I just finished reading an engrossing book titled "The Age of the Bachelor" by Howard Chudacoff. It details the development of a specifically bachelor-oriented culture in major U. S. cities between 1880 and 1930, suggesting why it developed, how extensive it was, and what institutions grew up to service its needs.
Some of the reasons for its development include the rise in the average age of marriage, the rapid increase in immigration, and the difficulty many men working low wage jobs would have had supporting a family. But more important was the development of institutions to meet the needs of single men for meals, housing, companionship and entertainment--thus making it possible for increasing numbers of men to lead a comfortable and satisfying life without any need for marriage.
The extensive array of primarily male institutions that developed or expanded to meet bachelors' living and socializing needs included rooming houses, cafes, saloons, barbershops (given the lack of hot water for shaving in most rooming houses), pool halls, tailor shops, bathhouses (no hot water for bathing either), all-male social clubs and fraternal organizations (Elks, Odd Fellows), vaudeville theaters and music halls, participant and spectator sports, and "red-light districts."
The newly developed YMCAs might offer any or all of the following amenities: rooms for rent, cafeteria and lunch counter, barbershop, gym, swimming pool, shoeshine stand, telephones, employment service, laundry room, game room, newsstand, and even entertainment in the evenings.
There are only a few incidental mentions of gay men in the book, but it seems obvious that some of those bachelors (15 to 20 percent?) were gay and that bachelor culture enabled gay men to meet one another and explore their lives with a new freedom. In some ways the book can serve as a prologue to George Chauncey's "Gay New York"--and gay Boston, gay Chicago, and other major cities where bachelor culture created the conditions for the first wave of gay community.
For instance, not only did primarily bachelor social institutions enable gay men to find one another more easily, but some rooming houses and YMCAs allowed residents to take guests to their rooms. Some bathhouses turned a blind eye to patrons who engaged in sex and some bathhouse employees must have been available for "massages." And there must have been young gay or bisexual men in any of these environments who were willing to engage in sex for a small fee. For much of this we have to make educated guesses but Chudacoff's book gives us the material to do that.
Although modern technology and a developed economy have enabled today's bachelors to have at home conveniences (telephones, hot water, spectator sports) that were once available only publicly, it is still fascinating to see how many of the social and entertainment institutions of modern singles culture and our gay culture have preserved or replicated in one form or another institutions developed around the turn of the century.
"The Age of the Bachelor" is not a new book. It was published in 1999, so you won't see it listed in any of those best books of 2007 or whenever. But not every good book gets the attention it deserves when it is published. This is particularly true of academic books, which tend to survive--if at all--as footnotes in other books. Yet when you seek them out they can turn out to be highly informative in ways you did not expect.
I've run across several other books in the past year, whether gay-specific or not, that I found worthwhile reading. Among them:
Rictor Norton, "The Myth of the Modern Homosexual" (1997). The title refers to the modern "social constructionist" myth that no men or women had a homosexual consciousness until the late 19th century when the word "homosexual" was coined. Drawing on copious historical research tracing self-understood homosexuals back through the centuries, Norton destroys that myth and restores gay history to its full legitimacy. He also shows how flimsy were the arguments advanced to support the myth.
David M. Friedman, "A Mind of Its Own: A Cultural History of the Penis" (2001). Friedman wittily traces the various ways the male member has been viewed in different times and cultures, including religious, anthropological, psychoanalytic, scientific and feminist approaches, and illustrates how the penis has been symbolized (battering ram, measuring stick, cigar, gear shift) over the years.
Michael Sherry, "Gay Artists in Modern American Culture: An Imagined Conspiracy" (2007). Sherry details the increasing number of gay creative artists in the fields of music, theater, and literature in the 1950s and the growth of a homophobic reaction against them. Critics charged them with shallowness, insincerity, inauthenticity and a distorted view of the world. A fascinating recovery of a dismal episode in recent American history.
83 Comments for “The Age of the Bachelor”
posted by Ashpenaz on
I long for the days when I could have been a “confirmed bachelor” instead of feeling pressure to be an “out ‘n proud” Rainbow flag waving gay man. I think that living behind social fictions worked better for everyone. I would much rather “share a house with a friend to save money” than explain my private life. It drives me crazy that the gay community just can’t stand men like me who really don’t like the current gay paradigm and long for the heady days of the 19th century which were much less oppressive. I look at the lives of Henry James, Henry David Thoreau, Herman Melville, and Walt Whitman and wish I had the chance they had to live my life as a a man who “just wasn’t the marrying type” without having to make a political statement.
posted by Karen on
Oh yes, I too long for the olden days. Alas! For the glorious days of the closet.
Then I wouldn’t have to suffer the awful indignity of my family accepting my “roommate” as the part of our family that she is. I wouldn’t have had to suffer through bearing and raising our wonderful children with my “spinster roommate”. I would have had the joy of missing out on our beautiful wedding. And last but not least, I could have avoided the terrible, terrible burden of occasionally having to actually say “I am a lesbian” to someone who might disapprove!
posted by Karen on
Oh yeah, and:
When I was a little girl, I dreamed about living like Laura Ingalls Wilder, or being a New England recluse like Emily Dickinson, or being Frannie in the Brooklyn slums.
When I grew up I realized that my romantic daydreams of the past were not a realistic and complete picture. Pioneer life was hard and dangerous. Emily Dickinson was more than a little insane. Brooklyn slums were dirty and mean.
You can put on your Norman Rockwell glasses and look at Pretend Bachelor Life as some kind of manly paradise, but over here in reality, hiding and lying is not healthy, fun or fulfilling. The closet isn’t a very safe place now, and it wasn’t a very safe place then either.
If someone is pressuring you to do something that you do want to do – attend an event, watch a tv show, vote for a candidate, fly a flag, whatever – it’s really very simple, the solution. Don’t do it. Live your OWN life, and stop letting other people define and influence you. But don’t mistake going back to the closet for living on your own terms.
posted by Karen on
Sorry, should read “… to do something that you DON’T want to do…”
posted by Karen on
Sorry for the multiple posts, but let’s not forget that in the happy days of Bachelor Paradise, I (the poor lonely spinster) would be in a much different situation.
Women had very few opportunities to make their own decent living. I can just imagine my blissful life… of laundry or houseservant drudgery. Or under a nun’s habit. Or if I’m very, very lucky, I could mooch off of my wealthy family.
No one is writing articles about the glorious age of spinsters and the myriad social structures in place for our pleasure and comfort… I wonder why…
posted by Ashpenaz on
This is an article about bachelors, not bachelorettes–once again proving that men and women don’t have the same needs. Being a confirmed bachelor, I have little contact with women–that’s kind of the point. I gladly give you the freedom to do what you need to do to solve your own problems using your own strength and independence. You don’t need my help.
I am going to work on my own problems, and for me, the 19th century was a much less oppressive time for “men who prefer the company of men.” A social fiction is not a closet. A social fiction is a way of identifying yourself without having to force your private life down peoples’ throats (so to speak). You were not in denial or in the closet by identifying yourself as a “confirmed bachelor”–you were speaking in a code which all acknowledged but which allowed people their zones of privacy.
I also think we’d be much further along in terms of equal rights if we’d stuck to social fiction. I think it would be more likely for people to say, “You know, John and Joe have been sharing an apartment to save money for a long time now–they need some sort of civil union arrangement which would make that easier for them” than they are to say, “I saw a guy swinging a rubber penis at a parade today–gee, I hope he gets the right to marry and adopt children!”
posted by Carl on
-I am going to work on my own problems, and for me, the 19th century was a much less oppressive time for “men who prefer the company of men.”-
As long as the wrong person never found out about them. If they did, then the “confirmed bachelor” would end up in prison, if not dead.
-I think it would be more likely for people to say, “You know, John and Joe have been sharing an apartment to save money for a long time now–they need some sort of civil union arrangement which would make that easier for them”-
Since John and Joe would never be out, wouldn’t people just say “Oh I hope they eventually settle down and find the right woman soon”? Since there were no civil unions passed for unmarried, confirmed bachelors (or spinsters) in the 19th century, it probably wouldn’t happen today, when there’s much less closeting.
posted by Karen on
A “social fiction” is saying you have a previous engagement when you really just don’t want to go to my party.
A “social fiction” is carding my dear old mom when she orders her screwdriver at dinner.
Maintaining a constant facade of “living with Joe to save money” when in reality, you’ve been lovers and partners for 20 years crosses the line into lying, and then keeps going a good mile or so.
posted by Ashpenaz on
In my scenario, John and Joe ARE out–everyone knows what’s really going on. But no one is required to have that reality shoved in their faces, once again, so to speak.
