You are suggesting that there’s a flaw in my reasoning but don’t say what it is. This is another instance of dishonesty by you.

Haha.... You could say that I made a weak argument with Ellen or that I was totally wrong in believing that Ellen is not a good model.

But your conclusion that I am prejudicial to gays does not follow from my argument that kids may be in need of models which lets say show feminine features in girls.

This argument might have made me prejudicial to girls, not to Ellen and gays. Capisci?

Anyway, I think some members here were totally wright in saying that democracies have more serious problems than those I mention here.

I better stop writing on this topic (because I am really busy). I did clarify a few things here and I am thankful to everyone for helping me understand those things better.

It is a fairly reasonable point. Seeing a woman wearing a trouser suit is not exactly ‘confusing’ to any kids imo.

The whole ‘gender’ narrative atm is simply about a minority of people being heard. It will undoubtedly tip over the edge but that is just the how complex society calibrates.

You are right about Japan. In more extreme ‘liberal’ eyes there is little to admire compared to western cultures when it comes to individual freedom. Perhaps it is their different attitudes to sex that makes them appear more ‘liberal’ to some?

If a major concern of yours is the roles of men and women in modern society then I would say that is more than justified … I just do not see this having that much to do with gay or trans activists though. The main problem is societies adjusting to the liberation of women and with how women are perceived or how they believe they should be perceived among themselves and in relation to men too.

It does not take a great deal of delving into history to see how women have often been sidelined by men. A lot of it is mostly about being respected and valued. A problem I have observed from afar (referring to the US) is the problem of equating monetary success with personal value.

A number of feminists are against other types of feminists because they believe that their namesakes are actually anti-feminism because instead of being strong women they replicate what is masculine and dismiss their feminine qualities (the whole shoulder pad fashions of the 80’s are an example of women ‘masculising’ themselves and competing with men on male terms). I do not think women should not be more masculine though, but there is something to be said for the assumption that ALL women should or can be like this … it is still in the early stages though.

But your conclusion that I am prejudicial to gays does not follow from my argument that kids may be in need of models which lets say show feminine features in girls. — Eros1982

You wrote about how difficult it must be for children to grow up in a world with gay people, essentially. Gay people have always existed. It’s a fact of life and not some kind of modern ‘liberal’ invention.

It is beyond idiotic to claim that there is a lack of feminine models in Western culture, so you’re either a moron or you’re being dishonest.

Stop offending me for god's sake, cause no kid knows if Ellen is a gay or not..... but they can really get confused with a picture of Ellen looking like a boy and dressing like a man.

The more such pics they see every morning (when they eat their cereals), the more acceptable to them.

If you take that to be a good thing, you can argue for that or even open your own discussion on "transformative aesthetics".

Claiming that I said things against gays is just a bad lying habit you have to get rid of... if philosophy really interests you.

By the way, nice ceramic (but not a good model at all, the boy seems much younger than his molester). — Eros1982

The relationship referenced in the ceramic doesn't have a contemporary equivalent. The younger male in the relationship was post-pubescent, when puberty generally occurred around age 14. The relationship was public, common, and normalized, with social benefits for the younger male. It was time-limited to when the younger man reached adulthood.

Eroticism and family life in Greece and Rome do not closely resemble contemporary (last few hundred years) western patterns, and it's safe to say that very few modern people would be happy actually living in the ancient world. It was socially a much harsher world.

A lot of people have a pretty neurotic reaction to any sexual relationship where there is an age differential. That said, taking ceramic pot decorations as a model for contemporary behavior is obviously not sensible. The specific scene might be appealing, but the illustrations are a piece of a much larger whole, and even the most committed homophile would not want to transplant the social structure of Ancient Greece to the modern world.

The last 30 years some leftists seem to be arguing that humans have been very wrong in the last 40.000 years for exposing fertility in women and strength in men. Okay, history will show who is wrong and who is right. — Eros1982

Yeah, well... as some sort of leftist gay guy, I find that "some leftists" seem to be in a competition for the most extreme possible position on all sorts of topics. The lunatic left bends to meet the lunatic right.

