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.
96 Comments for “Where are the Gay Adults?”
posted by MM on
A very apropos piece in light of the latest rounds of bans on marriage, civil unions, and, in some places, anything resembling marriage or civil unions. The reality is, that in most of the U.S., gay men are now officially denied access to institutions/legal arrangements that help men transition into adulthood. If society refuses to help gay men become adults, and even places obstacles in our way, then we will have to do it ourselves. Paul makes this point well.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
This article is atrocious and does not in any way exhibit an “independent” gay thinker. On the contrary, I see much an impassioned expression same excrement passing as “thought” that has repelled me from of any kind of “gay community” since I came out.
First, the author mindlessly asserts that there is a “gay community” in spite of the fact that I and many other gays are certainly not part of this community and have no desire to be part of it. The author writes, “More than anything, gay is about Civic Life. The gay community is an affinity group.” If I may be so frank, I share hardly anything in common with the preening, feminine, reflexively-leftist gym rodents that make me gag every time they open their sculpted mouths to unleash their torrent of insipid drama. If this makes me not part of “THE gay community”, then I welcome that exclusion with great pleasure. After all, this is the “Independent” gay forum, and I don’t want to be associated with those people, much less be dependent upon them. On the contrary, I am succeeding at integrating with the majority-straight population, and if that pisses off the “gay community” then I readily interpret that anger as indication that I am doing the right thing.
Second, the author seems to insist that all gay people should, or maybe even must, form some kind of community, presumably centered solely around the fact that we happen to be turned on by the members of our own gender. The author idealistically writes, “[The gay community] is about interpersonal empathy, friendships, social and political progress and cultural creativity.” How retarded! Why can’t *any* community be about those things? Why must those things solely be relegated to gays? And what makes the author think that those aspects of the “gay community” are more important and defining to its members than the more salient ones?
Which brings me to my third objection. The author steadfastly refuses to criticize this “gay community” when it decidedly deserves to be criticized for its disgusting behavior. One only needs to open their eyes and casually observe a “gay pride” event to realize that it has nothing to do with rights, liberties, or the end of abuses and everything to do with catering to the drug-using, obsessive sex circuit-party crowd who are eager for an opportunity to expose their particular sexual fetish for the world to see. Rampant drug abuse and having obsessive sex *are* the salient, defining points of this “gay community”. The author dismisses this fact with a casual, “That is a sad misunderstanding.” If it is such a “misunderstanding”, then why do I see so much drug use and rampant sex in this “gay community”? Is there any small wonder why gyms and salons are so popular with the members of this community? They are solely for the purpose of getting more sex for gays. Period. My cocaine-using straight friend easily admits that he gets his best drugs from gays, hands down. Should this strike any of us as a surprise? If *anything* would benefit the members of this “community”, it would be some warranted self-criticism. It is long overdue, particularly considering the numbers of gay men who have died from this unhealthy lifestyle.
Instead, for pointing these things out, I will be ridiculed, attacked, and denigrated. All the more reason not to be part of this “community”.
What a sad, stupid article! I bemoan the fact that it deigns to appear in something called the “independent gay forum” because it has all the hallmarks of being lock-step in-line with politically correct gay thought.
I will also add here that, more than anything else, becoming an adoptive parent, a GAY adoptive parent, has turned me into a gay adult. To this, the author would state, “That sort of unprovable metaphysical speculation won’t convince many people.” I suspect that the author fails to see the irony in this postmodern stupid-speak of a dismissal for precisely the same reason that he has given the boilerplate defense of “gay community”: The fast-track gay lifestyle of rampant sexual activity and rampant drug abuse does, in fact, bring a community simply because humans are social creatures and bond over shared interests, no matter how base, shallow, or self-destructive those interests may be. Yes, it is hedonistic and thus “childish”, producing a dearth of gay adults for those individual who find this lifestyle too much fun to abandon. But becoming an adult and remaining in that lifestyle (which the author tacitly identifies as “the gay community”) are mutually-exclusive. And the author isn’t ready to admit this. Hence, denial.
Instead, the author offers this as a proposed path forward:
“We have all seen people behave stupidly and thought to ourselves, ‘Oh, grow up!’ Maybe we should occasionally say that out loud.”
I suppose this passes as “bravery” to someone in the “gay community” — to criticize gays (only “occasionally” though) with the charge to “Oh, grow up!”. It stands to reason that the author could only muster a criticism that one hears in middle school considering that abandoning this childish lifestyle is precisely what the author is fain to do.
Disdain,
Jimmy Gatt
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Oh dear.
Anyway, in response to the original article, one of the opportunities that this sort of cultural development allows us to do is to build our own institutions, fund them, etc. in a voluntary, co-operative way.
When that’s developed (and it largely is forming as we speak), we’ll have our own infrastructure to provide many of the cultural, social and economic institutions that make gay adult life vulnerable. Given the present lack of liberty that the old-party system has provided, we have to do things on our own.
We have two choices — either build something for ourselves, or whine that what’s clearly visible in certain parts of the gay universe isn’t good enough (ala the prior post). Only one will get me where I want to go.
And given the continued collapse and liquidation of the heterosexual “Christian fundamentalist” view of family, it’s altogether possible that what we do as queer thirtysomethings will have a significant impact on what “society” chooses to do later on. Not to mention the fact that we’ll have done it on our own, as a voluntary set of associations, rather than through the centrally-planned dicta preferred by the “left” and “right” alike.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
I wholeheartedly agree that the inclusion of gays and lesbians in traditional institutions is an idea whose time has come.
This IS a matter of civil rights, liberty and responsibility.
However, the cues taken from previous groups, their activity and strategy is very important.
During the highest and most intense aspects of the civil rights movement, blacks were seen marching on picket lines, registering voters, commanding the broadcast media as sober, well dressed and serious participants in their own destiny. Non violent, and non threatening…but compelling and right all the same.
When gays and lesbians are in the media, those who attack gay lives do so with the images of bacchanals, and events that are virtually excluding children, extended family and modest dress.
There seems to be MUCH more of that, because large sums of money are expended to produce circuit, White and other concert sized parties, and seemingly less on the support that gay children and children of gays and lesbians require.
It never fails, caricatures of nuns, females and fetishists are ALWAYS present whenever a large gay and lesbian function occurs.
It attracts this element as well as the media element that will zero in on the most theatrically visible in the vicinity.
Black people, Jews…had no time for parties and using precious financial resources on exposing more negative images than positive ones.
Look at what the gangsta rap, hip/hop culture has done to young blacks.
They fall right into the same trap. It’s all about conspicuous consumption, hypersexualized images, submissive oversexed females, parties and gun toting.
If you don’t care, and spend more time playing…or appear to.
Nobody else will care either and just like blacks, gays and lesbians can least afford to park it on the dance floor.
It’s not over until gay folks ARE equal in the eyes of the law.
Not just invited to the right parties, but invited to ALL aspects of American life.
I agree that there are many gays and lesbians out there, serious, sober and very committed to not only each other, but their children, churches, communities and social safety.
Straight people still own the party image of gay people because gay folks LET them.
There will be time enough to celebrate.
Thus far, considering these state to state marriage amendments, adoption and faith crisis in America in gay lives…the work is hardly done.
posted by kittynboi on
I’m a gay adult and where I am is usually one of the following; cleaning the rabbit cages out, feeding the rabbits, playing videogames, reading, drawing, paying bills, or cooking some food.
“”””It never fails, caricatures of nuns, females and fetishists are ALWAYS present whenever a large gay and lesbian function occurs.””””
If you think this is restricted to gays then you’ve obviously never been to a goth club in your life.
And its no more objectionable there than it is anywhere else. You people are some of the most thinned skinned pussies I’ve ever seen.
posted by ReganDuCasse on
Oh no, I know you are absolutely correct.
One could also point to the Mummer’s, Mardi Gras and Doo Dah parades.
The problem is, nobody is using those occasions to deny heterosexuals their right to marry, have children or serve in traditional paramilitary or military institutions.
Nobody spots a heterosexual half dressed at Mardi Gras and would immediately put in a state amendment that that person is automatically unfit to be a mother or father.
Perspective is what I’m looking for.
Since the straight folks keep demanding control of gay lives, and then screwing up gay life where more important factors are cocerned, I’m of the school that no one can afford to keep handing them the bullets to use in THEIR gun.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
kittynboi wrote:
“If you think this is restricted to gays then you’ve obviously never been to a goth club in your life.”
The difference that you fail to admit is that a gay club is identified as a “gay” club, whereas a goth club is NOT identified as a “straight” club. Regan DuCasse (the commenter you stupidly insulted) is absolutely correct: “gay” events are bacchanals, and for you to deny this or fail to criticize it when it is harmful is only indicative of your adoration of it and continued insistence that rampant, in-your-face sexual fetishes and hard-drug abuse is the righteous sine qua non of “gay culutre”.
Did I peg you wrong, “boi”? If so, then please, by all means, offer up a reasonable defense of “gay culutre” and why my criticisms of it are incorrect and unwarranted.
“You people are some of the most thinned skinned pussies I’ve ever seen.”
This is not an issue of prudishness, but rather one of taste and fearless criticism of the elements in “gay community” which harm us as individuals. But since when should good taste or awareness of consequences prevent you from having fun, right “boi”?
Contempt,
Jimmy Gatt
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Northeast Libertarian wrote:
“We have two choices — either build something for ourselves, or whine that what’s clearly visible in certain parts of the gay universe isn’t good enough (ala the prior post). Only one will get me where I want to go.”
