HOME | DD
desm0tes β homophobia
Published: 2012-07-09 18:35:25 +0000 UTC; Views: 15011; Favourites: 437; Downloads: 261
Redirect to original
Description
LICENSE: WTFPLv2[link]
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
UPDATE, IMPORTANT:
On special request, I added prints. I just scaled up, so qualitiy might not be perfect - give me some feedback, and I' ll do my best to upload some better quality.
Apart from that, the license allows you to do "what the fuck you want to" with it, so just go to your favourite dealer and have it done the way you want to
______
Comments are no longer up for discussion, you have been warned.
Related content
Comments: 234
I read your comment. I read the poster. You are saying: Men are homophobic because they fear being treated in the way they treat women, because they are sexist.
That's bullshit. You are ignoring so many facets of a huge issue, and frankly, I'd like to see some support to back up that claim. From what I've read and experienced, most homophobes -the ones that go around spewing hate, especially unwarranted- are some degree of homosexual themselves and are scared of their own/thoughts feelings. Now, I am willing to acknowledge that is also only one facet of homophobia.
But this whole connecting it back to sexism against women feels incredibly gendercentric and well, sexist.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, that's already interpretation and misconception.
I never said "because they are sexists", you did. And blaming for what you said is quite stupid, go blame yourself.
π: 0 β©: 1
uhm, actually, you did: would you like me to show you the screencap of your original user comment, or can we just leave this here? because even without it, in a roundabout way, yes, you are saying it is because they are sexist. you are connecting homophobic behavior back to poor treatment of women and saying men don't want to be treat like they treat women. which is implying sexism.
congratulations, you're an absolute moron.
π: 0 β©: 1
If you got the "original user comment screencap", read it again, try to understand it, and if you still don't ask someone that speaks English better than you do.
As I already mentioned a hundred times, the linking back to poor treatment of women is your interpretation (an interpretation I picked up in my original description). But it's not the only potential interpretation. It can be as well linked back to a "good" treatment of women.
Calling me a moron because of missing the point (maybe being too stupid to not to), makes you an ordinary troll. And know how I treat trolls? Correct! No misinterpretation possible!
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm not much of a debater becaues I have a hard time taking a side. I just wanted to say that I am gay but at the same time I can understand why a homophobic is justified. Being on a swim team for a great deal of my life I understand that there is times when guys do things around other guys because they do not expect themselves to be judged or assesed (SPELL CHECK PLEASE). In the same sense when a woman compliments me or tells me that she would go out me if I wasn't gay it kind of scares me. I appreciate the positive attention and the small boost to self-esteem but it starts to make you feel insecure about the messages you are putting out to those around you. I guess al in all I am just saying that I cannot say I have anything against homophobs because I understand why they feel how they feel.
π: 0 β©: 1
So you are saying that someone who is physically attractive has a right to abuse someone because they find them attractive, even if they have no intention of acting on that attraction? understanding why people are afraid fine, but defending why someone is irrationally afraid is just enabling abuse.
π: 0 β©: 1
In my mind I feel like generalizing the abuse and fear into the same category is unfair. I refuse to evaluate the group because I believe in the worth of he individual
π: 0 β©: 1
to be fair I was taking your comment at face value as rebuttal of the message in the poster only. yeah I appreciate that if I was showering in front of a group of straight women I'd be uncomfortable, so a straight man showering in front of a gay man might have the same issues.
I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say and I'm sorry if I caused any offence as a result.
π: 0 β©: 1
Heck no I always appreciate hearing other people 
π: 0 β©: 0
There is far too much debate over this. I think it's just a simple method of saying homophobia has no rights in our world, not that people are abusive to their wives (where the hell did that come from?) or that people who are homophobic are bad people. This does deem a lot of thought, I will admit, but reading through these comments, what the hell are some people thinking? Going into the structure of the word? really? LOOK AT THE TRUE MEANING HERE.
π: 0 β©: 0
Know what? Pointless comments like this one make me facepalm - ain't got better to do with your time?
π: 0 β©: 0
That puts things in a whole new light for me.
π: 0 β©: 0
So disagreeing with homosexuality automatically makes a man an abusive sexist?
You sound just as close-minded as the people your speaking out against.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, it's your interpretation, that's close-minded, as well as your definition of "homophobia" - homophobia is the hate of homos, not tolerating them, while the definition can also be read "the fear of a man loving you the way you love women" - is everybody beating up his wife or why does noone ever think of love? oO
π: 0 β©: 1
tbh i thought of love first, i didn't even read that to mean abuse at all and i only realised that is could mean that from reading the comments. i first thought it meant something a long the lines of, men loving women and treating them like a girlfriend or whatever and it meaning that you wouldn't want another man to do the same thing to you, because you're not gay or w.e sexuality.
