First published in the Chicago Free Press on October 11, 2006
After I wrote recently about the impediments--or lack of inducements--society presents for gay men to become adults, a reader referred me to an article on "Gay Adults" by Los Angeles psychologist Don Kilhefner in the magazine "White Crane."
Although the article contains too much Radical Faery politics and spirituality for my taste, Kilhefner's main point about the need for recognition of "gay adult" as a stage in the gay life-cycle is important and he develops it thoughtfully.
Kilhefner writes that one time after a public discussion about gay men's lives during which he discussed gay adulthood, "a bright, 30-something, gay man ... shared that he had never heard of the concept of a 'gay adult' ... and he found it intriguing. He always heard people talking about "older gays" and "younger gays" but he had never heard of gay men having an adult stage of development."
Maybe things are a little worse in the Hollywood fantasyland of perpetual youth, but perceptions are probably not much different elsewhere.
Kilhefner critiques the rationales (or excuses) offered--that I too have offered--for why gay men so often seem not to mature into adulthood.
Consider the supposed delayed adolescence of men who come out in their 20s. He points out that adolescence normally lasts about eight years at most. So, he wonders, "why am I seeing large numbers of gay men in their late 30's, 40's and 50's still thinking and acting like 20-somethings?"
He acknowledges that AIDS took the lives of many of the gay 30-65 generation, but cites CDC estimates that only 8-12 percent of gay men have died because of AIDS. "Where are the remaining 90% of gay men who are not missing in action?" he asks pointedly.
His critique of the "absence of children" argument is the weakest, depending on his notion that gays as a group have some purpose and that purpose is "the spiritual survival of the species." That sort of unprovable metaphysical speculation won't convince many people. But I think better arguments could be offered: Gay men who marry or otherwise join their lives to a long term partner generally act more mature. And even single men who see their own immature behavior mirrored in younger gay men eventually find the sight distasteful and abandon it.
I think there are counter-arguments to each of these, but they may be only partially successful so the critique of gay immaturity has considerable force and deserves a serious hearing.
There are actually gay adults around in considerable numbers. They run gay businesses, the gay cultural institutions, the gay bars and clubs, the community health and social service organizations. But perhaps they are inconspicuous to young people focused on the bar, party and hook-up scene.
Still, there are millions of gay adult besides those. And indeed, where are they? Perhaps they withdraw from the gay community because they view being gay as largely about drinking, drugs, and fast-food sex. That is a sad misunderstanding. More than anything, gay is about Civic Life. The gay community is an affinity group. It is about interpersonal empathy, friendships, social and political progress and cultural creativity.
For those who do not know how to stay involved: We need gay adults to volunteer at gay organizations, to serve on committees that can use their skills, to hold a fund-raising house party, or even start a new organization or group when the need arises, as all the AIDS organizations once were.
From time to time, I get emails from readers saying, "I wish there were a group that ..." to which I usually reply: "Start one!" Gay adults are the ones with the knowledge and self-confidence to be entrepreneurial about such things. (For instance, a young artist I know is currently forming a gay artists and art photographers network.)
And we need gay adults to engage in an unobtrusive calming and mentoring of young people (and juvenile adults) in the arts of growing up. They can do this in large measure just by being themselves. They can exemplify simple maturity and self-possession, an example of someone with a source of internal authority and sense of what is appropriate in varying circumstances.
"We have been busy mothering (i.e., accepting) each other and our young," Kilhefner writes, "accepting behaviors that are clearly self-destructive to us individually and collectively--at a time when we need to be fathering (i.e., communicating expectations to) ourselves and our young--developing a community-wide ethos ... that expects young gay men to become adults."
And I add: Sometimes it may take more overt social pressure. We have all seen people behave stupidly and thought to ourselves, "Oh, grow up!" Maybe we should occasionally say that out loud.
Corvino, John
{ 96 comments }
← Previous Comments
Kabloo:
I don’t belong to your group, nor do I want to. Isn’t that what I’ve been saying for this entire thread?
You can say it til’ you are blue in the face, it doesn’t change the fact that you are (wait for it)…one of us, one of us, gooble-gobble, gooble-gobble, one of us! We accept her! We accept her! One of us! One of us!
“”"”dalea can’t get away with slandering me for not “appreciating” the harm that gay people have done to me and my family. “”"”
As far as I’m concerned, he very well can since we have nothing but your word on whether this is even true.
kittynboi:
I think you are a troll and not worthy of response, but I want to be clear about the harm I am referring to in the event that others do not understand me.
The “gay community” has perpetuated the notion that what being “gay” means is to eschew criticizing sex, to embrace embarrassing people through switching gender roles, promote a feminized manner of speech and acting, to relish in drama and in “being seen”, and to express oneself in politically Leftist, activist manner — not to mention to be hyper-sexual and engage in hard drug abuse. I think this has caused gay people to not only be harmed, but also to be marginalized by straight people and deemend unworhty of being parents. I suffer from that “stereotype” of gay people every time a straight person sees one and has questions about my ability to parent.
This is, specifically, the harm that I am referring to. I wasn’t bothered by the antics of the “gay community” until I became a parent.
http://www.circuitmovie.com/
That’s a “gay” movie about the “gay community”, and I think it’s a perfect example of glorifying and advertising the harmful and self-destructive (and defining) aspects of the “gay community”. Look at the quote on the top of the movie poster:
“THE EVENT MOVIE OF THE SUMMER FOR GAY AUDIENCES”
Wonderful.
That’s a “gay” movie about the “gay community”, and I think it’s a perfect example of glorifying and advertising the harmful and self-destructive (and defining) aspects of the “gay community”.
I saw this really disturbing television series made by heterosexuals about the heterosexual lifestyle. Pretty depraved too. Heterosexuals should be profoundly ashamed.
How they can claim to be anything other than disgusting, whorish dregs of society is beyond me.
The only person here remotely similar to a troll is you.
And one of your complaints is leftist political activism? Okay, promiscuity and drugs is one thing, but you also think the gay community should have to abide by a certain political ideal that meets with your approval as well?
Jimmy Gatt, that’s Mr. Faggott to you.
Gay intellectuals have been upset and against the disco culture for over 30 years. See Larry Kramer’s Faggots from 1976. Since your knowlege of gay culture is so limited, I would suggest you check into what gay intellectuals have been doing and advocating.
And as for harm to your family. I suspect that there is much more harm from being ‘Southern’ than ‘gay’ in the eyes of most First World people. Once knew a personnel director who said the common rule of thumb is to deduct 25 points from everything when hearing a southern accent.
But that is a lucid point, one which you are not willing to hear.
Karma is a hard thing to deal with.
dalea | November 14, 2006, 11:23pm |
Gay intellectuals have been upset and against the disco culture for over 30 years. See Larry Kramer’s Faggots from 1976.
I haven’t paid much attention to so-called “gay intellectuals” or to Larry Kramer for decades–if ever. I figured out early on that Kramer was little more than a scold. Some of us liked going out dancing every once in a while (it has been my version of aerobics) and his tut-tutting and pseudo-moralizing was pretty much easily rejected out of hand.
Jimmy Gatt:
What are the things that you have observed at circuit parties that upset you so much? Or have you gotten all of your information from films like “Circuit”? That would be like me getting all of my information about Orange County from “The O.C.”
You remind me of how I was in my early twenties. I was in a monogamous relationship, never went out to clubs, didn’t even drink alcohol, and thought everyone who wasn’t like me was a huge embarrassment and responsible for all of the discrimination faced by gays and lesbians. I thought I was better than anyone who wasn’t in a monogamous relationship and who didn’t buy all their clothes at J. Crew.
Eventually I realized that I needed to chill the fuck out. Interestingly, this corresponded with my involvement with mainline Christianity. I started to understand that I wasn’t any better than anyone else, even the so-called dregs of society.
Most people who are anti-gay aren’t anti-gay because of drug use by gays, or gays dancing shirtless, or gays acting feminine (which, if you really think that every gay man who is somewhat feminine is putting on an act, you are really out of touch with reality), or even specifically this “non-stop sex” you keep referring to. They are horrified by the thought of two men kissing, having sex, and living together as a couple. Why do you think that “gay marriage” is causing so much backlash? It’s not because of circuit parties! Most straight people have never even heard of circuit parties!
Really, you need to chill out. The level of vitriol in your posts is shocking. Maybe you should think about going back to Christ…
Wow. It’s remarkable to me that such an innocuous article generated such anger, hatred and opprobium from Jimmy Gatt. I almost felt like a read a different article than Mr. Gatt.
The article I read asked where the adult gay men are in the gay community, evaluated some explanations, suggested that visible adult gay men could mentor younger gay men by being less accepting of self-destructive behavior and suggested that sometimes, immature gay men should be told to grow up. Fluff.