That’s a very shallow interpretation of what I wrote. What I am criticizing in my first reply is not only the pathetic fact that “gay community” is defined by drug abuse and promiscuous sex, but also an impassioned and myopic denial of this fact coupled with pollyannish ideals of what “gay community” might be if all of its shallow, petty, and self-destructive aspects are blithely ignored. It is not whining — it is condemnation, and it is warranted.
I, too, have had to forge my own path and figure out for myself what it means to be a gay man. I live in the suburbs among conservative Christians as a gay adoptive parent in a ten-year relationship. Not only does this defy why the Christian conservatives claim that the “gay lifestyle” is supposed to be for me, but it also defies what the droves of gay people living in the gay ghetto expect that I do to be a True(TM) gay man, and many of them hate me for it. Honestly, I detest the fact that my family is tarnished by their disgusting image. I may be gay, but I don’t want any part of the “gay community” until they can choose to define themselves by more virtuous qualities. In other words, be adults.
posted by kittynboi on
“””” for you to deny this or fail to criticize it when it is harmful is only indicative of your adoration of it and continued insistence that rampant, in-your-face sexual fetishes and hard-drug abuse is the righteous sine qua non of “gay culutre”.””””
I fail to criticize a lot of things I don’t adore. Thats because I don’t let zealous ideologues force me to take a position on every last little thing in the world.
And I can say with some confidence that, at best, the two of us have an equal amount to do with the gay community you claim to hate so. The last gay event I went to was a political rally. I’ve only been to a gay club once in my life, since the goth and industrial clubs play better music anyway. I’ve never been to a circuit party, I’ve never taken any drugs in my life, and the only time I ever drank anything alcoholic was in 9th grade when my mom gave me a glass of wine on new years, and I thought it was awful. I’ve never had a “hook-up”, and I’ve actually only had sex with one person in my life. Needless to say, I don’t spend any time in bars, unless its a sushi bar.
So I have as much to do with the gay community as you do, and my lack of contact with it isn’t because I dislike it, but because most people in the gay community don’t share my interests in most things.
What I DO have is a long history of defending things I don’t like from others if I find their criticism wrong, shallow, stupid, uninformed, or if it gets on my bad side in whatever way.
I don’t see the gay community as particularly atrocious or notably deviant, but maybe I’m not as easily fazed as you are. I’ve noticed that a lot of right leaning gays come off as being very fragile and thinned skinned, whether this is genuine or just an attempt to put on a front of moral indignation I have no idea, but I find gays who go in to moral panics and practice arrogant patronizing finger wagging just as annoying as I find the christians and muslims who do the same.
All your talk of adulthood, virture, morals, etc. etc. sends up red flags for me, because I’ve come to distrust people who speak in such terms due to their track records on what they want and how they try to get it. I don’t like control freaks very much. Im a bit too passive and reclusive and mundane for them to try and control what I do or what I have access too, except the occasional feverish spells of videogame banning they get in, but moralizing control freaks keep me busy enough in opposing their efforts to control people who aren’t me anyway.
Most of the die hard homophobes out there are NOT people who one day saw a gay pride parade and suddenly went from support or apathy to vitrolic hatred. Most all of them have hated gays for a long time and its heavily embedded in to their minds. Changing our image won’t do a damn thing to change their minds, because most people who are that rabidly committed to an ideology are in it for emotional reasons, because of parental and social influence, or so forth.
That very few of them can give rational arguments for their anti-gay rhetoric shows that most of them don’t have logical a to b to c REASONS for opposing gay rights, but its based on things that are outside of or opposed to typical rational thought, and its fitting to quote Bertnard Russell here, when he said; “You cannot reason a man out of something he was not reasoned in to.”
While that may not be true in every case, I think it is true 95% of the time. Usually, the only thing that can turn a homophobe is not an argument nor image, but finding out a loved on is gay, LOSING a loved one to anti gay violence, or occasionally long term exposure to gays that dispels most of their preconceptions about them.
And many straights oppose gay adoption because they think all gays, gay men in particular, are child molesters. And they don’t make exceptions for the “normal” gays like you, they think ALL gays are pedophiles, that its something innate to our being. To the vast majority, gay=pedophile in all cases. You may think that the anti-gay forces see you and other “adult” gays as “normal” and no different as straights, but most of them don’t, and never will. Its not a matter of how you act or present yourself, because then they will assume you’re just hiding the bad things they expect of you.
Its also one of the most damaging strategies I can think of in the long term to try and win right sby cleaning up our image, whether its needed or not. I think that the only way to assure we have a stable society not divided and rbaidly at each others throats over every little thing is that we need to convince people that they are going to have to learn to live with things they don’t like, which I think is a far more “adult” philosophy than everyone doing all they can to win the approval of homophobes.
My parents always tried to get it across to me when I was a kid that not everything will go my way, not everyone will think like I do, not everything will be how I want it to be, and that you just have to learn to live in a world that doesn’t work how you want it to work.
Many of the anti-gay opponents are the exact opposite of that mindset and they seem to think the entire world HAS to work like they want it to, that they are entitled to live in a world entirely of their design and approval, and saying we should give them what they want in hopes that they MIGHT be nice to us and give us rights just feeds their delusion and makes as beggars to our own demise.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
kittynboi-
The most unfortunate aspect of what you say is you’re right in many ways. The general public is either ignorant, unempathetic or apathetic.
What they do or don’t accept is fine. What I most of all try to contribute to all of this, as a woman…a black woman at that-is that there should NEVER be Constitututional discrimination against a group whose presence will ever go away, and what ignorance of whom is changing.
Our laws must live up to the creed of equality, redress for legitimate dscrimination.
The voting public should never have been allowed to decide how gay people are to care for each other and their children.
Their mantra that the majority is all that is required is wrong.
The majority was wrong about integration, slavery, women’s suffrage and equal opportunity as well.
And the majority of voters who put discrimination into their state amendments will be sorry for it.
They made a mess, instead of sticking to the standard still met by gay people.
The voters moved their standards, changed them up in a way no one else is subject to and no one else would or could meet.
THIS is what, however disapproving a public might be.
The Constitution and courts is supposed to PROTECT.
Now that same voting public has broken all kinds of other Constitutional laws that ONLY APPLY to gay people and only could.
Where gay people are concerned, they moved the goal post….and that’s wrong.
Equality IS the goal post.
Most ridiculous of all, and completely hypocritical is the fact that ideology, religious commitment IS mutable. Changable and even fleeting.
Yet, those who are of it, expect Constitutional protections for yet, yet would have the basic withdrawn from a single group with the expectation and argument that being gay is a mutable characteristic undeserving of protection on any level.
So gay people don’t have to be liked or accepted.
Just treated equally in the law.
Period.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””So gay people don’t have to be liked or accepted.
Just treated equally in the law.””””
Exactly. People don’t have to like me, just as long as they don’t bother me. I’m more concerned with having equal rights under the law and then just making my own way in life as I see fit, not turning my life in to a never ending publicity campaign for what conservative gays think we should all be like.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
the pathetic fact that “gay community” is defined by drug abuse and promiscuous sex, but also an impassioned and myopic denial of this fact coupled with pollyannish ideals of what “gay community” might be if all of its shallow, petty, and self-destructive aspects are blithely ignored
Sounds like you don’t know very many gay people, outside of a couple of people who have turned you down at the urban gay club scene.
Please don’t confuse your lack of experience with everyday gay people with expertise on why “those people” are so dramatically inferior to you, passionately lonely in your moral virtue. Martyr complexes are generally tiresome affairs.
posted by Sacramento Pete on
Last March here in Sacramento, I volunteered at Queer Youth Day in which 500 high school aged members of GSAs from across California converged on the Capitol to lobby their elected officials. Think of it as a gay Junior State day. One of the event?s least impressive aspects, though apparently still notable for this comment, was how average the kids looked. No nun costumes, no drugs, no funny hair, no disco, although a few of them had in fact dressed up for the occasion: in suits!
Also joining us that day at the Capitol were (I thought) at least a thousand raving, bullhorn blowing, sign carrying, rabidly evangelical protesters. They lined the route the kids took in their short one block ?march? to the Capitol and were restricted to the sidewalks a safe distance from our outdoor rally by more than a few police officers. The gay adults present locked arms in a cordon around the kids. Even at quite a distance from us, the noise of the protesters was serious competition for the non stop cheers of our pep rally. Everyone was expressing themselves. Democracy works.
So I was also impressed a few hours later as I was leaving. With the crowds broken up, GSA students were wandering back from their lobbying efforts to their busses individually and in small groups. I was only able to recognize a few from having seen them earlier that day. Likewise, the protestors may have been wandering around as well, but I couldn?t tell. Without the politics, everyone had pretty much blended together.
Community may be something ephemeral that happens only in aggregate. You may know what constitutes a community, but I would ask whose community where and when? I know I don?t often like the madness of crowds, and that?s why I avoid them. I also know change happens because I?m 53 and never had a GSA, and that these young adults are an indication of how our community is changing.
posted by EssEm on
Close, but not quite. The issue is indeed adulthood, but I see it more deeply as manhood. Becoming a man.
posted by kittynboi on
Then perhaps you could elaborate more on that.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
kittynboi:
First, I apologize for grouping you in with the fast-track sex-and-drugs lifestyle that I deplore and has become identified with so many gays as the defining aspects of “gay culture”. I have some anger toward the self-important and insulting aspects of some gays toward me because I do not wish to be a part of “gay culture”.
