Sensible Erection | Born This Way Foundation

Sunday, 26 February 2012

quote [ THIS WAY, TOWARDS BRAVERY
WHERE YOUTH ARE EMPOWERED.
THIS WAY, TOWARDS ACCEPTANCE
WHERE HUMANITY IS EMBRACED.
THIS WAY, TOWARDS LOVE
WHERE INDIVIDUALITY IS ENCOURAGED. ]

I can't tell if I'm surprised that this hasn't been posted, or not. Either way, I feel the message here is particularly pertinent to modern SE. Created by Lady Gaga, launches on the 29th.

Further Information:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1673633/lady-gaga-born-this-way-foundation.jhtml

I'm sure you'll fill the comment section with just wonderful, barely tangential arguments and YouTube videos. I just hope this stays above the negatives long enough for the people who would actually be interested to catch it.

[politics] [by Stratafyre@5:36pmGMT] [+7 Informative]

Comments

mechanical contrivance said @ 5:42pm GMT on 26th Feb
I remember reading some comment about how saying born this way has a negative implication, meaning it's bad that someone was born a certain way. As in "It's not my fault! I was born this way!"

I know that isn't the intent, but that's how it sounds.

Stratafyre said @ 5:46pm GMT on 26th Feb
I recall hearing the same, although I'm not sure where I heard it. I think you'd be able to spin the same argument with just about any title/phrase/name, though.

theolypse said @ 5:56pm GMT on 26th Feb [Score:5 Insightful]
Well, it's an implicit rejection of condemnation. It's defiant. That's uplifting, but it hinges on the condemnation. When people stop caring about the way you are, you'll have no need to remind them you've always so been.

lilmookieesquire said @ 5:47pm GMT on 26th Feb
I thought it was a direct counter to the idea of homo/hetrosexuality being a choice.

Naruki said @ 6:58pm GMT on 26th Feb
In the context of a defense for homosexuality against specific religious claims that it is a lifestyle choice, yes. In the broader historical uses of the phrase, no.

Erb: hey JoJo, what's wrong with Bubba?
JoJo: he was born that way.
Erb: okay, but can you get him to stop fucking my dog?

tiemy said @ 8:27pm GMT on 26th Feb
true, but that's also a really messed up starting position. This attitude ironically gievs some legitimacy to puritanical views about sex and sexuality - lots of ultimately harmless human behaviors and preferences are clearly not predetermined at birth, so what of them? it's akin to answering a religious nutter ranting about gays by citing a bible verse encouraging tolerance.

LG is overrated in most every way, but especially with stuff like this. Reminds me of Judd Apatow - take away the media hype, and you've got a basically establishment, conservative, pro-religious person and mentality.

spite48 said @ 8:39pm GMT on 26th Feb
The problem is that North American discourse on the subject is dominated by religious nutters. There are a fuck-ton of them, and they are loud and they just won't shut up about it. If you ignore them, they don't go away.

lilmookieesquire said @ 7:01am GMT on 27th Feb
True. But I assume the song was created for blowing off steam at a club after you come out to your religious parents etc.

I imagine the foundation name was just named that to have some obvious link to Lady Gaga's song

However those are all valid points. I think it's the charity's issue to deal with more so than Lady Gaga's though.

spite48 said @ 6:55pm GMT on 26th Feb [Score:2 Insightful]
If it were possible to have a rational discussion with the religious right about this, then it might be possible to provide a comprehensive response to their views, but essentially it isn't.

The discussion goes something like this:

Gay sex is wrong,and should be prohibited

Why?

It's unnatural.

No, many animals have homo-sexual interactions, and homosexuality has been present throughout human history. In any event, we engage in many unnatural activities, such as refrigerating, driving, eating pringles, and watching television, what is your opposition to this activity in specific?

It's condemned in the bible.

Well, assuming I'm Christian, which I'm not, I note that that is a topic of disagreement amongst religious scholars. In any event, I'm not Christian, and prohibiting something on religious grounds isn't appropriate in a modern multi-cultural civilization where there are constitutionally separated roles for church and state.

It leads to immorality and pedophilia harms children.

Pedophilia is distinct from homosexuality. Pedophilia is a disorder/crime which both heterosexual and homosexual deviants have been found to engage in in relatively rare circumstances. It is a separate issue, and nobody is saying that we should allow it. Surely you are not suggesting that adultery and other 'immoral' activities don't happen in heterosexual relationships? Gay marriage is just allowing people who love each other to actually commit to each other in meaningful ways, and have survivor benefits, and actually be permitted to attend at their loved one's deathbed.

... etc until finally:

There is a homosexual agenda which seeks to pervert youth into choosing a homosexual lifestyle.

To which the response is: Homosexuality is not a choice, and nobody would willingly choose the stigma and abuse that gays are subjected to.