And no one was ever prosecuted–Oscar Wilde got in trouble because his friend’s father was crazy. Walt Whitman wrote openly about his feelings towards men–no one ever bothered him. Abraham Lincoln slept in the same bed with a man for many years–it wasn’t even enough to be a campaign scandal. If you look at the relationships of Henry James, Herman Melville, John Ruskin, etc. etc., you’ll see they were never bothered by anyone. Read Tennyson’s In Memoriam. This was a incredibly popular poem and Tennyson never got into trouble for writing an epic to another man. Yet–they all knew what was happening between the lines. No one was in the closet. No one was in denial. But the veneer of a social fiction allowed people the room to have a private life.
A social fiction is not a closet. A public persona is not a closet. It is simply a way to move smoothly in society and allow people to not have to confront issues they have no interest in.
I think John and Joe would have a much easier time convincing their community that a civil union would help them make ends meet much easier than Bette Dragster and Franky McPoodle tossing condoms off the Testicle float during the Pride parade.
posted by Herb Spencer on
I respectfully disagree with Varnell’s likening AOTB to a “prologue” to “Gay New York.” The latter, whose publication preceded the former’s, is thoroughly and meticulously researched and accredited. AOTB, while making a nod to serious scholarship, plays to the popular market, and is, frankly, a cheap imitation of GNY that sought to ride the coattails of its cover. Indeed, AOTB’s premise that the bachelor culture emerged from the American urban experience of the late 19th and early 20th centuries is straight out of Chauncey, if not Alan Berube’s – RIP! – still-earlier “Coming Out Under Fire” as well. Readers may want to take on each of these three books in their order of publication to appreciate them for what they bring to scholarship on these issues – and what at least one of them takes away.
posted by Carl on
There were many men who were imprisoned or worse for being gay. Many men who were miserable and alone and could only dream of a better life. EM Forster and his novel Maurice are one example. Forster himself was so afraid that he couldn’t even publish the book until after his death.
-In my scenario, John and Joe ARE out–everyone knows what’s really going on. But no one is required to have that reality shoved in their faces, once again, so to speak. –
The problem is the definition of “shoved in their faces”. There are many people out there who would tell us that if gay men hold hands in public, if they hug, if they say they are a couple, then that is shoving in their faces. If gay men can only keep every single part of their relationship in the shadows, then no one will ever want to acknowledge them, because they will assume homosexuality is something to be ashamed of or something that is inappropriate in society.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Ashpenaz, everything you seek is available to you in today’s Arkansas. Or Idaho. Or Utah. Or Nebraska. Or Oklahoma. Or …
posted by Karen on
You know, I have to come to this:
“This is an article about bachelors, not bachelorettes–once again proving that men and women don’t have the same needs. Being a confirmed bachelor, I have little contact with women–that’s kind of the point. I gladly give you the freedom to do what you need to do to solve your own problems using your own strength and independence. You don’t need my help.”
For one thing, I don’t see how it proves any such thing. My point was that women and men both need a way to make a decent living, both need a way to live and support themselves with dignity, both need ways to socialize. Those are the same needs, not different needs. However, in the era you have such nostalgia for, gay women didn’t have that, because there were very few options available for unmarried women.
I realize that since you belong to the lucky sex that did have those needs met, it’s not technically “your problem to solve”. All I’m asking is for you to acknowledge that even your romanticized and false notions of the “open secret” gay paradise that existed before the middle of the 20th century were not any such thing for women. Surely you do care about the condition of women, even if you aren’t one, don’t date one, and don’t care to socialize with one?
I suppose you could wish to return to some even MORE imaginary time when Walt Whitmans and Alfred Lord Tennysons roamed the planet AND women were equal citizens, but that goes beyond false nostalgia. That’s just fantasy.
posted by Karen on
I mean, “I have to come *back* to this”.
My mind is dropping packets.
(Nerd joke.)
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Ash, you live in Omaha for God’s sake…everything you could hope for is right outside your door. These books remind me of one of my favorite works of the past few years, “Strangers: Homosexual Love in the Nineteenth Century” by Graham Robb. This is a very readable assessment of gay culture before it became “gay culture.” It also contains this gleeful little reminder, Ashpenaz (James).
“After 27 men were arrested at a male brothel in London’s Vere Street in 1810, a friend of Lord Byron wrote to tell him that six men were convicted and put in the pillories, where crowds flung manure and offal at them for hours. He wryly commented that, unlike the poet, who was safe and evidently enjoying himself in Turkey, “that which you get for 5 pounds sterling we must risk our necks for.” But, he added, “[we] are content to risk them.””
Ah…the glorious life of “social fiction.” Stop your mawkish whining and give us all a break. Reality is your friend, you shouldn’t try to hide in your deluded view of history.
posted by Mark on
I think Karen has missed the point entirely, and I have to wonder why she’s so easily offended. The “in your face” radicalism is so 90s. I mean, really, who cares anymore? Gay “pride” is like feminism; it represents not liberation but its opposite: a life that must be lived according to a strict, severe ideology.
posted by Karen on
Mark,
You do understand that I’m responding to Ash, not the original post, right?
I don’t think pointing out to Ash the many problems with his nostalgia for those “golden days” counts as “radicalism”.
posted by Leo on
Not wanting to turn your life into a political statement is understandable but you?re perception of life in the 19th century is idealized.
I?ve read a couple of Whitman biographies and his life was not all skinny dipping with 15 year olds, and sentimental letters to wounded soldiers.
He was always acutely aware of the liabilities if not dangers that his sexuality carried and was always very guarded even well into his later years. His behavior and sometimes his language was often shaped by the fear of discovery. He knew full well that he was ahead of his time and that society persecuted men with his inclinations.
Most if not all of Whitman?s relationships tended to be short lived with younger men–some still in their mid-teens. The age disparity no doubt allowed these relationships to appear mentoring in nature to the outside world–which on some level they were. Many of these young men, usually from the poorer classes, took advantage of his generosity, and in some respects Whitman took advantage of their limited circumstances. More than a few of his relationships had an element of ?trade? to them. These are not the sort of relationships most us today would see as particularly satisfying.
Ironically it was Victorian notions about premarital sex and the constraints that were placed on interactions between men and women that actually made a certain heightened degree of emotional and physical intimacy among members of the same sex acceptable and less obtrusive. Whitman?s closeness with his young male friends didn?t read then as it would today. (Today some of his relationships would bring the police to the door)
They also had a wildly different concept of privacy than we now have. Two men living in close quarters sharing a bedroom were accepted as roommates and not necessarily seen as anything more.
Even if you could turn the clock back on the gay rights movement there are other cultural/social shifts that would make it impossible to go back to a 19th century notion of bachelorhood. Not that many of us would want to.
posted by Brian Miller on
for me, the 19th century was a much less oppressive time for “men who prefer the company of men.”
This romanticized neoclassicist trend is really annoying. The 19th century was a terrible time to be a gay man — in most states or cities, your freedom was purely at the discretion of the local authorities, who could imprison you at any time by dint of your homosexuality.
It’s not quite as bad as the late 18th century, when no less an authority than Thomas Jefferson advocated drilling a hole through a gay man’s nose as punishment for “sodomy.” And God help the 19th century queer “bachelor” if he was not of white extraction — especially if he was a black man.
posted by ETJB on
Much of the ‘bachelor culture’ history is not new. However, this mostly benifited
white, middle class and wealthy men.
That does not meant that the history is not relevant and fasciniating. It means that we should not forget how the real world operated for many people.
posted by Charles Wilson on
What Ashkenaz has yet to learn is that history consists of the condensation of selected facts. It’s the spaces between the facts, called time, that’s the rub. Or, in this case, the unrubbed. As I’m sure has occured to Ashkenaz out there in flyover country.
And before you get all in a twist, Ashkenaz, let me tell you that I am very familiar with flyover country, having been born and raised there, and having lived there as an adult, for quite a while.
The romantic notions of the lost frontier crumble quickly when you’re standing in a 7-Eleven in Omaha on Friday night looking for the cowboy who never seems to happen on by. I know how it feels, buckaroo. Just don’t try to drag everyone else into the muck, ya hear?
posted by Ashpenaz on
It’s nice to know that you wonderful, sophisticated, fabulous urban gays are thinking of the forgotten ones here in flyover country. Gee, I wish we had talking pictures and those new-fangled tellyphones and suchlike.
Urban gays think that they are the only gays in the world and they never think that their actions might have consequences for us flyover gays. There are people who like it out here. I like the downtown where people wave, the 4th of July extravaganzas, the pickup trucks, the men in the pickup trucks, etc. I like the slower pace and the traditional values. I don’t want to undermine those values–I want to show that you can be gay and be traditional at the same time.
But urban gays have an agenda–they really seem to want to confront and undermine traditional values, an agenda which has nothing to do with being gay. Small town or rural gays want to live according to small town and rural values, which means not telling people about your private life.