Second, your personal attacks are unwarranted. I object to being called a “control freak” simply because I desire to live a virtuous life. I do not claim to have virtues that anyone else need share, nor do I claim to be better than anyone else. This does not mean that I am forbidden from criticizing others when they engage in behavior that slanders me simply because they, like me, happen to be turned on by people of their own gender. This is illustrated by the last time I went to a “gay pride” parade. I was there with my partner and son (who was one-year-old at the time) as well as with my mom. We’re watching the parade go by and some people dressed up in leather, one of them wearing a saddle with a bit and bridle, go prancing by. My mom turns to me and says nervously, “We know that you’re some of the normal gay people.” But that stuck in my mind quite clearly: my being at “gay pride” meant that I was going to be identified with those freaks. My presence at gay pride says to onlookers, “Those saddled leather freaks are me!” As a gay adoptive parent, I am already under intense scrutiny to be a better parent than all of the straight parents, since any failure in my parenting will be seen by skeptics as being due to my being gay, and I am fully aware that all gay parents may very well be judged by my parenting skills. Hence, I do not in any way take kindly to anything which fosters the notion of my being a gay adoptive parent being linked to the parade of sexual fetishes which is undoubtedly the very essence of “gay pride”. And that same argument extends to the criticims I have about “gay culture”, criticisms which you have
neither disputed nor said were unwarranted.
Third, as long as we’re talking about “red flags”, your words seem to indicate that you have a persecution complex, and that is something that I have seen in many, many gay people. It is the primary reason that my partner and I no longer attend the gay parents’ group in my metro area: it was filled with people who were always expressing paranoia about gay-bashers and how they threatened their family. It was constantly fearful and negative, and we got away from that. I think that kind of insular behavior that is so frequently exhibited by gays (“gay ghetto”) encourages paranoid thinking, and the fact remains that my partner and I have *never* had a problem living in a conservative suburb. In fact, we even enrolled our son in the allegedly gay-bashing Cub Scouts, and we are out and everyone is okay with it. I see my son’s Cub Scout troup having gay parents as something which will further t
he cause of gay people much more than sequestering ourselves away from straight people.
Fourth, most of our friends, acquaintances, and family are straight. We are integrationists, after all! And we have met many of them who have A) not only met many gay people who are in the “gay culture” and they, like me, think it’s gross, and B) are surprised and relieved to find “normal” gay people like us. You know, guys who don’t talk with that artificial, faggy accent and who don’t live up to that superficial, feminized stereotype. While it is certainly true that the world is filled with bigots whose mind won’t be changed, it’s also filled with people who, like me, don’t appreciate what “gay culture” is. The good news is that there are more and more gay people like me every day, and the advent of gay parents is, I think, the most signi
ficant driving force behind this cultural change.
Fifth, on the one hand you write: “Usually, the only thing that can turn a homophobe is not an argument nor image, but finding out a loved on is gay, LOSING a loved one to anti gay violence, or occasionally long term exposure to gays that dispels most of their preconceptions about them.” Yet, on the other hand you write: “I think that the only way to assure we have a stable society not divided and rbaidly at each others throats over every little thing is that we need to convince people that they are going to have to learn to live with things they don’t like, which I think is a far more ‘adult’ philosophy than everyone doing all they can to win the approval of homophobes.” How did you intend to “convince” anyone to live with things they don’t like when you have admitted that “argument” isn’t going to work? You can’t have it both ways. In any case, I completely disagree that changing one’s image won’t work because it contradicts what I’ve experienced in my own life. If you want to live in “gay culture”, then you’re likely going to be sequestered in the “gay ghetto”. Live how you want, but know that my choice not to be part of your “gay culture” doesn’t make me any less gay than you, and, furthermore, I do NOT permit you (a “boi”, apparently) to speak for me as a gay man.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Northeast Libertarian:
You’re correct that I only have a few gay friends (do they qualify as “everyday”?), but that’s largely due to the fact that we don’t venture far our mostly-straight neighborhood to the “gay ghetto”. I’ve never been part of the “urban club scene” (given that I think it sucks) so your stupid insult looks a lot like projection to me.
None of those people whose CHOICES I condemn are “inferior” to me. Instead, I am insulted by A) the notion that they represent 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”.
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!
posted by kittynboi on
“”””First, I apologize for grouping you in with the fast-track sex-and-drugs lifestyle that I deplore and has become identified with so many gays as the defining aspects of “gay culture”. I have some anger toward the self-important and insulting aspects of some gays toward me because I do not wish to be a part of “gay culture”.””””
Yeah, I see this reaction a lot, though it confuses me to some degree, but I guess I just react differently to these things.
“”””Second, your personal attacks are unwarranted. I object to being called a “control freak” simply because I desire to live a virtuous life. I do not claim to have virtues that anyone else need share, nor do I claim to be better than anyone else. “”””
Yes, but you come off as just the opposite, whether you intend to or not.
“”””And that same argument extends to the criticims I have about “gay culture”, criticisms which you have
neither disputed nor said were unwarranted.””””
Criticism is fine if done constructively, without finger wagging, emotionalism, and whole lot of whining. But it seems to me 90% of all criticism of everything falls in to that description.
“”””Third, as long as we’re talking about “red flags”, your words seem to indicate that you have a persecution complex, and that is something that I have seen in many, many gay people. It is the primary reason that my partner and I no longer attend the gay parents’ group in my metro area: it was filled with people who were always expressing paranoia about gay-bashers and how they threatened their family.””””
I’m paranoid in general, and I’m just that way about many many things.
“””” I think that kind of insular behavior that is so frequently exhibited by gays (“gay ghetto”) encourages paranoid thinking, and the fact remains that my partner and I have *never* had a problem living in a conservative suburb. In fact, we even enrolled our son in the allegedly gay-bashing Cub Scouts, and we are out and everyone is okay with it. I see my son’s Cub Scout troup having gay parents as something which will further t
he cause of gay people much more than sequestering ourselves away from straight people.””””
Yes, but it sounds like you live in a more liberal part of the country. Some places are more accepting of gays than others.
“”””Fourth, most of our friends, acquaintances, and family are straight. “”””
So are mine.
“”””And we have met many of them who have A) not only met many gay people who are in the “gay culture” and they, like me, think it’s gross, and B) are surprised and relieved to find “normal” gay people like us. “”””
Most everyone I have known is way more degenerate than anything in gay “culture” (I hate the c word for reasons I won’t bother to go in to here.) I’ve ever seen. And every one of those degenerates is straight. And I’m related to a good deal of them.
“””” While it is certainly true that the world is filled with bigots whose mind won’t be changed, it’s also filled with people who, like me, don’t appreciate what “gay culture” is.””””
Well, for everything that exists there will be at least someone who dislikes it. Thats just how things are, and as long as they’re content to leave it alone and avoid it as I avoid the things I don’t like, thats fine.
“””” How did you intend to “convince” anyone to live with things they don’t like when you have admitted that “argument” isn’t going to work?””””
Convincing them to accept and LIKE gay people is impossible. Convincing them that they don’t get to control everyones lives is not impossible. They can still go on hating us, but they don’t get to tell us what we can and can’t do.
“””” If you want to live in “gay culture”, then you’re likely going to be sequestered in the “gay ghetto”. “”””
I’m “sequestered” in an ordinary apartment complex. As far as I know there are no other gay people in this complex.
“””” Live how you want, but know that my choice not to be part of your “gay culture” doesn’t make me any less gay than you, and, furthermore, I do NOT permit you (a “boi”, apparently) to speak for me as a gay man.”””
All of this after apologizing for categorizing me with gay “culture”? So, which is it? Am I a part of it or not? Since I don’t go to gay clubs, bars, don’t hook up, don’t have any gay friends in real life, etc. I would imagine I’m just as outside it as you are.
Unless you know of something else that makes me part of it, that can make up for me not having any involvement in all the things that make it up, in which case please tell me what it is since its something I am totally unaware of.
“”””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!
“”””
As far as I can see, you’re giving him a lot about yourself to criticize
posted by Bobby on
Names like “Queer Youth Day” is what angers me about the gay community. What about Nigger Youth Day? Spick Youth Day? Kike Youth Day? Gook Youth Day? How come only gays (and black rappers) use derogatory terms for each other?
The term “queer” makes me cringe. What lesson are we teaching those 500 kids? The world is nuts!
posted by kittynboi on
I also dislike the use of the term queer for the reasons stated.
posted by raj on
Jimmy Gatt | November 10, 2006, 4:21pm |
Instead, I am insulted by A) the notion that they represent 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”.
Um, you might want to examine yourself and figure out why you apparently believe that (using your indicia)
(A) they (whoever they are) represent anything other than themselves;
(B) you believe that someone has the notion that you should be in a “community” with anyone other than those that you want to be in “community” with; and
(C) sex and drugs ARE somehow defining factors of what you consider to be THE “gay community.”
I find all of them nonsensical. Regarding (A), they (whoever they are) will do what they want to do, as (presumably) will you. I would surmise that, what you really resent, is that they (etc.) get more media attention than you do, and you resent it. AFAIC, I let them run their lives as they wish, and I will run my life as I wish, and, quite frankly, you should consider running your life as you wish, and ignore the rest. You can resent them (etc.) all you wish, but that isn’t going to stop them from doing or acting as they (etc.) wish.
Regarding (B), I think, enough said. Frankly, it is probably your problem that you apparently believe that someone else has the notion that you should be in a “community” with people who you don’t want to be in an community with.
Regarding (C), quite frankly, this is silly. If you don’t want to do promiscuous sex and drugs, don’t. If some in your circle of friends shun you for that, that is your issue, not theirs’, but you might want to get other friends for your circle. On the other hand, we (my partner and I) have yet to be involved with a circle of friends who demanded that we engage in promiscuous sex or drugs so, as far as I can tell, this issue is not as problemmatic as you seem to believe. Indeed, as far as I can tell, this objection is nothing more than a fantasy on your part.