Anyhow my point is that this last Q&A are where things currently are most commonly discussed and debated, and the following would be to long a name/url:

"Born that way, not a pervert or pedophile, don't have an agenda to corrupt others, just want to live how I love, not hurting anyone and my sex life is none of your business"

rndmnmbr said @ 12:11am GMT on 27th Feb
Ultimately, the religious stance on homosexuality boils down to "Eww, gross! Dad, make him stop! That's gross!"

Also, "How are two guys or two girls going to make babies? You've got to make babies! You're not a grownup until you make babies and have a family!"

GordonGuano said @ 12:20am GMT on 27th Feb [Score:1 Insightful]
Since teh ghey is genetic, you'd think it would be the kind of thing fundies would encourage. If they don't have to keep up straight relationships on the DL, you've only got two generations until there are no mo' 'mos. End of problem.

hellboy said @ 3:52am GMT on 27th Feb
I think "fuck off and die, asshole" is a much more efficient and equally effective response, myself.

spite48 said @ 4:29am GMT on 27th Feb
I like that one too.

eIfish said @ 7:47pm GMT on 26th Feb [Score:2 Interesting]
Does the belief that such problems have a biological cause really help to reduce stigma?
People who believed more in a biological or genetic cause were more likely to believe that people with mental health problems are unpredictable and dangerous, more likely to fear them, and more likely to avoid interacting with them. An earlier study in 1999 by Read and Law had similar results.

Ben Goldacre, Bad Science

kichijoii said @ 1:14am GMT on 27th Feb [Score:2 Underrated]
The mistake is that some people think homosexuality is a mental problem.

eIfish said @ 9:18pm GMT on 27th Feb
I feel I should clarify, for those that haven't read/can't be fucked reading the clicky, that doctor Goldacre is talking about schizophrenia, a mental health condition that most people would agree is a problem.

It certainly was not my intention to mischaracterise him as a homophobe.

tiemy said @ 8:14pm GMT on 26th Feb [Score:1 WTF]
it's aimed at those who claim one's sexuality is a personal choice or learned preference. basically the weakest, most conservative argument against homophobia you can make.

more negative is that the song says its OK to be 'born this way' because... that's how God wants it. And we should worship Jebus.

KingPellinore said @ 12:30am GMT on 27th Feb [Score:4 Underrated]
My personal beef with the "born this way" argument, as far as homosexuality goes, is that reinforces belief that homosexuality may be wrong. It's like saying, "Oh, he could be NORMAL, but he was born DIFFERENT."

Fuck that noise. There's nothing wrong with being gay and we shouldn't make excuses for the people who are. What we need to do is reinforce that there's nothing wrong with being gay and it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or isn't.

KingPellinore said @ 2:08am GMT on 27th Feb
For the record, I DO believe gay people are born gay. However, as stated above, I believe using that as argument material is counterproductive.

mwoody said @ 2:33am GMT on 27th Feb [Score:1 Underrated]
Might be thinking of mine, as it's been a sticking point for me for a while.

And yeah, I had the same problem with the song (catchy though it is), for exactly the reason you describe: it doesn't address the root of the accusation, just tries to deflect the "blame." If someone barges into your house and accuses you of raiding the cookie jar on the counter, the correct response isn't "I won't ruin my dinner, honest!" or "but Bobby took one!" It's "it's my goddamn cookie jar. None of your business. Fuck off."

mechanical contrivance said @ 5:48pm GMT on 26th Feb [Score:3 Funny]

"
autostart="false" />

mechanical contrivance said @ 5:49pm GMT on 26th Feb
I think I messed up in posting that, but it should still work.

GordonGuano said @ 7:24pm GMT on 26th Feb
You should be able to click on "Share", then "Embed", then copy and paste that and it will post with no problem. Or are you posting from your phone?

half said @ 8:38am GMT on 27th Feb
this is a phone :

GordonGuano said @ 6:37pm GMT on 26th Feb
Weird Al is surprisingly hot in that for a guy in his late 50s.

mwoody said @ 2:35am GMT on 27th Feb
With NoScript on it looks kind of like a Piet Mondrian.

KropperPrime said @ 5:55pm GMT on 26th Feb [Score:-1 Troll]
Did lady Gaga admit being a man yet?

GordonGuano said @ 5:59pm GMT on 26th Feb
There is no cause so worthy you can't find an opportunistic attention whore supporting it. Imagine if Steven Tyler had set up a "Crazy" halfway house for teenage nymphomaniacs, or the Blow Monkeys had a "Diggin' Your Scene" camp where they made kids work in a coal mine and you'd have the same basic sincerity of purpose. It might do some good by accident though, so no downmod from me.

