3 queers need 2Bdrm for Oct. 1st...and GET a big discussion

Sorry, I forgot New Zealand, Argentina and South Africa also offer full civil unions with all the same privileges of marriage.

Jayce,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Many of the things you've mentioned I was generally aware of (DOMA was probably the biggest piece of shit legislation passed in the last 10 years) but it gives pause to hear the full impact of the daily reality. And to be clear, although I think this divisions that we've been talking about are unhelpful and ultimately hindering in the long run, I have deep-seeded anger against the inequality and treatment, as you described, leveled the other way.

Thank you for the gentle rebuke. Here's to hope for a better tomorrow by living for a better today.

WhyFi wrote: the fact is that BF's question was, in and of itself, very neutral as well. Obviously, you saw it as another attack and your condescending tone in your second post ....
- is what brought on whatever animosity you're feeling from others. Like a self fulfilling prophecy - lash out like you're being attacked, and you'll be attacked.

why does she have to explain it at all? Why did BF even feel the need to question it? Does he also question other peoples preferences for their living criteria? Or is it ok only because its a distinction he doesn't get? Either way, it was an important criteria to her enough to list it. Why she had to explain it to BF in the first place was outrageous. I fully agree with the offense she took to it. No one asks anyone else to explain their apartment hunting criteria.

Hey lauren.

Yes I still live in Prospect Heights but was priced out and am actually moving a few blocks from where you live right now in a week...

PLG is Prospect Lefferts Gardens

Also try Ditmas Park, a rad new queer enclave and South of the Park aka Midwood/Kensington.

wow, what a wild conversation. jayce - I loved your post explaining the daily and long-term reality of being queer in america. intelectually I think a lot of us know what goes on and what the law says but don't really get the emotional and personal cost of it.

I've been playing weekly in a poker tournament at cattyshack that pitu told me about and I absolutely love the experience. it's amazing how relaxing it is to walk through the door. the sense of community I get just from being around mostly women is awesome - I imagine that if I were a lesbian, it'd be even more wonderful.

Although the really weird thing is that you're basically asking if anyone could line you up with an apartment about $1,000/mo under market and pretty much doing everything you could to turn off anyone who might have any inkling of helping you.

laurenB wrote: The whole point, wyefi, is that I don't want to "share my plight." I don't want to rant about heteronormativity...

Just curious, but what did you assume about BF when you responded with such annoyance?

laurenB wrote: I don't want to hear people's anecdotes about the gay people in their lives or their personal, distilled perspectives on the civil rights movement, or have someone take time out of their day to explain how queers in this country live in a broad and small scale (though I do appreciate that last part)... I just want to find an apartment, and I don't want to be questioned on how or why I am doing it. I don't question random strangers about their motivations for how or why they identify themselves and I would appreciate the same courtesy.

Fair enough, you don't want to be an advocate in any way - getting your hands on an apartment is more important - why not politely decline an invite for further discussion (if the request is a polite one) rather than acting snidely?

laurenB wrote: I don't think that my original post was "offensive," and I think it's stupid and annoying to even contend with that response. Thus the condescension.

You were condescending on post number 3 of the thread, before anyone said or implied that they were offended by your post.

alafairnadia wrote: the sense of community I get just from being around mostly women is awesome - I imagine that if I were a lesbian, it'd be even more wonderful.

actually, if you were, you'd be all uptight ducking from exes.
we should get together again soon, darlin. tho not to play poker. I'd get my arse handed to me.

It's possible this thread got a little out of hand.

FWIW, here's the way I look at this stuff: it's a power issue. Steering an offer or request to a particular group is a problem only if you are a member of the group in power. Queer ad, no problem - good ol' boy looking for similar: problem.

It's a double standard, but one that has every right to exist because of the imbalance that is already in place. All of the offers from the secret queer network (hope you got some) will help to make up for some of the opportunities lost because of the less open-minded folks who generally run things. I know we're all raised to think that all double standards are wrong, but it's not true.