This is a long-winded way of saying that you should grow up, do your own thing, and not particularly care what your fantasies lead you to believe what is required of you to be “successful” among gays.
posted by Sacramento Pete on
As for ?Queer?, it wasn?t my choice.
http://www.gsanetwork.org/qyad/
I?ve been part of discussions where LGBT folks sought a replacement for ?gay?, ?queer?, etc., much like other minorities have periodically redefined how they refer to themselves. There wasn?t much consensus.
Do you suppose heterosexuals ever sit around referring to ?straight culture? as if it were this all encompassing, monumental entity? Do your heterosexual friends fret about their sexual identity because there are other heterosexuals who are drug addicts, prostitutes and/or criminals?
posted by Bobby on
“I also dislike the use of the term queer for the reasons stated.”
—I’m glad, Kittinboi, glad we agree on that.
Hey Sacramento, nobody blames you for anything, we all know that organization’s name had nothing to do with you.
In 60s it was homosexual or homophile, in the 70s and 80s the term was gay, in 1995, it was GLBT, then it became LGBT (men are evil, so the lesbians had to come up first), and slowly the term “queer” has been invading everything, from queer studies in college, to queer websites, music, etc. Sometimes the “Q” even stands for “questioning.” As it, LGBTQ. So now, people who are not even sure if they’re gay or not have been included to our community. Gee, I’m overflowing with pride.
What scares me is the day the “f-g” word replaces the “q” word.
posted by David H on
Mr. Gatt,
I, too, cringe at the sight of an old leather man running amok on the news throughout coverage of a local gay pride event. I, too, find the fast-sex and drug culture abhorring and immature. I would add that I do not find particularly endearing the politically apathetic, entertainment culture obsessed gay twenty-somethings that make up a good portion of my dating pool. I recently experienced a moment of sheer disillusionment as I watched a large group of gay men and (I assume) straight women humping each other on the ground of a dance floor to a song of nothing but male chanting and loud bass thumps. They looked primitive, like monkeys.
However, that is about where we stop agreeing. Your assertion that you have free reign to criticize others because you feel that they directly represent you is annoying. Of course, you have the right to criticize others, but the least effective and reasonable argument for others to not have lots of sex, do drugs, wear leather, etc. is because ?it makes me look bad.?
Anyone on the other end of that silliness should rightfully tell you to shove your criticism up your ass. You apparently feel that the gay community should do its best to mirror the straight community?or what you would label the straight community, meaning the nuclear family (and perhaps its knock-offs, like the single mom).
Except that there is no straight community. There is the American family, the nuclear family, and it would appear that your idea of a mature, sensible gay man (and I do mean man, this forum seems to have forgotten that there are these people called lesbians) is a father, and hell, a sexual conservative.
Like I said, I cringe, too, when I watch TV and see gays represented by leather daddies. And I balk at gay magazines, obsessed with youth and image. But place the blame where it lies?on the media that out of hundreds or even thousands of GLBT people at a particular event, chooses to single out the leather people. This happened in my home town at a small gay pride, and the leather-clad man that chose to represent us all was actually the only man dressed in leather at the entire event.
And as for a culture that?s obsessed with sex?that?s really not something owned by gays. Maxim is ?man?s? magazine, and that?s pretty degenerate. Popular television and movies are obsessed with sex and often drugs, and certainly violence?one up from the gay community. You can?t blame just gays for gay culture being overly sexual. It?s popular culture, too.
I know, I know. That?s not what you and your neighbors are like. You abhor those things mirrored in ?straight culture? too, right? Except, like I said, there is no straight culture. You?re advocating for gay culture to mirror family culture, and I for one would not take kindly to being represented by boy scouting ?Stepford? gays, with draconian ideas about sexuality and proper dress.
It is perhaps unfortunate that our community?s meeting place is a bar, or community centers where the idea of gay is still somewhat rooted in sexual exploration, but this is to be expected from a culture that began on the idea of sexual revolution?before family was even considered an option.
If you want better representation for the Stepfords, then by-gum, do exactly what this article advocates. Make yourself seen. Start a group or whatever. Organize voter registration and protests and public events that are family-centric, and raise awareness for gay families. Don?t just wail and talk about what you have the right to ?criticize.? If you?re underrepresented in gay culture, then just accept that you?re not a clich
posted by kittynboi on
“”””And as for a culture that?s obsessed with sex?that?s really not something owned by gays. Maxim is ?man?s? magazine, and that?s pretty degenerate. Popular television and movies are obsessed with sex and often drugs, and certainly violence?one up from the gay community. You can?t blame just gays for gay culture being overly sexual. It?s popular culture, too.””””
I think its just America in general thats obsessed with this stuff. Even in the “Red states” where “values” supposedly reign supreme, the exact same violent and sexual tv, movies, music, video games, magazines, comics, books, all of it, is just as popular there as everywhere else. The majority of us Americans like our coffee black, our objects of sexual desire (be they same or opposite gendered) dressed down and possesing perfect bodies, and out popular entertainment dripping with blood and covered in guts seared by hot lead.
And I don’t think this is a big deal. Most all people who like those things, and to a lesser but still ubstantial extent in my experience, people who use drugs and sleep around, some of them may be shifty, annoying, or stupid, but for the most part they’re harmless in any meanigful sense of the word.
People are just making a big deal over nothing and looking to make themselves feel better by condemning someone else.
As I said, I don’t think any amount of convincing or arguing will get homophobes to like us, BUT, I do think people can be convinced with a minimal amount of effort to learn and live with things they don’t like. You just have to make people realize they don’t get to live in a world that totally meets their approval and they never will, because no one gets to live in a world that completly meets their expectations and lives up to their standards.
“”””(And signing things like “contempt” to your posts is silly and immature. Surely there is room for reasonable debate without foaming insults at the mouth everywhere like a rabid dog. You don’t sound like a very nice person, and I’d hate to have to live in a household with an asshole like you.)””””
I’ve found that most self identified conservative gays who come around here act like this to some degree. For whatever reason, they have a giant chip on their shoulder and a desperate need to prove something or other.
posted by Blue Mann on
It is hilarious that the writer who complained about all the “insipid drama” of gay men is the same one who is signing his comments with disdain” and “contempt.” Talk about a bitter, bitchy queen!!! Look in the mirror honey! You sound more like the community you despise than you might think!
posted by Harke the Apostle on
I allways thought that adulthood was all about learning how to take responsibility, and not about conformism.
I think the answer to the ‘age conundrum’ is that many gay men retire from the scene after they reach a certain age, as they are simply no longer interested. I know many gays have a very fullfilling ‘adult’ life outside of the LGBT world.
As for the notion of ‘gay adulthood’, I don’t see the need for it. The more general ‘common adulthood’ should be more than enough for all people.
posted by dalea on
Kittenboi says: You people are some of the most thinned skinned pussies I’ve ever seen.
Bullseye. Thank you.
We are all part of the gay ‘community’ or ‘culture’ not because we signed up and got our secret decoder rings. We are in this because others put us here, into an abstract catagory. Which used to be ‘perverts’ or ‘sexual deviants’. A great deal of intellectual and social effort went into replacing derogatory terms with the begnign ‘gay community’. Which I regard as a great achievment, and much better than what went before.
Speaking of what went before. There was a long struggle that lead to adoption being possible for gays. I knew people who were barred by law from even talking to their children. It really pisses me off to hear people who had the ability to adopt made possible by years of struggle bitch about those who worked to make this possible.
Do you think things have always been as they are now? That all these nice suburban people decided to give things to us because we were such nice normal people? We got them because gay men and lesbians have fought for decades to achieve these. Leather bars, dyke bars and discos had fundraiser after fundraiser to pay for the struggle. The bars which you so disrespect were the meeting places for the projects that brought you the nice normal life you have. Leather men in particular have been at the center of the gay struggle. Have you no gratitude or respect for those who worked to get you where you are? Or were they supossed to do all this and then just disapere, so as not to offend your tender sensibilities? All this so gay men could be suburban housewives?
Harke makes a very good point.
Drag queens, leather guys and fat dykes carried the struggle forward while the nice suburban ‘normal’ gays cowered in their closets. There is a term black people used to use which describes the normal gays attitude: passing. Your ‘I pass for straight’ attitude is disgusting. I feel you should be ashamed of yourself and your disrespectful tone. And apologize to the first leather people you see.
posted by mountain queen on
yawn.
posted by I_just_cannot_resist on
Jimmy Gatt —
I toyed with the idea of a long, well thought-out response, then read David H’s perfectly formed response, and realized I don’t really need to do so.
However, there is one small thing he left out, and that is the task of pointing out the significant amount of hypocrisy you are spewing here. You condemn a segment of the American gay community (and contrary to what you believe – it is but a segment), then express incredulousness that any of *those* people have ever looked down their nose at you. It is quite obvious that you have nothing but contempt for them (exemplified by your oh-so-snippy sign offs), but believe that you yourself live far above anyone having contempt for the way you live your life.
I don’t think it matters how you choose to live your life – whether you are sniffing poppers and grinding on the dance floor every night or living the proverbial “American Dream” raising 2.5 children in the house with a white picket fence – you sir, are quite simply a jerk, and I don’t like you based on that alone. I’d venture that a large majority of those who you feel have slighted you have done so based on that fact as well. Don’t mistake people simply not liking you for someone making a judgment about your life.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Yes, but you come off as just the opposite, whether you intend to or not.
I understand that. I certainly haven’t been very generous with people here, and the fact that others have chosen to moronically attack me instead of address my argument has not made me feel any more charitable toward the rich and vibrant “gay culture”. At the same time, it could be due to the fact that my criticisms are touching a nerve in you, and that’s why you’re inspired to call me a “jerk”. I can’t control the way you choose to perceive me.
Criticism is fine if done constructively, without finger wagging, emotionalism, and whole lot of whining. But it seems to me 90% of all criticism of everything falls in to that description.
