🚀 go-pugleaf

[]
Ok, the volume on net.motss has been a bit overwhelming (about time...)
and I have a bunch of things to add my two cents to.  I'll try to be
breif about this, so don't interpret my short explinations as lack of
though :-)   Here goes...

1) "Us Look Bad"
  a) There is nothing wrong with sexual advertising/articles in some
     gay magazines in my mind.  In think someone elses comment (forgot
     the name) that there are (or should be) enough gay publications
     that they will cater to various likes/dislikes is very apt.  It
     not only applies to whether people like/dislike sexual items but
     also any like/dislike. ("Where can I find a literay rag with some
     sexual stuff, and just the right blen of politics, etc...")
  b) Someone else said that the commonality of being gay was essentially
     being sexual with a member of the same sex.  I couldn't disagree
     more.  The commonality of being gay is having a 'deep' relationship
     with a member of the same sex.  Now 'deep' may mean sexual for some
     and may mean marriage for others and may mean any range of things
     in between - but I feel the essence is the same sex reltaion part,
     not just what that relation is.
2) "Effeminate behavior"
  I, too, am a little put off by the article form the MIT person regarding
  effeminate behavior.  I have known many effeminate men (or rather many
  man with a range of 'effeminate' behaviors) both straight and gay.  The
  key is that with social acceptance people with behave as they feel most
  natural and that's fine with me if it's leather butch or raging queen or
  anywhere in between.  And furthermore, I hope that we stop thinking in
  terms of catagories of behavior, since people change or time and circustance:
  I can be 'straight looking/acting' (st lkg/actg :-) as well as swish.
  It depends on how I feel at the time...
3) "Children"
  Damn it, children are a burning gay topic!  I'm a gay male and I want to
  raise children.  Case in point.  (And I'd love to hear more on the net from
  people raising children in homes with two gay adults)

-mark lentczner

In article <1193@decwrl.DEC.COM>, boroff@bagels.DEC (E. Boroff, NCSS DECnet/PSI) writes:
> 
> 
>    "I sincerly believe that as homosexuality is more accepted, and
>     the traditional sterotypes melt away, so will the effeminate gay men."
> 
> What a stupid, bigoted and thoughtless comment this is!  Who the hell
> cares whether or not you can tolerate effeminate men. And what gives you
> the right to decree what is and is not acceptable gay behavior!
> 

   When did I say that I could or could not tolerate effeminate gay
man?  Where did I try to decree what was acceptable?  I WAS MAKING A
STATEMENT ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE GAY MALE COMMUNITY! That's ALL!


>    "Unfortunatly, it's the straight acting homosexual who is never counted - 
>     the news programs miss him, he finds a lover, and vanishes somewhere in 
>     the suburbs."
> 
> Where are you comming up with these concepts?!? It's the homophobic gay
> male wrapped up in all his quazi-weird-butchness that I pitty the most.
> This type of person has more mental problems and hangups than anyone 
> (including Dr. Ruth) could ever possibly iron out. And thats taken from 
> experiance sister, not from some magazine!
> 

 I'm not coming up with any wierd concepts.  It's just too bad that
when CBS news reports on "gay men", they show two clones in SF walking
down a street, wearing leather jackets and holding hands.  It's about
time that the rest of the USA realizes that there are gay men (and
women) EVERYWHERE, and not just in the ``gay ghettos'' that the media
shows us.  BEFORE someone screams, I have NOTHING against those two
guys in SF.  What's important is that the gay community is diverse, in
more than one direction.

 A good friend of mine has been working for IBM in New York State.
He's afraid to ever come out to the people he works with there, and he
doesn't care so much about his friends in Boston.  Why is this?  In
Boston, people have a more even view of homosexuality.  They
understand that just 'cause you're gay doesn't make you better, worse,
funnier, sadder, fatter, thinner, more perverted, less perverted, etc
than anyone else.  Up in the sticks where he works, though, gay is
identified with AIDS, bathhouses, perversion, child molestation, and
the like. 

 I know that the picture that I'm painting is black and white, and the
real situation is much grayer.  Good 'ole Dapper O'Neil, probably the
most homophobic politician that the Boston City Council has ever seen,
regularly insults the sexual preferences of David Scondras, another
City Council member.  There are plenty of good people at IBM who know
the real story, and wouldn't harass anyone.

 I havn't done this much flaming since I was responding to Arndt's
articles more than a year ago.  Look, we're all friends here.  Or at
least I hope we are.  In none of my past postings have I sad ANYTHING
against gay men who prefer to act in a certain way.  I have just been
making a call to notice the rest of us.
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Andrew S. Gerber    		MIT '87             Visible Language Workshop |
|  gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU, gerber@mit-mc.lcs.mit.edu, gerber@athena.mit.edu   |
|  UUCP: decvax!mit-eddie!mit-amt!gerber   decvax!mit-eddie!mit-athena!gerber |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article <1193@decwrl.DEC.COM> boroff@bagels.DEC (E. Boroff, NCSS DECnet/PSI) writes:
>
>   "I sincerly believe that as homosexuality is more accepted, and
>    the traditional sterotypes melt away, so will the effeminate gay men."
>
> What a stupid, bigoted and thoughtless comment this is!  Who the hell
> cares whether or not you can tolerate effeminate men. And what gives you
> the right to decree what is and is not acceptable gay behavior!

