Poll: Is it wrong to automatically assume some is heterosexual?
- Thread starter Aur0ra145
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's neither right to prejudge a person about anything (sexuality included) nor wrong to know there's a higher statistical likelihood a person is heterosexual than any other sexuality. It is, however, wrong more often than not when you live by easy absolutes.
This is what's known as the heteronormative paradigm - since the majority of people you meet will be straight, our brain is designed to make that assumption by inductive generalisation. The problem isn't really the paradigm, it's people who aren't able to think outside of it; you know, the folks who can't handle the idea that someone else might have a different sexual attitude to them. Also, there is an issue when the paradigm is written into law, as with marriage in many countries, because then it becomes a tool of exclusion rather than a simple mental shortcut. This is what's called straight privilege - the things in society that are automatically available to straight folks that can't be accessed by people not fitting the heteronormative mould (this holds for other types of social stigma like white privilege and male privilege also). The tricky thing about this sort of privilege is that it's really easy to take for granted when you're on the good side of it, and unconsciously perpetuate the disadvantage without really thinking about it, like using 'gay' to describe something bad or presuming feminine traits are required to be gay.
But the good news is that the best thing you can do is simply be aware of the social bias, and try not to perpetuate it. Thus, simply by being the kind of person who asks themselves if it's really fair to assume heteronormality, you're proving that you're the sort of person that can think outside that box and will be accepting of peoples' differences.
tl;dr - is it wrong to assume someone is straight until proven otherwise? Not at all. Is it good that you're thinking about this as a question, rather than just doing it? Absolutely.
But the good news is that the best thing you can do is simply be aware of the social bias, and try not to perpetuate it. Thus, simply by being the kind of person who asks themselves if it's really fair to assume heteronormality, you're proving that you're the sort of person that can think outside that box and will be accepting of peoples' differences.
tl;dr - is it wrong to assume someone is straight until proven otherwise? Not at all. Is it good that you're thinking about this as a question, rather than just doing it? Absolutely.
I am not heterosexual, and I am not offended when someone assumes I am. Simply put, a vast majority of people admit to being heterosexual. When someone assumes otherwise about me, I correct them and move on with my day. Better things to do than waste time pissing about.
Other: It's wrong to care. Unless you're hoping to score with them. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter.
Make no assumptions.
Make no assumptions.
No, it's not wrong. But i think homosexuals appreciate it when more people speak in general terms, and heterosexuals don't loose anything by it.
Example: Instead of "You got a girlfriend/boyfriend?", rather "Are you seeing someone?".
But i personally feel like this approach is already becoming mainstream, whether it's a conscious efforts to be more mindful of other people's sexual orientation, or just new terms of phrase (that happen to be less sexually ambiguous) becoming more popular, i don't know. I suspect it's the latter, but recent movement for gender and LGBT equality may have a subconscious effect.
Example: Instead of "You got a girlfriend/boyfriend?", rather "Are you seeing someone?".
But i personally feel like this approach is already becoming mainstream, whether it's a conscious efforts to be more mindful of other people's sexual orientation, or just new terms of phrase (that happen to be less sexually ambiguous) becoming more popular, i don't know. I suspect it's the latter, but recent movement for gender and LGBT equality may have a subconscious effect.
You shouldn't make assumptions. I have spent the majority of my life in the deep south, and Utah. About as conservative as you can get.emeraldrafael said:
Harassment is something you are allowed to go to the police about. If they really are harassing him hourly and going out of their way to do so then there you go. Still not giving them what they want is probably the most effective thing you could do.
As for this getting away with it. Well I am only hearing one side of this and from reading posts on the subject by you I am inclined to believe its a little exaggerated, oh not saying you are lying, just maybe making out to be a bit worse then it is due to your anger over the subject. So I say welcome to a free society. There are of course limits, but those are not there to protect feelings. Provided you where not exaggerating then its probably at the level of harassment, which as I said before you can always get legal protection for. However I do find myself doubting its at that level.
I wasn't advocating feeling superior by standing on some moral high ground either. I was saying toughen up and stop letting people who haven't figured out its easier not to hate, and mind their own buisness run you ragged.
No, it's wrong to assume anyone is any orientation. This just shows you are really shallow and judge people's sexuality by how they act or look, or you care way too much about it.
You will get less shit from people if you assume they're straight, as opposed to vice versa. One guy I used to work with, I could swear he was gay, but that was just down to the fact that he was as camp as a row of tents. We never saw him chasing men, in fact, he actively tried to make us believe that he had a girlfriend, though faceache pictures seemed to suggest otherwise.Aur0ra145 said:
We never asked him while we worked together and I've not asked him since. It would be rude to. What difference does it make, I'm not trying to get into bed with him, after all.
No I do not think it is wrong to think that most people are heterosexual because that is what the majority is but if you do not know you can always just ask I do not think anyone will get offend as long as you treat everyone in the same way.
In a perfect world it would be. In a perfect world there is just as much chance of having a boy as there is girl and it is also wronge to assume that some one is hetro sexual in till proven other wise. We don't live in a perfect world there is more chance of having a girl then boy in the world we live in and it's not wrong because being gay is kind of a new thing to be honest. People only really started coming out in the 70s and the human race takes a long time to addapt. We are still not used to the fact that the gay population is rising.
It is wrong because we are still getting used to the hole gay thing but even i think if we keep just blindly assuming things like that then we won't progress socially as a race. At the moment it's a common thing to do so but i think in the not so distant future it shouldn't so common and the people that do it are ignorant.
It's not wrong but keep it up.
It is wrong because we are still getting used to the hole gay thing but even i think if we keep just blindly assuming things like that then we won't progress socially as a race. At the moment it's a common thing to do so but i think in the not so distant future it shouldn't so common and the people that do it are ignorant.
It's not wrong but keep it up.
Of course it's not. Don't beat yourself up about it. Not even homosexuals assume everyone is another homosexual.
I wouldn't say it is wrong, but I assume everyone are nonsexual lumps of flesh until proven otherwise, at least with their own words.
So that goes for sex and sexuality on the internet.
On XBL, it is usually resolved quickly by those with mics.
So that goes for sex and sexuality on the internet.
On XBL, it is usually resolved quickly by those with mics.
It isn't 'wrong', but I don't know why it is necessary to assume anything unless there is a sexual moment (not between you and them, but just a moment in general). I mean, apart from their sexuality, there is no inherent difference between heteros, homos, demis, bis, as ... you know what, this 'shortening' thing works less and less the shorter the short-hand actually is.
But yeah, there isn't anything wrong with it, it is more like a 'safe bet', given that statistics are on your side (though context helps: if you are at a gay bar, the odds aren't in your favour), and there isn't anything wrong about making assumptions about someone's sexuality ... it is a bit redundant in most cases however. I mean, why bother assuming someone is straight if I want to ask them directions (or some other non-sexual course of events)?
But yeah, there isn't anything wrong with it, it is more like a 'safe bet', given that statistics are on your side (though context helps: if you are at a gay bar, the odds aren't in your favour), and there isn't anything wrong about making assumptions about someone's sexuality ... it is a bit redundant in most cases however. I mean, why bother assuming someone is straight if I want to ask them directions (or some other non-sexual course of events)?