In other words, there is no such thing as “constructive” criticism to you. I get it. All criticism is bad. Oh, wait, you said that is “seemed to you
” that only “90%” was “finger wagging”, “emotionalism”, and “a whole lot of whining”. NOW I get it.
I’m paranoid in general, and I’m just that way about many many things.
You and many other gay men share this problem. It’s a drag to hang around with people who have a persecution complex.
Yes, but it sounds like you live in a more liberal part of the country. Some places are more accepting of gays than others.
I live in the South. I live in a conservative suburb in a conservative state. Then again, you’re paranoid.
Most everyone I have known is way more degenerate than anything in gay “culture” (I hate the c word for reasons I won’t bother to go in to here.) I’ve ever seen. And every one of those degenerates is straight. And I’m related to a good deal of them.
I’m really sorry you live among a bunch of “degenerates”. Feel free to criticize the people you choose to hang around with all you want. My criticism
s lie here: A) the notion that people in “gay culture” represent me simply because we are all turned on by members of our own gender, B) the notion tha
t 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”. I wish people would address these points! (Don’t worry, raj, I’m getting to you.)
Convincing them to accept and LIKE gay people is impossible. Convincing them that they don’t get to control everyones lives is not impossible. They
can still go on hating us, but they don’t get to tell us what we can and can’t do.
This is a meaningless assertion. How did you divine that one form of convincing would be “impossible” and another “not impossible”? And why must “hat
ing” be so distinct from “controlling everyones’ lives”? Don’t bother answering: You’re just going to give me more fuzzy, emotional reasoning.
All of this after apologizing for categorizing me with gay “culture”? So, which is it? Am I a part of it or not?
How am I supposed to know? You’ve already admitted to being paranoid about “many many things” as well as arbitrarily judging argument to be some cases “impossible” and in other cases “not impossible”. I honestly don’t think you know you’re writing, “boi”.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
raj:
Thank you for attempting to address my points. I wish you could have done it without starting it with the disrespectful “Um”. I know that I’m coming off a lot meaner than I actually am, but that doesn’t mean that my points are invalid and not worth addressing.
I find all of them nonsensical. Regarding (A), they (whoever they are) will do what they want to do, as (presumably) will you. I would surmise that, what you really resent, is that they (etc.) get more media attention than you do, and you resent it.
No, this isn’t true. I don’t want media attention at all! The most important thing in my life that I want is for my child to succeed and be happy. Nothing else comes close! And it is for this reason that I don’t want media spotlights on me: it might harm my child. It is for this same reason that I am so angry at media spotlights on the “1001 sexual fetishes parade” that is called “gay pride”. I think it harms my family and my child, and I do resent that. Very much. When I wasn’t a parent, I was able to look at that, shrug my sholders, and say, “That’s not me.” I just don’t have that luxury any more.
Regarding (B), I think, enough said. Frankly, it is probably your problem that you apparently believe that someone else has the notion that you should be in a “community” with people who you don’t want to be in an community with.
This doesn’t bother me as much, and I think it’s true because the pressure to conform to a particular lifestyle is decreased as gays move out of the “g
ay ghetto”. At the same time, I have had some gays accuse me of being inauthentic (David H, I’m getting to you!). It’s a small minority, but they suck nonetheless.
Regarding (C), quite frankly, this is silly. If you don’t want to do promiscuous sex and drugs, don’t. If some in your circle of friends shun you for that, that is your issue, not theirs’, but you might want to get other friends for your circle. On the other hand, we (my partner and I) have yet to be involved with a circle of friends who demanded that we engage in promiscuous sex or drugs so, as far as I can tell, this issue is not as problemmatic as you seem to believe. Indeed, as far as I can tell, this objection is nothing more than a fantasy on your part.
I still think it is denial on your part to claim that promiscuous sex and hard drugs are NOT part of what is considered “the gay lifestyle”. Have you ever seen a “gay” cruise? Have you ever been to a “gay” club, or, even batter, especially a “gay” ciruit party? Those things are still very clearly identified as “gay”, and I hate it! I resent the notion that my lifestyle is seen as “somewhat straight” because I don’t engage in that fast-track lifestyle. I admit this is changing, and, if anything, I wish it to change completely. It is harmful to gay people that “coming out” means insertion into a hedonistic lifestyle. Straight people are not in any way obligated to do this, and neither should we. And this doesn’t mean that straight people are never obligated to enter into harmful things or destructive lifestyles (College, for example.) I’m arguing that those things aren’t identified with being “straight”.
This is a long-winded way of saying that you should grow up, do your own thing, and not particularly care what your fantasies lead you to believe wh
at is required of you to be “successful” among gays.
I thank you for your reasoned response, as it’s exactly the kind of respose that I am hoping for. It may very well turn out that my mind will be chang
ed, and I’m hoping you are as open-minded as I am in that regard.
Regards,
Jimmy
posted by Bill Libbey on
First, I want to say how much I appreciated David H’s reasoned response!
Jimmy, I live very much like you, having been in a monogomous relationship since 1973 – a time when such things were almost unheard of. Then we were mocked by our gay friends – but not now. However, despite not being much a part of ‘the gay culture/lifestyle’, I’ve nothing but gratitude and respect for my fellow gays – all those who came before and fought the hard fight, and those who continue to do so now, be it in an ‘in your face’ way, or with more subtlety. Everything we have now we owe to them and I will never denigrate a drag queen or a leather man, or any other gay; they are all my brothers even though I’ve chosen a somewhat different path.
Jimmy, in my opinion there is nothing existant in the gay world that doesn’t also exist in similar form in the straight world. It just doesn’t receive the same press. The goings-on in my own mainly heterosexual neighborhood are something to behold. I almost think we may be the only non-cheating couple on the street!
Live life as you choose, but think a bit harder about how you’re able to do so now, and perhaps you can begin to accept that the struggle has been long and hard, and for many, still is. Best to you, and all who wrote here. Bill
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
we don’t venture far our mostly-straight neighborhood to the “gay ghetto”
That’s the problem. You see it as a choice between a mostly-straight “neighborhood” and a mostly gay “ghetto.”
There’s quite a bit more color out there than that, I can assure you.
having been in a monogomous relationship since 1973 – a time when such things were almost unheard of. Then we were mocked by our gay friends – but not now.
Actually, I find that monogamous gay men get a lot of mockery thrown at them today — from dates, from critics external, and critics internal alike.
I am single, class myself as a monogamy-oriented gay man, and get plenty of derision for it from men who want a quick fling. Oh well, their loss.
A lot of times, I’m starting to hear comments such as “what’s up with this upsurge of uptight gay men who don’t want no-strings fun?!?” and that tells me that the changes to “gay culture” which were discussed in the original article are continuing apace. And I definitely see a lot more stable, long-term gay relationships now than just a few years ago.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
David H:
Your response is even more atrocious and more stupid than the original article.
Anyone on the other end of that silliness should rightfully tell you to shove your criticism up your ass.
I sure hope they do tell me to shove it up my ass. It would mean that I’m doing the right thing.
Like I said, I cringe, too, when I watch TV and see gays represented by leather daddies. And I balk at gay magazines, obsessed with youth and image. But place the blame where it lies — on the media
I can’t believe you’re actually going to BLAME THE MEDIA. How immensely cowardly of you, you incredible pussy! Since when did any gay organization or individual (besides me, who is now being punished for it) complain about the coverage that the drugs-and-sex “gay lifestyle” invitingly receives? Those fags relish in it and then cravenly whine when it “makes them look bad”. Guess what, David! It makes *me* look bad too. The sucky thing is that I didn’t earn it, whereas those drugs-and-sex fags did. And there lies my objection! I wish you would address it.
that out of hundreds or even thousands of GLBT people
I am NOT a “GLBT”. I am a gay man. I am not bisexual, lesbian, or transgendered. Your usage of this moronic label is indicative of one of my complaints: that I should be in a “community” with other people based on the fact that I’m turned on by members of my own gender. Annoyingly enough, that aspect does NOT bind me to transgendered people, but somehow transgenderism is the same thing as “gay”. After all, that’s what the label says!
And as for a culture that’s obsessed with sex — that’s really not something owned by gays. Maxim is “man’s” magazine, and Tatar’s pretty degenerate.
It’s not a “straight” magazine. You admit: it’s a “men’s” magazine.
Popular television and movies are obsessed with sex and often drugs, and certainly violence — one up from the gay community. You can’t blame just gays for gay culture being overly sexual. It’s popular culture, too.
They’re not “straight” movies and “straight” television. You admit: they’re “popular” movies and “popular” television.
I know, I know. That’s not what you and your neighbors are like. You abhor those things mirrored in ‘straight culture’ too, right?
I appreciate you putting “straight culture” in quotes because you know just as well as I that none of those things are either portrayed or perceived as “straight”, unlike that sex-and-drugs lifestyle which is, in fact, freely portrayed and widely perceived as “gay”. And therein lies my objection! I wish you would address it.
Except, like I said, there is no straight culture. You’re advocating for gay culture to mirror family culture, and I for one would not take kindly to being represented by boy scouting “Stepford” gays, with draconian ideas about sexuality and proper dress.
So, in other words, if I don’t uncritically accept NON STOP SEX along with saddles and bit-and-bridles, then I am, by definition, a “Stepford” gay with “draconian” ideas about sexuality and dress. Next up in your idiotic litany of criticisms: you’re going to tell me that I lack “nuance”.
It is perhaps unfortunate that our community’s meeting place is a bar, or community centers where the idea of gay is still somewhat rooted in sexual exploration, but this is to be expected from a culture that began on the idea of sexual revolution before family was even considered an option.