Mr. Boroff is finding fault where none exists.  He correctly quotes Andrew Gerber
and then imputes a value judgement to Mr. Gerber's statement where no such judge-
ment exists.  Mr. Boroff's emotional outburst contains the only value judgement.

Mr. Gerber's statement was an opinion and was not claimed to be factual.  His
statement contained no inkling of his alleged lack of toleration towards
effeminate gay men.  Nor did it imply any presumed right to judge "acceptable"
behavior.  Mr. Boroff's inferences are unsupported.

This writer will now make a value judgement: Mr. Boroff should apologize to Mr.
Gerber.  Mr. Boroff does not attack Mr. Gerber's argument; instead he attacks
Mr. Gerber!  This is unacceptable in civilized discussion.

In article <147@daisy.UUCP> david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) writes:
> 
>This writer will now make a value judgement: Mr. Boroff should apologize to
> Mr. Gerber.  Mr. Boroff does not attack Mr. Gerber's argument; instead he
> attacks Mr. Gerber!  This is unacceptable in civilized discussion.

For anyone who cares, we've already "buried the hatched", as it were.

I think this whole discussion brings up a few major points, one which
I'd love to hear other's opinions on..

1.)  Do you have to be "gay" to be a homosexual?
2.)  If you're a homosexual, do you have to act a certain way to be
     accepted by other homosexuals?  By the straight society?
3.)  If you are a homosexual, and wish to act in one particular way, does
     this isolate you from the straights?  From the gays?

_or_

4.)  Is this whole thing worthless? (-:  :-)

					-andy
-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Andrew S. Gerber    		MIT '87             Visible Language Workshop |
|  gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU, gerber@mit-mc.lcs.mit.edu, gerber@athena.mit.edu   |
|  UUCP: decvax!mit-eddie!mit-amt!gerber   decvax!mit-eddie!mit-athena!gerber |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

I have been following with interest the discussion on the non-traditional
and stereotypical behavior of some gay men because oddly enough the past
few years I have been finding myself *more* turned off by many sorts of
behavior particular to the gay ghetto.

One area that I have thought a lot about is the concept of "drag".
I think there is a confusion between the concept of costume (drag)
and non-costume dress prevalent in the gay ghetto . And I suspect
what happened is this:

In the earlier days of the gay liberation movement, many gay thinkers
(including yours truly) realized there were lots of gay behaviors that
really didn't need any apologizing for and that, in fact, on closer
examination they were actually quite parallel to more traditionally
acceptable behavior. Many thought, "We don't need to apologize for
drag. After all the person who works in the financial district puts
on a costume of a suit/tie to *show* others how he fits in and
is successful -- isn't that drag?"

And so, I suspect, the concept of drag was extended to *any mode of
dress*. And any mode of dress was considered a costume of one sort or another,
but a costume, and therefore a put-on, nevertheless. This was then
used as a rationalization for dressing in whatever way one wanted
and for thinking that wearing a costume wherever one pleased should
not be looked on as "wrong" or "improper".

I think an important distinction was missed in that line of thinking,
being the *intention* a person has in dressing a certain way.
The intention makes the difference in whether a set of clothes is
a costume or not. *To the extent* that you put on some clothes with
the intention of them making a statement about yourself, it is a costume.
When a gay man puts on a leather outfit before going cruising at a
leather bar in order to demonstrate "I am a tough MAN, and I am going
to treat you rough.", that's a costume. When a gay man puts on a
cowboy hat before going out socially so that others with think of
him as a cowboy for their sexual fantasy, that is a costume. When
a business man deliberately selects a certain suit or certain
attache case because they connote success, that is a costume.

However, there are complications to this analysis.

One is the difference between the intent the wearer had in putting on certain
clothes and the intent the viewer *infers* that the wearer had in putting
on those clothes.

The second is that once a costume becomes comfortable and commonplace for a
person, the person may put it on *without* the intent that he used to have.
Then it no longer becomes a costume. Many styles of dress that were originally
costumes in the gay ghetto have become commonplace modes of dress over time.
Many gay men on Castro Street wear leather outfits casually (I suspect)
simply because (I suspect) they just like that look and they feel comfortable
dressing that way. However, to someone outside that community, the clothes
still appear to be a costume, because he infers an intended *statement* in
the clothes.

The third complication is that intent (in *any* area of behavior) can
be conscious as well as unconscious. I can imagine someone arguing that
in the case of the leather outfit worn "casually", the intent of making
the "I-am-your-sexual-fantasy" statement has merely become unconscious.

I think this analysis of the concept of "drag" can be applied to many
of the non-traditional behaviors (e.g. put-on effeminacy and camping)
common in the gay ghetto. The extent to which a gay community
becomes a ghetto and in-grown, certain behaviors that were originally
done "for effect" grow to be casual, and appear (wrongly or rightly)
to be "affected" to the person outside that community.

Just a brief note.

In my "family" we have accepted the term drag to include any
"costume" which would not be worn by the particular individual in
"ususal" circumstances.  This typically indicates suit and tie,
although can often be extended to any "dressing the part".

I think this is another case of "gay lingo" moving into common usage.

Anyone have comments on the phenomenology of "gay culture" moving into
"fashion" and then commonality (vis running shoes, exposed keys,
earrings, etc.)

Keith
-- 
Keith Allan Shillington   telesoft!keith@SDCSVAX.ARPA   619/457-2700x388.ATT
{ucbvax!sdcsvax,celerity,bang}!telesoft!keith.UUCP