Not so different

2007-03-17T10:20:00.000-07:00

The Democrats and Gay Issues

Judging from recent statements made by both leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, I would surmise that we probably won’t be getting a clear statement from either of the Democratic candidates or from the Party that gay men and women are full fledged human beings. And if you think that such a commitment is too much to ask for in the current American political environment, since their waffling on the question of gay dignity was put forth in the context of morality, I would also surmise that we’re not even going to get a clear statement from the candidates or the Party insisting on the separation of Church and State. So, where does that leave the gay community politically, now, and when we vote in the 2008 elections?

Quite clearly, the discourse around “family values” is the principal area in which the Democrats feel vulnerable. The war in Iraq, corruption scandals, abuse of power, and manifest administrative in competence have left the Republicans almost without hope for 2008; their only card left to play is “morality” and political gay bashing. The Democrats can neutralize the Republican position on this issue by agreeing with them, or at least not opposing them too strongly. What do the Democrats have to lose? Their political analysts certainly have assured them that the gay community will vote overwhelmingly Democratic, anyway, regardless of the Party’s or the candidates’ position on gay issues.

The Democratic analysts are, of course, right. The large majority of gay men and women would feel much more comfortable with a Democratic administration and Congress, regardless of their official position on issues directly affecting gays. Despite their lack of overt and practical support, Democrats are still considered by most gays to be our friends, at least secretly. At least they tend not to be overtly homophobic (although I do find even Ms. Clinton’s “cover up” statement patronizing and ultimately fuzzy--- Gays are OK because they are willing to die in Iraq. Does that mean that our “patriotism” somehow cancels out our “immorality?”).

But should we simply sit by and silently watch as the people we hope will be representing us pander to the religious right and the homophobes? Should we insist more strongly upon a clearer and unambiguous statement supporting our humanity? And if we decide that we must take action, what, in fact, can we do?

Threatening to sit home on election- day would be both counterproductive and futile. Even in the unlikely eventuality that the gay voting population voted overwhelmingly along gay political lines, our community is not large enough to counterbalance what the Democrats might lose by overtly and strongly supporting us on the “morality” issue. And ultimately, what would we gain by another Republican administration?

The gay community has, however, weapons at hand at least as potent as our votes--- our time and our money. Commercial America has already shown itself quite aware of the economic clout of the gay community in increasingly gay oriented marketing campaigns: We are no longer even surprised by “gay friendly” advertisements and films. We are an economic force in America that must be reckoned with. Commercial America has seen it, and now political America must recognize it, too.

In like fashion, gays in America have shown themselves to be more present in political action than our numbers would indicate. Perhaps because we, for the most part, do not have families and children to worry about, we gays seem to be more likely to devote our time and efforts to political action than our straight counterparts.

In short, while I probably will wind up pushing the lever on election- day for the Democratic candidate, I will not contribute one penny or spend one minute of my time to support a candidate or party who does not fully recognize my humanity. This is the message that the leaders of the gay community need to communicate to the Democrats. They may be able to force us into voting for the Democratic candidate by default, but that will not be enough to elicit our active support. A deal needs to be cut with the Party, and soon.

Of course, any deal would have to take into consideration the homophobic environment in which the election will take place. It would be futile for us to insist upon the Democrats’ support for same sex marriage, but it would not be unreasonable, for example, for us to insist that the candidates help educate the American people to the fact that most of Europe, the area of the world from which the overwhelming majority of Americans and American cultural institutions descend philosophically, plus our neighbor to the north, Canada, have already given some form of legal recognition to gay partnerships. America is becoming increasingly isolated in an important human rights issue. The exact formula of the understanding between the candidates and the gay community should, of course, be a matter of discussion, but some understanding beyond the mealy mouthed waffling we have seen in recent days needs to be reached.

Of course, in order to make this strategy effective, the gay community needs to reorganize. We have to communicate, as a community, to the candidates and the party what we expect of them. Then, if and when financial contributions are made or political support is undertaken, such action should be made either through the gay community or in some way that makes it apparent that it is related to the candidate’s or the party’s support of gay issues.

This message to the Democrats should not be viewed as political pressure or blackmail. Every dollar or minute spent in support of a Democratic candidate is a dollar or minute less what could have been devoted to AIDS research, legal support of gay rights issues, counseling services, etc. It has to be worth it.

(A New York Times article published 16 March reports that the gay community has, in fact begun to use the strategy outlined above, and it seems to be working. Under pressure from gay organizations, both Ms Clinton and Mr. Obama have issued clearer, less ambiguous statements that they do not believe that homosexuality is immoral. Well, it’s a start. But just a start.)

2007-03-06T10:59:00.001-08:00

On gay norms of masculine beauty

Gay men, so runs the cliché, are obsessed with youth and conventionalized beauty. As a gay man who is no longer young by anyone’s reckoning, and who was never considered conventionally beautiful (or, at least never considered myself so), I should, if the cliché reflects more than a seed of truth, feel somewhat underappreciated in the gay community. Frankly, I don’t. Never did. While I may have many issues with trends and attitudes manifested by many of my gay brothers, I have very seldom felt marginalized either because of my age or because of my quotient of conventional pulchritude.