I’m not looking for a cowboy at a 7-11. I’m looking for a guy at church who wants to settle down and maybe raise kids. But the urban gays are making that choice difficult.
posted by Nick on
Sheesh, Ashpenaz, do you think back in the 19th century ‘bachelor couples’ were adopting kids? And what about the times when you’re talking to someone and they make a remark that assumes you’re straight? You either have to directly lie or indirectly mislead. What straight guy wouldn’t hit the roof if people started assuming he was gay?
posted by Ashpenaz on
If a straight guy asks me about my sexuality, I’ll look him square in the eye and say, “Girlfriend, I’m a confirmed bachelor.”
posted by Leo on
“small town and rural values, which means not telling people about your private life”
So when you and your church-going spouse and your children move onto the block or show up at church together you imagine the neighbors aren’t going to make some assumptions about your “private life”? Whether you like it or not they will. And they’re likely to have some opinions about it.
Or are you going tell everybody that you’re cousins and the children are his from a recently ended heterosexual marriage?
What are you going to tell the children you’re raising when they notice their family is different from those of their peers?
How are going to pull this off without someone figuring out you prefer guys to women?
To your mind is simply admitting to same sex attraction the same as revealing the details of one’s private life?
I’m an urban gay who goes to church, votes across party lines, doesn’t look to install a socialist government in Washington, dresses conservatively, isn’t part of the club scene, but I don’t conceal the fact that I’m partnered with someone named Thomas. It’s a fact of my life that’s there for anyone who cares to pay attention to it.
And I guess when people learn about Thomas they make assumptions about what could be considered my “private life”. Just like when I meet a heterosexual couple with biological children I can deduce they probably have vaginal intercourse at least every now and then.
Your private life is going to have some level of public expression unless you consciously work to conceal any trace of it.
BTW “confirmed bachelor” has always been a quaint euphemism for gay so why not just say it? Or do you think you’re fooling the yokels?
posted by Ashpenaz on
I believe in giving honest answers to honest questions. If someone asks me if I’m gay, I say, “Yes.” You know the last time someone asked me? Never. My point is not denying or being dishonest. It’s about not answering questions that no one has asked. In the course of a discussion of weekend events, I might say something like, “We went to dinner, he paid for the movie.” What I don’t say is this: “Notice how I said ‘he’ everybody? Did you notice the pronoun? Do you know what I mean? Do you want me to explain it? Stop oppressing me by not asking questions, you homophobes!!!”
If a person is not asking, then they don’t want to know. “Confirmed bachelor” allows us space to not have to deal with subjects which neither wants to discuss. That’s not being dishonest, in denial, or in the closet–it’s simply using a social fiction for those situations where complete knowledge isn’t being asked for. Which is almost every situation.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Ash: “If someone asks me if I’m gay, I say, “Yes.” You know the last time someone asked me? Never.”
That statement makes no sense whatsoever…it sends my mind into some sort of nonsense-driven warpzone.
Back to the article at hand, Norton’s “The Myth of the Modern Homosexual” is a pretty dense read that amounts to nothing more than a rehash of modern queer theory while bashing said theory at the same time. Norton takes the position that modern queer theorists are blind to the copious amounts of gay historical record pre-19th century; which is to say his hypothesis is a straw-man argument. The work is worth reading though, if for nothing else his well annotated research makes for easy reference.
posted by practical idealist on
I’ve really enjoyed reading these blog entries. They are all intelligent and articulate. As someone who has lived in a “fly-by” state his entire life, I can certainly relate to Ashpenaz’ desire to live in a world where the only test of a person’s worth is his character and integrity. I too long for such a world. I think all gay people wish for it. But I don’t think Ash’s concept of a “social fiction” is a valid way to make this ideal world we envision become a reality. It sounds too much like our country’s military policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Instead of looking for this place in the past, let us envision it for ourselves in our own lifetimes or in the near future. I agree with Colorado Patriot that the way to do this is to embrace reality as our friend. We as a community are still a long ways from realizing the Constitutional ideals of equality and justice in our current world. We’ve made progress. But there are still more battles to be fought. There are still a great many people who are directly opposed to our cause. But our cause is a worthy one, and worth fighting for. Ash’s dream of an ideal world that welcomes gay people as equals is something we must all envision in our hearts
posted by Pat on
Urban gays think that they are the only gays in the world and they never think that their actions might have consequences for us flyover gays. There are people who like it out here. I like the downtown where people wave, the 4th of July extravaganzas, the pickup trucks, the men in the pickup trucks, etc. I like the slower pace and the traditional values. I don’t want to undermine those values–I want to show that you can be gay and be traditional at the same time.
But urban gays have an agenda–they really seem to want to confront and undermine traditional values, an agenda which has nothing to do with being gay. Small town or rural gays want to live according to small town and rural values, which means not telling people about your private life.
Ashpenaz, please explain how all these “urban” gays have consequences for the “flyover” gays. You described what “small town and rural” gays want. How do the actions of other people change that? And since there are all these small town and rural gays you talk about, who have the same values you have, what’s the problem?
posted by Ashpenaz on
For instance, the urban gays’ love of Pride parades and rallies creates an image of gay life which rural gays have to live down. Rural folks with traditional values find the behavior at these urban parties simply inexplicable. (Of course, we have to go down to the drugstore and watch these things on the one TV in town.)
I realize I sound like I’m talking about “don’t ask, don’t tell.” I’m not–I’m not talking about denying yourself when that information is required. I certainly think gays have the right to job protection, in the military and elsewhere.
I’m really talking more about etiquette. I imagine my life as a Jane Austen novel. I pretend not to hear the rustling in the bushes. When the couple emerges with clothes disheveled, giggling, and saying, “My, the lilacs are lovely this year,” I say, “Yes, aren’t they?” Neither one of us is denying the reality–we’re simply allowing each other privacy.
Why is it OK for Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie to be “just good friends” or Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes to be “married” and me not to be a “confirmed bachelor”? Why are they allowed privacy in their personal life but I’m not?
Honestly, no one has ever asked me whether I’m gay. Except when I was working as a substitute teacher in a high school and someone said, “What are you, a fag or something?” I didn’t call myself a confirmed bachelor–I felt breaking down into tears was a better response.
posted by Karen on
You don’t like being “out and proud”? FINE. Don’t be. No one is forcing you to do anything, bro. You keep on keepin’ on. You live the life of a confirmed bachelor, answering questions without answering questions, not “forcing” anyone to acknowledge the reality of your life, since you apparently believe that is such a rude thing to do.
But a lot of people believe that living that kind of life is insulting and demeaning, even if necessary for safety reasons.
I, for instance, believe that hiding my relationship with my partner would be a form of conceding that it is a least a little shameful. It isn’t. I’m a respectable, honorable person with a respectable, honorable marriage. I’m not perfect, but the sex of my partner is not part of what makes me imperfect, and it isn’t fair or honest to live as if it is.
Speaking of marriage, there’s another thing. I believe in marriage – all of it, including the part where it’s important to have a public ceremony with the people that you care about. It’s pretty hard to stand up in front of God and everyone and make those vows and still pretend to be spinsters.
And then there’s children. The kind of life you are talking about is pretty self centered, and there’s no room for children in it. I’m not going to forego having children – which would break our mothers’ hearts, not to mention our own – in order to avoid ever making it clear what the woman who shares my house means to me.
Who is really trying to force something here? You are not required to do anything. “Living down” the actions of other gay people? Oh come on. You aren’t responsible for anyone’s actions but your own, and if anyone judges you by anything else, that’s on THEM. But you’re not satisfied with freedom, no, you want to go back to a time when other people were forced to live the way you want them to. There is room for your reticence in the 21st century, but there was simply no way for me to live MY kind of gay life in the 19th century. You ARE allowed your privacy, so go be private already! And when that kid asks if you’re some kind of fag, answer “Heck no!” with pride, because you can’t have it both ways.
The life that you think you could have led as a confirmed bachelor back in the days when there were no out gays is a fantasy, a childish daydream. Life isn’t a Jane Austen novel. Life never WAS a Jane Austen novel, not even for white, upper class British people. What you wish for never really existed then, and couldn’t exist now, and it’s not the fault of all the gays who are more open, flamboyant, and/or sexually licentious than you.
Your mind has been as addled by romanticized and whitewashed accounts of confirmed bachelorhood as poor Don Quixote’s were by tales of chivalry and knighthood, and now you’re out here tilting at windmills.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Ashpenaz, I’ve lived in towns a lot smaller than Omaha. The urban gays make it possible for you to tell someone you’re a homo without getting your head caved in by a crowbar. I know. I spent half my life there.
Here’s the deal. Live the way you want to live. Really, I don’t give a shit. But don’t sit there and tell me how to live my life, because I’m going to tell you the same thing I’m going to tell those people you think are your friends. It’s none of your business, Ash.
