Here's an interesting piece from the San Francisco Chronicle on A deepening challenge for America's gay men; New movement looks for more in identity, relationships. Excerpt:
Meet the new players in the great American debate about values: Ryan, a 25-year-old newlywed, who is helping other men find husbands; Doug, 50, who is helping gay men in San Francisco create their ideal community; and Chris, 36, whose pursuit of happiness has switched from chasing New York hotties to seeking down-home enlightenment.
They and others across the country are engaging gay men in conversations about their goals and values-both personal and collective-and challenging the sense of who gay men are and what makes their community....
"Gay men are standing in the middle of a tornado, with the pope and the president on one side telling them one thing and 'Will & Grace' and 'Queer Eye' telling them another thing and the gay culture telling them another set of issues," [author Christopher Lee Nutter] said. "I think that very tornado is what has directed a lot of men to say, 'OK, who ... am I going to believe?' "
While many of those quoted urge moving beyond the hedonism of modern (urban) gay life, I suspect others are mostly critical of their fellow gay men not being "progressive" enough politically. Still, the piece does include a reference to IGF as an alternative resource that "aims to elevate the discussion of gay issues."
108 Comments for “Values Matter, but Whose?”
posted by kittynboi on
I’ve noticed that many gay guys 25 and under seem more prone to dreaming about having a husband and adopting kids and etc. etc. than some older ones do. Perhaps because we’ve come of age (and are coming of age) in an era where it seems more and more plausible to have those things.
I think the most stabilizing force for the gay community will be for gay teenagers to grow up seeing a generation or two before them married and with kids and all that.
But first we have to be able to do that.
We aren’t going to have the clean break some gay cons hope for, in where all gay clubs close down and gay men gain weight and start going to church and buy Ann Coulter books and say evolution is a lie. Thats not going to happen. No one is going to “assimilate” in large numbers to that kind of thing.
We need a focus on legal protections and stable relationships, not a bunch of whiny hand wringing over gays eating too much sushi or buying clothes at place sother than wal mart or other david-brooks style fluff.
posted by James on
This article says EXACTLY what I’ve been saying, EXACTLY–and this article was written by a guy in San Francisco who knows a lot of gays. How could someone with my lack of experience and insight come to the EXACT SAME conclusions?
Can I do my “I told you so” dance now?
posted by Carl on
The glorification of sex and drugs in gay culture is a problem. A bigger problem is that many in America will always stigmatize gays. And as these young gays get a little older and realize they won’t have any rights, they may end up getting more into drugs and dangerous sex, because they know they have nothing else worth doing. It doesn’t help that a lot of conservative gays spend their time either being GOP shills and constantly condemning the gay community, or saying “my life is private” and hiding as far in the closet as possible. Many young people out there see homosexuality as sick and wrong, with the “that’s so gay” phenomenon, and many young people end up identifying as straight or bi, just because they don’t want to be known as gay.
That article really had a biased byline:
” A deepening challenge for America’s gay men ”
Basically the most pessimistic, fatal line possible for the story, and one that makes gays look damaged.
posted by James on
I think that many gay men have entered the gay subculture (as described in the above article, so don’t blame ME for negative stereotypes) having nowhere else to go. They discover that its fabulosity is shallow and empty, and they come out on the other side, embracing traditional values, mature and stable behavior, and monogamous relationships. I decided to skip the step of ever actually being part of the gay subculture–I looked in from the outside and saw it was shallow and empty, and headed straight for the stable and (I hope one day to be in a) monogamous relationship stage. As a result, I am chided by those on this board for my “lack of experience,” as if it is a good idea to go to the Taco Bell where everyone gets E. coli just so I can be part of the gang. I’m glad to be inexperienced and on the outside of the gay subculture–and I look forward to welcoming all the guys who are finally getting here. I will try to keep from the shallow pleasure of saying “I told you so”–but feel free to praise me for my prescience and for, once again, being ahead of the curve.
posted by Carl on
James, the problem is that you risk coming across as smug or as not knowing the real experience when you go on about how you have chosen this pure, clean life without going to the “gay subculture”. You end up coming across, intentionally or not, like anti-smoking advocates I know who after a few years become chain smokers.
There’s nothing that will make someone run back to a bad subculture faster than judgment. And too often, people who oppose this subculture are very self-important and judgmental.
posted by Randy on
Next up: Bobby’s whine about how the gay community isn’t interesting in long term relationships.
posted by novaseeker on
The article is different from what you typically write, James, in that it does not come off as arrogant and condemning. While I agree with many of your views regarding the urban subculture, I completely disagree that having an arrogant or condemning attitude is going to encourage changing anyone’s personal habits — instead it serves to get people’s backs up and for them to hunker down, dig in to their position, and fight a pointless kind of “debate” that in reality involves mostly talking past each other combined with substantial dollops of self-validation. It’s just a very tremendously unproductive approach to take. Compassion will win over hearts and minds, not shrill condemnations combined with the icy shrugging of shoulders.
posted by James on
Oddly, and this might come as a surprise to you, novaseeker, et. al, but I find much of what comes from the gay left to be “arrogant and condemning.” Yes, Carl, sometimes the gay left comes across as “smug, self-important, and judgmental.” Who knew?
When you’re growing up and you discover you’re attracted to girls, you have two basic options: 1. You can party, party, party, having all the partners you want, or 2. You can work to find a traditional marriage based on traditional values. Or, 3, you can party, party, party until you are about 25 and then seek option 3. This is what most straights do.
When you are a male growing up and discover you’re attracted to guys, you have two options: 1. Party, party, party having all the partners you want or 2. Be all alone in the world.
The gay community does not provide anything for those who want to express their sexuality according to traditional values. If you grow up gay, your first and only contacts with other gay men will be those who tell you to grab a box of condoms and jump in! No one, not one single person, will explain to a young gay man that you don’t have to go out sexual adventuring, that you can seek monogamy and permanence, and that your life will be happier for it.
While straight guys may not choose this more traditional model, there are men in their world who will support them and nurture them if they choose the traditional, non-party path. Gays only have one default position to offer young men coming to terms with themselves–you get to be meat for those just a little older than you!
The gay community needs to stop deriding the traditional values approach to sexuality and start offering healthy alternatives to young gay men who want to skip the whole party scene and find long-term relationships based on traditional values.
posted by Randy on
“The gay community does not provide anything for those who want to express their sexuality according to traditional values.”
First, the straight community provides nothing for gay people at all. We are on our own. As for the gay community, this isn’t necessarily true. There are many many gay couples who are in long term relationships, and ever since the gay marriage debate has begun, there have been many articles about married gay people. I personally know quite a few.
James, if you don’t agree with this, then what shoud the gay community do to make you happy? Close down the bars? Eliminate bathhouses? That ain’t gonna happen, and it also won’t get gay men to think about coupling.
Yes, I agree that there is tremendous pressure to have tons of sexual partners. But then, gay men often LIKE have tons of sexual partners. For those that don’t, you can find a long term partner if you keep looking — I know plenty of guys who are single but looking for a partner, and have given up the anonymous sex routine. When you get older, that’s what many people do anyway.
I mean, hey, more power to you James. You live your life as you choose. But so should everyone else.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
James: “When you are a male growing up and discover you’re attracted to guys, you have two options: 1. Party, party, party having all the partners you want or 2. Be all alone in the world.”
What a sad and depressing thing to say. You need to face the fact that not every gay man is as myopic and trapped as you. Please seek help.
posted by alex on
“I thank God I’m gay,” Nutter said. “Being gay, and all of the pain that is associated with it — that enormous challenge to my identity — forced me to go inside and start living my life according to what I knew was true and important.”
To me, this was easily the most important idea in the piece. What some folks here seem to be more interested in is berating people for not by his principles.
I know principled poly-amorous coples. I know “ethical sluts.” I know gay men who are waiting for monogmous relationships.
When they complain about “the gay community” I freely challenge my friends and partner: What are you doing to improve it? Whining to me doesn’t cut it.
posted by James on
The gay community needs to offer young gay men different options. A young straight man, if he doesn’t want to party, can go to church. There are all kinds of faith-based, values based organizations for young straight men who want to express their heterosexuality in traditional ways.
Young gay men need the same support system. Rather than be told to reject their faith and values, grab a box of condoms, and jump in, young gay men need the same clearly visible and available support systems if they want to express their homosexuality in traditional, values-centered, and faith-based ways.
Amd please, don’t even try to say that young gay men have lots of options. From the very start, you are given one model for homosexual behavior–the Lance Bass/George Michael/Elton John/Jake Shears model. Maybe, somewhere along the way, years later, you might start meeting monogamous couples, but that is long after you’ve had to throw away your values just to not have to be alone.
Young gay men need to know that being gay doesn’t have to include any period of promiscuity or fabulousness. You can come out of the gate into stable, monogamous relationships.