Explain to me why is it not “Stepford” of you to consider such a thing “unfortunate”? It sounds like you’re arguing my point! And I appreciate your calling the bar the meeting place for “our community”. Does this not make true my complaint that people insist that I should be in a community with others solely based around the fact that we’re turned on by members of the same gender? I don’t consider the bar “our” meeting place, and that’s because I’m not part of your “gay community”. Nor do I want to be. That’s why it pisses me off that they A) claim to speak for me, B) try to claim me.
If you want better representation for the Stepfords, then by-gum, do exactly what this article advocates. Make yourself seen. Start a group or whatever. Organize voter registration and protests and public events that are family-centric, and raise awareness for gay families. Don’t just wail and talk about what you have the right to “criticize.” If you’re underrepresented in gay culture, then just accept that you’re not a cliche. Congratulations.
My god, that is the faggiest thing I’ve read in this forum. It is quintessentially faggy for you to reflexively think that improving gays’ lot in life involves “making ourselves be seen” and engaging in political activity. As an alternative, how about we stop acting like “gay culture” centers around sex and drugs? Oh, no, that would be too “Stepford”. Let’s put on a big show instead! Make ourselves be seen! I know: let’s have a parade! Everyone’s own particular sexual fetish gets a float. Your float will be in between the “United Gay Fisters” float and the “United Leather Gay Fisters” float. This will really “raise awareness”! We will call this parade “Gay Pride”.
And where did you get the idea that I was upset about being “underrepresented” in gay culture? I want “gay culture” to go to hell, not represent me! (Or, alternatively, “gay culture” could stop being so obsessed with sex and drugs, but I don’t think gay culture ready to be that “Stepford”. So let’s fuck!)
And things aren’t as bad as you’d make them out to be, anyway. When I’ve seen media coverage of gays getting married, for instance, they’ve almost always been rather normal looking couples.
“Normal looking” meaning “not really faggy”. You know, like me. I’m not faggy at all.
True, the Bravo specials have focused on some pretty silly, flower and catering obsessed fashion gays, but that’s reality television — and a larger point here is that we simply don’t, as a community or as individuals, have control over our representation in the media.
But it represents “gay culture” and you know it does. Since when has “gay culture” chosen to organize and “be seen” regarding our media appearances? On the contrary, “gay culture” LOVES “Queer as Folk” and adores all those shows on Bravo because it “makes us more visible”.
To its credit, Logo had a show profiling several gay people and featured one lesbian from Texas who was a Republican and wanted to help Katrina victims, but only if they deserved it. I thought this was very brave of Logo to do this, for it is exactly the kind of thing that gay people need in order to keep from being stereotyped with that queeny flower-arranging crap. It’s also exactly the kind of thing that will put sand in the vagina of “gay culture”, which is why it was brave of Logo to do it.
Interestingly, that’ll probably be a pretty hard sell. I mean, if the only thing distinguishable about you from conservative culture (which it sounds like you fit, with your attitudes towards feminine gay men, sexual deviancy, and family) is that you like the same-gender, then you’re advocating for the disintegration of gay culture, whatever that may be, into family culture.
You talk as if having a family is a horrible, awful thing. Since you’re giving an impassioned defense for a fast-track drugs-and-sex lifestyle for gay people, it makes sense that you would deplore the idea of parenting.
And the fact that I don’t unquestioningly and unflinchingly accept NON STOP SEX and heroin makes me indistinguishable from “conservative culture” to you? That’s another expression of your supreme command of nuance.
And how dare you, sharing only my values of liking the same gender and not liking drugs and promiscuous sex, pretend to speak for me as a gay man by advocating the gay community better reflect you and your values.
Why the hell did you get the idea that I want the “gay community” to reflect me and my values? What I resent is the notion that they claim to speak for me (when they don’t, because they suck). What I resent is the notion that I *should* be in community with them. What I resent is the notion that I’m not allowed to criticize the sex-and-drugs aspects in the “gay community”, or even that those aspects don’t exist. Get this through your thick, queer skull: I am a gay man, and I do NOT want to be a part of the “gay community”. Quite frankly, simply liking members of my own gender is NOT a worthy basis for a community.
Oh, and condemnation of feminine gay men as “faggy” is homophobic at best, and misogynistic at worst.
I bet you’ve noticed me using “fag” and “faggy” with aplomb in my reply to you. From one thin-skinned pussy to another, I fully intend to desensitize you to it. Do you talk with that fake, faggy accent? Do you have those faggy mannerisms? It’s a put-on and you know it is. It probably helps you “be seen”, though.
Gender and homosexuality are not completely separate descriptors, and regardless of their personal fashion or sexual demeanor, I’ve known many gay men who are simply effeminate. Get over it.
But it’s just so much fun to mock those lace doilies posing as men! Particularly since it’s fake and you know that it is.
(And signing things like “contempt” to your posts is silly and immature. Surely there is room for reasonable debate without foaming insults at the mouth everywhere like a rabid dog. You don’t sound like a very nice person, and I’d hate to have to live in a household with an asshole like you.)
The feeling is most mutual, you prissy, faggy asshole, and I think you are completely incapable of anything resembling reasonable debate. Please, please kick me out of your shitty “gay community”.
And I know I’ve been contemptuously rude to you, but this is actually a very serious question: I am a gay man, but I think the “gay community” sucks, and I especially hate “GLBT”. Can I still be a gay man if I don’t want to be a “GLBT” or be part of the “gay community”?
Sincerely,
Jimmy
~
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Bill Libbey:
I’m sorry that you thought David H’s response was “reasoned”, because I thought it was abysmally stupid. Your response, however, is much appreciated.
Jimmy, I live very much like you, having been in a monogomous relationship since 1973 – a time when such things were almost unheard of. Then we were mocked by our gay friends – but not now. However, despite not being much a part of ‘the gay culture/lifestyle’, I’ve nothing but gratitude and respect for my fellow gays – all those who came before and fought the hard fight, and those who continue to do so now, be it in an ‘in your face’ way, or with more subtlety. Everything we have now we owe to them and I will never denigrate a drag queen or a leather man, or any other gay; they are all my brothers even though I’ve chosen a somewhat different path.
My hat goes to you for having a successful relationship in a culture that does not value it. My partner and I have been together for ten years and have adopted one child. What is very encouraging is the fact that 100% of the gay men that we’ve told about this have said, “Wow, that’s awesome!” I am serious: they are all very approving of it.
This is why David H’s response is so stupid. He calls me “Stepford” and “conservative”. I see him as the same stripe of gay asshole that used to mock you and your partner for wanting to be in a monogamous relationship.
Jimmy, in my opinion there is nothing existant in the gay world that doesn’t also exist in similar form in the straight world. It just doesn’t receive the same press. The goings-on in my own mainly heterosexual neighborhood are something to behold. I almost think we may be the only non-cheating couple on the street!
I think you are correct that the “gay sins” get more press than the “straight sins”. (I don’t believe in sin, mind you!) I also think it’s correct that gay people fully participate in perpetuating the notion that the fast-track sex-and-drugs lifestyle is “gay culture”. Gays do a lot of organizing, lobbying, and complaining about perceived injustice, so don’t tell me this is solely a problem of the media.
Live life as you choose, but think a bit harder about how you’re able to do so now, and perhaps you can begin to accept that the struggle has been long and hard, and for many, still is. Best to you, and all who wrote here. Bill
Thank you, Bill. I know that I stand on the shoulders of giants and am very grateful of the gay men who have blazed the trail for me. I am also very disdainful of the gay men who make my life worse, not better. Please understand that my criticism lies on those who deserve it, and I know that my being critical makes me look as if I don’t appreciate those who have done good things.
Kind regards,
Jimmy
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
To “I simply can’t resist”:
Your response is horrible.
However, there is one small thing he left out, and that is the task of pointing out the significant amount of hypocrisy you are spewing here. You condemn a segment of the American gay community (and contrary to what you believe – it is but a segment),
You’re wrong. There are many different gay lifestyles, but there is one in particular that gets to be benighted in the “gay community”. So it’s not fair to trivialize it as “but a segment”. It’s more than that, and you know it.
then express incredulousness that any of *those* people have ever looked down their nose at you.
Again, you’re wrong. It is joy, not indignance, that I express for being looked down on by *those* people. I want them to disapprove of me, because I do not want to be part of their community. Rather, I express anger that A) They speak for me when I don’t want them to, B) They think I must be part of some “gay community”, and C) They express denial that the very same “gay community” is defined by non-stop sex and hard drug abuse.
It is quite obvious that you have nothing but contempt for them (exemplified by your oh-so-snippy sign offs),
This is somewhat correct, but not totally. I only have contempt for them when A) They speak for me when I don’t want them to, B) They think I must be part of some “gay community”, and C) They express denial that the very same “gay community” is defined by non-stop sex and hard drug abuse. Otherwise, I’m content to live and let live.
Also, it makes my Hitlerrhoids flare up when stupid fags see my objections and then decide to personally attack me instead of addressing those objections. Maybe I should only occasionally say, “Oh, grow up!” Perhaps that would be safer than asking them to stop behaving like meth-powered fuck machines?
but believe that you yourself live far above anyone having contempt for the way you live your life.
Wrong again! I hope that they *do* have contempt for me. Hear me, David H? I don’t want you to approve of me, David H.
I don’t think it matters how you choose to live your life – whether you are sniffing poppers and grinding on the dance floor every night or living t
he proverbial “American Dream” raising 2.5 children in the house with a white picket fence
I totally disagree. I want people to excel and to flourish. It makes me sad to see people die as vicious predators and drug addicts as opposed to hav
ing long and happy lives. It particularly breaks my heart to see gay men throw their lives away as hedonistic drug addicts. Every individual’s life belongs to them, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to callously say “So the fuck what?” when a gay man overdoses and dies alone in his apartment. I’m just not as insensitive and self-indulgent as you are.