Stratafyre said @ 6:14pm GMT on 26th Feb [Score:3 Insightful]
I'm not gonna harp on you, but Lady Gaga has been pretty clear about this from the start. If you can get past the theatrics, she's pretty clearly a good person.

I suppose I'm biased, though.

GordonGuano said @ 6:36pm GMT on 26th Feb
Eh, my main beef with her is what a fucking insidious ear worm "Bad Romance" is. The opportunistic attention whore thing is more of a quirk; it certainly doesn't stand in the way of being a good person. As for the foundation, only time will tell if it's another Susan B. Komen boondoggle. But I don't see Stefani Germanotta adopting a gross of kids like Angelina Jolie or grabbing an AIDS baby and nursing him like Salma Hayek*. Not to get too tangential, but she doesn't come across as having the dirt-under-the-fingernails attitude it takes to grow prize-winning begonias. I'd be thrilled to be wrong.

*That poor kid. The only good thing that will ever likely happen to him in his short, miserable, shitty life, and he'll never remember it happening.

Stratafyre said @ 6:40pm GMT on 26th Feb
I'd rather have her create a foundation that can help scores of kids in her own country than help a handful from another nation, which does nothing to change the status quo, but we'll see how it plays out! It'll depend on how involved people are, locally.

Taleweaver said @ 2:10pm GMT on 27th Feb
If Steven Tyler had set up a "Crazy" halfway house for teenage nymphomaniacs, I'd totally move there. For Steven Tyler AND those nymphos.

GordonGuano said @ 2:20pm GMT on 27th Feb
No love for the Blow Monkeys? That coal isn't going to extract itself from the ground, you knoe.

(Ah, the 80s, when naming your band Blow Monkeys wasn't a recipe for instant failure.)

sanepride said @ 6:06pm GMT on 26th Feb
No doubt both this post and the foundation have the best of intentions, but it sure would be nice to find out a little more about exactly what this foundation's intentions are. Otherwise the post is...well, boring.

Stratafyre said @ 6:12pm GMT on 26th Feb [Score:1 Informative]
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1673633/lady-gaga-born-this-way-foundation.jhtml

Sorry, I've been following it pretty closely, as I'm a huge Gaga fan. Here's more explainin'

xgp007 said @ 6:32pm GMT on 26th Feb [Score:1 Insightful]
I bet she has a new album coming out soon too. Coincidence?

Stratafyre said @ 6:35pm GMT on 26th Feb
Negative, it came out last year in May. Nothing new for quite some time.

Gunner v2.0 said @ 6:02am GMT on 27th Feb
But it was titled "Born This Way".

sacrelicious said @ 7:03pm GMT on 26th Feb [Score:5 Insightful]
I have a sneaking suspicion that [celebrity I have an irrational dislike of] has ulterior motives for [supporting a cause that I agree with] because [my world doesn't make sense if people I don't like can share the same values as me]

CapnSilver said @ 7:43pm GMT on 26th Feb [Score:3 Underrated]
Considering she has a hype machine like that of the Kardashians and is a completely shameless self promoter, I really don't think he can be blamed for wondering about the album.

I do remember she has a social networking site in the works though.

smoug said @ 3:18am GMT on 27th Feb [Score:2 Insightful]
I don't blame anyone for wanting more certainty when it comes to dealing with serious social issues.

Altruism has as of late been too easily used as a cover for profit grabbing or product promotion. 'Going Green!' being perhaps the most recent and obvious example.

Jewbacchus said @ 6:42am GMT on 27th Feb [Score:2 Insightful]
Whatever. Show me damning financials, criticize their methods, but there are way worse ways for Gaga to spend her time and celebrity than helping people. If more publicity stunts involve this kind of outreach, I'm pretty okay with it.

xgp007 said @ 7:48pm GMT on 26th Feb
Irrational dislike? I think my dislike for her is very rational.

mechanical contrivance said @ 3:26am GMT on 27th Feb
So, you mean unlike pi, your dislike ends at some point? Well, that's encouraging.

happiest_sadist said @ 4:47am GMT on 27th Feb
Or it might be endlessly repeating, which isn't.

afrasr said @ 7:30pm GMT on 26th Feb [Score:4 Underrated]
+1 for gay rights

-1 for anything lady gaga related

feeling constipated said @ 7:43pm GMT on 26th Feb
There couldn't be less info on that page. What is she doing "spreading awareness", "empowering youths"? Seems very vague and equally futile.
This leads me to believe it's another attempt to keep her in the public eye by endorsing a cause that is basically exempt from criticism. At least her usual theatrics appear to be kept minimal.

I could be wrong, we'll see in two days.

afrasr said @ 11:00pm GMT on 26th Feb
I class gaga in the same category as Bono.

Insufferable attention whore, co-oping populist movements to strengthen their own brand.

