Queer Burners

toaster · Post by **toaster** » Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:41 pm

Queer is very relative and if you noticed at Burning Man 2010 there were huge neighborhoods of gay burners. The Gay Ghetto of 3:00 and A, the Gayborhood of 7:00 and D ... well, I am networking the _____ on a couple resources.

I have representation from some of the gay camps on the board like Comfort and Joy, Down Low, and Moonbow to name a few.

Here are a couple resources for gay burners... not necessarily gay specifically - but it's been working out nicely.

On twitter.com/gayburners
On the web gayburners.com
On Tribe find the Gay Burners too. Oh, and Facebook.

Hugs and thanks...

pizzamancer · Post by **pizzamancer** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:09 am

Queer camps are imaginary. Like unicorns or Eskimos.

Post by **Sham** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:39 am

I don't think the term, "queer' is politically correct any longer. These type of catch words have about a 4 year run, before someone complains and makes an issue out of it.
The new term is now "unigender compliant"!

Thank you for your attention.

Post by **Eric** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:08 pm

Shambala wrote:The new term is now "unigender compliant"!

Too long. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

neon tetra · Post by **neon tetra** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:12 pm

heterophobes!

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:45 pm

I like "queer." It's pretty inclusive. On the other hand, it 's a nasty playground insult as well. Which is why the terms move every couple of decades. I remember when African Americans were "black."

Dr. Pyro · Post by **Dr. Pyro** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:01 pm

You mean they aren't any longer?

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:08 pm

Michael Jackson was the beginning of a huge wave...

I think I'm a contender for "Most Politically Incorrect Post of December."

Post by **Sham** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 3:26 pm

Unosexual American. (country of origin can be interchanged as needed)

Tiahaar · Post by **Tiahaar** » Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:16 pm

I prefer
FREAK

in a good way of course...seems there are many many others...

maryanimal · Post by **maryanimal** » Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:03 pm

Back in my day the work "queer" meant strange, as in a non-sexually oriented comment. Queer is a good word...to each his own. If I were gay, I would say I was queer, lesbian, lady killer, Fem Fatale. Besides, it's not sexual orientation that is important here, it's who the person is on the inside...period! Content of character I think MLK once said. Oh and before some homophobe corrects me, it's MLK jr.

maryanimal · Post by **maryanimal** » Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:07 pm

Back in my days, back when dirt was young and fresh, the word "queer" meant strange, as in a non-sexually oriented comment. Queer is a good word...to each his own. If I were gay, I would say I was queer, lesbian, lady killer, Fem Fatale. Besides, it's not sexual orientation that is important here, it's who the person is on the inside...period! Content of character I think MLK once said. Oh and before some homophobe corrects me, it's MLK jr.

knowmad · Post by **knowmad** » Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:10 pm

maryanimal wrote:Back in my days, back when dirt was young and fresh, the word "queer" meant strange, as in a non-sexually oriented comment. Queer is a good word...to each his own. If I were gay, I would say I was queer, lesbian, lady killer, Fem Fatale. Besides, it's not sexual orientation that is important here, it's who the person is on the inside...period! Content of character I think MLK once said. Oh and before some homophobe corrects me, it's MLK jr.

oh MA you make me laugh so much. love it!

but back to topic.

What would our reaction be if you heard that there is/was/were a neo-nazi faction that attended burn? being all PC and all inclusive burners that we are we would say "oh, what a bunch of jerks, but their very right to be here is the same reason I'm protected."

it's all in the label, Gay, Queer, Fag, Homo, Queen, or-what-the-fuck-have-you.
labels are for jars, people have names. Pilling and lumping people is a human obsession, and I think if we dive deep enough into it we'll see that there is a connection between the desire for self identity and the need for grouping Nouns. But that was soo nineties. kinda like determining who's king of poo mountain, or what level of hell is Dhalmer on? DRFM

The P-flag flies at my house, I'm the B in GBLT but I don't proselytize it, and I work hard at not building personal/sexual relationships with gays, not just because I'm an ass, but because I prefer Bisexuals and would break a gay man's heart. Just like I don't date straight women. As a bisexual man I have two types of heterosexual shunning to avoid, along with the religo/fasho/homophobes as well.