Also, the gay community needs to be masculine-affirming. What scares a lot of guys off is that they will have to give up their masculinity in order to be gay. We need to show them that there are strong, masculine men with traditional values that they can model their lives after, for example–hmm, that’s a pretty short list, isn’t it?
posted by alex on
“The gay community does not provide anything for those who want to express their sexuality according to traditional values.”
Well, in Metro Detroit there are a variety of social organizations out there: Bowling leagues, softball league, choirs, MMC-Detroit, BWMWT, etc…
Unless, of course, your looking for some group that’s going to stand together and wag a finger at everybody else.
Come to think of it we’ve got them, too. LCR.
posted by alex on
young gay men need the same clearly visible and available support systems if they want to express their homosexuality in traditional, values-centered, and faith-based ways.
Most major denominations have BGLT outreach / support organizations. I’ve even seen groups for Gay Evangelical Christians. There is a mutual responsibility: The groups to make their presence know. Young men (or older men) have the responsibility to search, join, and be active.
you are given one model for homosexual behavior–the Lance Bass/George Michael/Elton John/Jake Shears model. Maybe, somewhere along the way, years later, you might start meeting monogamous couples, but that is long after you’ve had to throw away your values just to not have to be alone.
That wasn’t even close true when I came out in 1986, I would figure that it is less true today. I was meeting folks in or desiring to be in monogomous coupleswithin 4 months of venturing into “the community.”
posted by inahandbasket on
James sez: “The gay community needs to offer young gay men different options. ” and “Young gay men need the same support system.”
James, there’s an old ’60’s leftist (yay!) question: ‘If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.’
So, James, what are you DOING to help create the community you desire – or – as many have pointed out – there’s a whole lotta whining goin’ on. Since you are so passionate about this issue, perhaps it can be part of your life’s work to create the community you desire.
“Be the change you wish to see in the world.” – Ghandi
posted by James on
“This is not an abusive family, James, so just stop saying that! (bam!) You’re the problem, James, it’s you! (pow!) Don’t tell the neighbors about Daddy’s naps or Mommy’s bruises–I’m just telling you for your own good! (splat!) If you were a better son, James, there wouldn’t be these problems–I wish you never born–why don’t you just shut up and go away? We were fine when you weren’t here! (BLAMMO!)”
Holy Denial Batman! Will we ever defeat The Enabler?
posted by James on
Here’s what I’m doing–I’m working within my Episcopal church to create a space which offers both acceptance and accountability for gay people. I think our denomination and my specific church have a lot to offer in terms of providing for support and structure for gays. We have an active youth group, and I think as more gay young people join, they will see faithful gay adults in monogamous relationships (I hope to be one someday!). I think the church is the best place I can put my energy to create an alternative, and I hope this leads non-churchgoing gays to support the alternatives which work for them.
posted by kittynboi on
“”Young gay men need the same support system. Rather than be told to reject their faith and values, grab a box of condoms, and jump in, young gay men need the same clearly visible and available support systems if they want to express their homosexuality in traditional, values-centered, and faith-based ways.
“”
I’m not promiscusous, I’ve only ever had one partner, and I don’t go to clubs or bars.
And I’ve done it all and have never been inside a church in my life.
The only way to keep people from partying is video games. I will stand by this statement to my death. Its the only 100% certain method.
“”””Amd please, don’t even try to say that young gay men have lots of options. From the very start, you are given one model for homosexual behavior–the Lance Bass/George Michael/Elton John/Jake Shears model. Maybe, somewhere along the way, years later, you might start meeting monogamous couples,””””
Elton John has been with DAvid Furnish since 1993. Over a decade. How is that “model” at odds with monogamous couples?
posted by alex on
Elton John has been with DAvid Furnish since 1993. Over a decade. How is that “model” at odds with monogamous couples?
My guess is because he is an entertainer, outspoken & flamboyant, and not “straight acting.”
posted by Tim on
Yeah, Elton John isn’t butch enough.
Elton was one of the first celebrities to come out of the closet. This was back in the 70s and it nearly ended his career. He deserves great thanks for that. Plus all the charitable work he’s done for AIDS.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Unless, of course, your looking for some group that’s going to stand together and wag a finger at everybody else.
No, I think I, for one, am just looking for a group that is willing to do for public gay sex what people do for public straight sex.
And this comment was particularly interesting:
And as these young gays get a little older and realize they won’t have any rights, they may end up getting more into drugs and dangerous sex, because they know they have nothing else worth doing.
Funny, I just ended up playing sports, getting an education and a job, then getting involved in both my personal and professional community.
To think, all this time, I was outside doing something useful, when I should have been inside my room, curled up in a fetal position, rocking back and forth and crying about how I had “no rights”, then taking meth and heading out to a bareback orgy.
I blame it on the fact that, growing up, I had absolutely zero in the way of gay role models; therefore, I had to settle for straight people as an example of how to lead your life, stay out of trouble, and love someone.
posted by James on
There are lots of entertainers who are outspoken, flamboyant, and “not straight-acting”–David Bowie, the lead singers of Green Day and The Cure (whose names escape me for the moment), David Spade, Alice Cooper, Prince, etc.–all of whom are straight. Being gay has nothing to do with being flamboyant or effeminate. We need more masculine-affirming models for young gay men to follow. Being gay is about being a man first and foremost, and then being attracted to other men. Gay men need to learn that coming out has nothing to do with giving up your manhood. It’s OK to be gay not to want to “bend genders.” It’s OK to be gay and not be interested in drag or fabulousness. It’s odd, but true, that gay men are not given the signal that it’s OK to be a man.
Incidentally, did anyone read the article? I’m just saying what the article is saying–if you don’t trust me, why don’t you trust the writer of the article?
posted by Tim on
Unfortunately, so-called straight acting men have the most to lose by going public. As long as you pass for straight, you can get along with your career and community and not cause trouble.
I agree we need better role models (I hate that phrase).
posted by Novaseeker on
And here we go with the fem bashing again!
posted by James on
“Fem” and “Gay” are two different things, novaseeker. Expressing a complete disinterest in “fem” is not bashing. Being gay does not make me fem, nor does it mean I have some implied unity with those who express themselves in “fem” ways, whether those men are gay or straight.
I think a lot of young gay men would be more comfortable coming out if being “gay” didn’t mean being “fem.” When someone says, “That’s so gay,” they mean “That’s so fem,” not “That’s so two masculine-identified men in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship.”
Most men don’t want to be effeminate, they want the respect of other men, to be a man among men. That’s what I want. Gay and straight men want to be affirmed in their masculinity and accepted as equals in the world of men. Those in the gay community who equate “gay” with “fem” such as you, Novaseeker, only undermine men’s valid desire to be men first and gay or straight second.
posted by Tim on
Just be yourself. I find it really offensize that somehow a feminim man is somehow less of a man.
In our culture, the worse thing in the world is to be less of a man. That’s why Tom Boys are accepted while fem boys aren’t. Who would want to be like a women. That’s the origin of homophobia. Being a gay man is being more like a women than a straight man.
posted by alex on
Just be yourself. I find it really offensize that somehow a feminine man is somehow less of a man.
Ditto. I have known straight men that could be classified as “feminine” because the way they dressed (spiffy & slightly fancy), interests (music instead of sports), and expensive tastes.
Likewise, masculinity / feminity changes over time. The Founding Fathers would be derided as foppish intellectuals in this day & age. (It’s so much easier to admire someone who’s dead…they don’t argue back).
I’ve always claimed that “Gay” isn’t about masculinity/feminity at all. It is soley about the gender of the person I fall in love with. Just about everything else is a lifestyle choice that faces everyone…gay, straight, or bi.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Just be yourself.
As one of my friends wryly puts it, Tim, way too many gay men answer that with, “What ‘yourself’ do you want me to be?”
Take, for instance, Carl’s statement up above:
It doesn’t help that a lot of conservative gays spend their time either being GOP shills and constantly condemning the gay community, or saying “my life is private” and hiding as far in the closet as possible.
So, if your political leanings are conservative and you happen to be gay, you have one of four choices:
1. Be conservative and be called a “shill”
2. Be conservative and be accused of being “closeted”
3. Stand up to #1 and #2 and let them roll off
4. Give up conservativism, thereby avoiding abuse and gaining public acceptance among gays.
Not surprisingly, most gays choose #4 — and they do so repeatedly, on topics as far-ranging as abortion, religion, dress, music tastes, drug use, public sex, and who your physical ideal should be.
WHY they do that is no particular mystery; after all, it is rather annoying to be called a “Jewish Nazi”, “self-loathing”, “repressed”, “sex-negative”, “anti-fem”, or whatever cute phrases people come up with for those people whose views are outside what other gays have been told their views should be.