Not only is the cliché false; I would even suggest that those who insist upon the truth of the cliché examine their psyches for a touch of internalized homophobia. Such insistence implies that gay men are, at least in reference to their prevailing mechanisms of sexual attraction, soulless and superficial. The evidence, however, suggests that gay men are, in fact, more open, flexible, and inventive than their straight counterparts when it comes to setting norms for objects of sexual attraction. Despite the proliferation of images of young, muscular men in gay pin- ups and pornography, gay men as a group have, in fact, made a major contribution to the amplification and diversification of western society’s image of the sexually attractive man.

Most of us, both gay and straight, have a fantasy life populated, at least in part, by people who correspond to a socially determined cannon of beauty. This canon, of course, is hardly absolute, varying widely within a culture as styles and social conditions change, and varying widely from culture to culture. Marilyn Monroe, for example, would be considered fat by contemporary standards, not to mention Rubens’ or Renoir’s women. In like fashion, few contemporary observers of male beauty would consider Johnny Weissmuller’s (The original Tarzan) body particularly attractive. Hindu gods, Taoist immortals, and Buddhist bodhisattvas have been at various times throughout history represented with pot- bellies, double chins, and fleshy, undefined musculature. In short, there is no eternally fixed, universally accepted canon of beauty. What turns us on, or, more exactly, what we think should turn us on, is socially determined.

Obviously, these socially determined images do, in fact, have some effect upon our libidos, but just as obviously, they hardly represent the whole story in reference to sexual attraction. While both straight and gay men become excited by the current socially proffered sexual image, we also become excited, perhaps even more excited, by people who don’t correspond at all to such an image. A conventionally attractive straight man, who should have no problem in attracting even the most conventionally beautiful woman, can become wildly passionate over a flat- chested, rather plain girl, while a handsome gay man can lose his heart to a balding, overweight guy with crooked teeth. The paths of sexual attraction, for both gays and straights, are highly individual and truly mysterious.

Where gays and straights have parted ways on this issue, however, is in the degree to which they have allowed the reality of their sexual attraction modify the conventional norms. While there are certainly a number of straight men attracted to older, stout, or flat- chested women, the large majority of Western men attracted to these non- ideal types, despite their empowered social status, are hardly willing to assert their taste by trying to modify the accepted norms of sexual attractiveness. Within the straight world, such tastes are frequently viewed, even by those sharing them, as mild forms of perversion. The Hollywood starlet image reigns supreme. In a large segment of straight society, failure to procure a woman who is seen as a “trophy wife” is frequently seen as a shortcoming, if not a failure, by both the man involved and by his peers.

In contrast, gay men have been much more willing to allow the reality of their sexual tastes to modify the socially dictated canon of beauty. The prime example of this intrusion of non- normative sexual attraction into the constructed world of conventional images is, of course, the “bear” phenomenon. Despite having been bombarded with images of sleek, slim or muscular young men, a substantial portion of the gay community has found itself attracted to hairy, beefy, middle aged guys. More important, however, is they are not at all embarrassed to say so, and, as a consequence, hairy, beefy, middle aged guys began to stop hating themselves and their bodies (or, at least, hated themselves and their bodies less). At the insistence of the “bears” and their buddies, the guys with the bodies by nautilus have had to move over and make room for an alternate canon of male beauty. Moreover, perhaps as a consequence of the “bear” movement, the gay age- related images of desirability have also had to be expanded to include “daddies.”

Straight society is still far from experiencing such liberalization or from allowing their repertory of constructed, conventional sexual images to be influenced by the reality of their sexual desires. Straight men have constructed a rigid, unrealistic canon of female beauty that is largely accepted by its victims, that is to say, by women. Despite a very minor movement of older women who have begun publicly to resist the pressure to have cosmetic surgery, and small groups of heftier ladies who vocally oppose the pressure to diet, botox has become a household word and thousands of young women are driven annually into anorexia by prevailing rigid norms of female beauty.

Sure, lots of gay guys spend hours daily sculpting their bodies at the gym; there are also, of course, a good number whom have subjected themselves to the plastic surgeon’s needle or knife. But gay society still provides alternative images of sexual attractiveness. Such alternatives don’t seem to exist in straight society. If anyone seems obsessed with youth and conventionalized beauty, it’s straights, and not gays.

It is, of course, only natural that we gay men have more flexible and varied norms of masculine sexiness than the straights, since we are both the subjects and the objects of the process. It would be self- defeating for us gays to develop a narrow, rigid canon of sexual attractiveness, unrelated to much of what we feel, enjoy, and, in fact, are since in doing so, we would be running the risk of excluding ourselves from the game.

Straight norms, on the other hand, are determined, at least when women are concerned, by straight men with merciless lack of consideration of the mental health of the objects of their attraction, or, for that matter, even of their own mental well being. While it’s essentially women whom pay the price of these norms, these rigid norms also affect straight men by creating conflicted feelings about sexual interest in women who do not conform to those norms. If straight men with girlfriends and wives who don’t conform to the prevailing cannon of beauty feel comfortable and proud of their attraction for such women, they certainly don’t let us know about it.

