Sometimes we gay writers do such a good job cutting down one another that we scarcely need our enemies.
Consider a recent column in Bay Windows, a New England GLBT newspaper, where Jeff Epperly identifies me as a "gay conservative" who's a "a bit touched in the head when it comes to sexual issues."
Epperly's column analyzes "the tendency among right-wingers, gay or straight, that the louder they complain about that which offends their sexual sensibilities, the greater the chance that they are getting freaky with those same sexual acts in their personal life."
Apparently I'm one of those freaky right-wingers.
I don't know Epperly personally, although Bay Windows was one of the first papers to run my work, and Epperly was editor at the time. (I have great respect for the publication.) On what basis does he diagnose my supposed sexual neurosis?
Oddly, he bases it on a column in which I, too, discuss conservatives' obsession with sex.
In that column, I point out our opponents' tendency to reduce our sexual intimacy to its bare mechanics. Since they find those mechanics weird, they label our sex-and by extension, us-as disgusting, unnatural, perverse.
My response was to point out that when we reduce it to bare mechanics, it's not just gay sex that's weird, but ALL sex. (There's a reason people call it "doing the nasty.") But it's silly to think about sex merely in terms of mechanics.
I illustrated by way of an e-mail exchange with a closeted gay British 15-year-old, whose parents went off on a tirade about how disgusting it was for a man to stick his penis up another man's bum. (With stunning insensitivity, Epperly describes the youth as "equally obsessed with the alleged grossness of homosexual sex.")
Epperly quotes from my response to the young man:
"In the abstract, of course it's weird (and from some perspectives, gross) to think of a man sticking his penis up another man's bum. But isn't all sex weird in the abstract? Sticking a penis in a vagina, which bleeds once a month? Sucking on a penis, something both straight women and gay men do? Pressing your mouth-which you use for eating-against another person's mouth, and touching tongues, and exchanging saliva (i.e. kissing)? Weird! Gross! (In the abstract, anyway.)"
Perhaps if I had stopped there, Epperly might have been justified in his conclusion: "I know this is simply a gay conservative's variation on the 'we're just like you' argument to heterosexuals, but somehow I think that 'our sex is as gross as yours' is not the most effective argument in the world. But it says a lot about the person delivering it."
But of course, I didn't stop there. Immediately thereafter-in a section that Epperly, tellingly, doesn't quote-I wrote:
"Sex makes no sense in the abstract. But then you have urges, and you eventually act on them, and what once seemed weird and gross becomesâ¦wow.
"Our opponents recognize this in their own lives, but they can't envision it elsewhere. It's a profound failure of moral imagination-which is essential for empathy, which is at the foundation of the Golden Rule."
The Golden Rule is something Epperly might brush up on. Or the Principle of Charity.
The point of that column was that our opponents are using a double standard. For their sex, they see the deeper emotional picture. For our sex, they see only the mechanics. No wonder they find it weird.
Epperly seems so keen to peg me a "gay conservative" that he completely misses-or deliberately distorts-that point.
(Though perhaps I shouldn't write "keen to peg me," since that wording might just fuel his hypothesis about my sex obsession.)
I always find it funny when people label me a gay conservative. It's true that I write for the moderate-to-conservative Independent Gay Forum. And in some ways, given my work as "The Gay Moralist," the label is apt. But in many of the standard ways it's not.
I haven't voted Republican in two decades, except in a primary where the Democrat ran uncontested. I'm an avowed atheist. While I support marriage equality, I don't believe that marriage is for everyone, and in my column I've defended sexual pleasure for its own sake. I've also publicly supported affirmative action.
Of course, even if I were a hardcore gay conservative, I'd deserve a fair reading-just like anyone else.
As a columnist, I'm used to the occasional reader setting me up as a straw-man and then psychoanalyzing me on the basis of that straw-man. It comes with the territory.
But from a fellow writer-particularly one who shares my disdain for sexual small-mindedness and the distortions it engenders-I hope for better.
20 Comments for “Sex and Distortion”
posted by TS on
Scholar Fight! Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight, fight!
