Entries in GLBT (38)
Speaking Of Equality...Round II
Tuesday, July 22, 2008 Todays entry is more to clarify than respond to some of the angry howls and misunderstood intentions that accompanied my recent post, A Tip For The Butch Obsessed.. An entry that generated quite the comment participation, most notably yesterday, due in large part to this piece. Besides the usual back and forth barbs and shots normally tossed around on the net, there were some interesting responses, particularly one I responded to today on Jack's site.
As these discussions usually do, they got me to thinking. One of the questions I spent a bit of time on was if we, and I mean those on both sides, really attempt to understand perspective or the core philosophy f the other. I'm guilty of not doing that. And frankly, when things like human rights are involved, I'm also guilty of not being too concerned I'm doing that.
So from the archives....here is where I am coming from on the whole steaming piss poit that is gay and lesbian rights. Written last October in the middle of the flap over trans inclusion in the Employment Non Discrimination Bill. Comments are from last October and have been opened again.
****
The last couple days have seen a lot of writing, specific to the arguments regarding gay conservatives, and the vast differences in a clear binary of competing political perspectives. Some of the points central to the following piece are the specific frameworks and building blocks in what are common ways of referencing real, and demonstrated examples of oppression in daily life. That is a concept I am convinced that gay conservatives could benefit from. As denying your own experience is considered a largely unhealthy dynamic, specific to several cognitive pathologies.
More to that point, I'll attempt to outline how an end goal of an earned acceptance, is a very troubling dynamic for cultures with high examples of individual and group specific oppression. One thing I have always experienced as a very annoying, headache inducing level of frustration, is the dynamic where gay conservatives would rather swallow razor blades than simply admit that in some cases, the liberal and societally empathetic ideas around certain kinds of "victim experience" are in fact very authentic ones, with demonstrated example in the lives of those oppressed on a basis of group identity.
Today's common mantra of post gay ideology, is that organized gay liberation in today's world, is a somewhat outdated and antiquated concept. In effect, collective responses to oppression have ceased to matter, or be effective. In this article I will demonstrate why such a movement can be effective, and why today, it matters more than ever.
I, like many other gay men do not know an existence that is marred in any real way by a manifestation of gay oppression. My career, housing, educational advancements, and many other things, not the least of which would be my personal safety, have never been challenged due to my orientation. But let's examine the reality of the "fem" guy, who may be harassed for simply walking down the street. Or the woman who is defined by, thus devalued over, the size of her breasts. Perhaps the woman who affects a less than traditional female deportment. Some may view these examples as small or petty, but it isn't your voice being silenced with "nice tits" is it?
Though the reality of gay oppression is that no matter how perfectly executed your "straight acting" abilities are, God forbid you walk out of a bar and come face to face with six baseball bats in the hands of six adrenalin ramped teenagers. Your "straight acting" abilities will mean very little. Gay oppression may not be my or your reality today, but you can bet it is for many, many people.
Reflecting on the history of the movement, the early structure of gay liberation took shape via two of the most influential movements in history. The focus on group resolve, non violent civil disobedience, symbolic protest, and a highly visible presence, was garnered directly from the black civil rights movement of the 1960’s.
However the theory which informed our philosophy, and provided a historical context in which to view gay oppression, was the same one that informed the radical feminist movement. This subset of feminist ideology challenged the contention that gender roles are always biological, and that the assumption of such belief served to place men above women in power structure, as well as social and sexual currency.The idea being, a positive biologic attribute among men (objective physical strength) was seen as inherent justification for the limitations assigned to women, since somehow women were lacking attribute, or more commonly, the lack of attribute implied deficient.
Radical feminism proposed that gay oppression be viewed in the same context, as a popular theory of the day was the belief that gender roles, specifically pathology of, was in and of itself related to a homosexual orientation. Radical feminism asserted that gender identity and sexual orientation were ultimately very separate mechanisms. The clear analogy between mans attempt to regulate female sexuality, and the inherent fear of not controlling it, is the same dynamic that attempts to regulate gay sexuality. Both identities, a gay one, as well as a self actualized female one, directly challenge the inherent belief structure, social construct, and worth of attribute arguments central to a dominant patriarchal structure.
When the gay liberation movement was in its early years, it had a very simple and well articulated goal. Perhaps getting back to the truth which defined it, is necessary. A truth in it's most stripped down form, is simply about our civil rights. The idea that we hold as a value, an unfettered right to love whom and how we choose, without a dictating, controlling, or limiting hand. I imagine that is a goal most would support.
So it is with the above in mind, identification as a gay Republican for example, confuses me, as I see it as pandering, selling out. However those are my own political beliefs, and should not automatically be the mantra of a collective gay community on the basis of its "progressive" attributes. The rights of gay republicans, gay hairdressers, sports players, and every other variety of gay person are equal under the constitution. It is our own community where the equality line begins to blur.
Individual decisions are, by design, fully and totally autonomous. This is a hallmark and unifying principle, and all of our freedoms in this country are built upon it. It must be afforded as much respect as any other fundamental right we realize at our core. The grounding philosophy in gay liberation was always based on perusing a goal of equality within greater society. Like most social movements, theory and practice, at some point will deviate.
Enter the concept of assimilation. Although some may call it strategy, assimilation in so far as “being just like them” does not work. Many times the idea of an on par existence to greater society, is at the core of unease present in those who wish to deny rights to gays and lesbians. Assimilation with the end goal of an earned acceptance, serves to be a divisive factor in any progressive movement. It presumes the want of acceptance is based upon a valid and legitimate societal denial of that acceptance. Without directly challenging the legitimacy of the denial, it effectively says that gays need to "prove their worth".