Why, you may ask, should it matter what our norms of sexual attractiveness are and how they are constructed, if we continue to be attracted by a broader range of types, anyway? Clearly, the closer our socially constructed norms conform to who we are and how we actually live, the closer we come to self- acceptance. I would submit that once a gay man in our society accepts his homosexuality per se, thanks to this broader field of options in terms of defining what’s sexy, he is considerable more at peace with both his own body and the object of his sexual attraction than his straight counterpart. This, despite our marginalized status within society as a whole.

Equally important, understanding our more realistic approach to defining what’s sexy helps break down the fictitious image of gay men as variations on the Blanche Dubois theme, sad creatures in constant flight from reality. Unfortunately, this somewhat homophobic view of gay men is shared by large numbers of gay men themselves. As it turns out, however, the large majority of us are probably on firmer, more realistic footing in reference to what we desire, at least sexually, than most straight guys. The popularity of “bears” and other types on non idealized norms of gay male beauty gives us good reason to believe that once a gay man has accepted his sexual orientation, he is more anchored to reality and less conflicted in terms of his sexuality than is his straight counterpart.

2007-02-23T00:59:00.000-08:00

Gaydar, or “The Thrill is Gone”

The death last week of Gary Frisch, the founder of the UK based on line gay dating service, “Gaydar,” and the outpouring of expressions of mourning from the gay community (topped only by that occasioned by the death of Lady Diana), has suggested an evaluation of the on line dating phenomenon. As an article in the Guardian on Frisch’s death states, on line dating has produced radical changes in the lives of perhaps millions of individual gay men and a radical change in our sense of community. Some of the benefits of on line dating are obvious; others are less so, but nonetheless important. Its drawbacks and dangers, however, while quite serious, are somewhat less readily apparent; moreover, it could be argued quite convincingly that when the pluses and minuses of on line dating are weighed together, we ultimately come out on the negative side.

One of the most obvious benefits of gay on line dating is that it facilitates contact between gay men living in small towns and cities with no gay facilities where they otherwise could meet. The guy in Moosejaw doesn’t have to wait until he can get to the big city to enjoy the company of another man; he can get in his car and drive a mere 50 or so miles to Slippery Rock to meet a guy he’s met on the net that evening. Of course, the guy might not be as sexy as he appeared in the dating service photo, or he may not even show up for the rendez- vous, but at least our horny lad from Moosejaw has a chance, even a good chance, to get his rocks off.

Even for guys in big cities, on line dating holds very definite advantages over the bars/ baths/ parks/ docks/ trucks, etc. It certainly is cheaper than the bars and baths, and safer--- at least in reference to marauding homophobic bands--- than the parks, docks, and trucks. Of course, in reference to safety, it is important to meet the guy you contacted on the net in a neutral place, a bar or a café, so you can chat with him in person for a few minutes; that will give you at least some chance of determining if you would be going home with a thief or a homicidal maniac. Actually, you are probably less likely to meet up with someone dangerous on the net, since it’s possible to leave an electronic trail of your contact. At least the smarter potential trouble- makers know that they can be traced.

But perhaps even more important than on line dating’s helping to overcome the practical problems of physical isolation, it helps to overcome the problems of emotional isolation. Many men of the pre- electronic generation complain that for years they thought that they, and the local hairdresser, were the only gay men in the world. Now, with large dating services such as Gaydar, the closeted, withdrawn, even the totally inexperienced gay man can see that even his kinkiest tastes and fantasies are shared by hundreds, if not thousands of men, some who live in his own neighborhood and are hot to meet him. Gaydar may not really help you to meet Mr. Right, or even dependably get your rocks off whenever you want, but with gay dating services, combined with gay blogging, no gay man need ever again to feel the sense of isolation that some of us felt before the development of electronic communication.

Those of you who have read my post on the pleasures and perils of gay blogging know that I am concerned with the complications relating to “keeping it real” caused by electronic communication. To be fair, however, some of the problems in this context are not exclusive to on line dating. There were problems in this regard even in the bar and bath scene; many of us remember the mind fuckers in the bars who would engage us in heady, sexy conversation for hours and then disappear into the night when it came time for any action; or the cock teasers in the baths who would cruse everyone but never connect with anyone. They probably are on the net now, engaging you in sexy dialogue, making appointments, and then breaking them, or never even showing up--- essentially the same problem we had in bars and baths, and perhaps even with the same neurotic people.

Of course, the electronic dating services are the mind fuckers’ paradise, with possibilities way beyond what is possible in a bar or bath. Not really wanting to connect physically or emotionally with anyone, a mind fucker can invent a sexy persona that may or may not be at all similar to himself. Sometimes he even posts a fake picture. There’s nothing wrong in wanting to live out one’s fantasies and to imagine someone else excited by them, but this is essentially a game at someone else’s expense and without the other person’s consent.

As one becomes a bit more practiced in the manipulation of electronic dating, he also becomes more skillful in identifying the mind fuckers and out and outright frauds. “Keeping it real,” however, is a problem even in cases where the parties involved try to be sincere and truthful in their presentation of themselves.