I also thank you for mentioning poppers. I was waiting to see who besides me was going to bring it up, since the abuse of that drug is a defnining feature of “gay culture”. You win the popper prize!
you sir, are quite simply a jerk, and I don’t like you based on that alone.
I have those same opinions about you!
I’d venture that a large majority of those who you feel have slighted you have done so based on that fact as well.
Hope all you want! My life isn’t affected by trolls on internet message boards. Perhaps yours shouldn’t be, either. Or maybe I’m not just some troll. Maybe my objections have merit and you couldn’t allow that to go unpunished? I’ll be happy to treat you with kindness and respect if you can drop the stupid personal attacks. But since you loved David H’s colossally-stupid response, I’m fully expecting you to stay on the offensive.
posted by David H. on
From Wikipedia: A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw-man argument” is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.
Your definition of the gay community as non-stop sex and drugs is your own definition, and never something I posited. Of course I don?t believe in requiring?or even advocating–you to join a community made up of such people. I was referring more to sexual subgroups of the community, which I thought I made clear with my more often use of the example of leather daddies.
It is not cowardly of me to blame the media for mostly showing leather men and other clich
posted by Eric on
I’m sure glad that I didn’t grow up with Jimmy Gatt as my father.
Yikes.
OK, back to the non-stop fucking and hard drug (heroin!?) abuse…
Seriously, though, chill the fuck out. I know a fair number of guys who go to circuit parties, and they are perfectly nice people with respectable jobs. Their only crimes are liking dance music and going to the gym a bit too much. It’s really not a big deal.
posted by dalea on
I don’t deserve any sort of a response?
Nothing at all, after you have trashed several generations of gay me who struggled to get you to where you are? Not one word.
This whole thread shows me why southernerashould be excluded from all political disourse.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””I understand that. I certainly haven’t been very generous with people here, and the fact that others have chosen to moronically attack me instead of address my argument has not made me feel any more charitable toward the rich and vibrant “gay culture”. At the same time, it could be due to the fact that my criticisms are touching a nerve in you, and that’s why you’re inspired to call me a “jerk”. I can’t control the way you choose to perceive me.””””
I didn’t call you a jerk, that was somebody else.
“”””You and many other gay men share this problem. It’s a drag to hang around with people who have a persecution complex.””””
I was paranoid all through high school and after that the government was after me for knowing too much about UFOs, and just two years ago I was convinced the UPS truck outside had CIA/NSA/Shadow government surveillance equipment in it, so my paranoia goes far far beyond anytihng to do with being gay.
“”””I’m really sorry you live among a bunch of “degenerates”. Feel free to criticize the people you choose to hang around with all you want. “”””
I’m pretty satisfied with knowing such people.
“”””A) the notion that people in “gay culture” represent me simply because we are all turned on by members of our own gender, “”””
I think the ONLY person HERE who thinks that is you. Everyone else here seems more than willing to dissasociate themselves from you.
“”””This is a meaningless assertion. How did you divine that one form of convincing would be “impossible” and another “not impossible”? And why must “hat
ing” be so distinct from “controlling everyones’ lives”? Don’t bother answering: You’re just going to give me more fuzzy, emotional reasoning.””””
Because changing a persons core belief about the world that is informed by religion, which is what homophobia is, is much more difficult than changing a persons idea about how the law and the government should interact with society.
As I said, you can convince someone that even though they dislike a thing, they don’t have to ban it, just avoid it.
“”””How am I supposed to know? You’ve already admitted to being paranoid about “many many things” “”””
Most of the things I’ve been paranoid about involve government conspiracies, UFO’s, or people I know personally plotting against me for material gain.
I don’t know a lot of other gay guys who are paranoid over whether or not the government made up the idea of flying saucers as a front for mind control experiments.
“”””I honestly don’t think you know you’re writing, “boi”.””””
Why?
“””” I know that I’m coming off a lot meaner than I actually am, but that doesn’t mean that my points are invalid and not worth addressing.””””
If you keep coming off like that, most people will dismiss you before they even get to any of your points. You clearly need some PR training.
NEL
“”””I am single, class myself as a monogamy-oriented gay man, and get plenty of derision for it from men who want a quick fling. Oh well, their loss.””””
So am I. Well, at least you can shrug off derision and handle it much better than some of the other people here seem able too.
Gatt again.
“”””Your response is even more atrocious and more stupid than the original article.””””
I guess this is another example of you coming off as more mean than you actually are.
“”””I am NOT a “GLBT”. I am a gay man””””
Well, it includes you, so don’t feel too bad.
“”””It’s not a “straight” magazine. You admit: it’s a “men’s” magazine””””
Given that when it comes to the sexual stuff it has exclusively straight content, I would imagine it is.
“”””And where did you get the idea that I was upset about being “underrepresented” in gay culture? I want “gay culture” to go to hell, not represent me!””””
Well, you don’t seem to be doing your part by avoiding “Gay culture” since you keep coming back here amongst people you accuse of being associated with it.
I still wait your stance on my never having gone to a gay bar, not going to gay clubs, and never having hooked up or had a fling.
“”””I bet you’ve noticed me using “fag” and “faggy” with aplomb in my reply to you. From one thin-skinned pussy to another, I fully intend to desensitize you to it.””””
I’m the one who called you a thin skinned pussy, not him.
“”””I’m sure glad that I didn’t grow up with Jimmy Gatt as my father.””””
I think he’s the best argument against gay adoption I’ve seen yet!
Seriously, though. Gatt, I’ve seen some nitwits on here, and Bobby and ND30 have their moments of ignorance that shock someone as used to seeing ignorance as I am, but I think you are without a doubt the single stupidest person I have ever seen on this website. You’re just blowing up at no one or no thing in particular, just the general complaint that people aren’t agreeing with you, and thats all I’ve really seen from you. When anyone wuestions you, you bitch, whine, accuse them of this or that, and so on.
Assuming you aren’t a troll, you’re definitely an idiot. No one has given you a single reasoned response because you seem intent on flinging excrement at anybody who doesn’t see your way, because if they aren’t seeing your way, you don’ think they’re following through with your demands to criticize the things you don’t like about the gay community.
I’ve loved watching you writhe and squirm over the last three letters in my name even though I’ve probably had less contact with the gay community in my entire life than you have. You thought it would be an easy shot to take at me because it gives the impression I’m something I’m not, apparently. You arent the first person I’ve baited with this. I got Bobby with it a while back too when he assumed I was like the kind of person you keep loudly decrying. (Maybe it was Bobby, it might have been ND30, but whatever.)
Regardless, I think your posts show that you are one of the most foolish, boorish, whiny, ignorant peons to ever come here, and I have little trouble saying this since you never seemed truly intent on having civil discourse of any sort anyway, all you wanted to do was vent, whine, and start an argument to make yourself feel better.
And you’re still a thin skinned pussy.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
vid H:
I would like to thank you for responding, as I think your response is much improved in tone. Yes, the issues I brought up are serious, and I perhaps could have broached them in a more sensitive manner. I found the original article by Paul Varnell to be both stupid and insulting, as he was behaving in a manner that I found to be completely in lock-step with politically correct gay thought and, thus, wholly unworthy of an “Independent” gay forum. My opinion about his article has not changed in the course of this discussion (namely because people persist in refusing to address my objections).
Your reply was meandering and brought up many different issues in different places. I’m going to try and consolidate them for reply. Please let me know if I didn’t answer something that you think deserved to be answered.
1. I do, in fact, have an argument, and I do not think you have given it the thought or response that it merits. I am offended by: A) the notion that I am part of the “gay community” when I am not and do not want to be, B) the notion that I should be in a “community” with others based on the fact that I am turned on by members of my own gender, and C) the denial that the “gay community” is (partly) defined by hyper-sexuality and drug abuse. You have treated these objections either very poorly or not at all.
2. It is completely unfair of you to accuse me of “ad hominems” without first apologizing for the ones you have leveled against me, especially when you persist in slurring me as “draconian”, “conservative”, and “Stepford”. If you want to make this discussion more civil, then please retract those statements. I, in return, will start treating you with respect and care. But as long as you don’t want to play by the rules, then why should I?
3. When you write, “If you’re upset that the gay community includes more than gay men” in regards to the retarded “GLBT” label, you are proving my point that there is a “gay community” that claims me (a gay man) when I don’t want it to and wish it wouldn’t. Furthermore, you are proving my point that there is a notion that I *should* be a part of this “community” simply because I am a gay man.
4. Your claims of my alleged “hate mongering”, “anti-feminism”, “anti-transgenderism”, and “anti-bisexuality” appear to be your attempts to demonize me because you cannot engage me rationally on the issues.
5. You are displaying disgusting black-and-white thinking by assuming that if I do not appreciate all sexual behaviors then I am a “sexual conservative”. There are shades of gray on this issue like most others. I think this is a big problem in “gay culture”: because gay people were stating that others could not condemn them for their own particular sexual “deviancy”, they subsequently lost the ability to criticize ANY sexual behavior. Do you remember the sign that Harry Hay carried in that San Francisco gay pride parade? It read: “NAMBLA marches with me”. Is the “gay community” now “conservative” in your opinion for being almost entirely united in rejecting NAMBLA? Am I “conservative” (which, in your parlance, means evil) for rejecting both NAMBLA and coprophagia? Please explain, because you seem to be arguing that it is “conservative” (which means evil) for me to reject some sexual behaviors as disgusting.
