The Gay Conspiracy in Vehicles

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but here is what I said

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
Sex is a biological designation...

In other words, sex is determined by the presensce of a penis or vagina.
We designate someone as male if there is a penis and we designate someone as female if there is a vagina.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Sex is sex. It's a fact of biology...

I think we are probably in agreement on this. If you have a problem with my grammar, so be it. The statements still match up pretty well.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Our society may teach boys to behave like boys and girls to behave like girls (and long may it continue to do so), but gender is something you apply to nouns. It's a grammatical term.

What you are describing is socialisation, however, I must disagree that gender is a grammatical term. Gender is defined as the role one plays in one's culture and gender is expected to be in agreement with one's sex.

As for my "mangling" the English language, I am quite surprised at you. I could pick apart your one word sentences, but this would be completly missing the point.

Originally posted by opensecret1150
As for the mighty wiki you are not the only academic threatened by it's potential usurping of your "expert" status.

As you and I both know, we could never get a job in the field of social research by putting on our resume: I am qualified for the position because I read a wiki article. It's not that wiki is threatening to me, it is that wiki does not grant one a full knowledge base of an entire field of study. It is simply not the equivalent of a degree or actual field experience.

Again, this misses the point of the post. Both of these are attacks. I didn't post here in order to start a slugfest. Different people have different bases of knowledge and I was merely sharing mine. Mine is based on years of study of Durkheim, Kimmel, Lemert, Zimbardo, Goffman, and many more. You probably have different specialties based on different studies.

The real point I was trying to make that has been missed by my attackers is that ivan was most likely not born with his phobia, he learned it. It can be "un-learned" but that would take effort. If people were all born fearing in the way ivan does, we would all agree with him about this "gay conspiracy in vehicles," or perhaps "the conspiracy" would never have started in the first place because the car makers would be homophobic enough to have avoided such "perversion" in the first place.

I do remember the black band days of ATS and sometimes I wonder if anything has really changed. I don't want to be a part of a divisive slugfest. We could debate real points and provide actual, logic arguments, and references to back them up, but it looks like the object of this thread is just to bash others with no real basis for so doing. It looks like the ATS equivalent of the WWF and I am not sure why I bothered.

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but here is what I said

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
Sex is a biological designation...

In other words, sex is determined by the presensce of a penis or vagina... We designate someone as male if there is a penis and we designate someone as female if there is a vagina.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Sex is sex. It's a fact of biology...

Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly. As you correctly point out, sex is determined by physical characteristics. It is not 'defined' or determined by people; it's a fact people have to live with, a fact they cannot change. My 'problem with your grammar' is your usage that implies people have some choice in this whole matter of sex and 'gender'. Perhaps you did not intend it so; a large, politically motivated subset of anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists has been trying to deny the facts of biology for ever so long now, and this kind of usage is part of the campaign. Perhaps you've got so used to encountering it in the literature of your discipline that you no longer notice the implication. Alas, some of us do, and find it tendentious and irksome.

I must disagree that gender is a grammatical term. Gender is defined as the role one plays in one's culture...

May I refer you to any authoritative English dictionary of your choice, where you will discover that the first definition of 'gender' is always grammatical, whether or not the editors have decided to include the more recent (confusing, ugly) adaptation of it to mean 'sex' or 'sexual role'. That, incidentally, is what I mean by mangling the English language. You're welcome to pick apart my one-word sentences. And my habit of commencing sentences with conjunctions and using prepositions to end them with. Shall we have a debate on grammar? Better do it on another thread, no?

And now *sighs*, can we get back to the fun stuff about cars, please?

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
The real point I was trying to make that has been missed by my attackers is that ivan was most likely not born with his phobia, he learned it. It can be "un-learned" but that would take effort.

Would this be similar to the way in which, according to some members of the Christian right, homosexuals can 'un-learn' their sexual orientation? If homophobia is a cultural construct, why not homosexuality?

If people were all born fearing in the way ivan does, we would all agree with him...

Innate characteristics are not necessarily universal. Everyone isn't born homosexual, but some are. Everyone isn't born homophobic, but -- who knows? -- maybe some are. I personally don't regard homophobia as innate, but I suspect you would have a tough time proving it is not. Any twin studies in the literature? Enlighten me.

It looks like the object of this thread is just to bash others...