The projection of oneself through just words and a few photographs is, in most cases, very difficult for the person not to control subconsciously. When we meet someone in an actual social context, in a bar, through friends, or even in a bathhouse or in a park, we project ourselves by what we say about ourselves spontaneously (in contrast to the contrived verbal presentations in our Gaydar adds), which is only partially under our control, and our body language, facial expression, etc., which are sometimes even less under our control. Our interlocutor has a fighting chance to see us, understand us, and react emotionally; we, in turn, must react spontaneously to him.

Contrast this type of interchange with that taking place between even the most sincere, frank, and honest people on the net. The verbal presentations are almost always carefully calculated, as are the responses. They are just as likely to correspond more to what the sender wants to be than what he actually is, and they are calculated to produce a specific, desired reaction. The photos, even if they are of the person involved, are also calculated to project the image of the sender wants to project. We are sending essentially the image of what we want to be, even when we are trying to be honest. All of this misrepresentation can occur without any conscious lying on anyone’s part.

The projection of this level of unreality can lead to something much worse than a disappointing evening. We all fall in love not with a 100% authentic person, but with a combination of that person and our projections of our own needs onto the other person. It supposedly takes about two years in most cases, for most of the vestiges of that projection to wear off. In relationships that work, the partners then proceed to love each other more or less “authentically.”

In relationships that begin on the net, a guy can very easily fall in love not only with his own projection, but also with the image that his partner is projecting, which may have more to do with what he wants to be than with what he is. This is also possible in actual encounters, but the likelihood is much greater with relationships that begin on the net. While there is a level of “unreality” to most love affairs, that level is much more complex and difficult to unravel when a meeting and the development of the relationship takes place electronically.

It has also been quipped that sites such as Gaydar have broken up more relationships than they have brought together. This is true not only because on line dating makes extra marital liaisons more available; it presents you with a selection of potential paramours that even the greatest lover on earth couldn’t consistently, successfully compete with. In the development of your relationship, you and your partner have stripped away your illusions about each other and about yourselves, but the on line paramours are open to all your, and their projections. Even if their photos aren’t air- brushed or professionally posed and lighted, most photos try to show their subject at what he feels is his sexiest. Simply stated, reality will have a hard time competing with fantasy. Even if you don’t contact or try to make a liason with one of the sexy guys on the net, cruising around the site and taking in the highly charged, over simplified sexuality the guys there project presents a real risk of diminishing your partner just a bit in your eyes. Unlike your partner, the guys on the net don’t leave the top off of the toothpaste tube. Not much good can come of this.

Don’t get me wrong. Far be it for me to diminish the role of fantasy in our lives! If sex is the spice of life, sexual fantasy is the hot pepper. But with sites such as Gaydar, the fantasy is created by supposedly real men out there, who also claim to be, or sometimes actually are, available, thus blurring the boundaries between fantasy and reality. Lots of couples in stable relationships spice up their sex lives by looking at pornography together or going together to a place with a sexually charged atmosphere. But the fantasies generated by such events are clearly fantasies, appreciated and enjoyed as such. They are quite different from the fantasies generated by sites such as Gaydar, which claim to be real and realizable.

These problems would be of diminished importance if on line dating could coexist comfortably with the more traditional ways of meeting and making contact with potential sexual partners. But as many of us have experienced, and as the Guardian article brings out, on line dating has resulted in the radical contraction of the more traditional contact possibilities. In many cities gay bars have closed down and open air cruising areas have disappeared; they can’t compete with the comfort and ease, not to mention the economic advantages, offered by the on line sites. Gay human relations, as are all human relations, are difficult enough, in and of themselves, to keep from flying off into a whirlwind of fantasies and projections. Now that we are forced, more and more, to make contact through the abstracted world of Gaydar and its like, our hope of really being able to connect with people, not just as tricks or lovers, but even as friends, seems to be fading.

This gradual transfer of our emotional lives to the virtual, electronic world not only threatens to rob our lives of substance, it also takes away much of the thrill of encounter. Less and less frequently will we be able to experience the heart stopping excitement of a glance from a sexy stranger across a crowded room, or bathe in the warmth of his smile. When I met my partner (It was at a gay beach), we talked for about two hours, the intellectual, emotional and sexual excitement building by the minute. That, my friends, just doesn’t happen on the internet.

What to do? I don’t really know. But it’s quite clear that there’s no going back. Somehow we’ll have to find a way to rebuild our ability to connect with each other in a thrilling and substantial way in the context of, or perhaps despite, electronic communication.

2007-02-02T07:16:00.000-08:00

Perils, and pleasures, of gay blogging

Now that I’ve been blogging and reading other gay men’s blogs for about six months, I’ve begun to form some ideas about blogging, especially gay blogging, both for myself and towards what seems to have developed as a significant cultural phenomenon. The discussion I would like to open here pertains, however, to those gay blogs concentrating primarily on ideas, feelings and experiences relating to gay life. I am not interested here in those gay blogs dealing primarily in pictures of beautiful men or sexy stories; such blogs differ from straight blogs of the same type only in their sexual orientation. There’s nothing wrong with them; they’re just not very interesting for my purposes here.