James’s point is simply this; it would be nice if we could be “yourself”, instead of “yourself, as long as you support what we do or keep your mouth shut when you don’t”.
And to be quite honest, gays wouldn’t have half the problems we do with public acceptance now if people had spoken up when some outrageous queen was saying that “being gay” was why they were practicing idiotic behavior.
posted by Tim on
If was outrageous queens who bravely fought back at Stonewall when they got tired of being harrassed by the police.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Hence the point, Tim; what the gay community idolizes and considers most ideal is outrageously-dressed people who throw shoes at police officers and cause riots………but then they can’t comprehend why so many people equate gays with outrageous fem queens assaulting police officers.
posted by kittynboi on
Those cops at stonewall deserved it.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
….Please stop feeding the troll, he is ONLY here to insitigate and derail the board. Moving on…James, I’ve seen you use David Bowie as an example of a feminine straight before…you should really check your facts a little more (here’s a hint, learn even the most basic info on Bowie and his, errr, proclivities).
posted by Timothy Hulsey on
The gay community does not provide anything for those who want to express their sexuality according to traditional values.
There’s a monolithic “gay community,” James? Where? If my (admittedly limited) experience at GLBT organizing is any indication, bringing Gay people together for a common cause is rather like herding cats.
It was outrageous queens who bravely fought back at Stonewall when they got tired of being harrassed by the police.
Well, yes — if by “fought back” you mean “rioted in the streets.” But for nearly two decades prior to that, the assimilationists of the Mattachine Society made it possible for GLBT groups to use the public mail without being arrested for obscenity. (Remember that, the next time you get a fundraising letter from HRC.) The Mattachines also staged the first public demonstrations for GLBT equality, opposed anti-Gay discrimination in the civil service, and fought police sting operations far more effectively than drag queens singing in a kick line ever could.
Gay politics doesn’t begin with Stonewall, Tim.
posted by kittynboi on
A symbolic event can often do more to further a cause than simply working towards the cause slowly ever can.
posted by Carl on
North Dallas Thirty, for someone who has had such a happy, fulfilled life as a gay man, you sure spend a lot of time condemning gay people and giving a pass to anti-gay policies and legislation.
”
Amd please, don’t even try to say that young gay men have lots of options. From the very start, you are given one model for homosexual behavior–the Lance Bass/George Michael/Elton John/Jake Shears model. ”
The Lance Bass model?? He was in the closet for most of his life. He came out last year, and has been in a relationship with one man since that time.
posted by James on
Stonewall was a bad idea which drove the gay community backwards. Because of Stonewall, gay has come to mean men in drag throwing things. There is nothing that says I have to appreciate or be thankful for Stonewall. I am tired of the gay community attempting to enforce the iconography of Stonewall. Stonewall didn’t open doors for anyone and created a so-far permanent backlash against the gay community. Instead of attacking me, why not reach deep within yourself and say, “There are gay men who don’t venerate Stonewall, and that’s OK. (cleansing breath) That’s OK. People can disagree with me. That doesn’t make either of us bad people. (cleansing breath) I will try my best to allow people to have their own feelings about Stonewall.” Practice this meditation several times before once again practicing your tolerance and diversity by telling me how evil I am to dislike Stonewall.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
North Dallas Thirty, for someone who has had such a happy, fulfilled life as a gay man, you sure spend a lot of time condemning gay people and giving a pass to anti-gay policies and legislation.
You’re right, Carl; I do condemn people like you who claim that gays have “no rights” and who use this as an excuse for why gay people do drugs and have dangerous sex.
That is precisely because I have a happy and fulfilled life as a gay man; according to you, my right-lessness and such should have dragged me down into a tailspin of drugs, sex, unemployment, hatred of religion, and heaven only knows what else.
Or possibly what we’re seeing is gays making excuses and blaming other people for their choice to do drugs, their choice to have bareback sex, and their choice to wallow in despair over their supposedly having “no rights”.
posted by robinsgarret on
James,
Your posts are very sad. You have created this big fiction that does not exist. There is not Santa Claus, there is no Oz… and THE Gay Community does not…gasp…exist.
The article was about the community in San Francisco. San Francisco exists. And there are multiple communities in it. Some are so filled with gay people, they could use the adjective “gay”.
But according to the last census..gay people are in 98% of communities. Because these people are gay, they do not owe you a change in personality so you can see them and grow up just like them. They have the right to be themselves.
Your descriptions of “the gay community” sounds like you have spent too much time in gay cruising chat rooms. Your concept that “the gay community” has pushed Elton John, George Michael and Lance Bass at you sounds like you don’t understand the non-gay Media, and you watch too much Access Hollywood. Your take on Stonewall sounds like you are no great history buff.
And– if you think this feedback is coming from someone you can vilify from the “Liberal Gay Left”… its not. I am the role model you are asking for: married to my same-sex spouse, two sons, a home…and a lot of love.
So here’s my “role-model” advice for you: stop looking for a fictional place, and telling the fictional people there what they should be… and work on yourself.
posted by robinsgarret on
“what the gay community idolizes and considers most ideal is outrageously-dressed people who throw shoes at police officers and cause riots………”
Jeeesh… yet another who seems to have taken one too many trips to OZ.
Somehow I can’t think of a single initiative that supports the lives, and equality, of gay lives that has a single thing to do with idolizing cross-dressers, throwing shoes, or starting riots. They all have to do with marriage, starting and protecting families, having the ability to work and reside fairly, etc.
Internalized homophobia…it ain’t just for kids…
posted by Carl on
-You’re right, Carl; I do condemn people like you who claim that gays have “no rights”-
On Gaypatriot and on your blog, you’ve also said you support the amendment in Massachusetts that would ban gay marriage and possibly civil unions. You also said that you support parents being able to choose whether or not their children are gay, and your reason seemed to be that you wanted this to be done to spite gay leftists. If I misread your reasoning, my apologies.
Lately I get the feeling you really don’t seem to like gay people at all, and you just use leftists as a cover.
posted by kittynboi on
Carl, he’s not even gay. He’s just a brainless fool who loves right wing authoritarianism.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Carl, this is what I said on GayPatriot; would you mind pointing out to what you’re referring on my blog?
Now, listen clearly. I fully support the right of the people of Massachusetts to raise a petition. I fully support their right to follow the process laid out in their Constitution to raise a ballot issue. I fully support their demand that the Legislature vote, as is their constitutional duty, on said ballot issue. And I fully support their right to vote on it at the ballot box.
Would I vote against the amendment? Yes.
As for the “spite” part, yes, Carl; you and your fellow leftists need a reminder that the voters reign supreme in a democracy. Furthermore, by your actions in this matter, you’ve made it clear that gay leftists will deliberately violate other peoples’ constitutional rights in order to get theirs.
posted by kittynboi on
We don’t like in a Democracy, we live in a Republic.
Would you care to explain WHY you would support the amendment?
posted by Novaseeker on
“Those in the gay community who equate “gay” with “fem” such as you, Novaseeker, only undermine men’s valid desire to be men first and gay or straight second.”
How can you possibly say with a straight face that I believe that gay = fem? Have you even read my other postings on this at all? You’re losing credibility quickly here, James, to be honest.
Of course I don’t equate the two, but your consistent fem-bashing here is bigoted, hateful and completely offensive. I’m not saying you are “anti-gay” as a result of that bias you seem to have, but it’s simply calling you out on a bias.
You undermine my own desire to express myself in a way that feels natural to me, as a man. By supporting rigorous and narrow ideas about gender behavior, you attempt to put me in a box that is “other than masculine”. Fine, you are entitled to your opinion, biased as it may be (and ultimately self-serving because, honestly, I get the distinct impression that your bias is based on how “inconvenient” fem gays are to your efforts to fit it as one of the straight guys, which is an entirely self-serving motive). But I can only point out that this is the same box that many straight people would put *you* in as well, due to your attraction to, and desire to form relationships with, other men — something which, by any reasonable definition, does not equate to “masculine” for the vast majority of straight men.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Would you care to explain WHY you would support the amendment?
Did you miss something?
Would I vote against the amendment? Yes.
posted by kittynboi on
I misread that.
Now, how about this business of you thinking parents should be able to choose to make their kids hetero?
Explain yourself.
Nova;
“”You undermine my own desire to express myself in a way that feels natural to me, as a man. “”
IF a post on the internet has this much affect on you then you’re incredibly weak.
posted by dalea on
Back in the early 70’s when I was first out, it seemed that people who were against promiscuity etc. were all on the left. Sally Gearheart, Larry Kramer, Jim Owlsy, Arthur Evans, John Preston, Gore Vidal, Felice Picano, Ethan Moddren, the writers at Christopher Street and White Crane: see I named names not some vacuous ‘the left’. And they had an explanation for the problems our community faced. Which explanation was later adopted by ACTUP.
