I spent a good part of the day yesterday reading postings from the heterosexuals.com message board. It’s a Canadian site, apparently, that’s been up since 1992, though apparently there have been several attempts to shut it down. It’s a lot of rubbish, really. It’s just the URL that’s sort of controversial.
The premise of the site is "heterosexual pride," basically to combat gay pride. There’s a straight pride site, as well, and both sell T-shirts, but the latter is a much slicker organization than the former. They’ve got a catchy logo and a cause. Apparently the people who started the site have a son in high school, who wore his straight pride shirt to school one day. The administration banned him from wearing it again. The parents sued. The case went to court, and they won the right for their little Elliott to advertise his inadequacies, and more importantly his line of tee-shirts, sweatshirts, mugs, and bumper-stickers, to anyone and everyone interested in exercising their first amendment right to shout from the rooftops how utterly desperate and pathetic they are.
"In essence," someone, probably the kid’s mom wrote on the website, "the decision was carved into stone on January 2, 2002. Because of this victory, a precedent has been set and there now exists solid case law which can be utilized to protect the rights of any other public school student who wears a straight pride sweatshirt. SO BUY UP! We got legal costs to defer because of those closet faggots on the school board trying to push the gay agenda down our throats!" No, I added those last couple of sentences onto the end. It’s actually this very new-age suburban brand of bigotry. Trash isn't just for trailer parks anymore!
You can see that the tee shirts come in a variety of colors with the homophobic logo discretely tucked into our beloved symbol of liberty, freedom and justice for all. All heterosexuals, that is. It’s strange how they use those stick figures you see on the doors of public toilets, though, don’t you think?
I’m just being a nasty little heterophobe.
But, seriously. Who would send their kid to school dressed like this, and what kid worthy of the name would go to school dressed like this? Unless he was getting a cut of the profits?
Heterosexuals.com is a lot rougher round the edges. They have tees, too, but they’re not as nice, and they don’t come in assorted colors. And their method of advertising them is not quite as slick as on straightpride.com, as you can see (bottom left). Here it is modeled in the strip mall parking lot in front of Uncle Enoch’s classic Ford Finkster (oops—almost said Sphincter there!) by the webmaster’s bitch. But if this is Exhibit A of the prosecution’s case, I’m gonna have to plead no contest. Guilty as charged. Clap those shackles on me (better than the old ball-n-chain) and send me off to Leavenworth, where a least I can meet some real men.
Oh, I am dreadful.
I downloaded the messages on the het.com message board from April 2002 to the present. It would have come to about a hundred printed pages, had I printed it up. I have hardly ever participated in an online discussion. A couple of times I’ve been in a chat-room situation, but it was pretty unpleasant, and I didn’t see the point of it. These discussion boards are just as bad, really. I know I’ve mentioned one before—I think it was on the Guardian’s website. You always have some distinct types showing up in these online discussions, all obnoxious in their way, regardless of how innocuous the topic might be. You have a group of people who are just hanging out waiting for someone (usually some one of them) to say something obnoxious so that they can all jump on him and then start bickering amongst themselves. Out of this group you’ve always got the liberal dyke defending the rights of animals, vegetables, and minerals; the condescending representative from the Heritage Foundation, who’s the mirror image of the liberal dyke; and the college wanker who rises to the challenge of mediating a discussion that really has no need of mediation, who’s always interjecting encouragements (like "Jane has a good point, but then so does Ronald" and "I can’t believe everyone is staying on-topic!") and admonitions ("Ronald, you’re off-topic! I don't want to have to tell you again!"). Of these three, and those who hover about them, it is difficult to say who’s the most pathetic, and actually to quibble over it would be to stoop to their level, so better just to issue a sort of blanket condemnation of the whole lot of them.
Then there are those who pop in, offer their two cents, and pop out again. They also come in a couple varieties. It seems to me one type doesn’t read many, or any of the other posts, and another type does, and of this second type there are those who still manage to comment on the topic, while the lion’s share end up commenting on the others who’ve posted comments, who’ve for the most part ceased (despite the self-appointed MC’s interventions) to be commenting on anything even remotely related to the stated topic of discussion. There are those who take sides, and those who condemn everyone, and flee the site in apparent horror at the dregs of hate-spewing humanity they’ve found there.
But in the end hardly anyone who goes to the time and effort to register his opinion, no matter what it turns out to be, can rise above the rabble. Everyone is poisoned by his participation. For the most part it’s a total waste even to read the messages, but I figured I’d skim through just to sort of get my finger on the pulse of the nation.