Gay people have always existed, idiot. It’s a fact of life and not some kind of modern ‘liberal’ invention. — praxis

Of course I agree that gay people have always existed, but it's also the case that gay people have existed in the form that their society allows and makes possible. Just for example, whether one lived in a subsistence rural or wealthy urban environment would matter a great deal. Some societies are oppressive (for everyone) and some are less so. Some are more rigid than others.

I'm not arguing that homosexual is constructed. Rather, gay people (like everybody else) have to work with the cultural materials at hand.

Maybe Eros1982 holds the leftist view that sexuality IS constructed (rather than an essential feature), so that models produce whatever result that comes about -- male/female/gay/straight...

Yeah, well... as some sort of leftist gay guy, I find that "some leftists" seem to be in a competition for the most extreme possible position on all sorts of topics. The lunatic left bends to meet the lunatic right.

Objection accepted, though I was replying in another context.

What I don't accept is that I am offending people here (you are not claiming that, but someone else). Maybe, I'm just being politically biased.

Apart from the ancient world there are some interesting examples from the medieval world and religions.

In Christianity and Islam for example two forms of violating norms were recognized: 1) I violate a norm, though I accept it as a norm and 2) I violate a norm because I don't accept it to be a norm.

Both religions, in the Medieval years, were more harsh with the people who did the second. They could allow you "sin", but they couldn't allow you to claim that what you use to do is not a "sin".

This is what we are talking about here, are liberal societies in favor of role models or not? If yes, how they are showing it?

Maybe Eros1982 holds the leftist view that sexuality IS constructed (rather than an essential feature), so that models produce whatever result that comes about -- male/female/gay/straight... — Bitter Crank

I said it from my first post that I am a leftist, but @I like sushi offered new vistas about the different turns leftism and liberalism may take, so I distanced myself from extreme left only and from the politics of identity (which seem to be taken very seriously in the USA, but not in some other liberal countries).

Stop offending me for god's sake, cause no kid knows if Ellen is a gay or not..... but they can really get confused with a picture of Ellen looking like a boy and dressing like a man. — Eros1982

I don't think any of this matters. People will choose the role model they want or none at all - and I am inclined to think that many people don't really have role models - it's quite an old fashioned, conservative notion this one. And as for confusion... confusion is often the first step towards learning and growing.

I think seeing trans people and gay people and people who look different for whatever reason just enriches all of our views of human diversity. And there will never be a shortage of women in dresses and 'girly girls' along with 'macho males'. These are visual clichés we are unlikely to lose. There's a smorgasbord of types and styles out there for us to celebrate. Much better than having a limited range of self-expression masquerading as 'natural'.

I don't know why the politics of identity are as intense in the US as they seem to be. Nor do I know how many people in the US give a rat's ass about identity politics. If one reads certain books and periodicals, attends certain colleges, follows certain blogs, and relies on certain media, it will seem like it is the #1 issue.

I'm not at all sure how many Americans are interested in or follow identity politics. My guess is that the number is much smaller than its fans.

I am part of identity politics, having been involved in the gay community since the late 1960s. What was once a simple enough claim to some core civil rights spread out to include much more. The inclusion of transexuals in the 1970s was a signifiant redirection.

It has always seemed to me that the "T" part of the GLBT formulation was a separate issue. Gay men and lesbians generally are clear about their identity. (As for the B... don't know.)

no kid knows if Ellen is a gay or not..... but they can really get confused with a picture of Ellen looking like a boy and dressing like a man.

The more such pics they see every morning (when they eat their cereals), the more acceptable to them. — Eros1982

Google just informed me that a 2022 Gallup poll concluded that 7.1% of adult Americans identified as LGBT. It is a fact that there are gay people in the West, Eros. It would actually confuse children to deny these kinds of facts.

The question is, why do you want to deny these kinds of facts?

Claiming that I said things against gays is just a bad lying habit you have to get rid of... if philosophy really interests you. — Eros1982

If you're not bigoted against gay people then why would you have a problem with a gay model?