Have fun on Brokeback Mountain. It was a great movie, but as I’m sure you’ve found out by now, in real life you don’t even get the cowboy. You wind up as the director of the church choir who one day gets busted for putting his hand on that cut 16-year-old’s thigh.
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Really.
posted by Pat on
For instance, the urban gays’ love of Pride parades and rallies creates an image of gay life which rural gays have to live down. Rural folks with traditional values find the behavior at these urban parties simply inexplicable. (Of course, we have to go down to the drugstore and watch these things on the one TV in town.)
Okay, you don’t like the behaviors of many urban gays. I’m not crazy of some of the behaviors either. So what? How does that affect how you and your fellow small town and rural gays behave and interact with each other? How does that affect the type of life that you want to live?
What’s interesting, Ashpenaz, is that the type of behavior you want of gay people puts you in your own little Catch 22. You want straight America to think that gay people should be the way you want it to be. But how is that possible if you want your sexual orientation private? How would people know that gay people are the way you want them to be if they don’t know these people are gay? I don’t think playing “confirmed bachelor” games and saying outdated euphemisms are going to do the trick.
I understand why Whitman and others lived the lives the way they did. They probably didn’t have much choice if they wanted their lives to be as productive as they were. I suspect they would have preferred more freedom. At least you have the choice. If you want to live the repressed, second-class life that Whitman and others did, you certainly have that choice. Many others, including myself, don’t. And here’s the clincher. I’ve never been to a gay pride parade, and have many of the criticisms of the gay community that you do. However, I acknowledge the freedom of those I don’t agree with, and greatly appreciate all the work of those who have helped me and other gay persons get the freedom we have today.
Karen, excellent response!
posted by Ashpenazs on
I liked Brokeback Mountain, but it was a lie–there isn’t that kind of violence against gays. I grew up in South Dakota, and have spent time in Wyoming and Nebraska and have lived somewhere between Hwy. 90 and Hwy.80 in these states most of my life.
In high school, I hung around with flamboyant gays, one who dressed like David Bowie–Thin White Duke era and another who dressed like David Bowie–Aladdin Sane period. Both were popular–the Aladdin Sane guy was Homecoming King. He was fun, charismatic, and everyone liked him and knew or strongly suspected he was gay. This was in the 70s.
There was a gay couple who lived down the block from me. Everyone liked their garden. My father’s best man was gay. My Mom was friends with a gay piano player who visited every now and then.
My friend was a cook in a cafe in Torrington, WY–he had no problems with straights, though his gay partner beat him up.
A group of gay friends and I would meet in the afternoons at a disco in Rapid City where we’d dance–we couldn’t go at night because they served alcohol, so the gay owner would let us come in after school. He let us set up for Grace Jones when she played there–she was tall and very gracious. Again, no problems in the community, no crowbars.
There was a guy who owned a record store–I used to talk to him about being gay. Then there were the gays I met in theater–all in South Dakota. No problems, no crowbars. And this was all in the Brokeback Mountain era. Maybe they should have bought a house in Rapid City–they could have lived on my street.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Ashpenaz, okay, have it your way: Flamboyant gay behavior not just an urban phenomenon, as you’ve just illustrated. And rural straights don’t care about flamboyancy anyway.
So what were you complaining about? Oh yeah: flamboyant behavior? Urban males who don’t dress like duck hunters? What’s your beef?
posted by Dale on
The strongest evidence for the Good Old Days is a bad memory.
But when we’re talking about 19th Century Good Old Days, I doubt that any of the contributors to this dialogue have any memory at all.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I’m not complaining about flamboyant behavior. I’m complaing about the fact gays don’t have traditional values. I know many straight men who are good fathers and faithful husbands, who have wisdom, prudence, maturity, a sense of responsibility, and a sense of masculine honor. You will see from the posts that follow this one that gays don’t think any of those things are important. They will chide me for wanting men to be mature, responsible adults capable of making and keeping vows. I find a man who builds a marriage and a family and who contributes to the quality of life in his community incredibly attractive–and not one gay man I have ever met has ever been like that.
You will scoff, but the movie 3:10 to Yuma (and every othe Western) shows the kind of masculine honor code which men out here in flyover country live by. A gay man would never take those kind of risks to defend his family or his sense of justice. That’s why everyone thinks the blonde guy, Russell Crowe’s malevolent sidekick, is the gay one.
posted by Harke Ploegstra on
@ Ashpenaz:
I think you’ll find that men straight or gay grow into responsibility if they are presented with it.
I’m quite sure many bachelors were every bit as irresponsible as contemporary urban gays (read up on the history of prostitution or research the ‘life-style’ of seasonal workers if you don’t understand what I mean).
@ Karen:
Good posts!
I too often yearn for the white picket fence world of the nineteenth century. Then I remember what London was like at the time.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Gays don’t think honor is important? Speak for yourself.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Think of one gay man you know that you would describe as wise, mature, responsible, prudent, and self-controlled; Think of one gay man that you and those who know him would say this about: “He’s a good father and a good husband. He is a man of honor and I trust his handshake.”
I promise not to scoff. I’d really like to know if such a gay man exists.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I know several of them, including one who has five children with his partner. Ashpenaz, people tend to get what they are looking for.
posted by p_rik on
I don’t see why that Karen chick has her Kotex in a snag, this doesn’t even pertain to her.
posted by Pat on
Urban gays think that they are the only gays in the world and they never think that their actions might have consequences for us flyover gays. There are people who like it out here…Small town or rural gays want to live according to small town and rural values…
OR
Think of one gay man you know that you would describe as wise, mature, responsible, prudent, and self-controlled…I’d really like to know if such a gay man exists.
Ashpenaz, clear up the contradiction. In the latter, you say there no such gays of the type you’d prefer don’t exist. But in the former statement, you talk about gays with small town values, etc., as if they do exist. Which is it?
Are you trying to say that small town gays would share your values, but because of Elton John and Nathan Lane (what the heck did he do, by the way?) are preventing you and other flyover gays from having happy lives? If so, how are they doing that.
Also, who is Daniel Craig (isn’t he the latest James Bond guy), or do you mean Larry Craig?
posted by Karen on
That’s mature, p_rik.
Ashpenaz, seriously, get OVER yourself already.
I live in Washington, DC – pretty urban – and I know many gay men, lesbians, and transgendered people who have traditional values and are wonderful people. You are not as unique as you think you are. You live in Omaha, right? Not some tiny town without resources? So join a UU or UCC or MCC church, fer crying out loud, or a gay sports team, or music, art, book club, something, ANYTHING, and find some nice gay friends. You need the perspective.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ASH: “Think of one gay man that you and those who know him would say this about: “He’s a good father and a good husband. He is a man of honor and I trust his handshake.””
All right, done…now what? You want me to forward their contact info on to you?
posted by Ashpenaz on
I meant Larry Craig. If only Daniel Craig.
I looked around Omaha at all the gay venues. I’ve also looked in Houston, San Francisco, and Minneapolis. My next stop is Chicago and New York. Where would I go in those cities to get find gays with traditional values? I’ll go there on my next trip. But I don’t see any of the diversity you describe. I see shallow, narcissistic, hedonistic, perpetual adolescents. Without naming names, why don’t you describe the honorable men you know, their relationships, and their families in enough detail? You don’t have to use identifying terms, but how old are they? Where do they live (in general)? What are their children like?
I also noticed that my post about pro-life and its importance to gays was deleted. Again, there are traditional values which gays are not allowed to have, pro-life being one of them.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I don’t see any of the diversity you describe. I see shallow, narcissistic, hedonistic, perpetual adolescents.
People tend to see what they are looking for.
posted by Charles Wilson on
First you asked for honorable gay people. That one’s pretty easy. I’ve known honorable gay people all over the place, in big cities and small towns alike.
Now you’re asking for “gays with traditional values.” That’s harder to answer, because what’s traditional to one person is just the Republican platform to someone else. So how about if you define traditional values? If you’re looking for Log Cabin Republicans, I think you’ll have quite a search on your hands given that there are about 15 of them. Try e-mailing North Liar Forty for the list.
posted by Karen on
“My next stop is Chicago and New York. Where would I go in those cities to get find gays with traditional values?”
It depends on what you mean by “traditional values”. I’m going to assume that you’re less worried about economic policy and theories of government, and more worried about hedonism and shallowness.
The MCC – there’s even one in Omaha (http://www.mccomaha.org/). The state marriage equality activist group – in Maryland it’s “Equality Maryland”. In the DC area there’s a group called “Rainbow Families DC”, for LGBTs with children – even if you don’t have kids, that would be a good place to start, so look for a group like that. You could even just sign up to do an AIDS walk or something.
But the best friends I have I found through non “gay” activities. I play in a band, and I’ve met several wonderful gay people involved in music. My UU church isn’t a “gay” church but I still met lots of gay people there. I’ve met gay people at work. I’ve reconnected with a few friends from my school days who are now out, as well.