The name of the problem was: commercialization. They argued that as we had stepped from the shadows, our community had come to be dominated by ‘gay capitalists’. By those who made money off gay people. And they pointed out that by encouraging the behaviors that were so deplorable (drinking, indiscriminate sex, tubs, wild parties) these people were able to make even more money. Almost every thing deplored here has a strong connection with many types of commercial gay venues. And the things praised have a strong connection with private and social settings. The vice seems to be promoted by the market; the virtues by collective action. Which is not what gay conservatives would expect, or probably even understand.
What we call here ‘the gay community’ is most likely a brand name. It is created and marketed towards gay people by entrepreneurs. The people most likely to be praised at IGF are the creators of ‘the gay community’. It is a selling of glamor and excitement, enhanced by chemicals. Those peddling it make a lot of money. And get praised as heros of capitalism by the LCR.
The leftists on the other hand, were into community things. Groups that met at the Unitarian Church. Social events without alcohol. Meet and greet parties. ‘Actions’ which were a great way to meet people. Back then, activists regarded gay businessmen as the prime problem within the community. And deplored for what they were doing to young gay men. Businesses were seen as the main way the overindulgent lifestyle entered and corrupted the community.
Apparently, the posters here do not much read gay literature. In it you will find this scenario set forth. Check out: Piccano’s Like People in History and Men Who Loved Me. Moddren’s How Long Has This Been Going On. Larry Kramer’s Faggots. John Preston’s My Life as a Pornographer and Goodbye Sally Gearheart. Paul Monet. Edmund White. Dancer from the Dance. Even genre fiction: Nathan Aldyn, Mark Richard Zubro, Stephenson. Randy Shilt’s And the Band Played On also covers this ground.
The gay left has a far longer record of speaking out against the excesses of gay life than the gay right. And a far longer record of coming up with alternative
posted by dalea on
James you need to get out more. Or, to read more. Perhaps you do not have a library card. Or live where there is no book store. And have not yet learned how to purchase gay books on line.
If you did read, if only gay detective novels, you would find a world very different from the one you keep wailing about.
As for masculinity; just what do you think the leather world is about? This is the group that focuses on masculinity per se. Add to them the Bears, and you have a very large and vocal section of the gay world into being a man. And as I recall, the bars that were always death on drug use were the leather bars.
So, what is your problem. And just what is the source of your information about the ‘gay community’.
The Radical Faeries have been around even longer than I have. They are very much promoters of spirituality and sensible living. They have never had a glossy magazine, just some mimeographed rag. But they in no way conform to your stereotype.
Please become better informed and more widely read before subjecting us to your ignorant comments.
To the list above I would add Joseph Hansen’s Brandstetter series. And Armisted Maupin.
posted by Carl on
-would you mind pointing out to what you’re referring on my blog?-
The post about gay sheep. If I misinterpreted you, my apologies.
posted by Novaseeker on
“IF a post on the internet has this much affect on you then you’re incredibly weak.”
I was responding to the following assertion: “you, Novaseeker, only undermine men’s valid desire to be men first and gay or straight second.”
It’s hilarious that James’s post received no criticism from you. I used the same words he did for a reason, and you’ve proved my theory in your response.
posted by Audrey B. on
Frankly, I find dalea?s rant against ?gay capitalists? more offensive then anything anyone else has said on this forum. Capitalism is simply the method with which people in a free society go about exchanging and acquiring goods and services. When people complain about capitalism, what they are really complaining about are people making decisions they themselves don?t agree with.
posted by Tim on
If you’re for unfettered Capitalism then I assume you’re for legalizing all drugs and prostitution ?
posted by Roy X. Penguin on
Hence the point, Tim; what the gay community idolizes and considers most ideal is outrageously-dressed people who throw shoes at police officers and cause riots………but then they can’t comprehend why so many people equate gays with outrageous fem queens assaulting police officers.
My God. Did you fall into a coma in the 1960s and just wake up? Many gay people in my generation (Gen Y) haven’t even heard of the Stonewall Riots. When older gay people strike up conversations about seeing drag kings, drag queens, and other manifestations of camp culture, we can’t relate. We simply don’t get it. I had to go to Wikipedia and open a few books to learn about all of that.
I thank those rabblerousers for paving the way for me; and yes, back then, it was very brave of them. At that time, simply saying that you’re gay was revolutionary in and of itself. However, we are so past that stage that associating “fem drag queens” with mainstream gay culture would require a leap of logic. Most people in my generation just go about their business like anyone else. Right now, it seems that the ultimate goal is assimilation, which is just fine by me. I really don’t feel any different from anyone else around me.
Sure, those crazy queens may have opened the first door for us, but if you’re still stuck in that first doorway railing at them, then I’m afraid that you are shaking your fist at phantoms. This is 2007, not 1969.
posted by Tim on
At the time of the Stonewall Riots, it was illegal for men to dance with men in NY.
Doesn’t that blow your mind ? It certainly blows my mind. We owe a debt of graditude to those brave Queens !
posted by Audrey B. on
“If you’re for unfettered Capitalism then I assume you’re for legalizing all drugs and prostitution ?” Hell yea I am Tim. Freedom is good. As long as it doesn?t interfere with others freedom.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I would tend to agree with Audrey on that one — as long as health care is not nationalized and paid for out of my pocket, and violations, i.e. driving while loaded, are treated the same for drugs as they are for alcohol.
posted by kittynboi on
“”At the time of the Stonewall Riots, it was illegal for men to dance with men in NY.””
Do you approve of that?
posted by dalea on
Audrey B. seems to think I have posted a rant against capitalism in my report of what actual gay leftists say. I don’t think so.
A constant theme here at IGF is how gay ‘leftists’ have encouraged the spread of promicuity, drugs and all sorts of bad stuff. And how only the gay ‘right’ is against all these evilnesses.
Well, as far as I can tell, the demonstrable gay left is against everything the gay right is against also. In terms of gay horribles at least. They have different takes on the subject, which was the point of my post, than the reigning gay right theorists at IGF. But they do take a position on the problems that is not all that different from say Mr Miller’s.
They simply differ in their view of the origins and solutions of the problem. Which for IGF is a big difficulty. If the problem is the gay entrepreneur, the club/ bath and circuit party promoter, then IGF is forced to condemn what is clearly gay capitalism. Which IGF is never going to do. Or, they could condemn the rather plain fact that gay capitalism encourages people with ‘bad’ products to infest our community. Which is also not very likely. Or, IGF could condemn both the product and the conveyors, which is also not going to happen. IGF depends on the idea of individual initiative to keep its compass aligned. So, we are reduced to a situation in which IGF condems the product but praises the producer. This borders on incoherence, to be charitable.
If IGF focused on the product and condemned those who offer it, that would work. But would also be in conflict with much of the rest of IGF’s position. To praise the produce while denigrating what is produced makes little sense, at least to me.
In any event Audrey B., can you see a difference between reporting and advocating?
posted by Bill from FL on
James,
Points taken that you don’t celebrate Stonewall as I imagine you don’t like the idea of a riot as part of our history. And yes, I know there is some disparity in stories of that night. Having come from that area, I visited the stonewall inn since I came out in 1993 several times. These days unless you know the story behind it, the place appears radical as a ham sandwich and is actually pretty classy inside.
Remember this: In 1969 it was illegal for men to dance together in NY, and to knowingly SERVE alcohol to homosexuals in NY. The mafia controlled many, if not most gay bars in the area…along with alot of other things in NY. It was the only real way to keep the police/government off the bars backs at the time. Plus it was a good money/power maker! (Mafiosos and gays don’t generally mix, mind you!) The police routinely sent the vice squad around to get gay men….while “sodomy” statues and other “morals laws” were in full force! After the Stonewall riot the mayor FINALLY ordered the police to back off of us. I don’t like the idea of cops getting beat up, or anyone for that matter….but Stonewall’s RESULTS were a good thing. (Remember, this was an era before Rodney King and screams of “police brutality” would have any weight) Noone was greviously injured or died and overreaching government learned lesson.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So, we are reduced to a situation in which IGF condems the product but praises the producer. This borders on incoherence, to be charitable.
When one leaves out the consumer, yes.
But unfortunately, dalea, merely opening a gay bar, or declaring a circuit party, or doing any of the other things you decry as “commercial”, does not in and of itself create demand. It is the choice of the consumer that does so.
But of course, admitting that gay men have a choice in their own self-destructive behavior opens cracks in “gay unity” — so instead, gays blame the producer, like in the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s annual press conference blaming Viagra ads for making gay men have unsafe sex.
posted by James on
Stonewall had nothing to do with being “gay.” Stonewall was about being “fem” and in drag. It wasn’t about freedom for men who love men–it was about freedom for men who liked to act and dress as women–many of whom are straight. A drag bar is not a gay bar. What Stonewall did was permanently attach the goals of the drag/fem community with the gay community, and they are two separate things.
