Interlude: Pa-Mhin
I am not your typical “gay”. Gay lingo is not in my vocabulary. It is not because I dislike the sub-culture’s language but it is because I am not trained to talk in such a manner. However, this doesn’t mean I am totally naïve to some words used.
“Pamintang durog” is a word referring to homosexuals who try to act or behave like straight men even though it is pretty obvious that they are homosexuals. I heard the term from a male friend whom I thought before to be straight. I was laughing hard when I first heard it. I thought the gay subculture is the most creative and humorous among sub-cultures.
Last night, I heard the word again from a blogger friend. He shared a conversation he made with another blogger from a party. Since he is new in the group he was asked if he is a member of the circle of “pa-mhin” bloggers. And that made me think.
What makes a blog “pa-mhin”? What specific characteristics that would extract “pa-mhin” blogs from the entire homosexual themed blogs? Is it really necessary to differentiate them? In addition, do we really need to create partitions of a whole?
There is one blogger who regarded my blog to be the catalyst for the emergence of a new breed of bloggers. I could not refute nor admit it for I do not have any historical accounts of the wave of bloggers who come and go in the blogosphere. What I do know is that my blog is sharing an experience in accordance to its tagline.
Calling my blog as “pa-mhin” and the rest of the blogs associated with or similarly themed as mine is hilarious. My blog in particular does not hide behind a heterosexual image. It is very frank about same-sex relationship. It discusses sexuality in a very conspicuous context and perspective. If other bloggers see it as “pa-mhin”, I think it is built in the idea that my entries technically does not discuss the subculture’s interests such as fashion, showbiz and celebrities, arts and film, and other stereotypical behavior.
Moreover, my blog does not use “gay” lingo to communicate and entertain. I do not hide the words in codes or under the guise of street metaphors. It is blatant and straightforward. My words nor my behavior does not claim masculinity. It simply accounts my sex experiences and the insights I learned from them.
If “pa-mhin” all refers to the insufficiency of “gay” substance in my blog, then I guess I have to respect that idea. There is nothing I can do with the notion and I really care less. We always claim that blogging is self-expression but why do we subsequently group individuals and consequently alienate one from the other? Why can’t we establish a unique character to each and everyone’s blog that is reflective of the owner?
As far as I know, there is an INDIVIDUAL behind the blog and we have to acknowledge him.
“Pamintang durog” is a word referring to homosexuals who try to act or behave like straight men even though it is pretty obvious that they are homosexuals. I heard the term from a male friend whom I thought before to be straight. I was laughing hard when I first heard it. I thought the gay subculture is the most creative and humorous among sub-cultures.
Last night, I heard the word again from a blogger friend. He shared a conversation he made with another blogger from a party. Since he is new in the group he was asked if he is a member of the circle of “pa-mhin” bloggers. And that made me think.
What makes a blog “pa-mhin”? What specific characteristics that would extract “pa-mhin” blogs from the entire homosexual themed blogs? Is it really necessary to differentiate them? In addition, do we really need to create partitions of a whole?
There is one blogger who regarded my blog to be the catalyst for the emergence of a new breed of bloggers. I could not refute nor admit it for I do not have any historical accounts of the wave of bloggers who come and go in the blogosphere. What I do know is that my blog is sharing an experience in accordance to its tagline.
Calling my blog as “pa-mhin” and the rest of the blogs associated with or similarly themed as mine is hilarious. My blog in particular does not hide behind a heterosexual image. It is very frank about same-sex relationship. It discusses sexuality in a very conspicuous context and perspective. If other bloggers see it as “pa-mhin”, I think it is built in the idea that my entries technically does not discuss the subculture’s interests such as fashion, showbiz and celebrities, arts and film, and other stereotypical behavior.
Moreover, my blog does not use “gay” lingo to communicate and entertain. I do not hide the words in codes or under the guise of street metaphors. It is blatant and straightforward. My words nor my behavior does not claim masculinity. It simply accounts my sex experiences and the insights I learned from them.
If “pa-mhin” all refers to the insufficiency of “gay” substance in my blog, then I guess I have to respect that idea. There is nothing I can do with the notion and I really care less. We always claim that blogging is self-expression but why do we subsequently group individuals and consequently alienate one from the other? Why can’t we establish a unique character to each and everyone’s blog that is reflective of the owner?
As far as I know, there is an INDIVIDUAL behind the blog and we have to acknowledge him.