You know what we all do, though? We are all OUT – it had to be common knowledge to everyone around us that we were gay, so that nobody would be uncomfortable saying, “Oh yeah, Bob? He’s gay.” Otherwise we might have floated past each other, each unaware of the other’s gayness, each wishing we could meet more gay people.
I have many more lesbian friends than gay male friends, but I can still provide you with male examples:
I have a friend from church. He was married before he came out. He has a daughter who is a senior in high school – she’s a good kid, I know her because my partner and I often chaperone high school youth group events. He works with me on the LGBT task force at church, keeping up with the goings-on at Equality Maryland, emailing us with updates and such, and organizing family-fun and educational activities for the LGBT community at the church. I don’t remember what he does for a living – our interactions are centered around the church – but I know he does alright for himself from where he lives.
Then there a friend from music school. I haven’t seen him in a long time, but he was great – one of the first people I came out to. He was a doctoral candidate, I was a freshman. I had met him before I started at the university, at a piano masterclass program in Europe. He was from Brazil. He had a boyfriend he’d left behind there, but they were doing the long-distance thing. He, like all of us piano students, spent most of his time in a practice room, and was very kind.
There was a guy I worked with at my last company. We were doing some software development (I switched majors), and I was travelling to Ft. Lauderdale every week to help out. He lived there, and was one of the lead engineers on the project. Living in a hotel sucks, so this guy and his partner kind of took me in – I’d go over to their house for dinner during the week, watch movies with them, play video games, etc. They weren’t at all shallow or hedonistic – just a couple of regular guys.
I could go on, but I won’t, because I don’t think you really care to find nice gay people. I won’t play armchair psychologist about why, but I do hope you deal with whatever is holding you back – or at least stop blaming the gay community for it.
posted by JL on
I read the book Gay New York with fascination. I couldn’t imagine a culture where so many gay men with modest incomes and educations lived side by side in such an exciting place and actually found relationships by chance, and not by a laundry list of unrealistic expectations. In 2008, gay men can not just ‘go to New York’ and do this. Unless you’re an investment banker, have a lot of money or have years of post-graduate education, forget it. The big gay cities are not colored with rainbows, they are colored green – with money. A lot of gay relationships are similar to corporate mergers – two people with high-end careers that are merging assets and investments to become more successful and enjoy the historic gay neighborhoods that will never be affordable to us gays who are living paycheck to paycheck.
What has happened in the gay world is interesting to observe – what do you do when you have someone who has grown up feeling isolated, yet unique and special – and then when that person becomes an adult and comes out, moves to a big city with a thousand other people who think they are incredibly unique and special (but nobody else is)…I think that sums up a lot of what’s going on in the gay community now. The sense of support is gone – unless you meet specific guidelines that relate to social class, income, age and whatever else. It’s not enough to be gay and proud of who you are anymore. Now you must be gay, highly educated, white collar, sophisticated, elite…I think that is what’s behind a lot of the resentment of rural gay people. Gay people only make up less than 5% of the population yet we constantly seek new ways to exclude each other or feel as if we’re better than everyone else in the community. How many degrees of ‘otherness’ can there be?
I also take issue with a lot of the elitist comments from people who say snide comments tongue-in-cheek suggesting that others are not as socially adjusted (‘I hope you deal with your issues’, etc) has become so common, particularly with gay men that it makes me want to throw up. Stop acting like catty 7th grade girls. Just because someone is having a difficult time finding their way in the gay world does not mean you get to make fun of them so you can boost your own illusions of sophistication.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Just so you know, I’ve tried the MCC. I find them too theologically liberal. Believing in gay equality doesn’t have to mean diminishing the Deity of Christ. The MCC is also not open to my belief in Intelligent Design or my pro-life values. I’ve also looked at UU, but the same is even more true there. I’m an Episcopalian, which, for me, has a blend of conservative and liberal when we’re getting along.
The other day, a friend of mine and I went out into a field and shot rifles. This is fairly typical. I don’t think I’m going to meet the kind of man I relate to in a piano master class. Nor am I interested in having a high-profile corporate job in an expensive city. I’m more into Thoreau and Walden (another one of my 19th century gay heroes). I like living simply. So, as the above post so clearly points out, I’m marginalized by the gay community for not being flashy and shallow and mercenary and narcissitic–I’m also old and fat (in gay terms–which is over 40 and overweight).
I’m also out, BTW, to my friends, family, church, etc. If anyone asks, I don’t care about people knowing I’m gay. But no one ever asks. It’s unfair to claim I’m in the closet when most people simply don’t care whether I’m gay or not.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Ashpenaz, if you look more closely at your hero Thoreau, you’ll learn that he didn’t live fulltime at Walden Pond. He commuted into Boston on many weekends. His book didn’t mention any of this, just as your right-wing churches don’t mention the corporate jets and secret abortions. The problem with knowing the truth is knowing the truth.
By the way, you can drive a truck through “overweight.” How fat are you? Could it be that you’re having a hard time finding companionship for reasons other than moral values? Are you as open to overweight, middle-aged men as you’d like others to be?
posted by Leo on
I know I?m probably just pissing into the wind here but I can?t help myself.
Could you explain the reasoning that places Andrew Sullivan and Elton John in the same space with Larry Craig? Harvard and Oxford educated, respected in Washington DC political circles, Sullivan is a church going, marriage promoting, conservative that recently got married himself. Isn?t that what you keep agitating for? I think he?d be the man of your dreams. John is an entertainer, he?s flamboyant, a bit of a diva, so what?that?s part of his job description. His Aids Foundation has raised millions for AIDS sufferers worldwide. His public civil union with his longtime partner was refreshing in an entertainment industry that still prefers it?s gay stars bearded.
Could you explain in specific terms why Sullivan and John are dishonorable or untrustworthy? Why exactly don?t they measure up to the high standards set by your straight buddies? Who have they lied to? You don?t think these men contribute to the community? You keep railing about marriage well here are two high profile gay men who are married and they still don?t make the grade in your eyes. What about either of these men is unprincipled? Is it because they?re fallible?John battled substance abuse and Sullivan contracted HIV? Or is it because they don?t subscribe to the same check list of opinions on certain issues that you do?
Follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_E._Kameny Does this man rate your respect? How about this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Wolfson.
What are we really talking about here? Is this about finding healthy, principled, relationship oriented men or is this about finding gay men who buy into a certain religiously driven set of agendas? The two are not the same thing sorry. Is a person a degenerate because he doesn?t share your opinion on abortion or intelligent design? There are gay anti-abortion groups (http://www.plagal.org) connect with them if the issue is so defining for you.
Doesn?t it dawn on you that the very existence of this web site and the issues that it puts forward goes against your ongoing assertion the gay life is nothing but a barren wasteland of drugs, bathhouses and bars. Do you imagine that all of us are sitting here with trays of cocaine next to our computer keyboards while our last trick sleeps it off in the bed nearby. Is that what you imagine? You more or less imply that. You come onto this site issuing what amount to blanket insults and it?s getting tired.
25 years of reparative therapy? 25 years!? Is it possible that you?ve internalized some of what you where taught about gay life in that therapy? You equate club/street culture with urban gay life, it isn?t. Yes there are gay train wrecks, addicted and denigrated, but there are also plenty of straight folk in the same sorry condition and I don?t hear heterosexuals denouncing urban straights because of it.
Cities are magnets for young people gay and straight. And a certain number of those people will for whatever reasons make poor decisions?drugs, hustling, petty crime and lord knows what else. Some of this starts out as youthful experimentation, some of it?s desperation. Some are able to walk away from it and others get mired in it and become middle aged, addicts and hustlers. I know of no community here in NY that believes being a drug addled hustler is a good thing. We have shelters and counseling for gay youth. There?s every conceivable type of support group, meeting everyday in the community center here. There are many clinics that offer services free or at great discount. Far from pushing people off the cliff, we urban gays put an enormous amount of resources towards helping people who are struggling.
Now, in addition to narcissism, hedonism and general degeneracy we can add avarice to our list of transgressions. Yes real estate prices in cities like NY and Frisco are out of control. But guess what? The majority on NY faggotry isn?t found in deluxe apartments. The reason a lot of us are able to live where we do is because we took chances on neighborhoods that were derelict and seedy. We bought places others didn?t want. We went into these fringe communities and helped to rebuild them. People forget that 25 years ago most of Chelsea was a dump and the East Village a war zone. Now the block is hot and the Smiths T-shirts have given way to Wharton T-shirts. Such is the pattern of urban development. It?s not something we?re doing to cheese off the folks in the country. We saw opportunities and took them. And a new generation of gays are staking their claims to new neighborhoods.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Wow! It’s interesting that you would never consider giving such well thought-out advice to an urban, hedonistic, narcississtic, young, beautiful gay. Because that’s the norm, and that’s OK. Only us old, fat, cranky gays are worthy of your criticism, because there’s something wrong with us, not the community.