But to Mr. Gatt, this article was a personal affront. It demanded that he participate in a drugs-and-sex “community” he deplores. I thought, what’s the big deal: if you hate that scene, then just don’t participate — it’s not your thing.
Later, it became clear that Mr. Galt’s reaction is driven by his belief that: (1) there is no gay culture/community other than the drugs-and-sex scene, and (2) it defines him as a gay man. That makes him angry and perfectly justified in being disrespectful to others (e.g., “fucking faggot,” “troll,” “stupid faggot”). He hates “those people” for how they act and how it reflects upon him. He wants them to stop acting that way. And he wants us to know that: “I don’t belong to your group, nor do I want to.”
Okay, we get it. You hate other gay guys, and you refuse to be part of “their” community. That’s a healthy choice for you.
And that leads me back to the article. I thought the author was trying to suggest that gay men goes through phases in their lives, and that those of us (like me) who are older (42), can help lead the younger, self-destructive ones out of that scene by being more visible. The only problem with that suggestion is that the drugs-and-sex scene (i.e., the bar) is most often where gay men congregrate. So if your concept of “community” depends upon a large group of gay men coming together, then trying to be a visible, healthy adult requires you to frequent the clubs: not something I, or most adult gay men, really want to do (much).
Reading Mr. Galt’s various outbursts, I was struck by what appears to be his view that a community is typified by a club or pride event. Indeed, that is the only “gay community,” as far as I can tell in his view. I’ve never thought that way. Over the years, I’ve moved through the “straight community” to the “closested gay community” to the “out-and-open-drugs-and-sex gay community” to the “straight-but-brilliant-pot-head community” to the “straight-and-family-and-gay” community. I guess I’ve always viewed community as that group of people with whom you choose to socialize. And if I’ve had gay friends in those various groups, I was part of a “gay community.”
As a result, for me, the article suggested that it would help younger gay men in “my community” to see me living an adult lifestyle. My friends include some younger guys, who are struggling to find someone. They go to the bars and search online for Mr. Right. Although I know how destructive those places can be, I don’t condemn them for participating in that culture, that “community.” Rather, I just invite them to participate in my life with my group of straight, gay, and lesbian friends. I support them on their search, and quietly illustrate a lifestyle apart for the bar scene.
You may have noticed that I suggested above that I still go to the bars. It’s true. Once every six months or so, my man and I, and our friends, will venture out for drinks. We watch the prancing, talk, admire the hot bods, laugh and enjoy each other. Then we go home, thankful that we’ve moved out of the scene, but also happy that it still exists, so we can “visit” it and remember both the good times and the bad.
It may come as a surprise to Mr. Gatt, after we leave, we’re no different than when we arrived. Our straight friends don’t see us any differently after we’ve visited the clubs. (Indeed, they’re often with us.) Perhaps that because those in our “gay community” know us, and don’t define us by the behavior of other gay men.
Eric makes me realize I neglected the original subject of this thread in my earlier post. I simply don’t see this as a gay issue, but a ‘sign of the times’ issue – the situation is the same in the straight community. Look at all the ‘Girls Gone Wild’ videos advertised. Look at the crowds at the straight clubs – the partying and drug use is the same. Look at the ubiquitous Paris Hilton and her crowd, if you can stand it. “Where are the gay adults?” Everywhere! Running business, in politics, doctors, lawyers, gardners, etc. Many advertise on the web. In Canada, the leader of one political party is gay. In a liberal leadership race going on now, one contender is gay, and there are many gay politicians here and in the U.S. Many fine gay writers, artists, etc. I could snidely add, look in the evangelical movement, but I won’t.
The party circuit is highly visible. And yes some gay men will never leave it, never grow up. Same for some heterosexuals! Married couples now make up less than 50% of Americans! For many others, its a stage of their lives, not their whole life. We could not have made the gains we have without there having been many, many serious, hard working gay adults doing the nitty gritty essential work. Pride Parades and fancy dress ‘in your face’ events have their place but they are just the highly visible side of the gay spectrum.
Where are the gay adults? Everywhere! Some are even in the clubs on occasion!
Apologies….. I should have referred to ‘Thom’ as the one who reminded me of the original subject of this thread. Thanks Thom.
We could not have made the gains we have without there having been many, many serious, hard working gay adults doing the nitty gritty essential work. Pride Parades and fancy dress ‘in your face’ events have their place but they are just the highly visible side of the gay spectrum.
You’re very right, Bill.
The problem is that leftist gays like dalea think that their desecration of church altars and public lewdness are what has advanced gay rights, and they’re wrong.
What has done the most is gays simply being dull, day-to-day normal, interacting with friends and coworkers and neighbors who come to see that we have similar concerns, ideas, values, and morals.
What Jimmy is reacting to (and rightly) is the fact that the leftist gays openly discriminate against the gays who choose not to participate, or who — horrors! — actually advocate that there might be something to that “suburban lifestyle” that all of them affect to disdain.
As I wrote when in comment to this post, those of us who can operate well inside and outside the gay community need to consciously devote at least some time to it to keep it from degenerating into the equivalent of the ethnic ghettos of urban America. But, at the same time, I fully understand Jimmy’s frustration; there is a well-established and ossified mentality in the community already that is akin to those black Americans who call those who succeed in school or business “oreos” and denigrate them as “acting white”. He’s obviously borne the brunt of that more than once, and I don’t blame him for wanting to dissassociate himself from that.
dalea:
First of all, thank you for the improved tone of your response. As you might have realized, I have no desire to turn the other cheek. If you don’t want to play by the rules of civil discourse, then my weakness would only invite more abuse from you. At the same time, if you can treat me with kindness and respect, then I will be happy to repay the favor. That said, I would like to respond to what you wrote:
Gay intellectuals have been upset and against the disco culture for over 30 years. See Larry Kramer’s Faggots from 1976. Since your knowlege of gay culture is so limited, I would suggest you check into what gay intellectuals have been doing and advocating.
I think that is fair. At the same time, raj seemed to crap all over Larry Kramer, so perhaps Mr. Kramer isn’t a respected authority in the “gay community”?
And as for harm to your family. I suspect that there is much more harm from being ‘Southern’ than ‘gay’ in the eyes of most First World people. Once knew a personnel director who said the common rule of thumb is to deduct 25 points from everything when hearing a southern accent.
I am well-aware of the hate and derision that other Americans unfairly heap on Southern people. I am particuarly incensed by the depiction of all Southerners as stupid, inbred, uneducated, rednecks because those depictions have happened very frequently in television and in movies, and still do to this day. It is completely acceptable in our culture to slander anyone from the South. I’ve heard it all my life, despite the fact that I hold the rednecks in the South (and there are many) as representatives of low culture. I’m not better than they are, but I don’t share their values and thus don’t keep them
as friends or regard them as people to look up to.
What I find mendacious about your statement is that you clearly approve of and engage in this slander. You expressed approval of my being censored simply because I am a Southerner; in other words, whatever evils you ascribe to the worst aspects of Southern culture you falsely ascribe to me simply because I live here (and, presumably, because you hate my argument and can’t refute it). Gay men who deride me for living in the South piss me off because they fail to realize that I have a much more difficult road than they do. They fail to appreciate that I am doing well to change the minds of people who live here, and there are many people in the South who desperately need to have a more positive image and opinion of gay people. I should know: I grew up here! And they fail to realize that the damage they do among the people who need a more positive image of gay people has to be undone by me. When they meet me, they think, “Oh, you’re not like one of them.” And for you to suggest that I should thank the leather gays whose images are used to stir up hatred for gay people here? I believe y’all yankees call that “chutzpah”, n’est-ce pas? Perhaps you understand
why your disgust smells like success to me!
Furthermore, I have NEVER had a problem being gay-bashed where I live in the South, and this is after being out as adoptive gay parents. Contrast that to the editor of the Southern Voice, who was gay-bashed in “progressive” Amsterdam, in the “progressive” Netherlands, one of those “first-world” countries that you think I should try to suck up to. While I may admittedly be ignorant about “gay culture”, you are ignorant about the South. You choose to see the entire South as an hell-hole of gay-bashers. It is a view that is based on prejudice, elitism, and a desire to find someone to hate. It has little basis in facts and does not serve you well.
(Mississippi sucks, by the way. It’s even worse than Alabama!)
And before you unleash your “tu quoque”, I do NOT think that all gay people are hyper-sexual drug addicts. My criticism falls on “gay culture” / “gay
community” (I see no discernable disctinction between the two) — specifically, the accomodation, excusing, and denial of the fact that hyper-sexuality and drug abuse are defining parts of “gay culture”.
Well, I’m kind of late to this conversation, but I’d like to chime in as another gay man who has, with my partner, adopted a child.