As far as I'm concerned, the object of this thread is to have fun with the 'gay cars' idea without getting all po-faced about gayness and homophobia. Sorry if a little frivolity upsets you. Isn't that what BTS is supposed to be for?

Originally posted by Astyanax
Would this be similar to the way in which, according to some members of the Christian right, homosexuals can 'un-learn' their sexual orientation? If homophobia is a cultural construct, why not homosexuality?

As a lesbian, I have always believed I was born gay. However, the more I studied sociology, the more I realised that I cannot ignore the power of socialisation. I don't have enough information to prove anything, but as it stands now, I believe it may be a mixture of innate tendancy and learned behaviour.

I don't think we can compare homophobia and homosexuality though. As I define them, one is an irrational fear and one has to do with the core identity of a individual.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Everyone isn't born homosexual, but some are. Everyone isn't born homophobic, but -- who knows? -- maybe some are. I personally don't regard homophobia as innate, but I suspect you would have a tough time proving it is not. Any twin studies in the literature? Enlighten me.

Of course, there is some evidence that one's biology may predispose them to mental problems. The actual structuring of one's particular cognitive distortion can have many roots and is thought to be non-biological in origin. I will look into the possibility of twin studies on homophobia. That's an interesting point.
The problem I see is that we are not just discussing run of the mill homophobia here, I think it goes much deeper.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Sorry if a little frivolity upsets you. Isn't that what BTS is supposed to be for?

Frivolity doesn't upset me. I think what is upsetting me is that ivan can look at the body styles of cars that other people own and feel that his own identity is threatened somehow - and all we can do is laugh at him. I used sarcasm in my first post so I am counting myself as one of the guilty.

It simply isn't normal to look at an inanimate object owned by another person and feel that our own identities are at risk. I am no psychologist, but in my opinion Ivan needs help.

Since when are inanimate objects sexual?
This thread is a joke.......and reeks of homophobia no matter what.

Originally posted by zerotolerance
Since when are inanimate objects sexual?
This thread is a joke.......and reeks of homophobia no matter what.

The world of advertising is full of products being associated with sex/sexuality (Paris Hilton and the Carl's Jr commercial, ex.), and cars may be the biggest offenders (couples freaking in a tire commercial, scantily clad girls seeming to derive pleasure from a fender or motorcycle--hey, I'm a female but I know males who enjoy those pix). Look up one of the reasons the Edsel car never took off. There have always been phallic symbols found in nature and manmade objects, either to take seriously or in a humorous tone.

Most of us are joking/having fun with this thread, and, yes, no matter what Ivan says, it does reek of homophobia. Here is the flip side, however, Ivan, like a growing number of other people are being exposed to what is considered a serious dire threat by them, the Communist infiltration of society as outlined in the Communist Goals. Don't laugh, to them it's real, and it's good enough for politicians to have this group as voters who will vote for a party's stand on, for ex, a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Note, I am not saying that everyone in favor of this amendment believes in the Communist takeover.

You might be surprised that these 1950's goals are still talked about but also at how many popular-to-the-general-public websites these are now found. The Red Menace rears its ugly head, it has not been decapitated.

Originally posted by zerotolerance
Since when are inanimate objects sexual?
This thread is a joke.......and reeks of homophobia no matter what.

Sometimes you just have to laugh at absurdity and move on.
I've enjoyed reading every post in this thread, and as one of the gay members of ATS, I haven't been offended by anyones reply. Sure the topic has wandered around the premise of the first post, but few replies have been insulting or rude. And if the figure of 10% is accurate then the car companies need to market to this group.

And back to cars...........
I wanna get me one of these.



There's nothing more phallic than the Weinermobile.

I don't think the Wienermobile can be beat. Thread over!

But imagine trying to park that thing :shk:

Grab my Depends and put them on to read this thread! Of course, the Wienermobile! Oh, oh, I responded with another phallic symbol.

Originally posted by chebob

But imagine trying to park that thing :shk:

I just hope the driver uses his rear view mirror.


Everybody Sing.........

I wish I were an Oscar Mayer Weiner
That is what I truly wish to be
cause if i were a Oscar Mayer Weiner
everyone would be in love
oh everyone would be in love
everyone would be in love with me......