Like Thoreau, I too have been to the big city. But people made fun of me for looking up at the tall buildings so I cried and left.
I find Andrew Sullivan’s giggling Obama worship to be very adolescent. I bet he has posters of Obama all over his room, and probably his locker as well.
I went into reparative therapy because all the gays I knew were alcoholic, drug addicts. I even had the chance to kiss a guy with AIDS before that was cool! I didn’t want to be part of the gay world around me, and the only thing which offered a model of gay life congruent with my values was reparative therapy. I think the gay community is responsible for driving many traditional, moral men into reparative therapy. I blame all the pain and suicide that reparative therapy causes on the gay community for refusing to find a place for men who want to live normal lives according to traditional values. Driving such men away by handing them a copy of Numbers, a box of condoms, and a Gwen Stefani wig means they will likely run away and reinforce their shame by finding a reparative therapist. But, of course, you won’t see that the gay community has ever done anything wrong to anybody.
Fat and old is not an issue for me–right now, I’m attracted to Roger Clemens and I’ve been known to ogle David Wells pictures, and I still look for Kirk Gibson photos. James Gandolfini is sponge-worthy. Will Sasso and Kevin James are really cute. The key is masculinity, not weight or age. Please! Don’t bring up bears–now that’s just plain fat. And the cuddling is a real turn-off.
posted by Karen on
“Just so you know, I’ve tried the MCC. I find them too theologically liberal.”
I thought you were looking for friends, not religious comrades. It is not necessary to agree with the “deity of Christ” to like 4th of July parades and backyard barbeques more than dance clubs and casual sex.
“The other day, a friend of mine and I went out into a field and shot rifles. This is fairly typical. I don’t think I’m going to meet the kind of man I relate to in a piano master class. Nor am I interested in having a high-profile corporate job in an expensive city.”
I’m sure you’re the ONLY gay person ever to like guns. http://www.pinkpistols.org/
You don’t know what Carlos was like just because he played the piano, or what Jason and Ryan were like just because they lived in Ft. Lauderdale and Jason worked for a software company. It sounds to me like you are the intolerant and unaccepting one – you won’t hang out with anyone who has a job you wouldn’t like to do, plays an instrument, believes in Jesus differently than you, etc.
“I’m marginalized by the gay community for not being flashy and shallow and mercenary and narcissitic–I’m also old and fat (in gay terms–which is over 40 and overweight).”
No, you’re marginalized by a small portion of the gay community for being “old and fat” and simple and rural and conservative. The rest of us are out here living normal lives, but you don’t like us because we don’t meet YOUR criteria.
The self-pitying ‘nobody will sit next to me at lunch’ stuff got old back in 5th grade. Your views on abortion and evolutionary science and Christ’s deity, combined, line up with people who generally also condemn gay people. You’re not going to find too too many gay people, therefore, who share all of them (although I know liberal gay atheist pro-lifers). But that doesn’t automatically make them shallow and hedonistic. If you give us moderates and liberals a chance, you might find that we’re not all urban sophisticates, druggies, and sluts. But it WILL probably mean having to… YUCK!… associate with people who don’t agree with you 100%.
Be nice, and most people will be nice to you in return. There’s always going to be some asshole who can’t avoid picking fights with you over ID at the 4th of July barbeque, whether you’re hanging out with gay people or straight people or… shock of all shocks, a *mixture*.
posted by Karen on
“I think the gay community is responsible for driving many traditional, moral men into reparative therapy. I blame all the pain and suicide that reparative therapy causes on the gay community for refusing to find a place for men who want to live normal lives according to traditional values. Driving such men away by handing them a copy of Numbers, a box of condoms, and a Gwen Stefani wig means they will likely run away and reinforce their shame by finding a reparative therapist. But, of course, you won’t see that the gay community has ever done anything wrong to anybody.”
I partially agree, but I disagree with your assessment of the root cause.
There most certainly IS a place for men like you and women like me in the gay community. But there is a part of our community that is visible, radical, and annoying. And there is a part that, like you and me, might be “out” but isn’t nearly visible enough and is drowned out by the radical queers and the fundies yelling and pointing fingers at each other. So I would lay the blame for voluntary reparative therapy equally on:
1) the excesses of the radical, transgressive, queer community
2) the near-silence of the normal gay community
3) the excesses of the “traditional values” culture – something that I consider to be a major contributing factor to the last two points
4) the lack of research and imagination and common sense on the part of those men who enter it – oh yeah, personal responsibility, baby.
And of course, involuntary reparative therapy on minors is simply inexcusable.
But you’re out of reparative therapy now, and you should know better than to consider “the gay community” to be anything other than a loose categorization. With millions of gay people in the US, I think you can find a few that meet even your high standards for moral behavior. (If you stop looking only for men that agree with your every passing opinion.)
posted by Ashpenaz on
I’m not looking for someone to agree with my opinions. I’m looking for certain qualities: responsibility, maturity, integrity, self-control, accountability, inner strength, wisdom, honesty, honor, monogamy–these are not things which most gay men ever develop. Most straight men grow out of their wild youth, get married, settle down, contribute to their church and community. It is really, really rare to see a gay man do the same thing. Are you saying it’s common? The norm? Really–where? Some gay Brigadoon where most gays are married with families and are members of the volunteer fire department? (Sorry for the showtune reference–but I know you’ll get it.)
posted by Charles Wilson on
I went into reparative therapy because all the gays I knew were alcoholic, drug addicts.
Next thing we know, you’ll tell us that you were crucified for mankind’s sins.
posted by Karen on
“I’m not looking for someone to agree with my opinions. I’m looking for certain qualities: responsibility, maturity, integrity, self-control, accountability, inner strength, wisdom, honesty, honor, monogamy–”
Then why, when I suggest looking at a gay-oriented or gay-friendly church, do you respond that you looked there, but “the theology was too liberal”?
(And why do you ignore my other suggestions?)
Was there anything else wrong with those people, other than their religious creed not being exactly like yours? Were they REALLY all immature, irresponsible, unprincipled, out-of-control, unaccountable, weak, foolish, dishonest, dishonorable, and promiscuous? If you’re looking for openly gay people who contribute to their churches, I’d start with the churches that *don’t* condemn their sexuality as incompatible with a Christian life.
“These are not things which most gay men ever develop.”
Bullshit. You just don’t believe that anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100%, or anyone who has ever made a mistake, could possibly possess them. This is why you toss out Andrew Sullivan, a family man and a Catholic, like he’s some anti-monogomy radical queer. If you’re looking for perfection, you’re going to be disappointed.
“Most straight men grow out of their wild youth, get married, settle down, contribute to their church and community. It is really, really rare to see a gay man do the same thing. Are you saying it’s common? The norm? Really–where?”
Everywhere except the bars and dance clubs and sex shops, my friend. You won’t find the nicest straight people hanging around in a bar all day, so I’m not sure why you expect gay people to be any different. But you know what else most straight men do? Even after their “wild youth”? They MAKE MISTAKES. They have affairs. They have midlife crises. They get fired. They hit their wives. They drink too much. They embezzle money from their company. They act like assholes at sporting events. They put too much pressure on their sons to live the life they wish they’d lived. Nobody lives a life free of mistakes.
“Some gay Brigadoon where most gays are married with families and are members of the volunteer fire department? (Sorry for the showtune reference–but I know you’ll get it.)”
No, no I don’t get it. I like a few musicals but not the old ones, which the reference seems to be from. ANYWAY. Do you expect to find them all in one place, together? Why? One of the very things that you’re looking for is that they’ve moved beyond their gay identity and do things that have nothing to do with being gay. So why would you expect them to be ghettoized?
posted by Ashpenaz on
Actually, no one I’ve ever met shares my religious creed. Maybe Kierkegaard? Is that too old for you?
Using musical references which may be more familiar to you young folks, omigod, omigod, you guys, I can’t really feel the love here tonight, but that’s just the bitch of living, I guess, so let me tell you about my circle of life–ok, enough of that.
Here’s my plan: I’m going to live me life, strike up conversations with single over-30 men I find attractive, and hope to meet someone who feels mutual attraction. I don’t want to go to gay.com or dudesnude or Pride parades or bars. I just want to meet normal guys in the course of my normal life. My point in all these posts is that I plan to live my life without the help or support of the gay community. I think there are a lot of gays who step outside the rainbows because they feel unwelcome there because they are old, fat, Christian, conservative, cranky, poor, or any number of unpleasant things that never make the cover of Out. I’m going to be a freelance gay.
I’m through accepting limits
‘Cuz someone says they’re so
Some things I cannot change
But till I try, I’ll never know!