I don’t share Jimmy Gatt’s anger. I don’t think every going on at a gay bar or bathhouse or in a Pride parade reflects on me personally. I’m just living my life, doing my job, hanging with my friends, parenting my child with my partner the best I can. Somewhere in there I try to do a little community service.
Some gay guys are struttin’ their stuff on parade floats, some are drinking to excess and having lots of sex. Some are failing to “grow up”, as the article discusses. I hope they learn to make choices that are good for themselves and the people in their lives.
Perhaps Jimmy lives in a different environment than I do, but by and large, individuals aren’t judged by the activities of others where I live, and I think that’s the way it should be.
Sometimes you hear other minorities, blacks especially, bemoaning the behavior of others in their minority because they think it reflects poorly on them, but I think that’s misplaced. Any such judgment only reflects poorly on the person who thinks all members of a group are the same.
And Jimmy, for heaven’s sake, just don’t go to any more Pride parades if they make you that angry. Sigh.
Larry Kramer is the founder of ACTUP, which was one of the premier gay activist groups. Check out his essay Oh My People, which should be available on line. It makes many of the same points you do about the disco culture. As Kramer is from ‘the left’ he is anathema here. It seems that most hard line critiques of gay culture come from the left. Not from the gay right, which has a history of excusing and ignoring individual excesses. Not naming names or websites, of course.
AFAICT every published gay intellectual, not from the right, has a public record of denouncing the whole dance and drugs culture. Monette, Kramer, Holleran, Zumbro, Z Budapest, White Crane, all have done so. Even Queer as Folk had characters who did so. There was a long story line about Ted who got caught up in it, how it degraded and demeaned him, and how he finally escaped. QAF always cautioned that disco culture had to be taken in very small doses. But that again comes from ‘the left’, so it does not get on IGF. Gay mysteries often begin in discos with plots that involve delivering and saving people caught up in the scene.
I lived at the South (Arkansas) for five long miserable years in the early 90′s. Upclose and first hand I observed the ongoing degredation of living there. My partner died there. And I have seared into my being the homophobia and general nastiness of the South. Dewd, I know something about this.
Gay culture is different in that the Radical Faeries are more likely to be down on drugs and discoes than the MCC. But in my experience, virtually no one not in that scene defends it. It is almost universally looked down upon.
Leather is another subject. Since so many prominent gay people are also leather numbers, and have such a long record of carrying the community’s burdens, critcizing them is probably not a very productive endevour.
So, I don’t feel you know much about the gay world. Just have seen a few superficial parts on display, and reacted negatively.
This article is sooooooo unfair. America discourages people from growing. Age of consent laws have moved up as have drinking laws. Gay men come out of all that and find that can not get married or join the military. You can’t even give blood, so how can you grow up?
dalea:
Google didn’t return any results for the Kramer essay you mentioned. I did find this quote from Wikipedia:
“After the November 2004 elections, Kramer gave a widely covered speech declaring that gay rights were ‘officially dead’ in America, that most homosexuals were too busy with drugs or sex to care about their future, and that AIDS was exploited as part of a long-range plan by the government to exterminate homosexuals.”
I am an HIV/AIDS apostate, and I think his conspiracy theories are paranoid and wrong. I also disagree that “gay rights” are dead since, to me “gay rights” directly correspond to my parental rights (as a gay parent). Is Kramer “Stepford” and “conservative” for noticing the preoccupation with drugs and sex among gays? Would Paul Varnell call Larry Kramer’s comments a “sad misconception”?
AFAICT every published gay intellectual, not from the right, has a public record of denouncing the whole dance and drugs culture.
Intellecuals speak for themselves and are proudly disconnected from cultures that they consider to be beneath them. I really don’t care what gay intellecutals have to say about gay culture. I am concerned with what “gay culture” actually is, and “gay culture” is created by the people who participate in it, not the pompous intellectuals who comment on it from afar.
Even Queer as Folk had characters who did so. There was a long story line about Ted who got caught up in it, how it degraded and demeaned him, and how he finally escaped. QAF always cautioned that disco culture had to be taken in very small doses.
I haven’t seen QAF in a long time, so I can’t comment on your observation. QAF always seemed like such a cheerleader for “gay culture”. Did they perhaps receive some criticism for focusing on the sex/drugs/drama? Did that inspire a change in storyline? I think there is more to the story and I would like to hear it. Perhaps it would give me more encouragement that gays are being allowed to integrate into straight culture rather than condemned for it (I believe your demeaning term for me was “suburban housewives”).
I lived at the South (Arkansas) for five long miserable years in the early 90′s. Upclose and first hand I observed the ongoing degredation of living there. My partner died there. And I have seared into my being the homophobia and general nastiness of the South. Dewd, I know something about this.
I have lived in the South (Georgia) for all my life. Up close and first-hand I have observed me integrating into straight society as a gay man and as a gay adoptive parent. My partner and child live here with me. And I have seared into my being the abuse and hate from the New York / Los Angeles media about how bad, awful, and stupid I must be simply because I was born here. I know something about this, too, and your limited experience is just like mine: a limited experience that is not representative of the whole. I’m sorry you had to endure the abuse from hateful and small-minded people. I know how that feels. I grew up here, remember? I didn’t succeed at integration simply because there were no minds that had to be changed. I worked hard to be where I am today! And you treat me like I’m some kind of “gay traitor” for doing it. Is it any small wonder that I don’t see myself as part of your “gay community”?
Gay culture is different in that the Radical Faeries
Red herring
Since so many prominent gay people are also leather numbers, and have such a long record of carrying the community’s burdens, critcizing them is probably not a very productive endevour.
“Carrying the community’s burdens”? Please spare me from that cloying drama! And shame on you for reducing the pain and struggle that I suffered as a gay man into something that was championed (or even “fixed”) by a sexual fetish. To me, your argument sounds like this: “For every popper that a gym bunny sniffs, and for every saddle that a leather gay dons, an odious suburban housewife gay adopts a child.”
Eric:
What are the things that you have observed at circuit parties that upset you so much? Or have you gotten all of your information from films like “Circuit”?
Circuit parties are an exemplification of the hyper-sexuality and drug abuse that are defining parts of “gay culture”. The thing that upsets me is that they are defining parts of “gay culture”, not necessarily that they exist. After all, straights to go “Hedonism” resorts. But those aren’t part of “straight culture”.
What angers me is A) the undue pressure that gay people feel to appreciate or enter a self-destructive lifestyle, and B) the notion that if I criticize this lifestyle, then I am a “Stepford” gay, or am anti-gay.
And this is a very important point: if it is truly “anti-gay” to criticize or condemn the hyper-sexual, drug-abusing lifestyle, then that is a tacit admission that “being gay” means being hyper-sexual and drug-abusing.
Eventually I realized that I needed to chill the fuck out. Interestingly, this corresponded with my involvement with mainline Christianity. I started to understand that I wasn’t any better than anyone else, even the so-called dregs of society.
I’m glad you found a way to feel better, but it is not a response to my argument. I’m not better than anyone else, and no one else is better than me.
if you really think that every gay man who is somewhat feminine is putting on an act, you are really out of touch with reality
I will concede that “acting” is too strong of a characterization, but to claim that speech and mannerisms are innate is what I think is out-of-touch with reality. Humans learn speech and mannerisms from the people they interact with. People can and do change their speech and mannerisms. I’ve done it myself.
Why do you think that “gay marriage” is causing so much backlash?
Because there are gay-hating people who can’t stand the idea of the lives of gay people improving. I’m not concerned with the people whose minds cannot be changed. I’m concerned about those who see gays as hyper-sexual and drug-addicted. And what does “gay culture” do to counter that observation? Do “gay pride” parades hurt or help?
Really, you need to chill out. The level of vitriol in your posts is shocking.
I agree that my language has been too caustic. Will you also agree that there have been some unfair things said against me, or am I the only one who is at fault?
Maybe you should think about going back to Christ…
The Gospel is not only mystical, but immoral, and that is why I can never do what you suggest.
Thom,
Thank you for your response!
Wow. It’s remarkable to me that such an innocuous article generated such anger, hatred and opprobium from Jimmy Gatt. I almost felt like a read a different article than Mr. Gatt.
The article pushed my buttons, but the hatred was inspired by some of the participants’ actions in the commentary, not by the article itself.
But to Mr. Gatt, this article was a personal affront. It demanded that he participate in a drugs-and-sex “community” he deplores. I thought, what’s the big deal: if you hate that scene, then just don’t participate — it’s not your thing.
No, that’s not my objection to the article. My objections still are: A) the notion that the “gay community” represents me simply because we are all turned on by members of our own gender, B) the notion that I should be in a “community” with a fast-track drug & sex superficial feminine lifestyle in order to be “gay”, and C) the notion that sex and drugs are somehow NOT defining factors of “gay community”.