Historically, that has been a problem with the African American movement, the women's movement, and virtually every other minority movement in this countries history. Part of the reason the women's movement and the civil rights movement have seen the moderate success they have, has resulted from addressing that problem. Specific effectiveness occurred only when the movements operated from the premise that their fundamental rights are immutable, not something to be "earned".
The reality of most gays and lesbians is, and always has been, that the majority of us are average citizens, whom most straight individuals would have no clue what our sexual orientation was, unless we specifically told them. That may be the reality, however the following is the seminal point many seem to have forgotten. “Passing” is not an attribute that defines a gay persons worth, nor is it a marker of “better than”.
What is concerning today, is that many from our community seem to have adopted the belief that our exclusion from aspects of life we aspire to, is a result of stereotypical or “bad" behavior on the part of some gay people. This thesis is flawed in several aspects. Certainly behaviors occur that are destructive, and I refer to mainly the gay male community, as the women, like usual, seem to have quite a heads up in relational ability.
Though as destructive as some behavior can be, it is a very misinformed analogy when the lack of human rights advances are placed on the shoulders of those not in the "mainstream". Fundamental justice principles view rights in an individual, not a collective perspective. That to is how they are written, litigated and decided. At least in theory.
Can behavior support and encourage cultural insensitivity and stereotype? Of course. But again, that is a price we pay for having the right to live a life free from prosecution on a basis of personal deportment. Whatever some individual gay men and women do or don’t do, is not inherently tied into cultural worth. There will always be stereotypes. Because stereotypes exist for a reason. And there is nothing inherently wrong with the gay stereotype of an effeminate man or a butch woman. They may at times seem limiting, and they may have been a historical root of much bigotry and assumption, but the response to those false beliefs, is one that defines liberalism for me.The idea that those images and stereotypes need to be defended and protected on a stronger scaler, never sold down the river.
For whatever reason, there will always be those in any community who are not mainstream, who theoretically could not exist in mainstream society. We see that in elements of the gay community, as well as every other attribute focused community. It is exactly for such reasons, we must have a strong united movement. If not by issue, then by principle.
Because when most of us exist along with regular culture day in day out, resentment often builds slowly to those “stereotypical” gays. It becomes easier and easier to marginalize and separate, and soon it becomes an exacting demonstration of a dynamic which those who now embrace, once had been committed to fighting against. This is the most damaging thing we can do as people from a community with a history of oppression. Since it effectively legitimizes the oppression, thus feeding off an identical framework.
"They aren’t like us, therefore they are less than". That mindset demonstrates the following:
A denial of access, based on a flawed and subjective assignment of what confers a right to access.
That is key, as it is one of the hallmarks of all forms of minority discrimination in this country. It was the wrong equation then, it is the wrong equation in 2007, and it will always be the wrong equation in the eyes of people who truly understand, support, and demand equality.
Full Length Mirror ~ Required
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 Not a major fan of social networking sites in general, there is a brand new combination dating site, discussion forum site that is Toronto specific. It's a place that I see a lot of potential in, as there have been some quality discussions in the forums, with intelligent, considered responses, and the membership appears to be diverse.
It's always refreshing to see a site for gay men that has a demonstrated respect for each other emphasized through tone, through interaction and through the things the membership supports, or admonishes in another member. As a collective, we don't share the most stellar history of supporting each other. Judgmental, sweeping assumptions aside.
Perhaps though, I spoke too soon. Going to the site today, I checked the forums and there was an active discussion of sexual choices / sexual interests, and what can be considered mainstream, or "fringe". A member had expressed his interest in an activity that was admittedly fringe, and he expressed his ambivalence with being open about his interest. Within minutes, the barrage of email this man received (in the forums) was often hateful, snide, ignorant and ill informed, based on nothing but ugly, untrue stereotype.
Looking at the overall picture here, I was struck by two things.
- The level and strength of anti gay hate in gay people (and lets make no mistake, that's what this dynamic is really all about).
- The sheer lack of willingness by other members to get involved and call out the bullies.
Let's face it guys, with regard to number 2, we really need to do better here.
I thought about how the above applied both to me and my responsibility in these discussions, and to the membership as a group. Then I posted a letter to the more obnoxious commenter, (which I have no doubt will be the initial cause for the flame war I will not be taking part in). As they say, best to pick your real battles. But I challenge anyone who is involved in these sites, if you see abusive or threatening behavior occurring, mention it to the staff, or if you feel you can and feel comfortable, the victim. Takes less than five minutes.
This was the response I posted in the above thread to the married man and father who cheats with men on his unsuspecting wife.
Funny, when I view your arrogant and dismissive invective, sent of course from behind the cover of computer screen, it only begs the question: Who, exactly, are you to questions another mans sexual proclivities? I assume the answer to that, from your profile details anyway, would be "A married, secretly gay father who is promiscuously cheating on his unaware wife?"
Next time, might I suggest you consider your own baggage laden existence before you engage oppressive anti sex paradigms and shame based morality plays on another person.
Good luck with the whole closeted / deceitful thing though. I'm guessing you are going to need it
So, as I said, I challenge all gay men out there: If you want a respectful space, a place to come and be accepted, a place to be heard, then please, take a part in creating it. One way is to call out the BS that none of us support. I personally think that doing and creating, instead of ripping up and tearing down, will often go a long way in relieving that type of damage.