6. When I referred to “standing on the shoulders of giants”, I was not referring to drag queens. Drag queens harm me and do not help me. I do not accept the argument that drag queens are “harmless”. I am disgusted by the fact that they get to share the same “gay” circle. They are one of the principal reasons that I do not want to be in the “gay community”. Another one of those principal reasons I do not want to be in the “gay community” is the atrocious “gay pride” parade. I stand on the shoulders of gay people who helped me, not gay people who harmed me.
7. Being “active” and “being seen” are very much part of the “gay community”. I remember when two guys came over to our house to ask us about adoption (we had many different couples, both gay and straight, come to talk about adoption with us because we had done it). They both came dressed head-to-toe in rainbow and pink-triangle wear. They both worked as “gay activists”. They drove matching pink and purple Hyundai. Their cat was named “Stonewall”. That was the moment that I absolutely decided I hated the “gay community” and wanted it to go to hell. But it gets worse! This couple went on to adopt a little girl and proceed to get lots of press (they craved the attention) in both the mainstream press and the gay press, and they called their family, “Two queens and a princess”. They practically became the face of gay parenting in my city, and I was (and continue to be) completely appalled at the thought that some of my friends and associates (such as the parents of my son’s friends) would see those self-indulgent faggots and think of my family. These two individuals went on to insist that our gay family group (the one I eventually abandoned) absolutely must make a statement about gay marriage (this was during the run up to W’s re-election). In other words, being faggy and and in-your-face was what “being gay” WAS — not just to them, but to all gay men, and if I didn’t like it then I was “homophobic”. Yes, I’m fucking pissed off about this, and I see you as agitating in the defense of those horrible faggots while stating openly that if I am hurt or angry then it’s all my fault. It’s why I’m not being very charitable on this message board.
8. You write, “If you complain that it claims to represent you and actually doesn’t, then it misrepresents you, then you are complaining that you are underrepresented.” No, that’s wrong. It doesn’t “misrepresent” me, it mal-represents me. It represents me when it shouldn’t, I want no part of it, and I am offended that it continues. If I may be more direct, I tell my friends and family that I think the “gay community” is bullshit and that being gay isn’t worthy of forming a community over. You continue to argue that I should be part of this community, which is my “objection B” listed in item #1 (above).
9. “Talking gay” and “acting gay” is an act. I know this is highly politically incorrect to say among gay people, but I think it is very worthy of discussion. When I came out, I was highly turned off by that behavior. I still am. I saw gay men acting (yes, it is acting) like that, and I asked myself, “Am I really gay? I’m not like that.” That question is still valid at this very moment! I see people who act like that to be superficial tools who bow down to social conformity. I don’t think it is “anti-gay” in any way to say that.
10. You ask, “How can you cry that gay culture has never gotten together to decide how to be portrayed in the media, and a sentence later claim that they got together and decided that they love Queer as Folk and shows on Bravo because it makes them more visible?” I think you misunderstand me. I maintain that the “gay community” has in no way resisted how it was portrayed by the media when the media broadcasts images of the parade-of-sexual-fetishes known as “gay pride”. In fact, the “gay community” invites that kind of attention. The “gay community” also loves “Queer as Folk”, which shows “stereotypical” gay people. (To its credit, I heard that the show actually had a gay adoptive family on the show which criticized “gay culture”, which made me feel very happy about it. But I had long since abandoned that very politically-correct gay show.)
11. I think that “stereotypical” is the code that people in the “gay community” use to describe themselves when other people criticize them. In other words, they imply: “You can’t criticize me. You are only criticizing a ‘stereotype’ of gay people.” Instead, I think people in the “gay community” follow a particular sub-culture. It is a sub-culture that eschews criticizing sex, embraces embarrassing people through switching gender roles, promotes a manner of speech and acting, loves drama, and is politically Leftist. This is what “gay” is to many people, and they claim the term “gay” for themselves by calling themselves the “gay community”. I want no part of this sub-culture. In fact, I think they suck. It’s unfair that they claim to speak for me or punish me (or even disbelieve me!) for not wanting to be part of their crappy “community”. I don’t see any distinction between “gay culture” and the “gay community”.
12. You write, “I am not anti-family because I don’t wish to be represented by family values. When are family advocates going to understand that the world is made up of more than just them?!?” David, when are you going to realize that “family values” includes many good things as well as the really horrible aspect of gay-bashing? Just because I am gay does not mean that I am going to reject discipline, abandon virtue, despise compassion, and fail to protect my child from predators. “Family values” is often abused as code for gay-bashing. What this means is that “family values”, like all aspects of our society (such as the Boy Scouts, and shame on all of you who think that my son joining the Boy Scouts was wrong!), will one day be integrated and will include gay people. I, too, have family values, because I have a family and nothing, NOTHING, is more important to me than my child. Not even my own life! Then again, maybe you were using “family values” as code for “conservatism”, which you seem to have defined as pure evil.
13. You ask, “What are you contributing to the debate at all if you’re advocating nothing in place of the problem of a gay community that has false images and, perhaps, skewed values?” It is neither my responsibility nor my desire to meddle in the problems of the “gay community”. Instead, what I want is for the “gay community” to stop interfering with my life, particularly since I think it harms my child.
14. Your comments about religion and its relationship with homosexuality are a shallow treatment of the subject. I have many thoughts on this issue, but it’s off-topic and this post is already very long.
It is my hope that your posts are on an upward trend toward civility. Believe me, it has happened many times where a discussion starts out with people at each other’s throats and then comes back toward mutual respect. I’m ready to go there with you, and it is my desire that you’ll join me there.
Regards,
Jimmy
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Last comment was to “David H”. Sorry, David, I didn’t mean to mangle your name. This software isn’t the most user-friendly for posting or editing!
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
dalea:
One more thing. I take great pleasure in knowing that you think Southerners should be censored yet you have no means of censoring me, particularly since my last message to you was so erudite and florid. Read my words and weep!
posted by Kabloo on
James Edward Stokes III…self-hating caucasion woman from the South. Please stop feeding the troll.
posted by raj on
Jimmy Gatt | November 14, 2006, 9:52am |
Dalea:
(snipp)
No, faggot…
Sorry, I should have been paying attention. I was going to do a response to your earlier post to me, but, after doing a little bit of investigating–relating to the bolded excerpt from your comment to Dalea–it is clear that you are not worth the effort. It appears that you are nothing more than a whiny wimp (I’d prefer to use the formal word for a female dog, but I’ll refrain) who isn’t worth the time and effort dealing with. Go suffer in silence. Others of us have learned how to deal with the “excesses” that you have complained about–generally by ignoring them.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Kabloo:
Hey, that’s my OLD name! I took my partner’s surname once we decieded to adopt, but I made sure to keep my maiden name. I am concerned about your desire to reveal personal information about me. Are you planning something more sinister?
I object to you labeling me as “self-hating” because I love myself. Rather, it’s “gay culture” that I object to.
I will point out that you are proving one of my objections true: if I don’t like the “gay community”, then you think I am “self-hating”. In other words, I’m part of “gay community” whether I like it or not. That is the basis you’re working from, correct?
Regards,
Jimmy
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
raj:
I’m sorry for offending you. dalea can’t get away with slandering me for not “appreciating” the harm that gay people have done to me and my family. He/she earned every bit of abuse from me. That doesn’t mean you deserve it, though, and I apologize. My insults were not aimed at you.
(Unless you agree with dalea, in which case, I retract that.)
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Eric:
I know a fair number of guys who go to circuit parties, and they are perfectly nice people with respectable jobs. Their only crimes are liking dance music and going to the gym a bit too much. It’s really not a big deal.
Suddenly, hyper-sexuality and drug abuse have morphed into “liking dance music” and “going to the gym too much”. This is the denial that I was talking about. I appreciate your admission that circuit parties are part of the “gay community” though.
posted by Kabloo on
“My name is Jimmy Gatt. I live in Marietta, Georgia with my partner, Steve, and our adopted son. I found out about Universism through a newspaper article about it in my metro area newspaper (Atlanta-Journal Constitution).
I used to be a Christian, and my deconversion from that faith was very painful for me. I lost a solid community of friends and thus many of the human contacts that were an important part of my lifestyle. My partner and I tried to replace it with other offerings such as liberal Christianity and Unitarian-Universalistism (which I think is the church of Political Correctness), but we found both to be sorely lacking. Where was the community of people who followed reason rather than supersition? I wanted such a community of like-minded people to exist in my lifestyle.”
So you make it a habit of pissing off groups that you belong to…makes sense to me!
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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?
posted by Kabloo on
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!
posted by kittynboi on
“”””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.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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. 😐
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
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.
posted by kittynboi on
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?
posted by dalea on
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.
posted by raj on
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.
posted by Eric on
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…
posted by Thom on
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.
posted by Bill Libbey on
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!
posted by Bill Libbey on
Apologies….. I should have referred to ‘Thom’ as the one who reminded me of the original subject of this thread. Thanks Thom.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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”.
posted by Mason on
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.
posted by dalea on
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.
posted by Drew on
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?
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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.”
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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
posted by kittynboi on
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.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
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.
posted by kittynboi on
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.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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!
posted by Thom on
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.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
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.
posted by dalea on
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.
posted by dalea on
I have saved this thread with all of Jimmy Galt’s comments. Something needs to be done now.
posted by french class on
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.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Now, dalea, will you be as quick to blast “french class” as you were Mr. Galt?
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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.
posted by dalea on
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?
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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.
posted by Bill Libbey on
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.
posted by kittynboi on
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.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.
posted by Bill Libbey on
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
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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)?
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
Speaking of moderators, now is particularly the time to call for them to delete the SPAM.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Bill: What do you think would make one gay man (me) say such a horrible and insulting thing to another gay man (dalea)?””””
Idiocy?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
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.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
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?