Later, it became clear that Mr. Galt’s reaction is driven by his belief that: (1) there is no gay culture/community other than the drugs-and-sex scene, and (2) it defines him as a gay man. That makes him angry and perfectly justified in being disrespectful to others (e.g., “fucking faggot,” “troll,” “stupid faggot”). He hates “those people” for how they act and how it reflects upon him. He wants them to stop acting that way. And he wants us to know that: “I don’t belong to your group, nor do I want to.”
I think the problem that plagues all of our posts is, “What is the gay community”? I think you have done a very good job at contributing to the discussion that this question should rightly raise. It’s important because both straight people and gay people (in particular, the straight media and the gay media) constantly refer to “THE gay community” as if we were all clear what that meant. I take offense because I see gay people that I am not in a community with and don’t want to be in a community with.
“Stupid fucking faggot” was reserved for dalea, who despised me for my failure to revere leather gays for their brave and noble struggle to squeeze into assless leather chaps, since that was the one and only thing that enabled me to live out my treasonous and revolting suburban housewife lifestyle. His “faggot” was earned.
And that leads me back to the article. I thought the author was trying to suggest that gay men goes through phases in their lives, and that those of us (like me) who are older (42), can help lead the younger, self-destructive ones out of that scene by being more visible. The author wrote: “Perhaps [some gay people] withdraw from the gay community because they view being gay as largely about drinking, drugs, and fast-food sex. That is a sad misunderstanding. More than anything, gay is about Civic Life. … It is about interpersonal empathy, friendships, social and political progress and cultural creativity.” I don’t see where you draw your observation from what the author wrote. To me, the author denied that “gay community” had much to do with sex or drugs at all. I think he would view what you just wrote as another “sad misunderstanding” of the “gay community”.
Reading Mr. Galt’s various outbursts
Who is Jimmy Galt? Is he John’s brother?
Indeed, that is the only “gay community,” as far as I can tell in his view. I’ve never thought that way. Over the years, I’ve moved through the “straight community” to the “closested gay community” to the “out-and-open-drugs-and-sex gay community” to the “straight-but-brilliant-pot-head community” to the “straight-and-family-and-gay” community. I guess I’ve always viewed community as that group of people with whom you choose to socialize. And if I’ve had gay friends in those various groups, I was part of a “gay community.”
Excellent points! What is a “community”? I, like you, regard it as the people one socializes with. But you and I also know that “the gay community” is not used that way. “THE gay community”, as we hear it, refers to something else. My opinion is that that gay people talk about “THE gay community”, they are referring to the people who engage in “gay culture”. And “gay culture” defines the “gay community”. I think that when the straight media refers to “THE gay community”, they are referring to “all people who are gay”.
You may have noticed that I suggested above that I still go to the bars. It’s true. Once every six months or so, my man and I, and our friends, will venture out for drinks. We watch the prancing, talk, admire the hot bods, laugh and enjoy each other. Then we go home, thankful that we’ve moved out of the scene, but also happy that it still exists, so we can “visit” it and remember both the good times and the bad.
I think this is healthy. I do not believe in abstinance from pleasure, but I abhor choosing pleasure as the highest good (hedonism). The bar is part of gay history. Overall, I think it’s a sad part of our history, but it’s part of our history and it has its highlights as well. I object to the notion that we should revere and celebrate the bar.
It may come as a surprise to Mr. Gatt, after we leave, we’re no different than when we arrived. Our straight friends don’t see us any differently after we’ve visited the clubs. (Indeed, they’re often with us.) Perhaps that because those in our “gay community” know us, and don’t define us by the behavior of other gay men.
You speak as if you have long since arrived at the place that I’m struggling to find.
Regards,
Jimmy Gatt
And I’ve still never gone to a gay bar, pride parade, hooked up, or been a part of the “gay scene” at all.
I feel so left out.
I’ve never met Larry Kramer (or Mr. Gatt), I hang out with gay people all the time — and this so-called drug/sex culture is pretty alien to me too. Perhaps I’m just living in an alternate universe?
Or perhaps the two aforementioned gents are seeing merely what they wish to see.
Well, I can’t go visit the gay ‘scene’ tihs saturday. I have a preordered Wii to pick up at Gamestop, and thats sure to keep me away from the so called gay scene much more than Gatt’s constant whining about how bad it is will.
Or perhaps the two aforementioned gents are seeing merely what they wish to see.
Pot, kettle, black.
I repeat: I invite you to criticize the points I made instead of criticizing me, because it only looks like my points are touching a nerve when you try to talk down to me. Stay on topic!
To Mr. Jimmy Gatt:
Thank you for your response to my post. And an special thanks for not calling me names.
I have a couple of responses to what you said. (Please pardon my cut and paste approach, as I’m too lazy to paraphrase.)
Thom: It may come as a surprise to Mr. Gatt, after we leave, we’re no different than when we arrived. Our straight friends don’t see us any differently after we’ve visited the clubs. (Indeed, they’re often with us.) Perhaps that because those in our “gay community” know us, and don’t define us by the behavior of other gay men.
Jimmy Gatt: You speak as if you have long since arrived at the place that I’m struggling to find.
Exactly. And what led me there is learning to be comfortable with who I am, and not be concerned by how others may judge me — especially those who would do so based upon a stereotype generated from 15 seconds of a Gay Pride parade on TV. Anyone who would see such a clip, and then feel educated enough to know what all gays are like… is not worth being concerned about. The same can be said for those on the far left who would write you off as a right-winger merely because you express disapproval of the hedonism and drug use. The “problem” is yours, if you let such people define you and your self-image, and cause you to feel such anger.
You’ve asked that everyone stay on the topics you’ve defined. Let me take a stab at addressing your arguments:
Jimmy Gatt: My objections still are: A) the notion that the “gay community” represents me simply because we are all turned on by members of our own gender…
I must have missed the meeting of the Gay Community when the membership cards were passed out and the representatives were elected! Obviously, the Gay Community is not organized, and does not have “representatives” who “represent” each and every person of homosexual orientation.
As I tried to illustrate in my first response to you, I believe “community” has a different meaning, something more akin to those with whom you socialize and interact. If you don’t socialize with the gay men who do meth and have sex with prostitutes, then you’re not part of that “gay community.”
I do believe, however, that you are part of the gay community in a broad sense, by virtue of the fact that you are gay. Like it or not. Just like I am also a member of the white male community, or Irish-American community. But that doesn’t mean that your broad affiliation to the gay community means that it defines who you are any more than my affiliation to white male community. I don’t lie awake at night worrying about how the actions of some red-neck makes other people think that I think and act the way he does. Community as defined by “others with whom you have something in common” is too broad of a grouping to lead any reasonable person to believe that all members of that group are homogenous, or that one member of the group represents all.
Jimmy Gatt: …B) the notion that I should be in a “community” with a fast-track drug & sex superficial feminine lifestyle in order to be “gay”.
This statement is objectionable and offensive. I bridle at mischaracterization, and yours are blatant. Mr. Varnell did not suggest such a thing. Quite the contrary, although your anger seems to prevent you from seeing that. Rather than misstate, I quote Mr. Varnell:
– “…the article contains too much Radical Faery politics and spirituality for my taste…” Mr. Varnell disapproves of Radical Faery politics, which suggest that gay men should reject lifestyles similar to straight people.
– “But I think better arguments could be offered: Gay men who marry or otherwise join their lives to a long term partner generally act more mature. And even single men who see their own immature behavior mirrored in younger gay men eventually find the sight distasteful and abandon it.” Here, Mr. Varnell implicitly suggests that he feels that young gay men act immaturely. That is a far cry from suggesting that only men who act immaturely (or in your vernacular, “fast-track drug & sex superficial feminine lifestyle”) are truly gay.
– “…so the critique of gay immaturity has considerable force and deserves a serious hearing.” Uh, hello. Mr. Varnell agrees with you Mr. Gatt: immaturity in the gay community is a problem.
– “There are actually gay adults around in considerable numbers…. But perhaps they are inconspicuous to young people focused on the bar, party and hook-up scene.” Again, it’s clear that Mr. Varnell associates young gays with the drug and sex scene; indeed, he suggests that they’re so obsessed with that scene that they fail to notice the gay adults all around them.
– “Still, there are millions of gay adult besides those. And indeed, where are they? Perhaps they withdraw from the gay community because they view being gay as largely about drinking, drugs, and fast-food sex. That is a sad misunderstanding. More than anything, gay is about Civic Life.” He goes on to suggest that adult gay men should participate in activities for the gay community (e.g., volunteering for AIDS projects), rather than withdraw.