Maybe Eros1982 holds the leftist view that sexuality IS constructed (rather than an essential feature), so that models produce whatever result that comes about -- male/female/gay/straight... — Bitter Crank

Eros keeps prattling on about norms and tradition, and that reveals a conservative nature, so either he/she is woefully ignorant or is trying to deceive and failing miserably.

If you're not bigoted against gay people then why would you have a problem with a gay model? — praxis

Lets say that I consider it irresponsibility towards one's community to refuse procreation and to refuse the cultivation of every citizen with the good qualities of both men and women (as children supposedly do when they are fed and educated by a mother and a father).

A thing many people do not get nowadays (thanks to the liberal cult of the individual) is: if you want to be accepted, you have to accept also.

If I take this like a maxim, it turns out that the community has some duties towards those who do not wish to contribute in all possible ways.

We (the appointed guardians of the democratic community) accept you and your boyfriend, we accept your renouncing of parenthood, we accept your mutilation of your own genitals, we accept your associations and clubs, we accept your flirting with people of your gender, and so on, we even help you satisfy all your spiritual and medical needs, but we wish to let you know that we have another vision for the children and the youth of this community.

Insofar as we believe in democracy and in human rights, we do not impede your activities in any way, but we do not like you lobbying and protesting in order to become an example to many others, when we think that procreation and family are the best things happening to our community and we are entirely sure that we express the wishes of the majority of this community. If you think that we are being unfair to you, you can file a court complain or you can gather support for a referendum.

Till you choose one of the last options, we will keep educating our kids in the way we do and we arrest you for any violent protests or any acts of vandalism.

Any problem with that?

A thing many people do not get nowadays (thanks to the liberal cult of the individual) is: if you want to be accepted, you have to accept also. — Eros1982

That's a thing many people have never gotten.

we accept your mutilation of your own genitals — Eros1982

Are you talking about female genital mutilation? Not a gay thing.

we accept your renouncing of parenthood — Eros1982

Who? Gay men? Hey, as a gay man I approve of heterosexual marriage and family. You are aware, of course, that the cause of population decline is heterosexuals opting to not have children. Gay couples have never reproduced so we can make no change in the birthrate.

Insofar as we believe in democracy and in human rights — Eros1982

Yes, "insofar as you believe in democracy and human rights". the reason for lobbying and protesting is that prior to the gay movement, human rights for gay people were severely abridged. It was illegal, if you remember, and it was also considered a mental illness and a sin. Sin it still is in some quarters; mental illness was dropped in 1972; the legal status of gay people has been changed over the last 50 years through persistent lobbying and protesting,

As for

in order to become an example to many others — Eros1982

No one ever became a homosexual by example. It may not be understood precisely how sexual orientation is established, but it is clearly established before birth. No one ever became a heterosexual by example, either.

Gay youth are kicked out of their homes fairly often by parents who do not accept them. As you might expect, they are vulnerable to victimization and abuse.

Gay couples have never reproduced so we can make no change in the birthrate. — Bitter Crank

He didn’t think that through so well, as appears to frequently be the case.

Your points are very good... with gay you can replace anything in my statements. There may be religious preachers, as well. Some of them do not preach anything against a community, but you may have others who preach things that can be considered harmful to a democratic community and for this reason some intervention may be needed.

You are right about the abridged human rights of gay people, but this conversation was not about gays... @praxis directed it in that way, because she/he like others here wanted an example and I mentioned Cheerio Ellen Boxes without any reference to sexual orientation, but to looks only.

Since you touched a really good point about gay movement and rights, let me make it clear here that I do not take existing countries to be models of democracy. I don't know what country you were active, but in the USA it is useless to speak about democratic politics (in my view). You can speak about pluralism, activism, freedoms, laws, protests and so on, but it is wrong to take the US as an example of democracy nowadays, it is just an example of pluralism and freedom for the many.

In democratic politics there might place for a demos, a common culture, consensus, referendums, and so on. In USA forget that! The 15 years I lived here I have never seen any referendums taking place and I don't know if people in this country can come to agree on anything.

So, it is my view that the only factors that keep moving things on here (and in a few other countries as well) are: 1) power, 2) money.