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the OP is saying that any car that he doesn't think is "moncho" is a gay car? So why can't women have cars that are feminine? That seem sexist. There are so many styles of cars out there because people like variety and different people want different looks/features/etc.. There is no gay conspiracy, only car makers trying to have something different that catches the eye of the consumer, whether that consumer be gay, straight, male, female, asian, white, black, young, old, etc.

[edit on 6-6-2006 by abbyful]

As usual I'm late to the party (darn!). I know this is a thread about gay cars, but how about ships?

They are referred to in the feminine by sailors - you know... those manly men who like to hang out with other men at sea for long periods of time.

I checked out a child friendly site to bring you this informative link:

According to Yarns of the Sea, Legends, Myths, and Superstitions: Although women were considered to bring bad luck at sea, mariners always use the pronoun "she" when referring to their ships. Whether its proper name is masculine, or whether it is a man o'war, a battleship, or a nuclear submarine, a ship is always referred to as "she."

One source suggests that a ship "was nearer and dearer to the sailor than anyone except his mother." What better reason to call his ship "she"?
www.boatsafe.com...

Chew on that for a while...

(note to self) do not google 'big submarine with commie grey paintjobs' at work.

Prime example of an oxymoron:

Originally posted by ivanterrible

My opinion on Homosexuality is that It's their life and their business, not mine or the goverments.

However I'm against Gay Marriage!

"Gay cars" .............. lmdao

NN

I cannot believe it took me this long to think of this but check this Google search on "Gay Cars"

I think Ivan is on to something, but unlike him I think it is wonderful, not worrisome.




hmmm... how do I get the image to appear in the post?? Do I need to host it myself or something?

[edit on 6-6-2006 by opensecret1150]

Originally posted by ivanterrible
Maybe Its just me

yupp...

it's just you...

Originally posted by chebob

I don't think the Wienermobile can be beat. Thread over!

But imagine trying to park that thing :shk:

Interesting.
Perhaps WHERE you decide to park that thing says something about your sexuality?
Garage? Carport? or just on the grass..?

BTW...I really wanted to post the vehicle that These guys drive.
I just didn't have the guts.

Socialist, Feminist, Communist, Homosexual WHAT?

Nuttiest thing I have ever read.

I am a 47 YO Heterosexual man, former Marine and now a Cop. About as Testosterone overloaded as you can get.

Socialist, Feminist, Communist, Homosexual

Yet I think at one point in my life, I have felt like I was all of those things. Even a combination at times.

I drive a Jeep Wrangler and all of you women need to stop buying them! You are ruining my image! HAHAHAHAHA

Originally posted by wellwhatnow



As a lesbian, I have always believed I was born gay. However, the more I studied sociology, the more I realised that I cannot ignore the power of socialisation. I don't have enough information to prove anything, but as it stands now, I believe it may be a mixture of innate tendancy and learned behaviour.



Frivolity doesn't upset me. I think what is upsetting me is that ivan can look at the body styles of cars that other people own and feel that his own identity is threatened somehow - and all we can do is laugh at him. I used sarcasm in my first post so I am counting myself as one of the guilty.

It simply isn't normal to look at an inanimate object owned by another person and feel that our own identities are at risk. I am no psychologist, but in my opinion Ivan needs help.

Now that's funny! trust me, I meant to upset none, my assumptions have been proven correct.

www.planetout.com.../topics/living/auto/

here's some gay cartoon characters. Oh no, they're not gay, it's just my overactive imagination I guess.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by grimreaper797
action mushroom you would be suprised how many aren't open with it. i would say about less then 10% is completely open with it, that doesnt mean alot more are gay just not coming out. Look at my ex governor Mcgreeve, had a wife and two kids turned out to be gay.

And along those lines, I read somewhere that few people are 100% gay or straight. Most of us fall somewhere between those two absolutes, having some characteristics of both sexual preferences.

But, I guess that is another topic for another thread :p

I agree with you.
But let’s not keep this going.
As it will make Him! More paranoid.

Perhaps it is because you are old-fashioned that you think these vehicles are gay. Maybe you just do not really like the new cars, it is not that we are brainwashed, this is what we grew up with, not those cars that waste a lot of gas and pollute the $H^$ out of this planet, although most modern cars do that anyways. Now, don't get me wrong, I do like how a lot of those older cars look, mostly the classics. But maybe that is what has blinded you, you just cannot get used to these cars now. The cars the really look gay are those hybrids, and those that run on electricity, those look pretty ugly to me.