It’s you, Mr. Gatt, who fail to understand his point. He’s trying to say that you don’t stop being gay, and hence being part of the gay community, when you finally get over the club scene and grow up. Mr. Varnell doesn’t deny in any way that the party-sex lifestyle is part of gay community (gay culture is probably the better term here). On the contrary, he implies that it is such a big part, that many adult gay men feel like that they have no place to go once they’ve had enough of it. I know exactly what he means, because that’s how I feel.
You suggest that I have a “sad misunderstanding” of Mr. Varnell’s article because I said: “I thought the author was trying to suggest that gay men goes through phases in their lives, and that those of us (like me) who are older (42), can help lead the younger, self-destructive ones out of that scene by being more visible.” You can’t fathom how I got that observation from Mr. Varnell’s article. How about from statements like this one?
– “And we need gay adults to engage in an unobtrusive calming and mentoring of young people (and juvenile adults) in the arts of growing up. They can do this in large measure just by being themselves. They can exemplify simple maturity and self-possession, an example of someone with a source of internal authority and sense of what is appropriate in varying circumstances.”
Mischaracterization diminishes the credibility of your valid arguments, so it’s counterproductive. Now to your last argument…
Jimmy Gatt: … C) the notion that sex and drugs are somehow NOT defining factors of “gay community”. Mr. Varnell did not deny that sex and drugs are a large part of gay culture, but suggested that there was more to living a gay man’s life than that. He didn’t talk in terms of “defining factors.” That’s you, Mr. Gatt.
“Defining factors” used in conjunction with a broad based community makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, because it calls for stereotyping a large community. What are the defining factors for African-Americans? What are the defining factors for Catholics? For Southerners? For women? It amazes me, Mr. Gatt, that you take offense to the stereotypes of Southerners, but then do it yourself. Reading all of your posts again, it seems that you believe a defining factor of gays is drug and sex, and that straight people feel the same way.
Okay, let’s examine your own stereotyping. You’re gay, but not part a sex crazed drug user, so there’s one guy who doesn’t fit the mold. I’ll assume your boyfriend doesn’t either. And I’ll assume that your gay friends, the few you allow, also don’t have those “defining factors.” And perhaps you’ve let yourself imagine that there there are thousands of little gay-but-act-straight cliques across the country. Suddenly, your own conclusions about the defining factors of gay men fails to reflect your personal experiences. Yes, you know lots of guys who fit the bad mold, but also ones who act like you.
Let’s examine how the straight community stereotypes us, starting with your theory. You feel that when they say “gay community,” they mean everyone who is gay. You also feel that everyone who is gay is “defined” by “gay culture,” which has as it’s “defining” factors an obsession with drugs and sex. Therefore, obviously, all straight people think that all of us are that way.
The evidence fails to support your theory. If your theory was true, then the adoption agency who handled the adoption of your child was grossly negligent. What other conclusion can be reached if a heterosexual adoption agency put a child in the hands of a gay couple, who must be sex-obsessed drug addict if they are part of the gay community?
On a broader scale, there is also no support for the idea that the straight community views the gay community as monolithic and uniform. Although imperfect, television programming can provide some insight into what stereotypes exist in America. With the exception of Brian from Queer as Folk, I can think of no other depiction of a homosexual man on television that remotely approximates the sex-and-drugs guy you seem to suggest empotimizes gay men in the eyes of straights. I’m sure you can think of a few other characters who qualify, but you cannot deny that television now shows the full spectrum of gay men. Even Queer as Folk had upstanding, straight and narrow characters (Michael/Ben). It even had a story arc that illustrated the dangers of the drug-hyped sex compulsion (concerning Ted) that concerns you. Will Truman, Jack McFarland, Andrew Van De Kamp, David Fisher and Keith Charles are all characters on hugely popular shows watched by heterosexuals. And none of them resemble those men featured on the 15 second newcast from Gay Pride parades.
Moreover, gay characters are popping up more and more on television, and are increasiningly being portrayed in such as way that they’re gayness is only part of who they are. (Omar Little from The Wire is a good example). My point is that straight people are writing and watching television characters who do not fit the definition of gay men that you so fervently believe the straight world subscribes to. Apparently, their actions are not consistent with their underlying beliefs as to our “defining factors.”
Finally, Mr. Gatt, let me acknowledge that I agree with you too much of gay culture glorifies sex and the circuit lifestyle. But my issue with that doesn’t arise from what straight people might think of that behavior: I’m concerned men in my community getting HIV and other STDs from idiotic barebacking and being destroyed from meth use. I want members of my community to remain healthy, so they can have lots of sex with someone who makes them happy, and hopefully find love. That goes for everyone in our vast community: the trannies, the old leather guard, the preening fem bots, the gym rats, the closet cases, the gay-but-straight-acting and even, the Southern surburan manwives who despise Gay Pride parades.
I invite you to criticize the points I made instead of criticizing me, because it only looks like my points are touching a nerve when you try to talk down to me.
I don’t know what’s more ridiculous — the idea you’re promoting that the burlesque caricatures of gay people you’re painting accurately describe every homosexual man except yourself; or your assertion that your experience (and only your experience) is valid as a reflection of a community of people that numbers in the 10s of millions just in America.
Our friend says:
Uhhh, first off what proof do you have for these statements? My own impression based solely on observation and actually listening to gay intellectuals is that they tend to decry the circuit party scene. And that they work for improving the lot of gay people, including gay parents. And are activly involved in gay culture, in making it a better vehicle for helping gay folks.
I also notice that you have provided no proof for anything you have said. You simply assert all sorts of crap.
For me as an older gay guy, gay culture and community is made up of the volunteer organizations that support the people who identify as gay. It consists of the books and theater and films that chronicle our journeys. It consists of the thoughts and opinions of gay people. It consists of the spiritual efforts and activities of gay people. This whole circuit party strikes me as trivial and unimportant, a miniscule part of the gay world.
So I shall ask: is anyone moderating this forum? How long shall posters be subject to the name calling and mindless assertions of Jimmy Galt. This is beyond anything ‘the left’ might be accused of. IGF drags itself deep into the mud by letting this sort of attack continue. I am convinced these endless vicious attacks by Jimmy Galt will be used by ‘the left’ to show that all conservative and libertarian gays are mindless robots. Bent on upholding the status quo, with no concern for actual gay people. Jimmy Galt is a stain on the reputation of the right wing gays. If you want to fight ‘the left’, you gotta address the issue of dealing with your very own crazies. Look, anyone here can go to DKOS and post some of this which will convince large numbers of people that the right wing gays are out of touch with reality. Please do something. In all my out years, I have never experienced this level of vitriol from anyone. Not even Fred Phelps, whom I have met.
I have saved this thread with all of Jimmy Galt’s comments. Something needs to be done now.
Gee, Jimmy, it must be hell getting OLD. and UGLY. and FAT. My guess is you were NEVER popular, even when you were young. You sound like one of those jealous trolls who doesn’t get invited to all those sex obsessed circuit parties and so he berates others for having a good time and enjoying their lives and youth and hot bodies. Sorry, hon, but what you don’t know is that your insides make your outsides ugly. AND UGLY IS BAD, make no mistake about it. I’ve had plenty of friends and even some lovers who were a little chubby (very little) or a bit older or with kind of quirky, character looks. If they were sweet and smart and fun and loving, they had beauty of some kind. On the other hand, sour, mean, bored, jealous, surly, incontinent, vain, loudmouthed, boorish, abusive people are UGLY even if they can squeeze into skinny jeans (which I’m sure you can’t). YOU have a borderline personality disorder that may actually veer into psychopathy. It is evil losers like you who become the Jeffrey Daumers of the world. I hope you name really is Jimmy Gatt and that the people around you finally see you for what you are. It is YOU — not the rest of us — who give gays a bad name. You may not be fem (you probably are but just don’t realize it) — but you are definitely a BITCH. So fuck you psycho.
Now, dalea, will you be as quick to blast “french class” as you were Mr. Galt?
Dear Thom,
Thank you again for your long and thoughtful response! I have no desire to call you names because you have been very civil and kind to me. As you might have notices, I do not take insults lying down. Forgive my long response, but you raised many points that were worth addressing.
And what led me there is learning to be comfortable with who I am, and not be concerned by how others may judge me — especially those who would do so based upon a stereotype generated from 15 seconds of a Gay Pride parade on TV. Anyone who would see such a clip, and then feel educated enough to know what all gays are like… is not worth being concerned about. The same can be said for those on the far left who would write you off as a right-winger merely because you express disapproval of the hedonism and drug use. The \\”problem\\” is yours, if you let such people define you and your self-image, and cause you to feel such anger.
You are starting to dip down into the gutter with your desire to tell me what my \\”problems\\” are. Do we have to go there? Stay on topic!