Too long I’ve been afraid of
Losing love I guess I’ve lost
Well, if that’s love
It comes at much too high a cost!
I’d sooner buy
Defying gravity
Kiss me goodbye
I’m defying gravity
And you can’t pull me down!!!
posted by karen on
“Actually, no one I’ve ever met shares my religious creed. Maybe Kierkegaard? Is that too old for you? Using musical references which may be more familiar to you young folks, omigod, omigod, you guys, I can’t really feel the love here tonight, but that’s just the bitch of living, I guess, so let me tell you about my circle of life–ok, enough of that. ”
Achooo!
Excuse me. I’m allergic to jerks.
Seriously. Just because I prefer modern musicals to those of the 40’s and 50’s, I must be some kind of ignorant young’un who wouldn’t touch someone “old” like Kierkegaard with a 10-foot pole? Again, get over yourself. My preferred musicals and my preferred philosophers are not inherently linked in any way.
“Here’s my plan: I’m going to live me life, strike up conversations with single over-30 men I find attractive, and hope to meet someone who feels mutual attraction.”
Well gee, that’s exactly what I’ve been suggesting you do, except for one difference: that you maybe start looking in places that don’t *actively campaign* against homosexuality, because most gay people avoid those places. (I know, how SELFISH of them.)
“I don’t want to go to gay.com or dudesnude or Pride parades or bars. I just want to meet normal guys in the course of my normal life.”
I didn’t say to go there. I also wouldn’t suggest ‘adultfriendfinder’ or cosmo.com or the Mardi Gras parade or the a meat market straight bar to my straight friends who are looking for companionship.
“My point in all these posts is that I plan to live my life without the help or support of the gay community.”
Fine. That’s your choice. But for one thing, you’re lying to yourself if you think that you could live the life you’re living now if “the gay community” didn’t exist/hadn’t ever existed. The ’19th century paradise’ you think you’d be living in was no such thing – and even if it was, it was only for a select few, so, selfish much? And here I thought you were perfect…
And for another thing, it’s going to be harder to find and recognize nice, openly gay people if you avoid anything remotely welcoming to or aimed at gay people.
No matter what your ‘point’ was, what you’ve been *saying* in all of these posts is that all of the people who do not reject “the gay community” wholesale couldn’t possibly have these qualities: responsibility, maturity, integrity, self-control, accountability, inner strength, wisdom, honesty, honor, monogamy.
Them’s fightin’ words.
“I think there are a lot of gays who step outside the rainbows because they feel unwelcome there because they are old, fat, Christian, conservative, cranky, poor, or any number of unpleasant things that never make the cover of Out. I’m going to be a freelance gay.”
Old, fat, Christian, conservative, cranky, poor people generally don’t make the cover of ANY magazine, gay or straight. So sorry for your loss. Meanwhile, there are plenty of old, fat, cranky, poor, and Christian people inside the “rainbow”. There are even some conservatives.
Your error is in believing that gay.com and the more scantily-clad parts of the pride parades represent the whole of the “rainbow”.
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, I wonder why it is you appear to be much more critical of the gay community than you are of the anti-gay bigots. Sure, there are people in the gay community who are extreme and whose behaviors you (or I) approve of. But there are also many who are out and proud. Why not be happy for them even if they don’t have the same personality and characteristics you have. And where is the criticism for those who continue to use “reparative” “therapy” to “cure” homosexuality? You’ve said you’ve done it for a long time, and you now see it first hand for the farce it really is. If you’ve received anything good from it, then hold onto that and trash the rest and move away from it for good. You see how they continue to harm people by making them believe they can be something that they are not.
There’s value in trying to change things for the future of people in your communities, gay, Christian, whatever. But there’s also a time for one to stop blaming others, no matter how bad they are, to solve your own problems.
It appears that you set yourself up for failure. You said in a much earlier post about there being “flyover” gays with values that you have. And in your last post you reaffirm that. So go out there and meet these people. Instead, you are longing for the days where the good gays don’t talk about their sexuality and maintain privacy (tough to meet people that way). And could it be in the long list of characteristics, you simply are describing, in your PERCEPTION, what a straight guy is and what a gay guy isn’t, and use the magic word “masculine” all the time? So that when you find a gay guy with many of the characteristics you are looking for, but won’t measure up to being “masculine” because, after all, he’s into guys? And when that happens, blame the gay community for waving rainbow flags and going to pride parades.
So get out there and meet these guys. Accept the fact that gay guys, like straight guys, are not going to have ALL the characteristics you’re looking for. So instead of automatically tossing aside a gay guy who falls short on a couple of things on your list and denounce as not being “masculine,” give the guy a break like you do the straight guys. When you look for the negatives in people, that’s exactly what you’ll end up with. Start looking for the positives and you’ll find as time goes by, you’ll find you’ll get that as well.
The reason I don’t necessarily give advice to those who you perceive to be “urban, hedonistic, narcississtic, young, beautiful” gays is because if they are happy, they probably don’t need it. If they come on here and say they are not happy with that life, I’ll give them advice too.
Your plan in your last post is fine. But don’t set it up for automatic failure and deflect the responsibility from yourself.
JL, I agree with the point in the last paragraph of your post. One should knock down another who’s going through hard times. And some may be doing that here. Others are giving helpful advice, and that includes telling someone to take responsibility for their life and choices, and to stop the “woe is me” stuff. I’ve been there too. And as soon as I took responsibility for my own actions, and stopped taking actions that were doomed to fail and blame others, the switch turned on. Yes, it’s good to be a good listener as well, and be sympathetic. But just doing that facilitates the failure.
posted by Leo on
Just for the record I have given advice to young, beautiful, party boys who I thought were setting themselves up for injury and disappointment.
That’s what friends do.
posted by geothermal on
Is Ashpenaz just a Bobby resurrected?
posted by Ashpenaz on
Is geothermal kind of jerk for talking about people in third person?
I don’t really have a lot to say except my plan to get you all to like me has failed miserably. 🙁
posted by Karen on
We might like you better if you stopped insulting us so egregiously.
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, if you want people to like you, it might be a good idea to not knock other people down who are not like you. In any case, you’ll find that as soon as you take the steps you need to be happy, you’ll find it won’t be necessary to get people to like you. It will just happen. And it won’t matter if there are people who won’t like you.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
No geothermal, Ash is not Bobby…he is the poster formerly known as James though. I don’t know why he changes his handle here once every few months…just like his sad and lonely ex-gay tinged existence, it is his prerogative.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I changed my name from James because there were too many in the blog world. I chose Ashpenaz because of his importance to me as a Biblical gay character.
It’s interesting that you make the assumption that men who reject or criticize the gay community are somehow inevitably unhappy or lonely. There are many non-gay people out here, you know, and some of them can even talk musicals. And there are all sorts of non-gay things to do. Really. Step out of the gay ghetto and you’ll discover a veritable amusement park of people to meet and things to do which have nothing to do with being gay.
I would like to connect with gay people who wouldn’t require me to change who I am to fit their idea of what gays should do and believe. You say that such gays exist, but I’ve met lots ‘o gays and they are more oppressive with their opinions than the NRA members I’ve met. I obviously haven’t met every single gay man you say is out there, so there’s still hope these wonderfully openminded gays exist. I’ll take your word for it and keep up the search. I haven’t seen any on this blog, yet, in that everyone here tries to shame me into change–at least the Christians who wanted me to go into reparative therapy were pleasant as they were shaming me. So, if my experience meeting gays are going to follow the pattern of this blog–in that they will say there is something wrong with me and I have to change before they like me–then it doesn’t really seem like it’s worthwhile to explore the gay community any more than I would explore fundamentalist Islam.
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, I have an acquaintance (straight) who’s sort of in a pathetic quasi-relationship. Of course, I advised her to get out of it, but chooses to continue with the scraps or hope of scraps that the relationship brings. The other party is happy with the way things are, even though I personally don’t like his tack. Guess who has to change? Hint: It’s not him.
She should either get out of it, or at least change her attitude of the relationship and accept the limitations there are. Right now she chooses to continue with it with the same false hope and disappointments.
That’s where you are. You’re helding firm for an impossible dream (that you set yourself up for), and then express disappointment and blame others when the failures you set yourself up for occur. If you want things to change, guess who has to change, you or the young, beautiful, out and proud gays. Hint: It’s not the latter.
This does not mean that you have to undergo some fundamental change, and start waving all the rainbow flags you come across, and sleep with everyone you meet at a gay bar, if you want to go at all. But, at the very least, it might help to change your attitude about the gay community. This does not mean you have to like everything about the gay community. But it helps to accept there are people different from you who are happy, and blaming them for your situation is not going to help you.
Of course, if you do not want to change a thing, you don’t have to. It probably means that you are happy enough with the way things are. But it apparently includes asking for advice, and automatically rejecting it and restating how bad you have it and how bad everyone else is. Again, it’s your right, but, as you know, people can only put up with it so much.