Some Things Are Never Funny, Period
Thursday, July 10, 2008 Like many gay men who have enjoyed a rich and multi colored experience with their own sexuality, I have had some memorable experiences. Translated, that is polite code for my way of referring to the obligatory "sluttish phase". In my case, a rather lengthy and experience laden time period. That, however, is another story.
In my most active period of "sowing my oats" I had more than a few profiles on the on line dating sites. For many reasons, priority changes, personal confidence increases, finding more stable and permanent outlets, I learned that an ability to accomplish the same ends does not always require itself to be garnered while Online. Because of that, most of those profiles have now been canceled, or the dominant text has been changed to indicate interests more friendship based, less sexually focused.
Therefore it is always a bit of a shock when I receive a message from one of the Internet's current X rated gay welcoming committee members. You know the type. Their primary picture is....let's just say usually never the face, and the descriptions of what they like to do, how they like to do it, and whom they like to do it to, frequently run close to novella length. One element I always find particularly amusing, is the oh so similar carnally focused, run on sentence narrative, liberally peppered with terms such as nasty, raunchy, pig, twisted, hell yeah, etc. etc! The infinite combination of no more than twelve words, seven grunts, and eleven hundred ways to say "twisted".
So it is usually no surprise when I receive a certain style of email from one of these guys. Usually never a hello, or an introduction, or a name offering. No, apparently it is much easier, and one would assume more successful, to describe in detail how they would enjoy it if they could "nail my ass into next week". Usually I just see these emails as inappropriately funny and annoyingly bold, and respond with a quick but polite note explaining that they may wish to move on to other trees and begin a new round of barking. And that, is normally all it takes. Normally.
However there is one specific type of response that will do an exacting job of making my blood boil, and launching me into one pedantic, defensive, and overbearing asshole. That would be a response which is even remotely suggestive of murky consent barriers, or sometimes even the bolder suggestion of rape. The "rape is hot" crowd, who reach their sexual Nirvana through scenes with obvious or implied power dynamic differences.
Let me be clear here. If that is how you and your partner both freely decide to sexually engage, then I have nothing to say on the matter. However when you email a stranger making those suggestions, "freely decide" is out the window. When I, or anyone else opens that email, you have absolutely no idea as to my or their history of, politics around, or personal experience with the reality of rape. That is not simply rude or bad manners. In my mind, it can be a form of assault.
Harsh? You bet! Have I been raped myself? No I have not. Though I have experienced the shock, pain, grief, anger, debasement, and collective chaos that those close to a rape victim will, to some extent, always go through. Which is why, when you send me an email such as the one below, do not be surprised at my response.
This is only a very small portion of the manic, run on screed that awaited me in my inbox this morning.
Hey Hot Fucker,
....OINK! U and your bud are hot! How about you watch me tie (name of friend) up in a dog cage, and then when I rape the whore and split open his nasty ass, then you could .....
Mr. Best Social Skills of 2008 then offers a lovely closing of "Twisted, hey fucker", signing off as FilthRaunchBBPigFkr.
Lovely. As I have said, inappropriate, I will dismiss. Vapid, I will laugh at. Rude, I normally ignore. A suggestion of a form of assault and violence that carries the current and historical baggage that rape carries? I will never let that go lightly. This was today's response.
Dear FilthRaunchBBPigFkr
In your recent email to me you stated:
"Twisted hey". Here you were referring to your descriptions of the rape of a friend of mine.
Actually no, not twisted at all. Lame, insecure, suggestive of pathology, anti social, illegal, and not to mention, intensely misogynist. Clearly, you are about as socially aware as Charles Manson. But when you describe and articulate common rape narratives that involve people I care about, I will view that as
1. Aggressively rude and disrespectful.
2. About as far removed from anything to do with sex as one can get.
3. A very passive aggressive style of mind game that is usually based in severe and discordant power dynamics.For whatever reason, you have completely misread my vibe. So I need to be clear. I have no doubt that we are in every way socially and sexually incompatible. You may view that as harsh and "not getting your joke", or feel that my views are aggressively and prohibitively PC. Fine, your opinion I suppose.
However when it comes to rape - joking or not joking, it is a vibe I will *always* take seriously, and *never* find funny. Period. Perhaps after this email is copied to this sites administration, you will have reason to view it as I do.
All the best.
So here are a few questions to ponder. Was I wrong to copy the site? What would you have done? What, if anything, should site management do?
Congratulations Mr & Mrs Beatie
Friday, July 4, 2008 For those of you who do not recognize the name of the couple in the title, let alone what I am congratulating them for, the main points can be summarized in this interview from The Advocate. Out of all the "journalism" that surrounds the birth of this couples first child, I find this piece is the least sensationalistic. Sad, but in 2008 I really felt that the fact that one of the parents was born a woman and has began the transition to change her gender, would be something that people would attempt to at least understand, if not support.
Thomas Beatie, the individual who has begun his gender transition, made the decision to carry the couples child to term. And yesterday, the child the couple had waited for made a healthy and timely appearance into the world. Though I can't help but wonder just what type of world we exist in when the default rhetoric from my supposed "progressive" community, is as full of vile invective as was demonstrated in this thread.
While this issue is one that usually brings my impatience with stupidity and bigotry to a level where any rational refute is something I am not capable of, yesterday, for whatever reason, I was.