Yes, there is overlap, but there’s also overlap between the gay community and the Republicans, and no one confuses them.
I, as a gay man, do not have to support or show any interest in the fem/drag community. Stonewall was a big victory for them and a big nothing for me.
posted by Audrey B. on
Honestly, delea, I think the ?problem? has nothing to do with the ?gay left? or the ?gay right?. It?s simply individual gay men making individual bad decisions. Frankly, I don?t see a problem with drug addled sluts. If people really want to ruin their lives, I say let them. The only problem I see is socialists who think it?s the tax-payer?s responsibility to pay for the health care of people who didn?t bother to think about it before hand.
I think the solution lies with individuals working together to find out what works best. Instead of top-down planning (the kind favored by both the ?left? and the ?right?), there needs to be dynamic and organic communities of people who contribute and help their neighbors. That way things can be customized and improvised to the individuals needs. Whether it?s a religious based food pantry or a fraternal glide, people organize in ways that can help themselves and each other.
There is no such thing as ?bias-free? reporting.
posted by Audrey B. on
I think, James, you tend to confuse be ?feminine? with being ?queenie?. It?s the difference between, say, David Sedaris and Carson Kressley. The former is just all together not that masculine. His voice and movements are slighter and softer then most men. That?s just who he is and I don?t fault him for it. The latter, on the other hand, is more forced and affected in his self presentation. His behaviors and persona appear acquired from his environment. It?s the difference between what emanates from within, and what?s learned from without. Am I right?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
What a surprise. The gay community is neither the monolithic community of hedonism, drugs and meaningless sex that the “conservatives” keep claiming it is — nor the miasma of socialism and victimhood politics the left keep claiming it is.
Common sense folks with a real commitment to diversity have known this for years, and strongly resisted the urge by the Republicrats to divide us into easily-categorized groups to be manipulated for their own political power. As with anything else, if you want the truth, avoid the old-party politicos and their culture war crap.
posted by James on
Audrey, my point is that fem, whether acquired or inborn, is not gay. Gay is a man loving another man. Some gay men have additional attributes such as brown hair, a taste for rich coffee, or feminine traits. These additional attributes have nothing to do with being gay.
I resent Stonewall for yoking together gay issues with fem/drag issues. They aren’t the same thing. If David Sedaris suddenly became masculine, he would still be gay.
I’m not sure why it is so hard, even in the gay community, to separate fem/drag from gay.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””I’m not sure why it is so hard, even in the gay community, to separate fem/drag from gay.
“”””
Because they probably don’t accept your assertion that the two that far apart.
posted by Audrey B. on
There are many masculine gay men. I think only the most obtuse didn?t already know that.Being a masculine gay man doesn?t make you special.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
We obviously need legislation to fix this problem.
Perhaps masculine gay men could receive some affirmative action at gay bars and clubs, and nondiscrimination coverage?
We’d need some other protected categories too. For instance, the cult of the buff, dipiliated gay man has taken over, causing underrepresentation of hairy, overweight older men. This unrepresentative situation needs to be addressed with federal employment laws requiring go-go dancers at gay bars to “reflect the community.” Let’s get the hairy shirtless greybears on the (reinforced for occupational safety) brass rails!
Perhaps if we apply innovative thinking from the old parties to this, we can truly solve this eternal crisis once and for all, and ensure that the disparate values and disagreements of gay men cannot continue. 😉
posted by dalea on
James your endless ignorance continues to amaze. You want masculine gay men? Go to a leather bar. Lots of butch numbers there. My own experience has always been that fem types are much more numerous in the South than elsewhere. Over a number of years I observed that either Oklahoma City or Little Rock had far more drag shows than Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis combined. Your rants seem directed towards a local situation. Please start making some effort to educate yourself.
I can remember the gay hippy type bars of the early 70’s in Chicago. They were small, friendly places. Precariously financed, low quality ambiance. But they were places where gays were encouraged to socialize, not drink too much, not do drugs, get to know people. They were done in by the slightest hint of gentrification. The money to keep them going was not there, despite all the will in the world.
On the other hand, there were the big commercial bars and discos. With state of the art sound systems, high rent locations, huge advertising and publicity. And also huge crowds, drunk and stoned beyond belief. Something to think about here.
posted by James on
dalea, I don’t need to educate myself–though thank you for your condescending suggestion. You just can’t grasp that someone can look at the same things you look at and not like them. You can’t grasp that for many people the gay community is a toxic place. I don’t see it as diverse or tolerant. But, hey, that’s just me.
In any case, bears and leather folk aren’t “masculine.” They are caricatures of masculinity–little kids dressing up in Daddy’s clothes. Masculinity is an inner quality I associate with integrity, loyalty, accountability, responsibility, maturity, stability, inner calm, and strength. You will mock any model I present, but I would look to someone like, say, the standards Gary Cooper and John Wayne, or leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, athletes like Peyton Manning or Doug Flutie, maybe men like Tim McGraw–men with values and a lifestyle worth emulating. This is an odd list, but true masculinity is difficult to describe–you just know the guys who have it.
Notice that Lance Bass and Jake Shears and even Andrew Sullivan didn’t make the list.
posted by Tim on
James, you do know that Gary Cooper had many, many, many affairs.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
I’m starting to really enjoy watching James make a fool of himself on these boards. Martin Luther King (jr?) and Gary Cooper (!) are upstanding “masculine” men who possess integrity and responsibility while David Bowie is an effiminate straight (!!)…this stuff is priceless. The only gay bar I frequent is the Wrangler here in Denver which caters to the leather/bear community and I can assure you James that these men are NOT “little kids dressing up in Daddy’s clothes”…these are the masculine responsible blue-collar (electricians, plumbers, construction workers, mechanics…woof) men that you swear up and down don’t exist. Maybe if you spent less time in Bible study and more time in the real world you would have figured this out already.
posted by kittynboi on
“”You just can’t grasp that someone can look at the same things you look at and not like them. “”
The problem is that you can’t seem to grasp that someone thinks you are plain factually incorrect.
And would you mind explaining why Andrew Sullivan didn’t make the list?
posted by Tim on
I would assume, that James thinks, since Andrew has AIDS, that he’s undeserving since he didn’t remain a virgin until he found he one true love, forever.
posted by James on
OK, what qualities do YOU associate with masculinity? Who are the men YOU look up to?
What boundaries do YOU place on sexual morality? Let me tear down and mock your values and heroes!
posted by Audrey B. on
That’s eazy, kittynboi, because he?s a limey, and a Mary worshiper.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
James: “OK, what qualities do YOU associate with masculinity?” Strength, deep voice, a penis
Who are the men YOU look up to?
Camus, Sarte, Yukio Mishima, Anthony Burgess, Jack Radcliffe, William Seward Burroughs (haha, just threw those last two on there to make your head explode)
What boundaries do YOU place on sexual morality? I am in a committed monogamous long-term relationship, that works for us. As for other people, as long as no one gets hurt they can do whatever they want.
Let me tear down and mock your values and heroes! You seem to be doing a good job at that already without any help from us.
posted by Tim on
I don’t believe in sexual morality. As long as you’re not hurting anyone it’s none of my business. Whatever floats your boat is fine by me.
In my own life, I want an exclusive, loving relationship. I’m 47 and I’m never going to find that man I’ve decided. So if I have an ocasional role in the hay, that’s fine. That doesn’t make me a bad person, a sinner, or immoral.
posted by kittynboi on
James, why didn’t you explain in your post why Andrew Sullivan doesn’t make the list?
posted by James on
Exactly what masculine qualities does Andrew Sullivan possess? A beard?
The last few responses tell me that most gays don’t associate masculine with responsibility, accountability, maturity, etc. However poorly straight men may live up to these values, they really do try to live up to them, or they respect men who do. The whole Clinton thing wasn’t about the sex–it was about a man not living up to his wedding vows. If you are going to cheat on your wife, you are going to cheat on your country. It takes work to gain another man’s respect. I think Clinton is a great manager, but I don’t respect him as a man. (I loathe George Bush, who is even less masculine than Andrew Sullivan. I suspect even Jake Shears would tell W. to “tone it down, Queenie.”)
This is not a perfect example, but the new show Friday Night Lights does a good job of talking about men and their values. The coach, in his position of leadership, must reflect certain values to his team and his community. The football team is a place to learn loyalty, commitment, responsibility, etc. A gay member of that football team would be expected to live up to the same values. I suspect that issue will come up in future episodes and it will interesting to see what the coach does. I bet he will offer both acceptance and accountability–the gayness will not be an issue, but whether the player can work for the good of the team and be accountable and responsible.
posted by kittynboi on
So do you think Sullivan doesn’t posses the quality of responsibility? Can you demonstrate that or do something to give that claim support?