π: 0 β©: 0
gays are comparable to women LMAO
In this world there are no place for homophobia, and no place for the homosexeualitΓ© :'D and why not allow marriage zoophile? XD
Peace all
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
β + β = sex
β + β = sex or β₯
ββ + β = sex
β + ββ = sex
ββ + ββ = sex
β+β = sex
π: 0 β©: 1
Cuz nobody can talk animal? How could a dog say "Yes, I will"?
π: 0 β©: 0
Could people refrain from putting stuff that isn't art on this art website? kthxbai
π: 0 β©: 3
how is this not art? art is personal expression in a chosen medium, whether that medium is poetry, a t-shirt, a cuddly toy or a wall of text, it still constitutes art.
complain about the message if you must, but just dismissing it as "not art" is terribly condescending.
π: 0 β©: 0
Usually I respond to this saying:
"It's called deviantART for a reason, go to www.mainstreamART.com, if you can't tolerate."
But since you call yourself a "punk", I just say "Shut the fuck up, you retarded dipshit!"
I wistfully think back to those times, when being Punk meant something.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not a punk, I just like rock music. And this is not art, so it wouldn't belong on "mainstreamART.com" either. Just saying.
π: 0 β©: 1
Not this belongs to mainstreamART, YOU DO, for your narrow-minded views towards what is supposed to be art.
Now go ranting at the curators of dOKUMENTA13, too, for that ain't art. Is it?
π: 0 β©: 0
Yes, but unlike other art websites, this is Deviantart, where art becomes anything you are able to upload onto the internet.
π: 0 β©: 1
Which is unfortunate.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hail fascism, stop the freedom of speech!
Not every thought is good enough to be expressed (according to the comments/faves/watches, this seems to not be a criterium to this submission, so it's gotta be ideology), let's have punker-rocker decide over what thought is allowed here! He does know what is art!
π: 0 β©: 1
Ok I get what you're saying, this is probably something that I shouldn't have put so much thought into, you know when you start out with a simple comment it can just grow and grow, yeah? A deviation about being against hate shouldn't have so much negativity. But hey everyone on here has an opinion.
π: 0 β©: 1
I like arguments, even when they become polemic, because they force people to reflect the issue (or should do) - but if someone's opinion is "this is not art, cuz I know art!", that's simply fascistic, especially in these times, where everything can be called arts, if only the artist is recognized as one and controversies come up at the most important exhibitions on modern and contemporary art.
π: 0 β©: 1
I hear you. I like discussions over arguments personally (especially when it's about art). I feel arguments are two people trying to prove that each is right and wants the other person to agree with their opinion, where as discussions are a little more open minded and people can talk about their own opinion without feeling the need to change the other persons opinion (and maybe each learn something). Of course DA isn't a very legitimate place to have a serious art talk XD
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, it's definately the perfect point to discuss this piece of art.
(Don't forget, one of the major targets of art always has been to offend people, and this obviously does 
Nietzsche once wrote: "One is looking for an obstetrician for his thoughts, the other for one whom he can help - this is how good arguments arise." This doesn't apply here on first sight and yet it does apply. Even if you can't convince the other one of your point, both points usually evolve to some extend in this.
For example, I learned today, that many people only see the bad things; I don't know why people are so pessimistic, but only few seem to have read it as "the fear that men might love you the way you love women" - which is kind of sad.
π: 0 β©: 1
I honestly did not read it as that, and I really am an optimistic person, or I like to think I am; but I can see where you are coming from. I think being anonymous brings out a bad side of people, too. People are more likely to say nasty things, when in real life had the same issues come up they might have approached it in a more diplomatic way.
π: 0 β©: 0
It concerns me when the definition of "homophobia" has morphed into something it is completly not. A phobia, as most people seem to forget, is an incredibly crippling fear of something. Which is why people with aracniphobia panic with spiders, or people with a phobia of water won't even go near a boat for example.
Just because someone may not agree with homosexuality, but still respect people, and treat them no differently, does not make them homophobic, religious or not. It means they have their own opinion about something.
If someone was truly homophobic they couldn't be in the same room as someone who was gay because they were terrified to be near them. If they hate them, that's a hate crime and their an asshole. Not a homophobic.
π: 0 β©: 4
I do agree with what you have to say, but that is not really the point. Although your point is a legitimate view on the subject, it is not of importance whether or not phobia means actual fear or not. What truly matters in this sort of situation is the actual meaning.