I must stress the following point because it is crucial to your failure to understand my argument. I am not talking about \\”all gays\\”. I am talking about \\”gay community\\” and \\”gay culture\\”, which I think are the same thing. Dalea confirms this with his statement about his definition of \\”gay community\\” (it\\’s his opinion, of course, but I think it\\’s a widely-held opinion in \\”THE gay community\\”). After all, you and I are gay, and clearly we don\\’t fit into the same fundraiser-worshipping mold that dalea does.
Jimmy Gatt: My objections still are: A) the notion that the \\”gay community\\” represents me simply because we are all turned on by members of our own gender…
I must have missed the meeting of the Gay Community when the membership cards were passed out and the representatives were elected! Obviously, the Gay Community is not organized, and does not have \\”representatives\\” who \\”represent\\” each and every person of homosexual orientation.
As I tried to illustrate in my first response to you, I believe \\”community\\” has a different meaning, something more akin to those with whom you socialize and interact. If you don\\’t socialize with the gay men who do meth and have sex with prostitutes, then you\\’re not part of that \\”gay community.\\”
And that is your opinion. I happen to share that opinion. But I think that the many, many gays feel differently about that. And that is why I am having this discussion: what is the \\”gay community\\”? What is \\”THE gay community\\”?
I do believe, however, that you are part of the gay community in a broad sense, by virtue of the fact that you are gay. Like it or not. Just like I am also a member of the white male community, or Irish-American community.
I think that\\’s the \\”media definition\\” of \\”community\\”. I think it\\’s bullshit media-speak and makes for good sound bytes as opposed to honest reflections on reality.
Jimmy Gatt: …B) the notion that I should be in a \\”community\\” with a fast-track drug & sex superficial feminine lifestyle in order to be \\”gay\\”.
This statement is objectionable and offensive. I bridle at mischaracterization, and yours are blatant.
It is only objectionable and offensive if I am tarring ALL GAY PEOPLE with those characterizations, and I am not. Drug abuse and hyper-sexuality are part of \\”gay culture\\”, and that is a fact. It\\’s a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless. (Luckily, it\\’s also a fact of diminishing relevance — otherwise, how could a \\”Stepford\\” gay like me exist?) That fact stands apart from Paul Varnell\\’s article, and Varnell certainly implied that I am (or should be) in \\”community\\” with the fast-track, drug & sex gays by his very use of \\”gay community\\” which, by \\”definition\\”, includes me. Meaning, I\\’m in \\”community\\” with the fast-track drugs & sex gays, whether I like it or not, simply because I am turned on by members of my own gender. This offends me because I think it is wrong and gross. Naturally, it leads me to ask the question, \\”What is the gay community?\\” Quell your outrage. My questions are fair.
– \\”…the article contains too much Radical Faery politics and spirituality for my taste…\\” Mr. Varnell disapproves of Radical Faery politics, which suggest that gay men should reject lifestyles similar to straight people.
In this discussion, the Radical Faeries are a red herring.
– \\”But I think better arguments could be offered: Gay men who marry or otherwise join their lives to a long term partner generally act more mature. And even single men who see their own immature behavior mirrored in younger gay men eventually find the sight distasteful and abandon it.\\” Here, Mr. Varnell implicitly suggests that he feels that young gay men act immaturely. That is a far cry from suggesting that only men who act immaturely (or in your vernacular, \\”fast-track drug & sex superficial feminine lifestyle\\”) are truly gay.
The article tacitly states that gay men who have that destructive lifestyle are in my \\”community\\”. There is my complaint.
– \\”…so the critique of gay immaturity has considerable force and deserves a serious hearing.\\” Uh, hello. Mr. Varnell agrees with you Mr. Gatt: immaturity in the gay community is a problem.
If it deserves a \\”serious hearing\\”, then why did he paint such a rosy, fake picture, deliberately glossing over the history of drug abuse and hyper-sexuality? (Dare I mention Harry Hay\\’s sign at this point?) This is the denial (objection C, above, repeated many times) that annoyed me.
– \\”There are actually gay adults around in considerable numbers…. But perhaps they are inconspicuous to young people focused on the bar, party and hook-up scene.\\” Again, it\\’s clear that Mr. Varnell associates young gays with the drug and sex scene; indeed, he suggests that they\\’re so obsessed with that scene that they fail to notice the gay adults all around them.
In other words, they\\’re invisible to \\”real\\” gay people. They don\\’t count as \\”gay\\”. They\\’re inauthentic. Stepford. Conservative. Does Varnell really feel that way? It\\’s hard to tell, seeing as I see his article as disingenuous. But there are certainly other folks on this board who regard me as a borderline traitor gay.
– \\”Still, there are millions of gay adult besides those. And indeed, where are they? Perhaps they withdraw from the gay community because they view being gay as largely about drinking, drugs, and fast-food sex. That is a sad misunderstanding. More than anything, gay is about Civic Life.\\” He goes on to suggest that adult gay men should participate in activities for the gay community (e.g., volunteering for AIDS projects), rather than withdraw.
This was the passage that pissed me off the most. He glossed over the drugs and sex as \\”a sad misunderstanding\\”. Meaning, if you see that, then you\\’re stupid and wrong for seeing it.
It\\’s you, Mr. Gatt, who fail to understand his point. He\\’s trying to say that you don\\’t stop being gay, and hence being part of the gay community, when you finally get over the club scene and grow up. Mr. Varnell doesn\\’t deny in any way that the party-sex lifestyle is part of gay community (gay culture is probably the better term here). On the contrary, he implies that it is such a big part, that many adult gay men feel like that they have no place to go once they\\’ve had enough of it. I know exactly what he means, because that\\’s how I feel.
I didn\\’t get that at all from the article. I\\’m agreeing with you that you read a different article from me! I thought that Varnell argued that the drugs & sex parts of gay culutre were insignificant, meaningless parts of it, and you were sad and stupid if you perceived those things. He also trashed parenting as a completely ineffective way to become an adult. In other words, I saw his article as an attempt at getting gays to \\”grow up\\” without being brave enough to say what it takes to do such a thing. Perhaps he should have written, \\”Stop acting like meth-powered fuck machines.\\”? No, that would be too conservative. Instead, he says that we should \\”occasionally\\” tell ourselves to \\”Grow up!\\”. Is that not a middle-school solution to a very grown-up problem?
You suggest that I have a \\”sad misunderstanding\\” of Mr. Varnell\\’s article because I said: \\”I thought the author was trying to suggest that gay men goes through phases in their lives, and that those of us (like me) who are older (42), can help lead the younger, self-destructive ones out of that scene by being more visible.\\” You can\\’t fathom how I got that observation from Mr. Varnell\\’s article. How about from statements like this one?
– \\”And we need gay adults to engage in an unobtrusive calming and mentoring of young people (and juvenile adults) in the arts of growing up. They can do this in large measure just by being themselves. They can exemplify simple maturity and self-possession, an example of someone with a source of internal authority and sense of what is appropriate in varying circumstances.\\”
I didn\\’t suggest that you had a \\”sad misunderstanding\\” of Mr. Varnell\\’s article. I wrote that I thought that Varnell would call your argument a \\”sad misunderstanding.\\” If gay life has little, if anything, to do with sex and drugs, then what is Varnell talking about when he thinks that younger gay men need lessons is \\”maturity and self-possesion\\”? Varnell seems to say that gay men need help (they do), but isn\\’t ready to confront the demon that prevent gay men from growing up. That demon is hedonism, and it\\’s ingrained inside \\”gay culture\\”, and thus, the \\”gay community\\”. \\”THE gay community\\”. The notion of what \\”THE gay community\\” is in dispute, right?
Jimmy Gatt: … C) the notion that sex and drugs are somehow NOT defining factors of \\”gay community\\”. Mr. Varnell did not deny that sex and drugs are a large part of gay culture, but suggested that there was more to living a gay man\\’s life than that. He didn\\’t talk in terms of \\”defining factors.\\” That\\’s you, Mr. Gatt.
\\”Defining factors\\” used in conjunction with a broad based community makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, because it calls for stereotyping a large community. What are the defining factors for African-Americans? What are the defining factors for Catholics? For Southerners? For women? It amazes me, Mr. Gatt, that you take offense to the stereotypes of Southerners, but then do it yourself. Reading all of your posts again, it seems that you believe a defining factor of gays is drug and sex, and that straight people feel the same way.
Again, you are misunderstanding my argument. I am not talking about stereotypes of all gay people, but rather what defines the \\”gay community\\”. I repeat, again: I think that when gay people talk about \\”THE gay community\\”, they are referring to that community of people who engages in \\”gay culture\\”. In this sense, I see little disctinction between \\”gay community\\” and \\”gay culture\\”.