You’ve spelled out what qualities you associate with masculinity (sort of), so tell us where Sullivan falls short of these criteria.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
OK, so you and other men don’t meet James’s standards of masculinity. Who cares? It’s not a loss for any of you. Just let it go.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
James, I lobbed you up three or four excellent examples of “masculine” men that fit your “description,” why ignore them to talk about a fictional football tv show?
“If you are going to cheat on your wife, you are going to cheat on your country.”
I love this quote, it shows what a delusional sociopath you really are. Thanks!
posted by James on
The responses to this thread show why gay men have trouble finding acceptance in the world of men in general. There really is a male code of ethics that, however poorly practiced, really does underly men’s behavior. Most gay men simply aren’t willing to make the sacrifices necessary to grow into traditional manhood–they mock and deride that masculine ideal (for evidence, see posts above).
I think that gay men who’ve been in the military best understand that masculine code of honor. But most gay men simply live valueless, morally relative lives, without any sense of what it takes to be mature, stable, wise, and responsible.
The fact that you keep trying to defend Andrew Sullivan suggests that you have no idea what masculinity truly is.
OK, Friday Night Lights is fictional. You got me. But the culture it describes is real and the values it discusses are the values men in that culture value. John Wayne might be an actor, but I know a lot of men who try to live up the idea of manhood he portrayed in his movies. So, yes, it’s fiction–but you wouldn’t know the men for who this kind of manhood is a daily reality since they are mostly doing their jobs and raising their families. And not showing up at Pride parades.
And so I’m not accused of proposing no solution, here’s what I think gays should do: I think they should stop identifying as gay and start identifying as men. I think they should leave the gay world behind–bars, rallies, parades, Scissor Sisters, the whole thing–and start interacting with men as men. Be honest about who you are, but not confrontative. Simply be a man among men, and stop acting as if being gay makes you special.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
“The responses to this thread show why gay men have trouble finding acceptance in the world of men in general. There really is a male code of ethics that, however poorly practiced, really does underly men’s behavior. Most gay men simply aren’t willing to make the sacrifices necessary to grow into traditional manhood–they mock and deride that masculine ideal (for evidence, see posts above).”
James, your delusional rants are very disconcerting and more than a little confusing. I honestly don’t know what your quote above means or what points you are trying to get across. What code of ethics are “gays” incapable of following? Why is this “male code of ethics” poorly practiced and by whom? Who in these posts has “mocked and derided” this supposed “masculine ideal”? What is this “masculine ideal” and how does your niggling attempts at victimization factor into it? Why do you feel the compulsion to make blanket statements that condemn gay men when it is obvious that you know next to nothing about actual gay behavior? You say that you know many men who model their lives on John Wayne (?!), what generation (or planet) are you from?
posted by kitttynboi on
So, which of these ethics and which parts of this code of behavior does Andrew Sullivan fail to meet? Why don’t you just list the areas in which he fails?
posted by James on
Andrew Sullivan does not model responsible sexual behavior. He does not take responsibility for his now-discredited opinions of the Iraq war–he supports a troop surge. He does not have the honesty to submit to Catholic teaching or have the guts to leave the Catholic Church.
OK, which masculine attributes does Andrew Sullivan possess, in your opinion?
I grew up in the West/Midwest. The Western ideals expressed by John Wayne are a big part of the masculine mindset. There might be other stars now, but the John Wayne image is the basis for many men’s masculine identity. Maybe Jeff Gordon or Tom Brady might be a better modern example–but you’ll mock and deride any example I bring up.
You might recognize this code of honor as the masculine ideal which Ennis and Jack were trying to live up to. Many gay critics questioned whether it was realistic that two gay men would stay in a relationship that long. But the code they lived by cherishes loyalty, even when it causes pain. And this goes against majority gay values.
You don’t consider my experiences valid because they have not led me to the conclusion that gays are healthy, stable, value-based men. Only those who agree with you are considered to have any knowledge of the gay community. That’s an interesting definiton of open-mindedness and diversity.
posted by kittynboi on
“”Andrew Sullivan does not model responsible sexual behavior. He does not take responsibility for his now-discredited opinions of the Iraq war–he supports a troop surge. He does not have the honesty to submit to Catholic teaching or have the guts to leave the Catholic Church.””
Well, I’m not for the troop surge, but I hardly consider it non-masculine to support it if you think its whats required to win in Iraq, and while I support leaving Iraq, I am sympathetic to the idea that leaving the country can lead to it becoming a hotbed for terrorist groups. I think the fear of that is overstated, but I can’t rule it out 100%.
Religious groups disagree among themselves often. I don’t think that issue is worth of consideration. Disagreement of all kinds in denominations is just the reality of religious thought.
“”””The Western ideals expressed by John Wayne are a big part of the masculine mindset. There might be other stars now, but the John Wayne image is the basis for many men’s masculine identity. Maybe Jeff Gordon or Tom Brady might be a better modern example–but you’ll mock and deride any example I bring up. “”””
Okay, I’m not entirely sure what coherent philosophy any of those people have put forth, so there’s nothing for me to mock at all.
“”””You might recognize this code of honor as the masculine ideal which Ennis and Jack were trying to live up to. Many gay critics questioned whether it was realistic that two gay men would stay in a relationship that long. But the code they lived by cherishes loyalty, even when it causes pain. And this goes against majority gay values.””””
I guess its masculine, but I never associated that behavior with any specific gender. I just thought of it as honesty.
As for myself, the idea of cheating on someone is not something I can ever imagine entering in to my mind, but since I’ve been single for a decade now I suppose its moot.
“”””You don’t consider my experiences valid because they have not led me to the conclusion that gays are healthy, stable, value-based men. “”””
Oooooohkay. My problem is less with your experiences and more with how you are trying to present them as the only valid facts worthy of consideration, and your seeming desire for everyone else to accept your experiences as the last word on how gays act, while you dismiss the experiences of everyone else. I find it inconsistent, intellectually dishonest, and highly dubious.
“”””That’s an interesting definiton of open-mindedness and diversity.””””
I’ve never thought of myself as open minded, and I have never claimed to be as such on this website, and have often claimed just the opposite, so don’t try to attribute this to me.
What I am doing is demanding that you give more coherent arguments, rely less on personal experience or at least realize its limited use in determining emprical facts, and cease your inconsistent demands that everyone accept your experience as the absolute truth on this matter while you dismiss everyone who has the opposite experiences as you and claim they are in denial.
You don’t even have the decency to honestly try and refute their claims, you simply accuse them of denial, which is hardly an example of how to present a rational argument.
Your experiences are valid to a point, but they remain in the flimsy realm of anecdotal evidence, and therefore they can only carry your assertions so far.
If you want a better response, you should be a little more clear about what you think makes someone “masculine”, rather than citing people as examples. If you know what it is as much as you claim to then you should have little trouble simply outlining the associated behaviors and mindset, defining your terms, and simply explaining it in general.
posted by James on
My list of attributes and my examples make it clear what I mean by masculinity. Your response reinforces the stereotype that gay men don’t have any idea what masculinity is.
In fact, this whole thread reinforces the idea that being gay means renouncing your masculinity and having to hang out with guys who not only don’t know what being a man is, they mock and deride traditional masculinity.
Perhaps that’s why gay has become synonymous with lame. That’s “lame” as in “uncool,” not “lame” as in shiny fabric needed to sing show tunes.
posted by kittynboi on
“”My list of attributes and my examples make it clear what I mean by masculinity. Your response reinforces the stereotype that gay men don’t have any idea what masculinity is.””
Then you’ve done a poor job of explaining it.
Give a list, an actual list in a single post.
“”””In fact, this whole thread reinforces the idea that being gay means renouncing your masculinity and having to hang out with guys who not only don’t know what being a man is, they mock and deride traditional masculinity.””””
Just because I’m asking you to be a bit more clear and asking you to use rational arguments rather than anecdotes and emotive statements?
You are downright baffling, assuming you are even a serious poster.
Are you saying masculinity and monogamy are the same thing?
Well, if thats the case I’ve certainly never been promiscuous. I’ve only ever had one sexual partner in my life, and I’ve never sought casual sex from anyone.
If there is anything more to it than that, then just say so.
posted by thom on
James, it is obvious that you approach these discussions with clear preferences for how men should conduct and politically align themselves. Your preferences are your own, and by no means, defining for the rest of the country. There is no great consensus in this country, among gay or straight people, that John Wayne (also known as Marion Robert Morrison) is the epitome of “masculine.”
For example, your statement about Andrew Sullivan’s changes in opinion regarding the proper course in Iraq reveal that, in your mind, a man’s man makes up his mind about something, and never, ever, changes his position. Alternatively, this statement reveals you to be a political partisan, incapable of accepting anything that is advocated by “them,” the other side of any debate. To me, Andrew’s evolving positions merely reflect a rational, reasonable man, who re-evaluates his opinion in light of contrary evidence and isn’t afraid to be criticized for changing his mind. One could say that he’s “man” enough to take the heat for saying what he really believes.