If there is no other way to get your rights recognized then protesting and vandalizing are good options here. But because this is how things work in the US, that does not mean that these are the only recognizable democratic ways. I Switzerland they had referendums on minarets and gay marriages. People voted against minarets, but they approved gay marriages. Even if I was against gay marriage, if I lived in Switzerland I would stop saying anything on that matter.

The problem with the US is that everyone thinks that he is expressing the American people. Bernie Sanders speaks about the American people, Donald Trump speaks about the American people, Hillary Clinton speaks about the American people, Mitch Mcconnel the same. But if you read all those things they say you start wondering whether these people are really expressing the majorities.

When it comes to models something similar happens: you don't get those models because Americans love them, you get those models because those who made those for you had the power to do it. Since they had the power to give you and your family a model you don't like at all that does not matter in American politics. This is why you have all these angry people here. It has become very hard to persuade anyone here what is good and bad. That happens because social cohesion is dying, whereas power and money are dominating politics.

I hope in other countries they have more consensus on these things, they respect every citizen, but they also will be able to know what future they want for their children, what models. If they are not able to do that, then they shouldn't be surprised if they see their country change in ways they will not like at all.

I mentioned Cheerio Ellen Boxes without any reference to sexual orientation, but to looks only. — Eros1982

Ellen is what some gay people look like. Is that not okay with Eros?

power and money are dominating politics. — Eros1982

Funny how that works!

let me make it clear here that I do not take existent countries to be models of democracy. I don't know what country you were active, but in the USA it is useless to speak about democratic politics (in my view). — Eros1982

I've always lived in the US -- the upper midwest.

An argument can be (has been) made that democracy (in the US) was never intended to be very democratic. It's ideal presentation represented an advance, but the democratic ideal was never instituted from the beginning. (Athenian democracy wasn't everything it was cracked up to be, either.).

However, there are some democratic-style procedures that work fairly well, at least on some levels of government. True enough, the US is pluralistic and the illusion of, if not the fact of democracy helps us get along together without too much conflict.

Referendum and initiative are used in some states here too. California is a good example of its mixed results.

This is why you have all this angry people here. — Eros1982

My theory about why there are so many angry runs along these lines: 80% of the population is working class, in therms of their work, income, and lifestyle. In the last 50 years (since around 1973) there has been a continuous decline in jobs, income, benefits, and security. Wages stagnated on one side and inflation further eroded purchasing power on the other side. Where one person could once support a family reasonably well, two people working more than 1 job apiece can not maintain a similar lifestyle. Those are the successful families--overworked, stressed out, but still afloat.

A lot of families have come apart, and suicide among once stalwart working class men has risen dramatically. Jobs and a familiar role in life disappeared.

It is quite apparent that a small share of the population has benefitted from the misery of the majority. It makes them angry.

Bernie Sanders speaks about the American people, Donald Trump speaks about the American people, Hillary Clinton speaks about the American people, Mitch Mcconnel the same. — Eros1982

Right, well clearly they are not all speaking on behalf of the same Americans or the same interests of Americans. Pluralism, remember.

If they are not able to do that, they shouldn't be surprised seeing their country to change in ways they will not like at all. — Eros1982

Given the uncertainty of the future, it might not be possible to get what they reasonably want for their children. In the face of global warming, I think it likely that there will be many disappointed people.

power and money are dominating politics — Eros1982

So... What's new?

So... What's new? — Bitter Crank

Does it need to be that way always? Maybe we can follow the example of those countries which thought it appropriate to limit money in politics (UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc.).

Does it need to be that way always? — Eros1982

Societies tend to reproduce themselves and they do that through civil, social, religious, educational, and financial institutions. UK, Germany, France, Italy, et al have a core power elite. Wealth tends to be the foundation of power -- not always, but often enough. The reason the US more resembles a democracy than is one in actual fact is because our power elite is in control, and democracy is of little use to elites.

Didn't you say you were a leftist of some sort? You can pretty much assume that those with the most wealth are calling the shots, and generally call the shots in their own favor. Why would they do otherwise? '

I don't like it, but that seems to be the way things work.