The following is the comment that I submitted in defense of allowing this couple the simple luxury to rejoice in the birth of their first child.
First of all, for the rather insular and mouth breathing examples of mediocre intelligence that just can't get their thick heads around divergent concepts of what may constitute gender, in all its complex and fluid manifestations, try this one on for size:
America does not see a difference between Thomas Beatie and you. Why? Because the next time you take it up the ass, that, is in every way a flagrant violation of gender roles and norms according to the majority of your fellow citizens who would enjoy seeing you stripped of human rights. You fuck with the dominant paradigms of rigid and binary constructions, and do you really think there will be a measurable difference in their understanding of who you, vs. someone like Thomas Beatie is? That's why his oppression is your oppression, whether you agree or not. If you have let it slip your mind, we are not writing the play book here!
The very wonderful fact is that Thomas Beatie and his partner are the proud parents of a newborn. Despite your howls of "he is not a man because I say so". See how that works? Families can define for themselves who they are and how they identify and label. Can you not have the class, intellect and very human sense of grace to simply allow them that? Maybe even offer them congratulations on a wonderful addition to their life together. I really do not understand why that cannot be the default response here.
I will make a bold request here, and suggest that if you cannot offer this couple support, please, save us your offering of discussion points, and instead just shut the fuck up. Thank you in advance.
A Tip For The Butch Obssessed
Wednesday, July 2, 2008 Before you go about reclaiming the "masculine warrior God within", maybe an awareness of what the fuck that is might prove helpful to your rabid pursuit.
Let me back up here. Anyone who has been blogging for even a moderate length of time, has no doubt had the very common experience of that little voice in the back of ones head that occasionally says, "now may not be the best time for that specific little tirade Skippy". Referring of course, to the good sense one should exercise when they have been made aware that if they engage the rant that is brewing in their head, there exists a real risk of communicating less than objective opinion on an issue.
Though in my case, my lengthy history of selective auditory skill when it comes to those little voices, makes the issue moot to begin with. Therefore caution has been thrown to the wind and I need to offer a few thoughts on the latest author to come out of his pidley little gay community studio and offer his hateful screed to the world at large. If you are sensing I am not a fan, hey, we're in sync.
In that case, I will go out on a limb and offer an opinion on a book I have yet to even read. Correction, a book I have yet to read, and a book that also will never grace the entrance to my home, let alone have me pay one more ounce of attention to its bigoted howlings. Here we are talking about first time "author" Jack Malebranche. Now, I'm sure Jack is a really swell guy, and if he has found an identity that grooves for him, I say great! Anything is better than his misguided dalliance with the ill conceived vocation of Satanic minister, but that is all in the past. Supposedly, anyway.
But....for the love of God, if I hear one more nerdy little gay man publicly embrace his masculine awareness via a direct condemnation and derision of another's, I swear my head is going to spontaneously fucking explode!
But let's cover the usual bases first, shall we. It's certainly not that I reject masculinity. Indeed, I personally embody many traits of what we currently define as traditionally masculine. And no, I will not take a compliment, nor will I make an excuse for the trait. It is what it is, and that is simply an affectation. No more, no less. And whether it is a fluke, or perhaps a result of a lack of specific reliance on said trait, call me crazy, but I'm just not all that bloody concerned with how individual men come to know, or not know, their own specific relationship to or with traditional masculinity.
So, why would the rantings of a guy like Jack burn my ass as much as they do? Simply put, men like Jack lack an ability to exist and be comfortable in their own skin. It's as if a sense of their own masculine identification, is somehow garnered through a concurrent need to admonish others perceived masculine deficits.
Now I'll be honest, I have not read the book, nor do I intend to. Therefore any direct criticism of his thesis would be unfair. But really, consider that a book that calls itself, Androphillia: Rejecting The Gay Identity and Reclaiming Ones Personal Masculinity, and is using the following example as an "exemplary review",Men who love other men have little if nothing in common with lesbians, transvestites, transsexuals, and all of the other "under-dogs" that are huddled under the ever-growing GLBTQ umbrella. We are encouraged to seek out examples of exemplary manhood in the men in our lives and to build ourselves up as men of honor and integrity.
One doesn't need to read that far to realize they are headed into one nasty swamp pit of internalized homophobia. And I will go as far as to say that it seems to be a trait among similar individuals in the gay community, that when advocating an intense focus be placed on masculinity, more often than not, those views are stemming from an obvious insecurity around their own personal deportment, a disgust with "gay culture", and always, very entrenched misogynist beliefs.
So Jack, babe; if you want to butch it up, butch it up. But some things really are better practiced solo. So, when you think you have it, without resorting to the grunting word vomit against "the queens", please, take the following advice. Dude, do a better accuracy check than you did last time, as just between you and me, you are coming across as more than a tad glaring.
Whatever The Motivation, It's Worth Looking At
Friday, May 30, 2008 With the title above, I am referring to the comment left by RealSanDiegoWoman in my post entitled HIV Prevention: Consider The Context
The reasoned and considered response offered by that reader?
Sick! How you can say it discordant responses to crisis. Big words for fucking depravity. I no a few "gay" men who went out and got it because they thought the HIV in the come was going to feel even better than the regular come. SICK!
Let's look a little closer at that comment. While it is not her usual hate fueled, hate filled invective, due to its way of the projectile vomiting arc, its unsophisticated message is not just lost on the reader, but any and all weight of argument her points may have possessed, is also lost.