Blogging allows me to discuss ideas about gay life in a broader forum than my own, personal life affords me. I put out an idea or an observation and, at least theoretically, I can get direct reactions and feedback from an unlimited spectrum of opinion. In my personal life I have a fairly large circle of friends I can discuss these issues with, but this spectrum is ultimately still comparatively narrow and pre- selected; they are, after all, my friends. Also, their reaction is frequently influenced by their relationship to me. None of these factors limit the blogosphere.

I generally limit myself to discussion of gay issues. While I enjoy commenting in other people’s blogs on any number of topics, I restrict my own blog to gay matters, since in that specific field I find feedback from this very broad spectrum particularly valuable. While there are several other areas of interest I could blog about, my professional and private life provides a sufficiently large forum to discuss these issues and therefore, I don't really need to blog about them. For a discussion of gay issues, however, blogging provides me with a unique opportunity.

Also, quite frankly, since I am not a professional commentator of gay issues, I can be somewhat free and adventuresome with what I say on these matters; I have no professional responsibilities in this area. Even though blogs supposedly afford a certain anonymity (more about this later), and my professional reputation would probably not be at stake, I still would not permit myself the pleasures of intellectual speculation in a field where I feel professionally responsible.

I feel fairly comfortable with these intellectual limitations I have placed on by blog. The emotional and existential realm, on the other hand, perhaps requires some further explanation. My blog may seem to some denizens of the gay blogosphere somewhat impersonal, distant, and, if you will, tight- assed. In comparason to most other gay blogs, even thoise devoted to ideas, I don't really present much of myself. Of course, even in discussing ideas, you reveal your emotional make up and even aspects of your existential reality at almost every turn; but I seldom make such revelations directly. I don’t discuss my personal life directly, and I make references to incidents from my own background only it they serve to illustrate an idea I want to get across.

I don’t discuss the details of my relationship with my partner since I regard intimacy to be, as I’ve said in other places, an essential ingredient in the mortar that holds our relationship together. I try not to be too judgmental or doctrinaire on this matter, guys, but I really can’t understand people, gay or straight, who discuss details of their relationships in a public forum. Certainly, problems in a relationship can be so painful that a guy feels he has to let loose and open up to someone. But if those problems become so acute, and the two partners are so incapable of negotiating them with each other, that a violation of the intimacy that binds the relationship seems necessary, then perhaps the guys involved need to reevaluate their relationship.

Also, from a practical point of view, what happens when your partner discovers your blog and sees what you’re telling total strangers about him? I can’t imagine that it would help matters much between you. Or perhaps you don’t want it to, and it’s a way of telling him off without having to confront him directly. Sorry, but certain judgmental terms such as “cowardly” come to mind.

Equally baffling are those people who habitually comment on such intensely personal blogs. We all have a certain tendency toward voyeurism--- I’m certainly no exception. Sometimes such comments stem from a sincere desire to help by giving a soul in obvious anguish a bit of support or a perspective on the issue that may help him resolve the issue. Most frequently, however, such habitual commentators view the blog as an alternative to a television soap opera. These people should think about getting a life for themselves.

I admit that the value I place on intimacy in a relationship may be related to my living in continental Europe. Americans and Brits seem to be much more willing to blurr the line between their public and private lives. The sex lives of American and British political and other public figures are considered fodder for public consumption and the public seems to have no problem in making the parties pay politically for perceived transgressions (Bill Clinton, Lady Diana- Prince Charles).

On the European continent, on the other hand, people tend to respond with shock when someone transgresses the line between the private and the public. This week, for example, the wife of the ex Prime Minister of Italy published a letter in a major newspaper demanding a public apology from her husband for having flirted openly with some starlets; the letter clearly intimated that the ex PM had been somewhat less than an ideal husband. The only group that supported the wife was the feminists; most other Italians, both friends and enemies of the PM even agreed that he is sleaze, but they generally condemned the wife’s letter as outrageous. You don’t wash dirty linen in public.

Of course, none of this applies to blogs discussing other types of personal topics in which intimacy isn’t an issue: passionately held political or social positions, problems at work, decisions concerning decorating, even questions of style and clothing. There is nothing problematical about seeking a broader forum for those issues than what everyday life affords.

But this brings us to what I consider the major peril of blogging: Blogger friends. Why should this be a peril, you may ask? It is inevitable, if you’re a regular blogger, that you develop a feeling of closeness, even affection for some of your regular blogger contacts. Even in a rather theme- oriented blog such as mine, there are commentators whose contact I really treasure; such relationships are assuredly even more intense in the more personalized type of blog. This is one of the pleasant, even beautiful aspects of blogging.

But the danger is that these blogger relationships become as important, even more important to you than your actual friendships and social contacts. Real life is complicated and messy. Friendships, if they matter at all, involve responsibilities and can frequently have real consequences, some good, some bad, some mixed, in your life. Blogging friendships, on the other hand, are easy and if uncomfortable, can be discarded without trouble or consequence. They involve no real responsibility.

Worse: If you’re skillful, you can put together a circle of blogger friends who consistently tell you exactly what you want to hear. They become almost like the imaginary friends some of us had as children. I know people who have retreated almost entirely from actual social life into their world of virtual friends. Even if we don’t allow our retreat into a blogger reality to develop to this extent, there is an inevitable struggle between our blogger, and our “real” life.