This is about Gaga appealing to her pop market, to see more records.

It's the same shit Madonna did.

In a highly socially conservative time, back causes that are likely to piss off the god-y crowd, and hey presto ! Free publicity and increased album sales.

rndmnmbr said @ 12:14am GMT on 27th Feb [Score:1 Good]
If a bad person does a good thing for a bad reason, does that lessen the worth of the good thing?

Naruki said @ 1:28am GMT on 27th Feb [Score:2 Insightful]
I find it hard to believe that Bono is not sincere, and am puzzled why afrasr and so many other hipsters seem to think he isn't.

spite48 said @ 2:24am GMT on 27th Feb
Exactly. Well intentioned and sincere investment in a cause, plus famous and willing to use one's high profile to enhance awareness of that cause, does not equal faked sincerity.

sanepride said @ 2:33am GMT on 27th Feb [Score:3 Insightful]
I don't doubt Gaga's sincerity or her dedication to this cause.
I'm a little dubious of her call that 'bullying should be made illegal', due to the obvious issues involved with making any kind of behavior illegal (like exactly how one should define 'bullying'), but of course it's worth noting that Lady Gaga, for all of her fame, wealth, and sincerity, is only 25 years old.

structured_spirits said @ 11:08pm GMT on 26th Feb [Score:2 Underrated]
I think it's the wrong way for the queer community to go with the "born this way" mantra as I believe I've said before. That said, I much prefer Gaga to Savage as the Gay Emperor. The Ponies are strong with that one.

dreamingzephyr said @ 11:56pm GMT on 26th Feb [Score:1 Insightful]
I agree that "born this way" is an inadvisable banner for us to rally around. I won't rehash all my points from the other month.

chold_numa said @ 9:24am GMT on 27th Feb [Score:1 Insightful]
Link (please)?

I'll also add that as a "gay anthem" (if one subscribes to such a thing), Born This Way has the all subtlety of two bricks fired into the head with a self propelled gun. The lyrics, the video clip, the delivery. Pretty much designed and marketed for that purpose.

dreamingzephyr said @ 1:11pm GMT on 27th Feb
Your politeness has swayed me!

(This one veered slightly off-topic.)

Papango was more succinct.

kichijoii said @ 1:30am GMT on 27th Feb [Score:4]
Someday I hope to make a lot of money so I, too, can afford to dress like an idiot.

afrasr said @ 2:20am GMT on 27th Feb
Yup, she wears ponies because ponies are cool right now.

will somebody please shoot her into the sun?

Gunner v2.0 said @ 6:21am GMT on 27th Feb
You know, fashion aside, I'm not sure what to think of Lady Gaga. I've only heard two different songs by her.
The first was that godawful Poker Face, which made me dislike her instantly.
The second was You and I, which is a new country/rock'n'roll track. It's not great, but it is completely different from Poker Face. I appreciate diversity of style in an artist, so I'm surprised and impressed (surpressed? no. imprised? no. forget it)
The moral of the story is that I guess I'll listen to some of her other stuff and give her a chance.

tl;dr Lady Gaga: maybe not so bad?

azazel said @ 6:45am GMT on 27th Feb [Score:1 Insightful]
I think that Lady Gaga's a very skilled musician. She knows what she's doing, and she's doing it well. However, I also think that she's very good at playing the crowds; forcing people to acknowledge her and giving her attention. I guess most people dislike that?

Anyway, as a musician she's skilled. As an artist she's skilled (even if you might not agree with how she goes about it), and that's about as far as I can see since I don't know her personally. I like her, but I don't like all of her songs. I actually don't like the majority of her songs, come to think of it.

Gunner v2.0 said @ 10:26am GMT on 27th Feb
Hm. I was about to say isn't it her job to play the crowd, to get attention? But then I decided there must be some distinction between musician and performer.
Though I suppose all (pro) musicians must be performers to some degree, so it must be a wide, blurry line?
Disregard, I am rambling.

bruceski said @ 4:48pm GMT on 27th Feb
There's certainly some musicians who get by on pure talent (though even classicly cited examples like Sinatra played up their rascally reputation), but most pop musicians have some extent of performance. Michael Jackson, Madonna and Gaga represent one end of this.

sacrelicious said @ 9:49pm GMT on 27th Feb [Score:1 Insightful]
I also think it should be acknowledged that she infuses her persona, videos, dance, and costume with a distinct avant-garde influence. that is certainly not the road most traveled for the typical pop star, and I think she deserves some credit for that.

radioelectric said @ 9:00am GMT on 27th Feb [Score:2]

azazel said @ 10:07am GMT on 27th Feb
So is he still a klan member?

spite48 said @ 3:37pm GMT on 27th Feb
Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Lee_Clary