At any rate, in her comment RealSanDiegoWoamn states:
"I no a few "gay" men who went out and got it because they thought the HIV in the come was going to feel even better than the regular come. SICK!"
Just to clarify RealSanDiegoWoman, when you say "it", I assume you mean HIV. When you say "come" I assume you mean sperm, and when you state you "no", I assume you mean "you have made the acquaintance of"? The accepted way of spelling and using those terms would be something to keep in mind for future reference, since an invective full of grammar, spelling and usage errors, tends to often be absent its intended punch.
Though as I said, there is an element in your point that is certainly steeped in fact Real SD. Yes, there are in fact a very small number of gay men who have erotically charged the narratives around infection and transmission of HIV, often turning it into this weeks take on hot, dirty verbal. And yes, there are a small amount of men who do in fact engage that pursuit in their daily life. Not my cup of tea, but then, I don't take on the gay communities various narratives as a personal crusade. But it does point to something that needs to be looked at more closely, and that's the real causation of infection, and the dynamics driving that infection.
You know, normally I would just ignore your bigoted howls, but because they lead into something I see as urgent in this discussion, I will play along and address your comment. I am going to say that the number of situations to which your dramatic example applies, is certainly not high enough for you to disparage ideas around new approaches in an ongoing and increasingly larger public health problem spanning almost three decades.
But as I said, you do touch on a wider issue, and that is "discordant responses to a crisis". The theme of the piece you were responding to. As I explained in the piece, these are the type of responses people engage when you expect them to do just the opposite. It's seen with high frequency in individuals who are experiencing post traumatic stress disorder. They will frequently seek out, then engage the exact things that will make their condition worse. That is the underpinning of PTSD. The theory being that whatever the trigger was, or is, the reality of it is so huge, and so terrifying, that the most palatable response for an individual is to hasten the onset of it. Bringing it on but with some level of control that would have been absent without the discordant response to crisis.
Food for thought RealSanDiegoWoamn. Do you not think it remotely possible that a twenty six year history of death on a scale of war time, experienced by a core group of people who are not accepted as equal citizens of their own country in some fundamentally essential ways, would at all add to responses over time that are off the norm? Don't answer now, just please consider it.
In an odd way, RealSanDiegoWoman has solidified my decision to finally address this specific topic. Look for a post referencing it soon.
Where Not To Have Deep Discussions
Saturday, May 24, 2008 For whatever reason, and I'm not even going to attempt to figure that out, I woke up this morning with a particularly philosophical frame of mind. Thus, this entry addressing things I have often considered, though rarely, if ever, expressed. Ideas around the meaning of spirituality and soul.
At this point I feel it is important that we pause, and a full and obvious disclosure occur. No, I have not found God, nor have I found religion. Sorry to disappoint a few of you, but I am still searching for my extra car keys. I'm guessing a search for the divine, in my specific case, is an option not worth pursuing.
Actually, to be completely honest, a few friends and i were having a spirited discussion a few nights ago about organized religion in comparison to what is often called "secular spirituality", and the differences with which both view the concept of spirituality and soul. I know, your typical conversation that occurs at The Eagle at one in the morning. Needless to say, as friendly and inviting as the four of us may have appeared, with that topic, we were not exactly drawing a crowd. But hell, what are drunken bar pontifications and proclamations for, if not to clear a patio?
So before I venture into my contribution for the discussion, let me state: I am fully aware that when imparting complicated and layered opinion, I have on occasion, wrapped myself around that theoretical light pole. A twisted mess of competing ideas, sometimes even wrapped more than once. So I am making a specific attempt to write with a goal towards making this entry user friendly for both readers, and not least of all, myself.
Because I view spirituality separate in most every way from the limiting, and often judgmental experiences of God narratives and theological paradigms that tend to be centered in organized religion, I found coming up with a descriptive and relevant view of soul, a difficult task. So, I'm not really sure if I have a definition of soul. That's still a gray area for me. In terms of spirituality, I view it as something that has to do with the individual and his / her relationship with the greater universe. But to the extent that I feel I have a soul, that seems to be logically based in my identification since I was old enough to speak, as an Agnostic.
I'll try to frame it this way: If the universe (as a whole) is a big circle, then within that circle there's a box that is logically organized society, and within that, there's another circle that represents the individual soul. See, no light pole for me; it's been replaced with the vacant and obvious. My soul is local, and it is within me; it is my core identity in a spiritual context. I believe there is a connection between the circle in the middle; and the bigger circle at the horizon. They are both totalizing, rather than simply logical and organized.
The applicable part, you may ask? What I would hope for gay people (once and for all), and any other people who have experienced negative issues with core identity, is to realize that you, too, are a child of the universe. It was essential in producing you. Some people, with their tight, little rational boxes, will try to make you feel that either you aren't who you think you are, or perhaps you are who you think you are, that it's not good enough, or in other words, it's simply bad, end of discussion. Who exactly sets the parameters that dictate when that little discussion completion occurs? Conveniently, no one ever knows.
Ultimately, what we need to be doing for ourselves and others, is to come to the realization that we are exactly who we know ourselves to be. And what we are, providing its alignment is not interfering or negatively arcing another, is always perfectly okay. If that is simplistic, I say that is sometimes the point.
Or, as the rather lascivious and grizzled old queen with one too many drinks under her belt standing next to us said, when I effortlessly landed on that life affirming pronouncement:
"Oh blah blah! Life's too fucking short! Have a cocktail girlfriend, it's Friday"!