This is why I try to remain “on topic” in my blog. It would have been fun, for example, to get some of your opinions concerning the decoration of our newly acquired Paris apartment. But for me, at least, it’s hard enough to keep my blog in its place in my life. Bringing purely personal issues into my blog would, for me, only compound the problem.

And then there’s the problem of anonymity. Briefly put, guys, it’s an illusion. You must take it for granted that eventually family, friends, spouses, lovers, ex- lovers, enemies, enemies’ lawyers, etc. will wander into your blog. Google has made this even more likely. Most of us give enough information in our blogs that identification by people from our real life is quite easy. “Discovery” happens so often that I must assume that people who put self incriminating or embarrassing information in their blogs, under the assumed protection of anonymity, are ultimately dishonest and really want to be discovered.

None of this means that I have the least intention of stopping blogging. As long as I can keep my blog on the level of a discussion of gay issues, I’m confident that it will continue to be, as it has been for these last six months, an (at least for me) satisfying intellectual and personal experience.

2007-01-26T10:59:00.000-08:00

It’s not just the Pope, Evangelicals, or fanatical Muslims…

Readers of this blog will have noted that I frequently attribute much of the problem we as gays have in achieving self- acceptance and social equality stems from monotheistic religion. Although I have made it clear that my objection is to all monotheistic religions, I have come down hardest on Evangelical Christianity, while other commentators have aimed their barbs at the Pope, priests, and the imams. Since, however, as I have mentioned, I was born and raised Jewish, and since I still remain to a very large extent influenced by the Jewish intellectual tradition, I should make it clear that I in no way exclude my own religious background from my J’accuse. I point the finger not only at the centuries old Jewish tradition, but also at threatening and dangerous elements within the contemporary Jewish community.

It probably is the case that the Children of Israel, along with their invention of monotheism, invented homophobia. The ancient world was otherwise relatively free of this curse. One can argue whether homosexual relations enjoyed the same status as heterosexual sex among the Greeks and Romans; nevertheless, prominent figures of the ancient world, Hadrian and Alexander, for example, were recorded uncritically by contemporary chroniclers as having had homosexual relations. David and Jonathan aside, not so with Judaism.

While it may be that some of the authors of the David and Jonathan story did, in fact, imply a homosexual relationship between these Biblical heroes, this aspect of the scriptures has never even been seriously positively discussed by rabbinical commentators, who, in fact, determined the intellectual and spiritual direction of Judaism. The possible Biblical “gay” couple may very well be the vestiges of a pre Biblical Judaic legend, developed before the Children of Israel decided to separate themselves from the rest of the ancient world. The story of David and Jonathan, while providing some vain hope for homosexual religious Jews, is really not of any significance in terms of the formation of Jewish attitudes toward homosexuality.

It can be claimed that Judaism’s Biblical injunctions against homosexuality began as a survival tactic encouraging every possibility for procreation of a small, numerically weak tribe struggling for a foothold among powerful neighbors. It also can be debated that Christianity and Islam, both much more transcendental than Judaism, and therefore having greater problems with sex in general because of its physical, non spiritual nature, would have developed homophobia without Judaism’s prodding. Whatever the case concerning the origins, rationale, and influence of Jewish homophobia, scriptural Judaism must bear the responsibility of having presented this “gift” to western civilization.

It is, of course, true that Judaism, because of its very firm, non transcendental nature, has much less of a doctrinal problem with sex in general than do the other monotheistic religions. It would seem, then, that its problem with homosexuality would be more easily overcome. In addition, the rabbis have historically been very skilled at explaining away Biblical injunctions that they no longer see as convenient, so, the famous injunctions against homosexuality are not really an insurmountable obstacle. I’m sure they could explain them away, if they wanted to. What, then is the problem?

It seems that the same material definition of reality that protected Judaism from the pleasure depriving transcendentalism that plagues Christianity and Islam exacts its toll on Judaism when it comes to homosexuality. The problem for Jews ultimately is that homosexuality is, in the traditional view of things, not socially productive, or in concrete terms, no grandchildren for Mom and Dad.

The rabbis condemn homosexuality in essentially socially utilitarian terms; even the most mystical, theistically oriented Jews, such as the Lubovicher Hassidim, condemn homosexuality almost exclusively on these grounds. It offends God only indirectly, in that it supposedly harms society. But for a Jew raised to define himself essentially in terms of his role and use in society, this is a pretty wrenching condemnation. The young gay Jewish adolescent winds up being tortured by the idea that he is failing his family and his people; for a young Jew this is as painful a sense of guilt as sinning directly against God and getting on the train for Hell is for a Christian.

In a way, gay Christians have it harder at the beginning but perhaps are better off in the long run. Since a desire in itself can be sinful even without attempting to fulfill that desire, they are forced to confront homosexual desire head on. The lucky ones understand how absurd this all is, and turn their backs on the religion that put them through such agony.

For Jews, however, a desire is morally neutral unless acted upon. The potentially gay Jewish adolescent is tortured by his homosexual desires not because they are a sin against God, but because he understands the anathema they will bring down upon him and his family if he acts on them. He understands that if he can just bring himself to marry a woman and have children, everything will be “all right” despite his desires. No rabbi will ever condemn him because he gets hard thinking about a man, even if he confesses it to him; just as long as he’s a good boy and doesn’t act on his longings. So, his religion and his homosexuality in itself never come into open conflict; all he has to do is deny a large portion of himself.

