, that shoule be Ravis and Jonathin not David and David.

Shuimo is an example of why strong China is bad. They can adopt our economic system, but they can never adopt out ideas of freedom, equality and human dignity.