So back to my question and to elaborate on MaryAnimal's quote of a guinuine human soul. "Judge a person by their content of character". There is a wide riff in acceptance and inclusion when we adopt labels. Not because we've gotten over labeling people, but because we have stooped to the needing of a label. And I believe when one is in need, one is lacking in Character and subject to Judgment.

Thecatman · Post by **Thecatman** » Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:49 pm

maryanimal wrote:Back in my day the work "queer" meant strange, as in a non-sexually oriented comment.

Similar example, back in my day, the word "gay" meant happy:

"We'll all feel gay when Johnny comes marching home."

maryanimal · Post by **maryanimal** » Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:44 pm

knowmad wrote:
maryanimal wrote:Back in my days, back when dirt was young and fresh, the word "queer" meant strange, as in a non-sexually oriented comment. Queer is a good word...to each his own. If I were gay, I would say I was queer, lesbian, lady killer, Fem Fatale. Besides, it's not sexual orientation that is important here, it's who the person is on the inside...period! Content of character I think MLK once said. Oh and before some homophobe corrects me, it's MLK jr.
oh MA you make me laugh so much. love it!

but back to topic.

What would our reaction be if you heard that there is/was/were a neo-nazi faction that attended burn? being all PC and all inclusive burners that we are we would say "oh, what a bunch of jerks, but their very right to be here is the same reason I'm protected."

it's all in the label, Gay, Queer, Fag, Homo, Queen, or-what-the-fuck-have-you.
labels are for jars, people have names. Pilling and lumping people is a human obsession, and I think if we dive deep enough into it we'll see that there is a connection between the desire for self identity and the need for grouping Nouns. But that was soo nineties. kinda like determining who's king of poo mountain, or what level of hell is Dhalmer on? DRFM

The P-flag flies at my house, I'm the B in GBLT but I don't proselytize it, and I work hard at not building personal/sexual relationships with gays, not just because I'm an ass, but because I prefer Bisexuals and would break a gay man's heart. Just like I don't date straight women. As a bisexual man I have two types of heterosexual shunning to avoid, along with the religo/fasho/homophobes as well.

So back to my question and to elaborate on MaryAnimal's quote of a guinuine human soul. "Judge a person by their content of character". There is a wide riff in acceptance and inclusion when we adopt labels. Not because we've gotten over labeling people, but because we have stooped to the needing of a label. And I believe when one is in need, one is lacking in Character and subject to Judgment.

You are so awesome knowmad. I have an innocent soul. I tend to speak from the heart and not the brain at times. I don't understand what men and women go through when they decide to come out or keep their true self hidden. I can only imagine how the sheer delight or extreme pain that is endured with such a life changing decision. All I know is that no matter where your heart is, I will accept you for who you are. And I would like to label you friend! Hope I don't sound too much like a retard.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:19 am

maryanimal wrote:Hope I don't sound too much like a retard.

No, more of sweetness and genuine.

We'll eat you alive.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:54 pm

We go with the term GENDERFLEXIBLE and welcome anyone and everyone over the age of 21. My simple mind continues to marvel at the pigeon-holes we create to focus on our differences rather than embracing our commonalities.

Post by **Elderberry** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:05 pm

Trishntek wrote:We go with the term GENDERFLEXIBLE and welcome anyone and everyone over the age of 21. My simple mind continues to marvel at the pigeon-holes we create to focus on our differences rather than embracing our commonalities.

I like that.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:28 pm

TnT is a cool dood.........good outlook, IMHO.

maryanimal · Post by **maryanimal** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:21 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:
maryanimal wrote:Hope I don't sound too much like a retard.
No, more of sweetness and genuine.

We'll eat you alive.