Okay, let\\’s examine your own stereotyping. You\\’re gay, but not part a sex crazed drug user, so there\\’s one guy who doesn\\’t fit the mold. I\\’ll assume your boyfriend doesn\\’t either. And I\\’ll assume that your gay friends, the few you allow, also don\\’t have those \\”defining factors.\\” And perhaps you\\’ve let yourself imagine that there there are thousands of little gay-but-act-straight cliques across the country. Suddenly, your own conclusions about the defining factors of gay men fails to reflect your personal experiences. Yes, you know lots of guys who fit the bad mold, but also ones who act like you.
I\\’m not part of the \\”gay community\\”! Have I not been blatant about that in every one of my angry posts? It seems like you can\\’t read my words through my anger. This is not about stereotyping all gay people. It\\’s about understanding what \\”gay community\\” is. I have my own opinions, as do you, as does dalea.
The evidence fails to support your theory. If your theory was true, then the adoption agency who handled the adoption of your child was grossly negligent. What other conclusion can be reached if a heterosexual adoption agency put a child in the hands of a gay couple, who must be sex-obsessed drug addict if they are part of the gay community?
Now perhaps you understand why 11 out of 12 adoption agencies turned us down when we inquired if they would work with a gay couple! Now perhaps you understand why I am repulsed by the notion that I\\’m in a \\”community\\” with sex-obsessed drug addicts!
On a broader scale, there is also no support for the idea that the straight community views the gay community as monolithic and uniform. Although imperfect, television programming can provide some insight into what stereotypes exist in America. With the exception of Brian from Queer as Folk, I can think of no other depiction of a homosexual man on television
I\\’m much more concerned with the way that the \\”gay community\\” chooses to portray itself as opposed to the sanitized versions of gay men on television. Have you watched a \\”gay movie\\” recently? Have you ever been to \\”gay pride\\”? Is that not the ultimate expression of \\”gay culture\\”? What does it say about gay people? Is it a \\”mischaracterization\\” that you find \\”objectionable and offensive\\”? I think it is, particularly if they claim to speak for ALL GAY PEOPLE, and I think they do. I think your outrage is aimed at the wrong party.
Finally, Mr. Gatt, let me acknowledge that I agree with you too much of gay culture glorifies sex and the circuit lifestyle. But my issue with that doesn\\’t arise from what straight people might think of that behavior: I\\’m concerned men in my community getting HIV and other STDs from idiotic barebacking and being destroyed from meth use. I want members of my community to remain healthy, so they can have lots of sex with someone who makes them happy, and hopefully find love. That goes for everyone in our vast community: the trannies, the old leather guard, the preening fem bots, the gym rats, the closet cases, the gay-but-straight-acting and even, the Southern surburan manwives who despise Gay Pride parades.
I\\’m in complete agreement with what you wrote here. I have an additional concern: My concern about how people see me as \\”a member of the gay community\\” changed dramatically once I became a parent. I used to not care about what other gay people they did with their lives. Tell me, how does it reflect on me as a parent if \\”the gay community\\” reviles my \\”suburban housewife\\” lifestyle and glorifies the fast-track hyper-sexual and drug abusing lifestyle? It may not matter to you as a non-parent, but I get really testy when straights start talking about invalidating co-parent adoptions. Does that argument have any relevence to you at all? It\\’s an argument that no one here seems willing to address.
dalea:
Uhhh, first off what proof do you have for these statements? My own impression based solely on observation and actually listening to gay intellectuals is that they tend to decry the circuit party scene.
My own impression is based solely on observation as well. Shall I start emanding proof of you for your own impressions? What will that contribute to the discussion? You’re running out of steam, dalea. Maybe it’s time for you to consider that some of the things you hold dear aren’t worth holding on to.
And that they work for improving the lot of gay people, including gay parents.
You derided my lifestyle as “suburban housewife”, so you must really hate those intellectuals who are working so hard to improve my lot in life. Please, dalea. You’ve made it crystal-clear that you despise my lifestyle, so why should I appreciate the folks that you approve of?
I also notice that you have provided no proof for anything you have said. You simply assert all sorts of crap.
All one needs do is go to a “gay pride” parade and open their eyes. Or watch a “gay movie”. Or read one of the many reflexively leftist options in the “gay media”. What do these things say about “gay culture”?
Things are getting better, though. In other words, it’s becoming more “suburban housewife” (which is apparently intolerable to you). Hence, I exist. Would you care to expand on that? Please explain to the group why you think my living a suburban lifestyle with kids is bad for gay people.
For me as an older gay guy, gay culture and community is made up of the volunteer organizations that support the people who identify as gay.
This is a decent contribution to the conversation, and I appreciate it.
I think you’ve exhibited a very widely-held belief in the “gay community” and one that I share: the “gay community” is those people who engage in “gay culture”, and, in this sense, there is little difference between the two. I am not part of this community and I’m offended by the notion that I should be part of it.
This whole circuit party strikes me as trivial and unimportant, a miniscule part of the gay world.
What ain’t just a river in Egypt?
(see also: objection C, above, repeated over and over again)
So I shall ask: is anyone moderating this forum? How long shall posters be subject to the name calling and mindless assertions of Jimmy Galt.
Behold: the words of an indivudal who cannot defend his tenuous yet sacrosanct point-of-view. My words must really be cutting you to the bone for you to suggest that I be silenced as opposed to your words and beliefs being subject to criticism. (Who is Jimmy Galt?)
To me, your argument sounds like this: “For every popper that a gym bunny sniffs, and for every saddle that a leather gay dons, an odious suburban housewife gay adopts a child.”
Tell me, is that an accurate depiction of your argument? If not, then where did I go wrong?
I don’t think you’re a troll. Rather, I think your words are a very honest expression of some very commonly-held ideas in the “gay community”, and it is these ideas which give me cause to be disgusted with this community and offended that someone would associate me with them. In short, you’re exactly the kind of gay man that I want to take to task. It’s no small wonder you want me to go away.
What is your proof about intellectuals not being part of the gay community? You appear to have no concept of the wide array of gay ideas and positions. Just that once you went to an event, and did not like what you saw.
I don\\’t want you to go away. I do want the moderators to do their job. This was an interesting forum before you came along. You have single handedly dragged us into a morass of homophobic name calling. Great job, white trash.
I have gone to Gay Pride parades in Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles and never encountered the events you describe. As a community we learn to live and let live. Do you comprehend? Suburban gay housewives only need to let urban leather numbers live their very own lives to be left in peace. Just say: wow, leather dudes, not my scene, but not my issue either, I am into xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and there is no problem. Live and let live, not a totally dificult idea, IMHO.
Are there moderators here?
I don’t want you to go away. I do want the moderators to do their job.
It walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck…
You have single handedly dragged us into a morass of homophobic name calling.
I am NOT the only one here who is at fault for bad language. Your attacks of “homophobia” look like an attempt to demonize me because you cannot engage me rationally on the issues. And I’ll be happy to retract the insulting label I gave you if you retract the wrong and highly offensive notion that I owe my detestable “suburban housewife” lifestyle to the brave struggles of tightly-harnessed leather gays and popper-sniffing gym bunnies. Is that a fair enough trade for you? (I’d also like it if you stopped referring to me as a “suburban housewife”, but I’m not even asking for that level of respect.)
As a community we learn to live and let live. Do you comprehend?
No, because it looks like hypocritical bullshit. You said you despise my “I pass for straight” attitude and you denigrated my “suburban housewife” lifestyle. How does that express a “live and let live” attitude? It looks to me that you’re doing exactly the same thing that I’m doing: condemning a lifestyle that you think is harmful. Only that you think that you should get a pass whereas my condemnation amounts to gay blasphemy. Please explain to me why what is good for the goose isn’t good for the gander.
dalea…. to answer your question, there are moderators watching this board. I looked in last night and there was a post completely off topic, as if it were posted on the wrong thread. This morning it has been removed, so I think we can assume the moderators accept all the posts still here.
Jimmy….. you ask, ‘where did I go wrong?’ I know I’m taking it a bit out of context but where you went wrong in my opinion was your original response to dalea:
“No, faggot, your bland cheerleading for mainstream gay rhetoric didn’t really deserve a response. But since you asked so rudely, I’ll be happy to tear you a new asshole which you should appreciate since the other one is chock-fucking-full of gerbils.
In response to your contention that my adoption happened only due to the brave and noble struggles of popper-sniffing gym fags in their quest to be ever more fabulous, then go fuck yourself with a leather fag’s saddle. My adoption happened due to subterfuge, sympathetic adoption agencies, and the activism of liberal judges. I can’t think of one way that your precious fundraisers aided me at all. If anything, the behavior you champion makes straights think that I am, by nature, unworthy of being a parent. So instead of helping, most gay people have harmed me. For that, I quite nearly hate your guts.