You also suggest that Andrew does “not model responsible sexual behavior.” Really? And you know that from personal experience? Or from what Aaron, Andrew’s boyfriend, has told you? Or from the gossip you read or heard about from the late 1990s? Apparently, it’s not “masculine” for gay men, as opposed to straight men, to explore their sexuality before getting into a committed relationship? Or are you simply implying that he obviously isn’t sexually responsible because he caught HIV, apparently from having lots of unprotected sex? Here’s a shocker for you: millions of men have unprotected sex with partners they barely know every day in our country. And to vast segments of the men in American society, these “studs” are manly men, because they have the conquests to prove it. I must be the only gay man with straight male friends, because I am continually amazed by the gay men in this forum who seem to believe that only gay men are promiscious.
As for your comment about Andrew’s relationship with Catholic religion, I assume you mean that he should either: (1) choose to be Catholic, and never again act upon his feelings and attraction towards men, (2) chooose to be gay, and never again set foot in a Catholic church. In your view, he’s not manly because he won’t accept that those are the choices. Putting aside the fact that the Catholic church understands that its members sin (hence the velvet boxes), your logic would suggest that almost no American Catholic men are “masculine.” The Catholic church, as do all Christian religions, have numerous rules, doctrines, and dogma that its adherents pick and choose from. Ponder this dilemma for your “masculine” Catholic man: how does he reconcile the Church’s prohibition on contraception where he cannot afford to support a larger family? I guess John Wayne would give up sex (because masturbation is also dimly viewed by the Church). You demand more of Andrew than any other man. No one is capable of living life completely in accordance with the doctrines of Catholicism, or for that matter, Christianty.
posted by James on
Please see my 12:28 AM post for a list of masculine attributes.
OK, please answer my questions–what is your definition of masculinity? Who are your models for masculinity? Why do straight men associate gay sex with loss of masculinity?
Straight men have an average of about 7 partners in a lifetime. That’s not wildly promiscuous. How many partners do gay men have, on the average? Is there something about respnsibility, balance and moderation which gay men could learn from straight men?
posted by kittynboi on
“”what is your definition of masculinity? “”
I dont have any specific definition of it. Or femininity.
“” Who are your models for masculinity?””
None. I don’t need any. As long as I can pay my bills and get groceries and pay the rent, I’m fine. Beyond that, I don’t interact with a whole lot of people.
“”””Straight men have an average of about 7 partners in a lifetime””””
I think thats a bit low. Maybe it applies to those middle aged and above, but I think those in the teen to twenties age range tend to have a lot more.
“”””integrity, loyalty, accountability, responsibility, maturity, stability, inner calm, and strength””””
Okay. Well, I never associated those with any specific gender. I thought it was just stuff people did.
Though I don’t know that a lot of people in general have “inner calm.” My dad fits most of those criteria, though I imagine you would disqualify him since he’s a die hard democrat and nonreligious.
I don’t know if I posses any of those characteristics, sinec its never come up. I don’t do a whole lot of leisure stuff that doesn’t involve cooking, going to see films, playing video games, drawing, or reading. Well, I have pets I devote attention to, but I don’t have a choice in that matter because if I don’t give them food they would starve. I do design work. I’ve never drank alcohol. I’ve never done drugs. I don’t care for crowds or social events. I’m not a shut in, since I leave my home to do things that life requires you to do.
So I guess I’m not in a position to fail to live up to your list since my life is a bit too mundane.
“”””Is there something about respnsibility, balance and moderation which gay men could learn from straight men?””””
Certainly not from any of the straight men I’ve encounterd. My dad fits all those criteria you list, but he’s the only person I know who does.
Of course, you have yet to establish that your particular laundry list has any sort of authority rooted in anything substantial, its just a list you made up and posted on the internet.
Listing a bunch of nice sounding words doesn’t mean you’re correct. Do you find that most hetero males live up to that list? I don’t. If I would ask any straight male relative of mine, without ever bringing up the gay comparison, if the majority of men lived up to that list, there’s no chance they would say yes.
I think you have an unrealisticaly rosy view of the straight world, though I can’t figure out why.
Do you think anyone here fails to live up to your list?
I don’t know that I have ever met anyone who did not, since I haven’t met anyone who universally lacks any of those qualities, much less all of them.
I suppose your list falls short because its not specific enough to be useful, since I think you could find almost anyone who has failed several parts of it at least once, assuming you require a 100% track record.
Although I think my dad has never faltered on any of them, but I hold no illusions that everyone is like that.
posted by James on
It must be sad to live without heroes and ideals. It must be even sadder to believe yourself superior for not having them.
I hope one day you will listen to David Bowie’s Heroes and know what it means in your heart. Someone mentioned Yukio Mishima–you should read The Sailor Who Fell From Grace With the Sea. Maybe you should ask some Nascar fan who his driver is and why that man is his hero.
It’s fun to believe.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””It must be sad to live without heroes and ideals. It must be even sadder to believe yourself superior for not having them.””””
What?
Where did you get that idea?
I have no specific role models, but theres no reason for that. I just never needed any.
Your response is incredibly strange!
“”””I hope one day you will listen to David Bowie’s Heroes and know what it means in your heart. “”””
I’ve heard that song.
“”””Someone mentioned Yukio Mishima–you should read The Sailor Who Fell From Grace With the Sea.””””
Didn’t Mishima try to overthrow the Japanese government?
I’m really baffled by your response.
So I don’t have role models.
I don’t think it makes me superior. I just don’t have them.
My ambition in life is to own at least one business, maybe several and make lots of money from them. I have ambition. I don’t know if I have “ideals” but I have opinions on things.
There’s hardly any shame in living a life where you aren’t a crusading ideologue.
posted by Bill from F: on
James,
I have been reading your and everyone elses’s posts the last few months.
What is with your adoration of Straight men and the straight world as if it is the true light and salt of the earth? Are you that sheltered and myopic in your thinking? Have you not seen what straights as a whole are really like, or do you just give them a give them a free pass because you despise that you cannot be “normal” and feel “self affirmed” like them? Straight or gay people stink. We all just have different roles and rules!
And since when is “integrity, loyalty, accountability, responsibility, maturity, stability, inner calm, and strength”
a traditional masculine value? Aside from that, “traditional masculine values” change and differ depending on what straight man you ask. (Some love Machismo, some are misogynists, some like punching first and asking questions later, etc etc etc) How many of those “ideal” football players are notorious womanizers? Drunks? ‘Roidheads? Look at the BIG picture!
Do you really think NASCAR drivers and John Wayne in the private sphere are/were so wonderful? Aside from that John Wayne mostly represented a one sided character, we didn’t see what he was like at home. H(What we DID see though of course was honorable). Regardless of their money, Find out what they would do if they had $2.00 in their pocket and a bus to catch, and just saw a little old lady’s wallet fall out of her purse. Find out if they would be the first to run over and try to heimlich a choking victim. Find out if they MARRIED the girl they knocked up or are at least paying for the kid and a part of their life.
The same goes for other celebrities and anyone else!
I am totally with you on old fashioned values…honesty, integrity, keeping promises, self-reliance, altruism, and kindness. That goes for men and women of all walks of life. My father fits the bill nicely regarding OFV, and fortunately I have him to emulate….and he is the only one I need! I don’t look to the high-school atmosphere of the bar scene for values, and neither should anyone else IMHO! Never mind the moral compass “society needs” that William Bennett wrote about years ago…go buy your own compass, be proud you did, and hang onto it. And may your LIFE always preach louder than your lips! Indeed it’s the only way!
posted by James on
Bill, it’s nice that you have a loving father. Most gay men, when they first discover they are gay, come into a world which is not so loving. Most gay men’s first attempts to reach out to other gay men involve meeting predators who treat them as “fresh meat.” The “first responders” of the gay world are not men in monogamous relationships trying to counsel young men to abstain from sex until they find “Mr. Right” but predators who want to “initiate” the young, confused man into the world of amorality and fabulousness. There really are no other options for the young gay man.
Anyone who wants to respond to this statement–think of the first 3 gay men you met–what were they like? What did they suggest you do?
The young straight man does have options. There are church groups, etc. which offer models of moral behavior. And even those young men who sow their wild oats are given a time limit. There are no such limits in the gay world.