And this should tell you something…at least the Christians who wanted me to go into reparative[sic] therapy[sic] were pleasant as they were shaming me. Twenty-five years of these charlatans being pleasant, and see where that got you. Do you want another 25 years of nice people saying, “oh, you’re so right, that’s too bad, you just keep on trying the same thing and hold on to your misery,” or do you want something else? It’s all up to you.
Anyway, Ashpenaz, unless you have any questions about what I’ve written, this will be my last advice post to you. I wish you good luck no matter what you decide.
posted by Charles Wilson on
The straight analog to Ashpenaz is a man who, after being taken to the cleaners in a divorce or two, declares that women are (fill in the blank). He is projecting his disappointments onto the world at large.
posted by Karen on
“everyone here tries to shame me into change”
You can’t come in here insulting “every gay person you’ve ever met”, including us, saying that we’re all just hedonistic, shallow, oppressive pieces of valueless trash, and expect us not to object.
Pointing out the fact the 19th century wasn’t all roses for gay men, and that choosing to remain silent and being forced to remain silent are two very different propositions – that’s not “shaming you into changing”. It’s just the facts – no oppressive opinion necessary.
Telling you that you’re not the only openly gay person ever to be pro-life, pro-gun, A True Believer, and an appreciator of rural simplicity is not “shaming you into changing.” They’re rare, considering that those beliefs are statistically associated with the belief that homos are sick people who are going to burn in hell, and therefore also associated with deeply hurting and deeply closeted gay people. But I’ve known gay people and gay allies with one or more of those beliefs. I know they exist. To find them, I’d try the ex-ex-gay groups, maybe – it seems to me that those who do might be more likely to have tried “reparative therapy” in the past.
You what else is not “shaming you into change”? Pointing out that you are conflating ‘traditional values’ like honesty and responsibility with ‘traditional values’ like outlawing abortion and denying evolution. It’s downright nasty of you to claim that there is “nobody” in the gay community with the former.
Nor is it “shaming you into change” to tell you that if you want to meet nice gay people, you’ll have more luck if you:
1) Be more open about acknowledging your sexuality. That’s my advice to a self-described “I don’t tell unless asked” guy who would like to connect with some gay people who don’t bludgeon him with liberalism. The more you put it out there, the less chance you’ll pass each other by.
2) Open your heart to people who might have different opinions that you about guns, fetuses, and Jesus. The reason I believe that this is good advice for you is the easy conflation of different definitions of “traditional values” that I already mentioned observing in you.
Sure, there are going to be some who don’t open their hearts to YOU because of your beliefs – them’s the breaks. But my friend Ross and I get along well enough even though I don’t agree with his unquestioning support for hate crime legislation. I like my friend Cate even though she’s rabidly anti-regulation in contexts that I think clearly merit regulation. Hell, my partner is a card-carrying member of the NRA and I think SOME gun control legislation is a good idea. Don’t buy what the media is selling about the extreme polarization of America – it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That’s not shaming you into change. It’s just advice. And we don’t assume that everyone who “criticizes the gay community” is sad and lonely. We’re just responding to your own complaints. If you’re not unhappy with the way things are now, or lonely, then what is all the fuss about?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Karen: “And we don’t assume that everyone who “criticizes the gay community” is sad and lonely. We’re just responding to your own complaints.”
Thanks for the follow-up on my response. I was not making a blanket statement, just responding to James’ specific and individual complaints. Someone who finds himself ostracized from almost every community he has made himself available to and then takes to the internet to rail against EVERYONE is, in fact, a sad and lonely person. There is nothing wrong with living your life sad and lonely….just don’t blame EVERYONE for your position in life.
posted by p_rik on
Liberals that live in a cesspit like DC are the worst kind. Seriously, GET OVER YOURSELVES!!!
posted by Charles Wilson on
p_rik, as a former D.C. resident, I always found that the place rocks a lot more when the Republicans are in town. Those angry young right-wing men, all wound up and nowhere but the bushes to go …
posted by Harold Osler on
I was finding this discussion interesting and thought about adding some of my own thoughts. But something tells me that no matter what the issue, Ashpenaz would be negative and unhappy.
It’s all very well to romantize the past and “confirmed bachelors” and all that; but the phrase itself implies heterosexuality. And, yes, many people got through the times without trouble–unless you were unlucky to be in Boise; or Harvard in the 20s; or the University of Florida in the 60s or DC in the 50s. It’s like the role-playing games–everyone thinks they’ll be lords or sorcerers–not the scullery or peasant.
As an “urban gay” with deep roots in the rural/small-town midwest, I resent your attitude. I go home every year for Xmas; helped raise nieces and nephews; I’ve attended my share of softball games and dance recitals. I would kill to protect those I love. If you don’t like Pride parades–don’t go. If you think bars and so on are shallow–stay home. Your screen name is a dead giveaway about your beliefs–I think you’re a Christian troller who’s just around to stir up trouble
posted by barry on
“As long as the wrong person never found out about them. If they did, then the “confirmed bachelor” would end up in prison, if not dead.”
Is this really true? I’ve read a few gay histories, and I’ve never heard that this was at all common in the 19th century. If nothing else, very few people ever understood the sexual nature of the relationship. Male and female couples were able to hold hands and embrace in public, and to write non-explicit love letters without fear of exposure–unless children and/or prostitution were involved.
There were other pressures, however, that many of us don’t have today. Both men and women were usually pressured into marriages, which often led to lonely and unfulfilled lives for all concerned. Also, I’m sure many gays and lesbians in rural areas (90% of the population at one time) had trouble finding partners, or even a single other gay person.
So– it was no paradise. However, it’s wrong to thing that progress comes with no price at all. We’ve gained much more than we’ve lost, but perhaps we’ve lost some things.
posted by bls on
It’s weird, because I know lots of gay men (and many gay women) with “traditional values”; most are religious, but not all.
I can’t figure out why Ashpenaz should be having such trouble.
posted by Pat on
bls, I’ve been in the same place. There was always plenty of gay people. But I discovered I had to change and be more accepting of myself and stop blaming everyone for my problems and make excuses, things clicked. I guess I realized the world isn’t going to change for me and to stop whining about it, and get going.
posted by Tom on
You have got to be kidding me Ash? Karen, you make a wonderful argument for all of us but what no one has mentioned yet is that Ash is the gayest person typing on this board. I could take him and drop him in the middle of a Sunday afternoon tea party and the boys would have to drape a “I’m the biggest queer here” banner across his fat hairy chest. Jeez man!
What you and the rest of the world don’t get or acknowledge is that being a homosexual has nothing to do with being a queer. I have sex with the same man everyday. We own our home together. When we met, I was broke and he was not. Now he is broke and I am not. There was or never will be any mergers and aquisitions going on in our corner of the world. The only thing that separates us even the tiniest bit from the rest of the world is that we love and have sex with a member of the same sex. We don’t hang a rainbow flag out front, quote musicals or lines from gay icon movies or flap our hands incessantly while talking to other people. We don’t have to be members of the “gay community” in order to be homosexuals. I talk, walk, dress and behave like a man. So does he. We’ve raised a son and he too is a helluva man. We don’t do x,g,t or any other one initial substances. Guess what Ash? We have friends just like us.
When you go to New York on your upcoming trip, you will not see us at the bars, bookstores and bathhouses you visit. You can only find us at home or at work. We have to invite you in. That means you have to come to our city and work for the meaningful relationships that you will develope just like we did.
Did you think you would pull into a city and the people would be lined up with signs that said things like “normal gay man”, “meth head”, or “sexual deviant”? You have identified being gay with criteria that the media and a few gay men have laid out for you. You therefore look for your version of “good gay” in all the wrong places.
People don’t have to ask me if I’m gay either but that’s probably because I’m holding another man’s hand. I question if the reason they don’t ask you is because you’re singing showtunes at the top of your lungs in public venues.
BTW…being able to shoot bullets into an open field does not a man make.
A man or woman takes responsibility for his or her own life and reality. Neither blames it on some imaginary community created through media. The gay community is a figment of your own imagination.
posted by bls on
I guess you’re right, Pat. Thanks for putting it into perspective.
posted by bryan on
Well said, Tom.
And Ash, you can go to as many cities as you want looking for what you think you need, but you’re still pulling that boat-size load of baggage with you. Wherever you go, you’re still there. It’s you and your perspective that needs to change – stop blaming the world, and begin to see things differently. We almost always see what we expect to see as long as we’re rooted in the past.
There’s just as much diversity within “gay” as there is within ‘straight.’
posted by Karen on
Tom,
You know this for a fact? As in, you’ve met him?
I have a hard time believing it, but dude, if it’s true, that is HILARIOUS.