In short, while Christianity offers no quarter for a homosexual since his desires themselves are sinful, Orthodox Judaism offers a solution for a gay Jew, but at an extremely high price. As a result, many gay Evangelicals and Catholics from religious homes finally leave the church and are free. Orthodox and even more liberal traditional Jews, however, tend to pay the price and remain in the religious community. Of course, it would be better if they left, and in that sense, Christians are better off.

The Orthodox Jewish community has now mobilized and formed an organization, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality), which regards homosexuality as a curable illness and claims it can help homosexual Jews change their sexual orientation. Although the organization is clearly homophobic, the expressed motivation for its foundation was not exactly homophobia; it’s that previously, the only organizations offering such a service were Christian, and these organizations had converted several Jews seeking their services to Christianity. (Nothing drives the Jewish community crazier than conversion of Jews to Christianity; they’d rather we suck cock!) In fact, being so concerned with emotional motivation, as I suggested, is not really very Jewish; what matters is what you do. Essentially, the Orthodox community has adopted a Christian attitude and methodology to block conversions to Christianity.

If you have a strong stomach and steady nerves, I suggest a stroll around the JONAH web site. Or maybe prepare yourself with a few stiff drinks. This is no Bible thumping, fire and brimstone on- line ministry. It’s put together by extremely sophisticated people, and its on- line library of readings--- with articles fully reproduced--- contains some well crafted (but nevertheless revolting) pieces by major conservative Jewish intellectuals, such as Norman Podhoretz.

The secular, liberal East Coast Jewish community may essentially be on our side, but they’re obviously not the whole story. If you thought that contemporary Judaism might be a safe haven for gays, think again.

(An extremely thorough, intelligent and detailed discussion on the topic of Judaism and homosexuality by Ian Silver can be found here)

2007-01-23T02:31:00.001-08:00

On childhood wounds

A few days ago I read a post describing the pain and humiliation of a gay man who had overheard someone referring to him with a homophobic epithet. I could empathize fully. I’ve felt that same pain and sense of shame in similar circumstances. What interests me, however, is why we, even those of us, men ostensibly quite comfortable with our sexual orientation, react with such hurt and humiliation. When we were still in the closet we thought that once we were out, that gnawing fear of being called a faggot would go away. It didn’t, and it won’t.

Many of us have come to quite solid terms with our homosexuality. We are out to family, friends, and at work. Many of us are in partnerships, some of these partnerships even recognized by the state, and do not in any way hide or disguise our sexual orientation even to total strangers. If, then, we are so comfortable with our homosexuality, why does it hurt so much when someone calls us a fag or a queer?

I can't accept that this vulnerability belies any residual self- hate concerning our homosexuality. Just because you cringe when someone calls you a faggot does not at all necessarily mean that you are in any realized manner uncomfortable with your gay identity.

The fellow writing the post likened his reaction to the pain he suffered when he was taunted with being a faggot or sissy as a child, and he wonders why he feels the same way as a man. I would suggest that the pain we now feel in such circumstances is not just similar to the pain we felt as children; it is, in fact a reawakening of that same pain. The wounds our childhood tormentors left on our defenseless and vulnerable hearts are evidently still there, incurable and permanent.

I would offer as substantiation that other types of insults, unrelated to childhood torments, can produce anger or even shame, but they do not produce the same searing humiliation. You can insult my looks, my intelligence, my ambition, my nationality, my politics, etc, and you will make me uncomfortable, even provoke me, but you will not make me want to go and hide, as you do when you call me a faggot. The only other type of offense that makes me burn with humiliation is anti-Semitism, another theme of childhood nightmares.

I guess that the horrible fact is that there is no way, no matter what we do later in life, that we can heal those deeply planted wounds from childhood. No matter how secure we feel as gay men, we carry those wounds within us; they are ready to open up and bleed at the least provocation.

Each of us copes with these wounds in his own way. I honed my intelligence and wit dagger sharp and at an early age learned how to strike back very effectively against homophobic taunts. The price of this defense, of course, was that I grew up regarding my intellectual faculties as a weapon instead of a source of pleasure and understanding. It took me years of emotional reorientation to begin to set this right. Other guys become painfully shy, avoiding contact wherever possible. Yet others are “in your face,” flaunting their “queerness” before anyone can attack them for it. I wonder how much of our lives are formed around protecting ourselves from the pain that prodding these wounds causes.

Recently, I ran a post discussing the limited usefulness of the generally shared gay practice of making lists of illustrious gays. Obviously, such lists are an attempt to cope with these wounds. I, frankly, don’t think they do much good in this regard. They remind me of my father’s attempts at consoling me after anti-Semitic incidents by reminding me that Freud, Einstein, and Marx (We were proudly pink-o) were Jews. It didn’t do a damn bit of good. There isn’t any effective balm; we can only try to protect future generations.

There should be some way to protect potentially gay children from this spiritual mutilation. What such childhood taunts do to people who develop gay and the stubborn permanence of the wounds they leave should be part of all teacher education programs, and gay organizations should be insistent on this point.

