Then you’ve misunderstood my complaint. Right off the back you talk about attractiveness. “Attractive” is a word I did not use, and indeed specifically avoided. I spoke of cuteness, specifically of the puppy-dog nature and not the Ryan Reynolds variety. I hoped to have made that clear when I spoke of letting puppies loose on the stage. It seems that this difference did not get communicated. Perhaps my prose is not so clean late at night as I had hoped.
What I’m protesting here is a trivialization of homosexuality into a spectacle to be coo’d at. I’m fighting the phenomenon of “oh I love gay men, they’re so cute,” as if we’re cocker spaniels. I’m fighting the “gay best friend” phenomenon. If I might speak anecdotally, I recall when I came out to one of my best friends her immediate response was “oh how cute!” Now, I understand that the plural of anecdote is not fact, but I’m Wiling to bet other gay men have experienced just such a reaction. And, while there are far worse things to be told upon coming out, there are also far better things. In the post, Cecil and his audience were merely a case study in a common cultural phenomenon.
You’ll notice I refer to gay love as not being “uniquely cute,” implying its level of cuteness is not unique from a heterosexual couple’s. More importantly, I argue that a straight couple would never have inspired such mass glee-filled hysteria as did Cecil and Carlos. It wasn’t about them being in love, It was about them being in gay love. Thus the term fetishization Here does not imply a sexual kink but rather taking Cecil’s homosexuality and turning it Into to an object to be placed on a shelf to be adored at one’s leisure.
The observations of the gay sex life was a reminder that we’re not dealing with cuddling eunuchs, which “cutifying” (like puppies) implicitly does.
I very much enjoy the representation of homosexuality in nightvale. I’m protesting the reception of homosexuality in nightvale.
It is not being received as: “oh how nice, a gay couple in a healthy and flirtatious relationship. They are cute together.”
It is being received as: “ohhhhhhh my god how cuuuuuuuuuuute. Little gay men. Ahhhhhh look at them talking,” as if we were kittens floating in a radio station bathroom.
I’m going to address other issues here. I’m not sure why I’m being accused of assuming the girls were straight nor why that would be relevant anyways. Queer girls are not gay men.
my complaints on how I am treated are not meant to diminish other’s complaints on how they are treated. So to say I cannot complain of the “oh, how cute, you’re gay” issue because many straight men get off on lesbian porn is really irrelevant. While my issue is not equal in severity, it is equal in legitimacy. Those concepts should not be confused.
I got accused of being yet another man telling women what to do. I suppose yes, I am requesting that I not be treated like a teddy bear. am I therefore forwarding the aims of the patriarchy?