Status Updates From Homosexualität und Gesellsc...

I guess I can consider myself lucky that only now in the resumee does he speak about power again. Albeit it is once more clear how much he focuses on the KMT when it comes to all of this. He never seems to consider that discourses during Japanese times might have influenced Taiwan, instead he always refers to the Qing times and the 20/30s republican times from "the mainland."

This here might be the first time the author said anything about the japanese administration of Taiwan. And his statements about how in the 1950s crossdressing men were called renyao (demons in human form) fits Qing attitudes that I have come across a lot. Dan-actors were almost the lowest of the low and there was the trope of the dangerous cross-dresser in Pu Songling's collection. And he still seems KMT centric.

the ku'er discourse of Taiwan being elitest is just like the queer discourse over here. It sounds so convoluted and almost destructive that only elites can afford to follow that.

Reading the author writing about aidsphpobia of the time, reminds me what a complete lack of empathy he seems to have for anyone at that time. Early 90s or not, AIDS was still pretty mysterious and apparently not much information was available at the time, only how deadly it was, so what did he want the people to act like? Would he have acted any differently?

so if that movies leaves the normal "gay-identity" and is about "normal queered"... what are these normal queers supposed to be?

I don't get it, what is his problem with the Wedding Banquett? In the movie the gay is married to a woman, has a kid with her and keeps his boyfriend. He himself claimed earlier in the book that during the Qing times a man could have any lover by the side despite being married. Why doesn't he bring this up? Sure, what he claimed about those times is false, but still.

Farewell my concubine... naturally he doesn't point out how much this film actually adhers to Qing time actors and prostitution. I guess the pedophile aspect is too much for him to acknowledge. And his talk about the difference between Treffpunk Lotussee book and movie makes me wonder whether he actually sees incest and buying boys for sex as something inherent in homosexual identity.

An SM death is a normal form of death? Oh boy, this author gets worse and worse. Then again, who knows what he even thinks.

The novel is tongzhi because it is too mainstream... well that sounds familiar. And of course in a story about mermaids the princes are the problems and one author even consides tha militant IRA as a minority to be protected?!

Lesbian incest relationships? Oh boy, queer at its worst here and so early already. Breaking boundaries no matter what apparently.

Of course the author doesn't go into detail when the tolerance of chinese society is claimed again. Why would he, right? And of course it is all due to the west, as if there wasn't looking down on sex between men or between boys even in Qing times already.

oh God.... here comes queer theory in full bloom.

Sorry, but for all the things that safer sex can do, frequent sexual partners for whatever reason does still increase the risk of infection. That is just a fact. And so does sharing of needles during drug abuse. And this talk about homosexuals endangering innocent pupils reminds me of dream of the red chamber. So I do wonder whether this talk about no endangered groups just dangerous sexual behavior is just a trick

So she siad that tingzhi are no animals when people try to find a new place for gays to gather... but what was her alternative?

Why was a coming out day necessary? Why was coming-out individually allegedly not possible? And why did he, again, only mention the japanese times when referring to the taipei lotus pond as a gathering place for gay men since those times? If he would ignore the Qing times as well that would be one thing but he refers to those all the time so why not focus on japanese times? This book almost seems KMT specific.

Oh god, voices against same-sex marriage because it was allegedly copying the heterosexual system... now the political queers come. Oh boy, that might be the hardest part of the book.

Why would the article even say that this gay brothell was illegal, maybe they could only be illegal back than? And this brothel sounds like it offers sex and bdsm with men, not boys like in the Qing times.

A presbytarian group that does not consider homosexuality a sin. That is interesting.

an emotional level in society where heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality have fluid borders? How does that even work?

This talk about dichozomy of man and woman sounds awfully like radical queer activism.

Considering how incredibly "specific" any "tolerance of homosexuality" in "Chinese history" was, why should the author use that one when it never considered relationships between men as something even to be tolerated? Plus, there were chinese thoughts who were quite anti-gay even fucking boys.

This ideological homosexuality among a small group of radical feminists reminds me of the femminists from the 2000s sleeping with women despite being straight.

For all my criticism of queer acivitism, it was probably for the best that taiwanese activists took a model from the contemporary US and not the Qing empire.

No shit... of course the "traditional history" with it hierarchy and ignoring of female homosexuality was not connected to, why should anyone? Naturally, the author doesn't get that apparently. Not suprising considered how he romanticizes it.

he straight up says the homosexuality of the doctor was considered a tolerable character flaw and it doesn't seem to occur to him that this offering sons (the text directly states men and a son in university) for prostitution for american GIs is partially like imperial times and partially not as this here offers adult men and not underage boys. This author is so unreliable.

Of course the author states that the police simply does not understand homosexuality and that there is no internalized homophobia and no strict religious laws against it. And so it is not surprising that he doesn't get that the point that homosexuality was a perversion of the kings and nobility in chinese history and that it was never egalitarian has validity. Which he really should have noticed.

Sounds to me as if the peer group from the USA ssems to have been better fitted to lead life as a homosexual man than the traditional chinese model... not that the author notices that as he just ignores that the "hierarchy" meant men fucking underage boys.

why were the numbers of AIDs victims so low in Taiwan until the 1990s? The author doesn't say.

I am really sceptical about the author's criticism of Guang Tai or anyone. He had already ignored so much that I just wonder how reliable he could ever be.

oh great, this "people actually fear homosexuality and not AIDS" again.... that is as annoying as this constant complaining about seeing homosexuals as a high risk group, but if the situation in Taiwan was like the one here, then the rate among gay men was higher than among straight people. I think there are topics that the author simply does not want to deal with.