I'm taking that to mean I avoided the light pole. Even if barely.
HIV Prevention 101: Consider The Context
Friday, May 9, 2008 In response to yet another "I just can't understand why the fags can't be responsible and use a condom every time", article on the topic of our failed HIV prevention strategies, consider this my response.
Though I should offer a warning. If you are the type of individual to steadfastly ignore the evidence in front of you, and instead retreat to a position of relative emotional insularity, this may not be the read for you. As it tends to begin at the place we currently are. I know, what a novel concept.
After twenty six years of a disease, there are some things we can say for sure, and we can be totally at peace with the facts of those assertions. Lets look at a few, shall we?
Shame, blame, and moralizing ridicule may be wonderful tools to aid in ones perception of personal importance, however as a prevention method for a global pandemic, they actually do little to help. Many argue, myself included, that they may in fact make the problem worse, by helping to set up dynamics of entrenched and marginalized sub culture, where what eventually manifests as norms in response to unrelenting persecution, are examples of discordant personal and community responses to crisis.
What else have we learned from twenty six years of a plague that has affected the gay community on a scale similar to war time? We have learned that people are going to continue having sex in the face of a crisis, or under threat of death, or even with great personal risk. In fact, under these circumstances, many will have more sex than they would in normal conditions.
Another lesson from the past quarter century of public health and epidemiological data? Abstinence is a rock solid theory on the prevention of HIV, but, like Communism, it just never really works out as planned. Uganda, for example, has been heralded as the modern example of "old fashioned values at work". President Bush gave an unprecedented figure in the high millions to help in that countries fight against HIV. With of course, a catch. That condoms be used as only a third line resource; never a first or second line intervention.
In a country where well over fifty per cent of its female victims acquire HIV through a non choiced sexual encounter, either rape or prostitution out of necessity, the public health professionals would have told you that approach was a recipe for disaster. It was the correct assumption. The last stats for the region show HIV infection rates to be up by more than 86%.
I'm going to propose something radical. Radical as in, like radical feminism, relating to the root. Read it twice if you so require.
If we expect a community, an individual, or a planet for that matter, to respond appropriately in the time of extra ordinary circumstance, then it would be a logical extension that we offer that culture, community, individual, and planet, a standing in society that mandates equality. That is humanity 101, and is central to the human nature of moral individuals.
This point is so key in this crisis, I cannot understand why we have not been dealing with it from the start. The gay community of the early eighties was a young and a culturally immature community. It was also less than five years out of the era which saw Anita Bryant and the Briggs initiative, teachers fired from their positions for being gay, landlords, employers, even stores, routinely deny service to gays and lesbians. Untold examples of families rejecting their gay and lesbians sons and daughters, brothers and sisters.
July, 1981
Consider what happens when, cruel irony being the bitch that she is, makes her entrance:
Bringing with her a new, fatal in all cases, very disfiguring gay cancer.
It happens to target a community not accepted in most ways by a very fearful, hostile and intolerant greater society.
Add on a good fifteen years of unrelenting death.
Don't add in a cure, because there was none.
But please, add in more death.
Add in grieving and more grieving, eventually experienced as a learned art.
Entire circles of friends - gone.
Cut to 1996.
For the first time since this crisis began, people start to whisper about hope.
The whisper turns into an official announcement.
New medications.
People stop dying in massive number.
And, like human beings are known to do, people react in very human ways.
Many say thank God, I can now forget for a while.
Many see the beginning of an end they dream, hope, and pray for.
And a few, see it for what it is....
Cruel Irony: Act II
Rinse, repeat.
Cut to 2008. Well, what do you know? We have a prevention crisis in the gay community!
Now, please ask yourself: Is it not possible that the dynamics I describe very briefly above, could have helped in part to create a less than optimal environment in which to self advocate for personal health? Or, a less verbose way of saying it; the past two and a half decades have been one hell of a twisted mind fuck for an entire community. It has known more loss, with an equal amount of non acknowledgment, than most people could ever conceive of.
Some may ask why the intense detailing. Because, it shows that our community response to this crisis is not the norm. The actions people counter with, are, in many ways, only adding to the problem. Whether it be the right wing fundie, or the puritanical gay man still not over his sexual shame who harshly condemns, or the "not a care about anybody else in the fucking world" methed out party boy who has unprotected sex with everyone from Toronto to San Fran. Our responses culturally, and our responses personally, are often making this situation worse.
Strange? Ironic? Evil? Flagrant disregard for life? Suggesting a lack of humanity? Hardly. What these responses demonstrate, are the textbook markers and clinical identifiers of community acquired post traumatic stress disorder. Reacting out of the range of what "should be done", is an entirely normal response given the current context.
Looking At Intentions
Thursday, May 1, 2008 Chris from Creek Running North made some interesting and relevant observations recently regarding the idea of online discourse. Is it even possible for us to have a truly humane discourse on line? Chris said:
Sometimes the negative links direct attention to things that need to be addressed, to offenses that would have flown under the collective radar in offline life, and sometimes the mass uproar that follows educates people who would not have been reached by position papers. As a glorified phone tree to alert people to actions that need to be taken to combat short-term horrible, the net is a wonderful thing.
It’s just that it seems to me that there’s a threshold of linkage beyond which political discussions, as opposed to political alerts, become less than useful over time. I’m not suggesting any hard and fast metrics, but I do know that some of the most useful, challenging, rewarding and worthwhile conversations I’ve read online have taken place among regular readers of the blog in question, and I know that I’ve seen outside linkage derail more useful and enlightening conversations than I can count.