English is an ever evolving language. Just because phobia meant that at one point, doesn't mean that it is going to stay like that forever. Many words have changed over the years to mean something completely different. As it is, the word phobia appears to be changing into more of a hate or dislike of. At the moment it is still a great fear of, but I'm sure that will change eventually.
Final point... Hating homosexuals IS in fact homophobia, and not by the context of the word phobia, but in the context of the word as a whole. Homophobia has derived its own meaning from the meaning of phobia. Although it's true that it is NOT a fear, the point still stands that since homophobia has been around for so long and known as that, its meaning has been changed to what it is now known as. This means, that although it is wrong as a phobia, it has "evolved" into a completely new word. One that makes sense on its own, but now with everything else.
π: 0 β©: 0
Again, first on the "not agree" thing: That is so not what I am talking about. I ain'T talking about ppl who feel "uncomfortable" or similar, it's about ppl who hate and who fight gays and/gay rights, who, to make it short, don't tolerate.
For the pedantry on the term "homophobia", you should check before you go pedantic.
(again quoting the wiktionary)
-phobia
Used to form nouns meaning fear of a specific thing.
e.g. claustrophobia
Used to form nouns meaning hate, born out of fear, directed towards a particular type of person.
e.g. homophobia
Controversially used to form nouns meaning political or religious organizations or viewpoints concerned with limiting or restraining a specific thing or idea.
e.g. erotophobia
homophobia (uncountable)
1. (obsolete, individual occurrences) A pathological fear of mankind.
2. Fear, dislike or hate of homosexuals.
Hope this makes my point clearer to you.
π: 0 β©: 0
1. they're not their omg that makes me mental
2. a hate crime means they have to actually DO SOMETHING; hating someone is perfectly legal
Other than that though you actually make an excellent point here. So you still earn a
π: 0 β©: 0
I would like to point out the word "hydrophobic", which is used to refer to molecules that try to stay away from water. Molecules, obviously can't fear something so I thought it was a good example of how "phobia" at the end of a word doesn't necerssarily mean it's a fear.
π: 0 β©: 1
MOLECULES HAVE SOULS.
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay, I'm going to take a stab at this and say that I don't entirely agree. While this may be something that can be applied to a good number of homophobic people, I don't feel that it speaks very universally. I just don't feel that this is the great "revelation" that people seem to be making of it. Mind you, I don't have homophobia, I look at the gay community as oppressed, and enjoy gay company. However, I feel this statement is assuming that all men afraid of homosexuals are terrible people who mistreat their wives/lovers/etc. That is just not the case. And furthermore, I would probably be uncomfortable with the sexual advances of a gay man, but I try to treat women with a great deal of respect (kind of an all around civil rights person here).
That's just my two cents though.
π: 0 β©: 2
You get the catchphrase wrong by getting only the negative of it.
I made this point several times, but here it is, for you, for free, once again
The catchphrase also says: "Homophobia is the fear of men being loved the way that they love women".
My description takes up the same point you do, but that's for another reason
π: 0 β©: 1
I just feel that the statement in the deviation is a bit more negatively pointed than, "Homophobia is the fear of men being loved the way that they love women". In fact, if that were the statement, I would have no problem with it.
I am actually looking at both the negative and the positive here. I did initially look at this as very interesting and a positive idea. But I try to look at both sides of the story.
Sorry to make you repeat yourself, btw. I just wanted to throw in my two cents, lol.
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course it's playing with the ambivalence: It refers to both "positive" and "negative" treatments - and both have to be considered, not only one.
And hey, as long as you're not trolling, I'm comfortable with it ;D
π: 0 β©: 1
I suppose, then, that I find it easier to interpret it in a negative way; even though it may be addressing both sides. Perhaps it's because of the "you"'s in the statement. From a writing standpoint, it is advised that one avoid "you"'s, as they are considered to be like pointing your finger at or accusing the reader.
Actually, I'm almost sure that's what the problem seems to be.
π: 0 β©: 1
I dunno, if I addressed by "you", I think of myself and in this case of how I treat women...maybe THAT actually is the problem
π: 0 β©: 1
Unfortunately, in literature (even down to one sentence), even if the "you" is supposed to be interpreted as the author, it is more often interpreted as the audience as a whole, which may include, though not exclusively, the author.
So while you meant yourself, it appears pointed at all readers.
π: 0 β©: 1
When I said "I", I meant "I, the addressee", not "I, the author".
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, yes, that is true. I was referring to you as well, as you are the author of the deviation. I suppose I should have taken into account that there are two "authors" here. Bleh. This is where interpretation starts getting complicated, lol.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>