I’m on your side, of course. You make his column seem at least as ridiculous as it is.
posted by esurience on
I don’t resort to this kind of rhetoric often, but Jeff Epperly is clearly a poopy head.
I applaud John Corvino for being able to more intelligently criticize something so utterly unintelligible.
posted by Fitz on
The truth is neither John Corvino nor Independent Gay Forum are “conservative” along any reasonable continuum or normative sense of the term.
Amongst homosexuals Corvino may be more “conservative” than most but that just illustrates how narrow the acceptable discourse really is.
Among gay I know who are not professionally gay (opinion writers & outside the university) many take the position that they live in a remarkably tolerant society and that same-sex ?marriage? and the like is to disruptive of the heterosexual norm to be either humane nor ?progressive? to the gay cause.
At the most they support common sense ENDA & certain anti- bullying initiatives.
posted by esurience on
Fitz,
Aside from the tradition argument, what’s conservative about not allowing same-sex couples to get married?
posted by Fitz on
esurience (asks)
“Aside from the tradition argument, what’s conservative about not allowing same-sex couples to get married”
Well, you tell me. Prove me wrong and demonstrate that a average IGF reader can articulate what so many Americans apparently believe.
posted by esurience on
Fitz,
I don’t think the average American who is opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to marry can articulate good reasons why not.
But you seem to think that allowing gays and lesbians to marry is an inherently un-conservative position, so much so that you suggested someone can’t call themselves a conservative if they favor it. What is the basis of that?
posted by Average (gay) American on
“The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself.” I’m not sure that there IS any basis for “average Americans” to oppose gay marriage, other than tradition. We have a tradition of fearing what we don’t understand, accept, or see from another person’s perspective. “Average Americans” really seem to believe that there is a “secret” gay agenda to infiltrate every organization, teach homosexuality in the schools, snatch children off the streets and “turn them gay.” From a gay perspective, it’s irrational, but from middle America’s traditional perspective, it makes perfect sense to everyone. It’s not a lot difference than fearing basketball–just because you haven’t felt competent enough to practice and become good at it. That’s probably a gross oversimplification, but don’t you think that Americans, both conservative and liberal, in their “heart of hearts,” think that there is something inherently wrong about expressing love with a person of your own gender. Polls show that “conservatives” hold that view (or express it) more often than “liberals,” but I have known quite a few liberals who while the SAY they stand up for gay marriage or gay equality, somewhere deep down, they have a fear and loathing. At best, they feel like it’s ok for you to be gay, as long as you don’t do it with me or anyone I know or care about or love. It’s a problem of developing understanding and overcoming fear. It may be more generational than political, and it may be more traditional than either liberal or conservative. It’s real. But it’s changing. Take courage.
posted by Fitz on
So thats 2 so far for – “there is no rational argument against changing the definition of marriage”
posted by Thad on
Fitz- you are correct. However, I don’t recall John Corvino saying he was a conservative- at least not in any common understanding word. Similarly, I don’t think IGF stylizes itself as a “conservative” organization (they aren’t).
Esurience- The average American who opposes same-sex marriage can at the very least articulate their position just as well as the average American
who supports same sex marriage. Honestly, I think people who oppose it, on average at least, are far MORE articulate than people who support it. There are very compelling reasons to oppose SSM that are not contingent on tradition. They have been enumerated over and over again. Anyways, policy shouldn’t be based on what the “average” arguments are, but rather on what the best arguments are.
Average- again, there are rational arguments for preserving marriage as it is currently understood. To say that traditionalists oppose SSM because of fear of the unknown is so off the mark I don’t even know where to begin.
posted by Fitz on
Thad
Yes – that?s what I?m getting at.
It seems that the denial of any intellectual or moral worth of advocates of preserving marriage is #1. Legally necessary (no-rational basis) #2. Politically effective in the Marxist vain/stridency – (deny your adversary any moral legitimacy #3. Therapeutic to same-sex “marriage” supporters.