I like how Chris points out the duality here. That for every negative conversation in the blog world, there are ones that reflect the opposite point. Balance then, is key. However as many of us know, balance, is very often hard to maintain. Given what occurred yesterday on Joe.My.God via a small number of comments leaving some real vitriolic sentiment for a gay father, and then keeping up the attack at the guys own blog, this is a discussion we as a community really need to have.
The outcome yesterday wasn't good. To be fair, I'm sure it was not Joe's intention to cause this individual any damage, and he has issued a heartfelt apology, but the fact remains, the man in question took down what was his very inspirational and high quality site. I think we need to ask ourselves, ultimately, who plays a role when those things occur?
It's an important question, as silencing voices, is the opposite of what we are supposed to be doing here. Isn't it? Thoughts?
On A Serious Note
Friday, March 28, 2008 For a specific explanation regarding my motivation for video choice, the comment thread from yesterday is more than sufficient.
Climbing Up On Large Soapbox:
The theme of this video has always been a sobering one to gay men of my generation. The fact that the same oppressive dynamic often operates within our own community, is as tragic as it is shameful. In my personal view, it is a dynamic that needs to be called out wherever and whenever it is engaged.
Climbing Down Off Large Soapbox.
Have a good weekend everybody.
On Being An Ally
Wednesday, March 12, 2008 As valid as my occasional complaints of apathy, lack of engagement etc. are when I discuss some of the young people I teach, it's days like today that make me realize that the vast majority of young adults completely rock! Once a semester, the teaching team from cultural studies gets together with all the first year students and conducts workshops on homophobia, sexism, and racism. Today, I led the homophobia lecture.
The following are all ideas and suggestions from students on the damage caused by homophobia, and how they can be a better straight ally to gays and lesbians. Needless to say, I was impressed.
- Homophobia forces us to act "macho" if we are a man or "feminine" if we are a woman. This limits our individuality and self-expression.
- Homophobia puts pressure on straight people to act aggressively and angrily towards LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, questioning) people.
- Homophobia makes it hard to be close friends with someone of the same sex.
- Homophobia causes youth to become sexually active before they are ready in order to prove they are "normal." This can lead to an increase in unwanted pregnancies and STDs (sexually transmitted diseases).
- Homophobia prevents vital information on sex and sexuality to be taught in schools. Without this information, youth are putting themselves at a greater risk for HIV and other STDs.
- Homophobia can be used to hurt a straight person if they "appear to be gay."
- Homophobia makes it hard for straight people and LGBTQ people to be friends.
- Homophobia along with racism, sexism, classism, etc. makes it hard to put an end to AIDS.
- Homophobia makes it hard to appreciate true diversity and the unique traits that are not mainstream or "normal."
Some ways to combat prejudice and homophobia as a straight ally:
- Organize discussion groups in class or after school to talk about the how homophobia affects straight people as well.
- Use neutral labels like "partner" or "significant other" instead of "boyfriend," "girlfriend," etc. when writing papers/emails or talking to others.
- Bring up LGBTQ issues in conversations with friends or discussions in class.
- Interrupt anti-LGBTQ jokes, comments or any other behaviors that make homophobia appear OK.
- Put LGBTQ-positive posters in the halls and classrooms or wear shirts, buttons, etc. that promote tolerance.
- Don't make assumptions about peoples' sexual orientations or gender identities. Assume there are LGBTQ people in all classes, sports, meetings, daily life, etc.
- Don't assume that "feminine-acting men" and "masculine-acting women" are not heterosexual.
- Don't assume that "macho males" or "feminine females" are heterosexual.
The Last Word
Thursday, February 28, 2008 From The Archives:
One of my favorite Larry Kramer stories. Enjoy....
Larry Kramer is certainly many things to many people. Publicly, his image is that of the loud and angry AIDS activist. In his primary relationships, the ones which provide a reference and measure of existence, he is a son, a partner, a brother, a friend. In a more general sense, Larry is a Yale graduate, an author, a playwright, and an Academy Award nominee. His detractors, and there are many, would dismiss him as intensely opinionated, sometimes cruel, often unforgiving, and deliberately manipulative. Objectively, it would be difficult to prove these allegations untrue.
Though what captivates me about this man, can be witnessed through his consistent motivations. I have often maintained that the most truly compassionate people, are the ones we often perceive as intensely cruel. They can be blunt, and unforgiving. Perhaps their compassion is so limitless, they have a difficult time understanding the limits of others. In the eighties, Larry Kramer often said, "do we care so little about ourselves to stand aside and let this unfold"?
Many would disagree, but I see Kramer as a truly compassionate man. Someone who cares immensely, and allows himself to feel wounds deep enough, that he is moved to action. For the past twenty five years, one thing among many that has drawn my attention and respect, is his historical record. With regard to HIV issues, Larry Kramer simply has never been wrong.
He has looked to the future since the beginning of this epidemic, and he has been right each and every time. Whether the context was political, societal, or community based; whether the issue was transmission rates, treatment, or prevention, Larry was always on cue. And often on cue with what many did not, or would not acknowledge.
