| dreadgeek |
08-10-2012 10:44 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by morningstar55
(Post 628367)
Ok call me a stick in the mud..... but i would subject myself or my partner 4 a demostration, for a public display like that. What would it prove?? Is that what we all want them 2 think?? That we are all about sex !?
|
I had a very similar thought when I first heard about the kiss-in. One of my axioms for activism is that if possible, never hand the other side the weapon they'll bludgeon you with. It might be a genuinely better world if we *weren't* up against an opposition that was so hung up about sex but since we *are* up against one, we should take that into account when determining what tactics we plan on using. Since we *know* that not just the 'loyal opposition' but many ignorant but otherwise neutral people say things like "what two people do in bed is no concern of mine" what we probably shouldn't do is hand them more ammunition by having a kiss-in which can then be filmed and used in a video against us.
Since we are, rightly in my opinion, claiming the moral mantle of the civil rights movement and since we like to wrap ourselves up in the noble words of Martin Luther King, Jr., we should take lessons from them. One of the most powerful images from that era is a picture of a march where there are a number of marchers carrying a sign that simply reads, "I AM a Man". Simple. Dignified. What could the other side say about it? "No, negro, you aren't a man?" Certainly that was what the segregationists thought but saying that in front of Walter Cronkite, God and Everybody would only make them look worse than they already did. One of the brilliant tactics that my parent's generation adopted was to *not* hand the other side the rhetorical weapon with which to be beaten up with. The counter sit-in protestors didn't have kiss ins, they went to Woolworth's, they sat with dignity and let themselves be dragged away from the counter when their only offense was wanting a sandwich and a Coke which they were willing to pay for if they could get service.
I understand that this statement isn't going to be popular because it appears to concede to much to the other side but I don't think that it does concede that much. I'm not even going so far as to suggest we shouldn't be as queer-as-we-wanna-be as a matter of going about our daily lives. I am saying that since we *know* the other side wants to paint us as sex obsessed and out of control, what we shouldn't do is hand them the opportunity to say "see! Look what the queer people did, they came into the lobby of this company that *clearly* doesn't want their business and started making out in the lobby!" We would do much better boycotting Chik-fil-a than trying to go for shock value which the kiss-in is designed to do; frighten the horses and shock the mundanes.
Cheers
Aj |