A lot of race/gender/sexual identity etc. issues really wouldn't be that big of a deal if power were more evenly distributed.

Sorry, none of this helps anyone find an apt.

For clarification of points - I don't take issue with the ad or its' intent. I didn't understand the intent at first, but I do now.

My motivation in this discussion has been, and continues to be, an earnest desire to understand the dynamics of the exchange that has taken place above. If you chose to interpret my tone as hostile, so be it, but it's not there.

pitu wrote: you think Brooks was suddenly hit by the urge to raise his consciousness by someone's classified ad, just sorta *suddenly? :roll: Hmmmm, some variation of this happens just about every time queer is mentioned on this board, by one person or another. One straight/bi male person or another -- never the straight women, never the queers, never the bisexual women. Let's not pretend that a reasonable person wouldn't see that initial request for what it was, with a negative connotation.

This is the issue for me - why? Why is it okay to assume malice, and to act on it, with the asking of one question - "why should that matter?" In almost any context, I can think of few questions in the universe that can be as reasonable as "why should that matter?" I can understand that "why?" can be annoying, but why is negativity the ONLY conclusion that a reasonable person can reach? Because he's male? Because you know or assume that he's white? Because other people like him acted negatively towards you in the past and will again in the future? I have a dirty little secret - when I first saw the thread title, my internal dialog went something like this, "3 queers? Hmm... wonder why they worded it that way... what difference should that make?" No malice, just curiosity because I didn't understand. When I finally decided to click the link, I saw a person besieged for having the gall to ask the same question that I had wondered about earlier. Does that make me a gay basher, too? Or I exempt because I'm not white?

pitu wrote: Funny, we talked about having a LGBT board on Brooklynian a year or more ago, but didn't go with it for fear it would be clogged with straight people asking stupid or baiting questions, end.less.ly.
:evil:

I think that the board sounds like a great idea, but maybe it's for the best that it never came about, because I would probably be one to ask 'stupid' questions in the hopes of understanding.

I got much love and respect for you, pitu, I really do... but I think that you're seeing slights that aren't necessarily there, and I think that it's wrong to condemn someone when there's a reasonable doubt.

pitu wrote: Hmmmm, some variation of this happens just about every time queer is mentioned on this board, by one person or another. One straight/bi male person or another -- never the straight women, never the queers, never the bisexual women.

A thought occurred to me on the way to work - could one factor be the fact that straight males are the worst of the bunch when it comes to the whole empathy thing?

Just throwin' it out there...

it's funny, the rorschach test point you made earlier, whyfi, because i would have named a different place than you did for hostility entering the discussion. i'm not interested in endless parsing, so i won't say where, only that none of us (me definitely included) is perfectly objective here.

whoever mentioned that announcing queerness saves a lot of time with unfriendly LL's is right on the money -- it's very trying to spend time and energy convincing someone to let you rent their second floor only to realize, late in the game, that s/he (she, the last time this happened to me) hasn't grasped what you thought was obvious -- that you're not just roommates -- and that explaining that may queer (heh) everything but that s/he's bound to realize eventually and things may be awkward or worse. (this is one reason i've come to prefer corporate LLs, who only care about the color of your money.)

the nature of queerness, for many but not all of us, means that it's not something people necessarily know about you right away if you don't tell them. which has its cynical advantages at times (passing) and disadvantages (suddenly not passing when you never thought you were --> potential feelings of betrayal, anger, etc on the part of the surprised party, leading to unpleasant or unsafe situations for you). moving is a fraught moment for all this, since it typically involves strangers gawking at your stuff. if you're like me, those strangers are often taller, stronger, and more numerous than you, and standing in your house, counting the number of beds. i am not a reticent person, but when a mover last time suggested that my partner was my mother (!!!), i did not correct him.

coming back to the rorschach idea, it's interesting to me that some read this thread title as a call for some kind of special consideration -- to me, it just sounded like a request for safety.

brooklynleather wrote: this is hilarious.

I'm glad that you're getting some amusement out of this and I apologize that not all of us have it all figured out.