A few years ago, when Larry Kramer published The Tragedy Of Today's Gays, reading Naomi Wolfs introduction, as well as other critiques of Mr. Kramer's work, politics, and literary accomplishments, I happened upon two examples that read as classic Larry Kramer. Both are funny, yet poignant. In the first example, Kramer recounts how gay men will frequently cross the street to shake hands with him, passing along their heartfelt thanks for all he has done in twenty five years of work and activism.
Larry will usually do a cursory mental checklist of whether he may know, but not recognize the man. As in the early years, it would have been rare to advocate for HIV without at some point knowing and working with the popular author. When he is satisfied he has never seen the man before, and also satisfied the man is of the age to have been a functioning adult in the eighties, he will respond.
"Don't mention it. By the way....exactly where the fuck were you"? He is still waiting for the answer he has so far never been offered.
The second example is the type of response one wishes would just slide off the tongue in the blink of an eye. For Larry Kramer, it appears to do so with ease.
Decade long adversaries, there is no love lost between the AIDS activist and former New York City Mayor Ed Koch. In fact, Kramer spent a big chunk of the1980's antagonizing Koch for not responding to, and in the end, ignoring the full devastation that made up the early years of the crisis. Larry had worked feverishly to at least get a meeting between the mayors office and Gay Mens Health Crisis, the organization Kramer founded. He finally succeeded.
Though it wasn't until minutes before the meeting was to take place, that Kramer was told by an aide with a decidedly icy tone, that Koch had given instruction Larry was not welcome to attend the meeting. But thank you for your efforts just the same. Outraged, and having clearly had enough, Kramer immediately resigned from Gay Mens Health Crisis, going on to found ACT-UP; a new activist group with a focus of direct action. One which later became a singular force, and largely credited for the huge advances seen in HIV treatment today.
Though regarding Ed Koch, it was not until years later, that the former mayor would cross paths with Kramer. It was bound to happen eventually, since both men ironically lived in the same Fifth avenue apartment building. On a warm spring morning, the almost sixty year old author, a witness to his generations holocaust, walked into his mail room, and was met with the site of his long time foe, casually picking up his morning mail. After an uncomfortably lengthy silence, Larry looked Mayor Koch up and down; his gaze slow and deliberate. As he reached down to retrieve his mail, nothing was said.
Leaving the mail room, Larry looked down at his dog Molly, and almost as an after thought, said with a slow, measured tone, "Molly, that's the evil, cowardly, self hating gay man who murdered so many of Daddy's friends".
Casually, he and Molly walked out into the New York morning, leaving the former mayor absolutely speechless.
Really, what more was there to say?
GLBT, Books / Authors 20 Clarifying Questions
Tuesday, February 26, 2008 
In 2008, I really find it shocking that there are gay men and lesbians who still assert that what they do, who they are, and who they choose to love, is a "private matter".
In so far as the right to disclose ones sexual orientation to those in their own lives and the public at large, I support that premise. While not viewing it in any way as a healthy option, I realize the closet is a place we have all come from, and timelines will obviously vary. It's important that we give others whatever time they need to find that comfort in asserting who they are publicly.
Though it's the ones that maintain the double life, and have no desire to work towards an integrated existence that I really don't understand. The ones that will loudly pronounce "Gay is something that I do, not something that I am", or "I'm fine with who I am, I just don't need to shove it down everyone's throats". The fact that such a haphazard narrative quite clearly suffers from faulty construction, assured to blow over in the slightest wind, is a reality they seem intent to remain blind to.
The following is something I use in the first year identity and experience course that I teach. While the exercise has a target focus of those in the class who are straight, with the goal being to introduce the concept of heterosexual privilege, I use it here to demonstrate just how dangerous the "gay has nothing to do with who I am" narratives are, when we objectively look at how they specifically play out in greater society.
Whatever your orientation, ask yourself the following questions and answer honestly.
- I can go into a music store and find the language of my sexual orientation represented in the lyrics.
- Television and movies reflect my relationships in widely diverse and non stereotypical ways.
- My children are given texts and information at school that validates my sexual orientation.
- Society encourages me to marry and celebrates my commitment.
- As a responsible and loving parent, I won't lose my children in a custody battle because of my sexual orientation.
- I can easily buy postcards, books, greeting cards, and magazines featuring relationships like mine.
- I don't have to worry about being fired or denied housing because of my sexual orientation.
- I can be sure that if my spouse is in the hospital and incapacitated, I can visit and will be consulted about any decisions that need to be made.
- Insurance provided by my employer covers my spouse and my children.
- Hand holding with my love is seen as acceptable and endearing.
- I can serve my country in the military without lying or keeping silent about my family.
- I can keep pictures of my loved one on my desk at work without fear or reprisal.
- I will receive all of my deceased spouse's estate, tax-free.
- I never need to change pronouns when describing the events of my life in order to protect my job, my family, or my friendships.
- If I'm a teenager, I can enjoy dating, first loves, and all the social approval of learning to love appropriately.
- If I'm called to work with children or to serve God (in most denominations). I don't have to violate my integrity and lie in order to keep my job.
- As a responsible and loving adult, I can adopt without lying about my sexual orientation.
- I feel welcomed and accepted in my church.
- I can be certain that my children won't be harassed because of my sexual orientation.
- I can count on my community of friends, strangers, and institutions to celebrate my love and my family, mourn my losses, and support my relationships.
But of course....
"Gay is something I do, not who I am".
"I don't need to tell anyone I am gay, it shoves it down their throats when I talk about it".
"It's no ones business but my own"
"Gay people are already equal. Stop bitching about oppression"
Right.