As far as Corvino goes – what disturbs me is not that he doesn?t represent a camp that requires a moniker but rather that they have co-opted (I believe) the term ?conservative? in order to squeeze out any parallel movement of gay men & women who want to promote the traditional understanding of marriage and are OK with what legal mechanisms exist or a low-level civil unions compromise.
posted by esurience on
Fitz,
There was an experiment done with black children during the jim crow era that showed them a black doll and white one, and asked them which one they prefer, and which one they thought was “good” and “bad.” A sizable majority of them would prefer the white doll and say that it was the good one and the black one was the bad one.
Gay people who oppose their own equality, who see see their love as having less worth and dignity than that of heterosexuals, are internalizing a similar prejudice that those black children were.
It’s a very sad and tragic thing, and I refuse to pay reverence to the people and the arguments that are responsible for that state of being.
The only difference between heterosexual love and homosexual love is that heterosexual love can naturally produce children (in the average case). But marriage is much, much more fundamentally about love and mutual caring than it is about procreation. A man does not get down on one knee and ask to implant his seed into a willing female host while offering a ring. And yet this is the central argument that most opponents of equality rest their case on. It’s both disingenuous and cruel.
I’m not so emotionally fragile that I can’t bear to be exposed to those arguments, but yes, seeing merit in them and internalizing the idea that the most powerful and good feeling I’ve ever felt was somehow of less value and worth would probably be damaging to me.
posted by Fitz on
esurience
Interestingly enough that experiment you reference was a main locust for Brown v Board and has been debunked by subsequent social science.
I have heard the ?self loathing? arguments against anyone who doesn?t 100% support the gay left agenda. They seem not only specious and self serving politically but a disservice to gay people. The left dose the same thing to African Americans who don?t support affirmative action and that is just as erroneous. It smacks highly of the typical Marxist tactic of claiming not that your adversary is not simply wrong but mentally disturbed.
As far as your assertion that ?marriage is much, much more fundamentally about love and mutual caring? ; there is no evidence in the law that that is the case. The state?s interest in marriage centers on its procreative function. Outside that, ?strong feeling? exist in a myriad of human relationships that we neither subsidize, call marriage, nor invest in governmentally. Such an approach logically can logically lead to multiple relationships being given the status and benefits of marriage.
posted by BobN on
Should adoptive parents be married to each other?
Yes!
What if they’re a same-sex couple?
No!
Wow. There’s logic in there somewhere, I’m sure…
posted by Clay on
You know what would be great? If the commenters on this board actually referred to the subject of the article. Instead I get to watch them work out their quirks and issues with themselves and each other. Seriously, can’t you guys masturbate on your own time instead of on this forum? This is not a psychological counseling center.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
“Average Americans” really seem to believe that there is a “secret” gay agenda to infiltrate every organization, teach homosexuality in the schools, snatch children off the streets and “turn them gay.”
Gee, I wonder why, really, truly.
Add to that the fact that people who object to this sort of behavior are tagged as “the louder they complain about that which offends their sexual sensibilities, the greater the chance that they are getting freaky with those same sexual acts in their personal life”, and what we see is that the gay community not only considers this sort of thing normal, but believes you are ABNORMAL, mentally disturbed, and wrong if you criticize it.
What really caps it off is Corvino apparently trying to re-prove his gay “street cred” by bringing up his voting record and religious beliefs. All that does is demonstrate that sexual orientation mandates you vote for the Obama Party and be antireligious.
Gay people who oppose their own equality, who see see their love as having less worth and dignity than that of heterosexuals, are internalizing a similar prejudice that those black children were.
Or they’re simply recognizing that there is a difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality, that those differences do cause significant societal impact, and realizing that treating something differently does not automatically imply inferiority or superiority.