I’m glad you think that my “I pass for straight” attitude is disgusting, because it means I am doing the right thing. Pissing off self-indulgent, deluded, and stupid faggots like you is essential to my moral compass. Fuck “gay community”! Fuck it right in the ear!
Did that do, dalea? Let me know if you need a little more love and attention. I can rail on your pampered and embroidered ass all day long, you stupid fucking faggot.
Unbridled lust,
Jimmy”
That post literally shocked me (and I think, others here) with its degree of visciousness, hate and pure ugliness from one gay man for another. Since then you’ve toned down a lot, but you lost me with that one. While I have sympathy for your position, I’ve no tolerance for the kind of
bile I can hear from the Phelps clan any day of the week. Others have attacked you on this board, its true, but much more for your attitude than your position I think.
You’ve since demonstrated that you can express your views very effectively without resorting to that kind of extreme rhetoric. Its just very difficult to get past the above quoted post and really hear your point of view.
What I think is even more notable is not the specific viciousness he showed, but that he is willing to show that kind of viciousness just because someone disagrees with him.
Bill,
Thanks for your comment. I understand that my statement toward dalea was shocking and insulting. It was intended to be, because the degree to which he has insulted and offended me merits it.
If dalea is willing to retract the horrible and stupid notion that I owe my wicked “suburban housewife” lifestyle to the gym bunnies and leather freaks who are routinely seen by straights as the proponents of “gay = depraved” which is the onus behind their perception of all gay people as unfit parents, then I will be happy to retract my vicious insults toward dalea.
Let me try to make this crystal clear so that you can understand why I called dalea a faggot and think it is justified.
I came out as a gay man, but when I saw “gay culture” I was severely disappointed. I looked at those feminine, preening, in-your-face, and hyper-sexual Leftists and immediately said, “That’s not me.” Now I am a tolerant person, and I adopted a live-and-let-live attitude about them. At the same time, these feather-boa, cross-dressing freaks were always used by conservatives and straights to show that “gay culture” was a culture of licentiousness. And, because of this, gay people were unfit to be parents. I bristed at this notion because I was gay and certainly didn’t adhere to that kind of lifestyle, and I hated the stereotype.
My partner and I decided to adopt a child, and that changed our perspective of life quite a bit. When those two gay men came over to our house, oozing femininity and drama, with matching pink-and-purple-hyundais, with a cat named “Stonewall”, dressed head-to-toe in gay regalia, and then constantly, constantly appearing in the straight and gay media calling themselves “Two Queens and a Princess”, then I became convinced that “gay culture” actually harms my family and does not help. It poisons the perception of gay people as competant parents. It makes people question if I am merely using my child as a pawn to advance the cause of gay rights (which, to them, means a spreading of the licentiousness that “gay culture” openly revels in).
So when I come to this forum, an “Independant” gay forum, and am called “Stepford”, “conservative”, “control-freak” and “suburban housewife” by gays here who find my “I-pass-for-straight” lifestyle to be “disgusting”, then it does nothing but hammer home the notion that “gay culture” is very much about licentiousness by virtue of the fact that I am hated and ridiculed for not fully appreciating it.
And then when dalea comes out with the “you should be grateful” shit, that incenses me like nothing else. I became a parent IN SPITE OF “gay culture”, not because of “gay culture”. I have to prove myself as not only a good parent, but also a better parent than all of the straight parents every day, and “gay culture” is working against me, not for me! The vile notion that I should be “grateful” for this shit is the very definition of chutzpah. I can’t have a “live-and-let-live” attitude about this, nor can I simply not give a shit what other people think. I have to be aware of what other people think because my son’s safety depends on it. Does “gay pride” hurt or help me as a gay parent? I firmly think it harms me, and the notion that I should respect it is deeply wrong, horribly insulting, and egregiously offensive.
I understand it’s hard for you to get over my language. It’s equally hard for me to get over the repugnant ideas that dalea expressed and refuses to back down from, and that is the basis of my harsh and abusive language that I likewise refuse to retract. I hope this makes sense to you. No one here seems to give a shit that I am responsible for the life of a child, and I think that is a large reason for the lack of empathy. After all, my child is, apparently, what makes me a “conservative” and “Stepford” gay who is living a “suburban housewife” lifestyle.
That post literally shocked me (and I think, others here) with its degree of visciousness, hate and pure ugliness from one gay man for another. Since then you’ve toned down a lot, but you lost me with that one. While I have sympathy for your position, I’ve no tolerance for the kind of bile I can hear from the Phelps clan any day of the week.
Then you are very sheltered, Bill, because that’s the kind of bile which, as I outlined, is easily found in reference to people like Jimmy on any left-leaning gay blog. Even on this one, people who deviate from the gay-leftist Democrat norm are regularly referred to as “Jewish Nazis” or “self-loathing”.
In short, (presumably) Jimmy and I are used to far worse than that on a regular basis. I find it hard to believe that this has escaped you or gone so long without offending you.
North Dallas Thirty….. The mere fact that something is common, that it happens a lot – does not make it right; does not make it acceptable, and does not make it any less shocking. When I’m no longer dismayed by such language as this:
“I can rail on your pampered and embroidered ass all day long, you stupid fucking faggot.”
from one gay man to another especially, is the day I surrender my right to civilized existance.
Its futile! It achieves nothing but more of the very hatred, prejudice and intolerance we’re trying to get beyond. My opinion. Jimmy has stated his. Neither of us insulted the other. Life goes on! Best – Bill
When I’m no longer dismayed by such language as this
Bill: What do you think would make one gay man (me) say such a horrible and insulting thing to another gay man (dalea)?
North Dallas Thirty:
I have noticed the same thing. “Progressives” are among the most hateful and vicious people I’ve ever seen, and gay “progressives” are the worst — especially since they so enthusiastically support the religion of Islam, in which the murder of gay men is a mainstream belief. I’ve been subjected to horrible attacks from “progressives” so many times that I’ve become quite numb to it.
And I think I have to be more careful in that regard. And even though dalea deserves my comment (yes, you do, dalea), it’s not right that all of the members of the board should be subjected to that kind of harsh language.
So I’m in agreement that my nasty comments should be removed from the board by the moderators, but ONLY IF the comments of “french class” are also removed for the exact same reason. If that is to happen, then I’m glad that dalea has taken the care to save my comments, as I’m hoping he’ll choose to go back and read them in a time when he’s feeling badly about himself. To think that dalea thinks that “I should be grateful”. What unmitigated gall! Dalea and all that “gay culture” crap make me feel ashamed to be gay.
Speaking of moderators, now is particularly the time to call for them to delete the SPAM.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
“”"”Bill: What do you think would make one gay man (me) say such a horrible and insulting thing to another gay man (dalea)?”"”"
Idiocy?
Idiocy?
Of course, kittynboi, since you haven’t bothered to fling the same epithet at this example, it should be obvious that you don’t mind when “horrible” and “insulting” things are said.
Feel free to stop being hypocritical on the matter.
I wanted to revisit something that David H. wrote (come back, David H!) because I think it is particularly telling — not only for what it says, but also for the lack of reaction to it from the other representatives of the “gay community” here:
You?re advocating for gay culture to mirror family culture
According to David H., “gay culture” must not and should not have anything to do with “family culture”. In other words, “gay culture” does not include children, and it would be a negative and regrettable thing if “gay culture” were to ever include children.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t David H. saying that I am NOT part of “gay culture” if I am a parent? If this is the case, then I totally agree. And if I’m not part of “gay culture”, then I’m not part of the “gay community”, either, since I see little difference between the two outside of the bullshit media usage of “gay community”.
It sounds like David H. wouldn’t want me in the “gay community” anyway, since he clearly thinks that parenting sucks and that parents are despicable people. I think this is a common belief among many people in the “gay community” when gay parents condemn the proud licentiousness of “gay culture”.
I used to receive a magazine for gay parents, and I remember the June issue of this magazine had a picture of a child holding a rainbow flag with an adult’s hand covering the child’s eyes. The front page caption read something along the lines of, “Pride 2001: Hide your eyes, kids!” The next issue of the magazine contained many letters from outraged members of the “gay community” that sounded a lot like this:
I feel you should be ashamed of yourself and your disrespectful tone. And apologize to the first leather people you see.
I actually meant to post the following quote from David H., as I think it is even more illustrative of a commonly-held notion in the “gay community” than the one I quoted previously:
[I]f the only thing distinguishable about you from conservative culture … is that you like the same-gender, then you?re advocating for the disintegration of gay culture, whatever that may be, into family culture.
To David H., “family” = “conservative” (which means evil). Likewise, “gay culture” would “disintegrate” if it were to include families.
Is it any small wonder that Paul Varnell chose to crap all over parenting?
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.