The gay world and the straight world aren’t equal–there really is a greater percentage of moral, mature, responsible, adult men in the straight world. But gays don’t want to admit that, and certainly don’t want to learn from that.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Not only did Mishima lead a failed attempt at a takeover of the Japanese military, he was obsessed with masculinity (integrity, loyalty, accountability, responsibility, maturity, stability, inner calm, and strength) and the weakened/failed state of Japanese men. James, do you know what Mishima’s myopic view of masculinity led to? Are you not afraid of falling into the same trap?
posted by Tim on
“Most gay men’s first attempts to reach out to other gay men involve meeting predators who treat them as “fresh meat.” The “first responders” of the gay world are not men in monogamous relationships trying to counsel young men to abstain from sex until they find “Mr. Right” but predators who want to “initiate” the young, confused man into the world of amorality and fabulousness. There really are no other options for the young gay man.”
That is a stunning paragraph. Where do you get this stuff from ? Focus On Family ?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
James: “think of the first 3 gay men you met–what were they like? What did they suggest you do?”
Gay men are not predators of children James (which is what your question suggests, YOU ARE SICK IN THE HEAD). The first 3 gay men I met were (and still are) friends, 2 were my age one was an older instructor at the University I attended. This older man became a lover of mine after a few years of friendship. It was MY decision to take our relationship to the next level, it was certainly NOT through intimidation or coercion on his part. Although our sexual relationship didn’t work out, I still cherish him as a dear friend and mentor. Why don’t you answer you own question James? What happened to you that warped you so severely?
posted by Bill from FL on
Bill, it’s nice that you have a loving father. Most gay men, when they first discover they are gay, come into a world which is not so loving. Most gay men’s first attempts to reach out to other gay men involve meeting predators who treat them as “fresh meat.” The “first
–Most Gay Men? Where do your statistics come from? While it’s true that youth and beauty are IMHO revered a bit much in society I don’t think of gay men as predators who treat them as fresh meat. And men by our nature are predator-like BUT NOT predators! Also, most gay men don’t have a good relationship with their dads….because they never bothered to work on it OR daddy wants his son to be JUST LIKE HIM and cannot accept that he is different! Regarding sex….
When a hetero man drives past the campus of say, your local junior college and sees cheerleaders or female soccer players on the field, who do you think he lustfully ogles? The 45 year old instructors or the cheerleaders/players? DUH!!!! And then his practical side kicks in and he says “no chance with the cheerleaders, they can get any 20 year old they want, but I MAY have a chance to get the instructors”
responders” of the gay world are not men in monogamous relationships trying to counsel young men to abstain from sex until they find “Mr. Right” but predators who want to “initiate” the young, confused man into the world of amorality and fabulousness. There really are no other options for the young gay man.
–True to a point, but it isn’t every gay man’s job to be a role model and the “what James thinks is good” welcome wagon. And many people do not like to help others with their problems and not everyone is good at it. Also, who has the time?
I do wish we did a better job as a whole at this. But then if gay groups DID that too much they would be accused of “recruiting”.
The adult volunteers I had met at GALY-NJ were fine people and 2 guys in a monogamous LTR and I was lucky to live in a state that had such a group. Any chance I get being somewhat similar to them I am glad to counsel anyone having issues with being gay, but it is something we all face alone!
Anyone who wants to respond to this statement–think of the first 3 gay men you met–what were they like? What did they suggest you do?
–One was a friend of a friend who was a perfect gentleman and never said anything inappropriate and the others were um….people I wanted to invite me over for tea and crumpets. And do you know why? *I* initated it as a consenting adult because I had these urges!!! Aside from the internal conflicts there is a slippery side to deal with 😉
The young straight man does have options. There are church groups, etc. which offer models of moral behavior. And even those young men who sow their wild oats are given a time limit. There are no such limits in the gay world.
–YES! Church Groups. Mainstream society. Full Citizenship and acceptance. Normative-ness! Look harder for what you seek….it DOES exist. And the limits for straight people vary by culture, family, region, religion, etc etc. Some people think it’s OK to have your first child at 40, some think you are nuts if not married by 18 or 25, IT VARIES! Plus, in a society where gays are not supposed to adopt, settle into a legally binding relationship, exist etc etc I think there is less incentive. As supportive as my friends and family generally are they have never come to me and said “Bill when are you going to find a LTR and settle down because it’s about time?” (I did that on my own because I wanted to)
Come back to me in 20 years and see where we are on this. (That is rhetorical)
The gay world and the straight world aren’t equal–there really is a greater percentage of moral, mature, responsible, adult men in the straight world. But gays don’t want to admit that, and certainly don’t want to learn from that.
–Not equal? Bull. Straights are the majority, the norm, and other things. We have an alternative lifestyle Straights just have to stay with a semi-prescribed program, follow their gender roles, etc etc and they are “OK”. Their book has been written plenty of times for them! Ours is in progress! How many straight men have “mommy issues” and straight women have “daddy issues”, or are sexually moral but are total liars, beat their spouses, or are rude to a waitress? Your obsession with sexual morality being king is a bit overboard.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “You’re right, Carl; I do condemn people like you who claim that gays have “no rights” and who use this as an excuse for why gay people do drugs and have dangerous sex.”.
Stop with the lies Northdallass, Carl didn’t say gays have “no rights” or use that as an excuse for anyone doing drugs of having dangerous sex.
Northdallass said “That is precisely because I have a happy and fulfilled life as a gay man; according to you, my right-lessness and such should have dragged me down into a tailspin of drugs, sex, unemployment, hatred of religion, and heaven only knows what else.”.
Again, you lie. Carl never said any such thing. You habitually make things up to disparage gays.
James said “The responses to this thread show why gay men have trouble finding acceptance in the world of men in general. There really is a male code of ethics that, however poorly practiced, really does underly men’s behavior. Most gay men simply aren’t willing to make the sacrifices necessary to grow into traditional manhood–they mock and deride that masculine ideal.”
You’re totally out to lunch James. Gay men aren’t accepted by straight men because they have sex with other men. Straight men are afraid of being associated with anything feminine and having sex with men is seen as feminine no matter how much you proclaim your masculinity.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Stop with the lies Northdallass, Carl didn’t say gays have “no rights” or use that as an excuse for anyone doing drugs of having dangerous sex.
Really?
I quote:
Carl | January 14, 2007, 8:50pm | #
And as these young gays get a little older and realize they won’t have any rights, they may end up getting more into drugs and dangerous sex, because they know they have nothing else worth doing.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Yes, Northdallas, I got that ONE wrong. However, you can’t explain away where you lied in this thread http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31136.html#commentform
where at December 18, 2006, 12:30pm and said I “tear down married and normal couples as “Stepford wives””. Or in this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31151.html#commentform
where at January 11, 2007, 5:14pm you told the whopper and said “You see, sites like this help people like Randi, who want to believe that their demands to have public sex wherever they want and whenever they want because they’re gay are justified” or at January 11, 2007, 5:06pm where you lied and said “you believe it is more wrong to threaten and physically assault a gay person than it is to do the same to a Christian.” or at January 13, 2007, 11:27am where you lied again several times in that post – I didn’t defend suggestions that the christian bus driver be abused, I said the wrong was mitigated by the bus drivers hateful actions; I didn’t claim that straights would not intervene with straight people having public sex, I said they were no more likely to than gays; I didn’t claim that because I’m gay I know your god is evil and the buy-bull is crap, I know it because of the words in your buy-bull itself. Words you cannot defend as I pointed out in my post at January 12, 2007, 4:37pm. At January 13, 2007, 11:27am you lied and said “gays like Randi insist that public sex should be overlooked because straight people wouldn’t intervene either” – I said no such thing. At January 15, 2007, 3:22pm you lied saying “After all, if you’re that good at claiming a link [regarding Minnesota law]is a lie” – I never said it was a lie but that what you said was an allegation to me as I didn’t read the link.
I can admit where I made that ONE mistake. Now its your turn to admit where you’ve lied again and again.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Yes, Northdallas, I got that ONE wrong. However, you can’t explain away where you lied in this thread.
I think you completely miss the irony of admitting that you lied when you made a claim about me, but then trying to make claims about me again.
As I pointed out above, there’s no way you could have missed Carl’s quote. You are either completely ignorant and negligent, or deliberately making false and malicious statements about me.
Which is it?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, I didn’t lie, I was mistaken. Its easy to miss what one person said and think someone else lied in claiming to quote them. On the other hand its not so easy to read someone saying something they didn’t. Suggesting that if I was wrong once that I’m wrong about those other 8 lies of yours I mentioned at January 25, 2007, 4:50pm doesn’t cut it. If you want to prove I was wrong about those you have to quote me for example “tearing down married and normal couples as “Stepford
Wives” or demanding to have public sex. You can’t because I didn’t – you lied. As we’ve seen if there was any doubt about that you’d be quick to quote me saying those things. As we can see I’m honest enough to admit when I’m wrong, but you want to pretend everyone’s an idiot and believes your blatant and documented lies
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Northdallass, I didn’t lie, I was mistaken. Its easy to miss what one person said and think someone else lied in claiming to quote them.
So you’re ignorant and negligent, then.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And you’re a habitual unrepentant liar.