What I find amusing is how gays like esurience rail about making other people feel inferior when they casually insist that gay people who don’t share their leftist viewpoints are brainwashed and mentally ill. You would think that, if esurience really cared about these people, he wouldn’t be insulting them. But he doesn’t; like blacks who call conservative or Republican blacks “house slaves”, “Uncle Toms”, and “oreos”, it is all about forcing group identity and supporting the rationalization Corvino demonstrated that sexual orientation should determine your every thought, your beliefs, and your voting record. Esurience merely cloaks this under the guise of plantation kindness.
posted by Fitz on
Really excellent and well phrased rejoinder by NDT
What gets me are organizations like the Log Cabin Republicans & Forums like ?Independent? Gay Forum that, while maintaining the pretense of being of diverse opinion, actually reinforce the orthodoxy of the sexual libertine left.
Most of the gay people I know agree with NDT and myself (albeit not absolutely or monolithically as you would expect)
This sentence is most apt
?Or they’re simply recognizing that there is a difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality, that those differences do cause significant societal impact, and realizing that treating something differently does not automatically imply inferiority or superiority.?
These friends of mine live their lives largely free of prejudice or animus. On the issue of marriage they see its social importance in family formation, the imperative of intact natural childbearing & raising: and realize the seriously disruptive message re-defining marriage can have on promoting marriage amongst the bulk of the population (that is of coarse, straight). — The decades long fragmentation of the family that (not coincidently) coincided with the sexual revolution is not lost on them.
Some want civil unions, others want some type of public contract, and still others think it?s all unnecessary and overwrought.
Yet these voices never seem to be given a forum in left of center or gay publications. On the contrary, multiple gays travel under rubrics like ?conservative? ?independent? or ?republican? while barley diverging from the dogmatic party line on these issues. This is not lost on me.
Obviously there is a concerted effort to ?flood the zone? so as to paint these (considerable & reasonable) gay voices as frings, mentally unstable, self hating, and unacceptable.
posted by Bobby on
“The decades long fragmentation of the family that (not coincidently) coincided with the sexual revolution is not lost on them.”
—Gays didn’t start the sexual revolution, feminists and hippies did and if you study your history, the early feminists where afraid of lesbians.
Heterosexuals are simply spoiled, they don’t know how to handle sexual desire with public morality. Take Spitzer, if his wife wasn’t doing it for him, why not negotiate an open relationship or get a divorce?
“On the issue of marriage they see its social importance in family formation,”
—Breeders are getting married later, women are postponing kids for the sake of their careers, are gays guilty of this as well?
My community isn’t perfect, but I refuse to feel guilty for whatever problems affect the straight community.
posted by John D on
Thad states:
The average American who opposes same-sex marriage can at the very least articulate their position just as well as the average American who supports same sex marriage. Honestly, I think people who oppose it, on average at least, are far MORE articulate than people who support it. There are very compelling reasons to oppose SSM that are not contingent on tradition. They have been enumerated over and over again. Anyways, policy shouldn’t be based on what the “average” arguments are, but rather on what the best arguments are.
Oddly, I see it the other way around. I think the average person who opposes same-sex marriage has a sort of vague feeling that marriage is ultimately religious, even though we’re talking about civil licenses here. The arguments against same-sex marriage are typically filled with vague statements (it will harm marriage) that are never supported. Indeed, some of the claims against same-sex marriage are out-and-out lies (clergy will be forced to perform same-sex weddings).
The best argument for same-sex marriage is that it would be a great benefit to same-sex couples. It’s not a zero-sum game: there are marriage licenses for everyone. No opposite-sex couple will arrive for a license only to be told, “those two women got the last one.”
I have heard many articulate arguments about same-sex marriage. They’ve all come from its supporters.
posted by Fitz on
“The best argument for same-sex marriage is that it would be a great benefit to same-sex couples. It’s not a zero-sum game: there are marriage licenses for everyone. No opposite-sex couple will arrive for a license only to be told, “those two women got the last one.”
This alone reveals a completely distorited view of opponents to same-sex “marriages” arguments. It would seem that anyone aware of those arguments would never frame the oppsotion as being that daft.
But perhaps its just agi-prop.
posted by David on
“I haven’t voted Republican in two decades, except in a primary where the Democrat ran uncontested.”
You haven’t, John? Not even to keep partial-birth abortion supporting Democrats out of the White House?
Shame on you!