Eat me alive? That puts me in a conundrum...

neon tetra · Post by **neon tetra** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:32 pm

2 ?'s -

1) What percentage of folks @ Burning Man do you think are LBG or T?

2) Would anyone be offended if there was a hetero camp?

maryanimal · Post by **maryanimal** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:48 pm

neon tetra wrote:2 ?'s -

1) What percentage of folks @ Burning Man do you think are LBG or T?

2) Would anyone be offended if there was a hetero camp?

It doesn't really matter the percentage of GLB or T's at burning man. Who cares? If diversity in any form offends a person, I feel sorry for that person. Why would anyone want to make another human being feel uncomfortable about who they are by asking such inane questions about how many people are GLBT? WHO CARES???

neon tetra · Post by **neon tetra** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:07 pm

maryanimal wrote:It doesn't really matter the percentage of GLB or T's at burning man.

I never said it "mattered". I'm just curious.

maryanimal wrote:Who cares?

I do. It's obviously much higher than in the default world, and I'm wondering by how much.

maryanimal wrote:If diversity in any form offends a person, I feel sorry for that person.

Why would diversity offend someone?

maryanimal wrote:Why would anyone want to make another human being feel uncomfortable about who they are by asking such inane questions about how many people are GLBT?

Why would anyone be 'uncomfortable' because of a question?

maryanimal wrote:WHO CARES???

I do. We already established this.

Post by **Sham** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:49 pm

I have an uncontrollable urge to pour my martini into the fish tank right about now!

neon tetra · Post by **neon tetra** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:08 am

The only way my question could be construed as offensive is if you feel there is something wrong/bad about being LGB or T.

Post by **Sham** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:11 am

neon tetra wrote:The only way my question could be construed as offensive is if you feel there is something wrong/bad about being LGB or T.

Would you prefer an olive or a twist with my martini?

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 7:09 am

neon tetra wrote:2 ?'s -

1) What percentage of folks @ Burning Man do you think are LBG or T?

2) Would anyone be offended if there was a hetero camp?

I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with these questions.

Where they lead, may be another matter. and experience dictates wariness, but, as such, what's wrong with them?

Post by **Eric** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:41 pm

Can I just say that in all honestly I tend to use queer.

If I want to push buttons I tell them I'm a "cocksucking kike faggot". I also think wearing clown drag is fun and like "borrowing" 23 year old boyfriends from other people for a make-out session, so I wouldn't dream of being anyone's standard of correctness.

I don't know who asked for percentages, they're plonked, but my guess is that it's probably about the same as SF (15ish %), but we're way more visible because on the whole BRC is a much safer environment than any other large city, including SF. I don't worry about being openly gay anywhere in BRC, I do in areas of SF.

Someone on another thread asked something along the lines of why being openly gay was more acceptable on the playa than being straight- I said it wasn't, its just more publicly visible because we're not worried about having our faces bashed in.

Trishntek · Post by **Trishntek** » Sun Jan 02, 2011 9:46 pm

It was interesting to witness the reactions of "straight" men when confronted with sucking a toy's cock to receive an unusual liquor. Many of them overcame and a few simply refused to participate. One day, we did actually keep track of all the cocksuckers who participated. You all may be surprised to know it was 2:1 males over females with only a handful of participants who were difficult to determine their genders.

Now having said all that, I would have to bolster that which Eric pointed out concerning fear and apprehension. There are certainly a greater number of tolerant folks at BM than within any permanent city. By nature it would seem logical BM attracts more open-minded people of all lifestyles, races, religions and backgrounds.

I believe putting a specific population to a specific lifestyle/gender variation would be a difficult task. And, I submit there are those who might seize the opportunity of the event to experiment sexually. The very nature of our camp attracts creatures of all makes and models, so my POV may be a bit skewed.

knowmad · Post by **knowmad** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:37 am

A gal in our camp had a whiskey dick. (basically a strap on with a camel bag full of gut rot.)
she had allot of action.