That the immediate perpetrators of this damage are other children is, in fact, irrelevant. Children are no longer permitted to taunt other children because of their race or religion. Any school that would allow this would soon find itself with legal problems. There is no reason why such a standard of behavior should not be applied to sexually related taunts.

In addition, it was not always the other children who inflicted these wounds. Frequently, it was the teachers themselves who encouraged these taunts, either directly, through derogatory comments they themselves made, or indirectly by showing indifference to the sadism and bullying of some of the children in their charge. The possibilities of taking legal, or at least professional disciplinary action against such teachers should be investigated.

In recent years we have developed, especially in the US but now increasingly in Europe, a heightened consciousness of psychological dangers to children. You can’t pat the head of a neighbor’s child without arousing fears of pedophilia. Nevertheless, we as a society still permit and even condone merciless, sadistic taunting of potentially gay children. The agents themselves may be children, but it is most frequently adults who form the context that not only allows but also encourages this behavior.

2007-01-14T05:49:00.000-08:00

On Gay Role Models

The other day I posted a piece discussing the limitations of making lists of illustrious gays in order to combat homophobia, both from without and from within ourselves. To clarify, such lists have little, if anything to do with searching for or providing gay role models.

Identifying people whose lives and work provide us with intellectual and spiritual guidance and inspiration is essential for our growth, both as individuals and as a community. This is especially the case for us gay men and women since we have so long been victims of oppression and prejudice that there are few of us who can honestly deny having had sexual orientation related self- esteem problems, at least at some point in their lives.

But this is quite different from simply composing a list of famous people who happened to be homosexual. As a homosexual man, I find little strength or consolation in the figure of a homosexual artist or political figure who occasionally, or even frequently, snuck off to have a secret tryst with another man. Federico García Lorca is among the greatest poets of the XX century and even a courageous political figure who was murdered by the fascists, but his tortured and clandestine homosexuality hardly provides us with a useful role model.

Even men such as Leonardo da Vinci, whose homosexuality was well known but essentially unrelated to his accomplishments, don’t, as I see it, provide us with very useful homosexual role models. Leonardo is a source of constant admiration, almost veneration, for me as a civilized man (I like to think of myself as such), but in his case, the homosexual context is pretty much irrelevant.

Political figures such as Barney Frank, or the openly gay mayors of Paris and Berlin, or even political figures from the ancient world, such as the Roman emperor Hadrian, on the other hand, are much a different matter, as are artists such as Cavafy, E.M.Foster, Alan Ginsberg, Gide, Caravaggio, Lucien Freud, Fassbinder and Almodóvar. These are all men who integrated their homosexual identities with their political or artistic accomplishments. The politicians fully represent all their constituencies, unabashedly including themselves and us as gays (or, as Hadrian, set up monuments throughout the empire honoring his lover); the artists have created a universal art in which the acceptance of homosexuality is an implied imperative.

It’s not necessary, however, to limit our consideration of homosexual role models to those who have taken a public stance or created works with overtly gay themes. I also accept as homosexual role models men such as John Maynard Keynes and Walt Whitman who were privately open about their homosexuality, quite at peace with it, allowed it to inform a good deal of their work, but because of their times and social situation, could not be more direct and public concerning their sexual orientation.

I refrain from elaborating much further on the categories from which our role models should be selected. I have no intention of trying to establish a canon for qualifying as a gay culture hero. Those criteria should, in fact, be open ended and forever subject to discussion. Such discussion itself would be a sign of health and vitality within the gay community. My point is simply that in order to provide a useful role model, a figure should be something more than just illustrious and gay.

2007-01-13T08:12:00.000-08:00

On gay accomplishments, homophobia, human rights, and self esteem

Many gay men and women, in defending themselves against homophobic attacks, or in justifying their sexual orientation to themselves, go through a list of illustrious artists, scientists, and public figures who were homosexual. Composing such a list is quite understandable; it feels good to be such company, especially when being attacked, either by others or by oneself. But I wonder how useful such a list is as a defense tactic.

Citing great gays of today and yesteryear as a justification for our sexual orientation frames the argument in the wrong context. That many great men and women were and are gay is ultimately irrelevant. We would have a right to love whom we please and to live our lives in freedom and dignity even if there were no great gay painters, poets, or political figures. It is the nature of human rights that a group does not have to earn them. We have them simply because we are human.

I would go even further and say that composing such a list, even just to help us deal ourselves with our own homosexuality is, in fact, symptomatic of our oppression. People who feel empowered don’t need to go around composing lists of the accomplishments of their social group. The Catholic Church, the Evangelicals, Muslims, and Ultra- orthodox Jews, for example, when attacked, either from without or within, don’t waste their time composing lists of famous men who belonged to their group. They use their political, social, economic, and even military might to counter the threat.

The gay defense reaction reminds me, frankly, of the reaction of Jews of past generations who were not only physically and practically, but also psychologically damaged by anti-Semitism. Jews who grew up in the 1950s and 60s, when overt anti-Semitism was much more prevalent and socially acceptable than it is now, I’m sure can remember being told pointedly by their parents which great men of the past and present were Jewish. As a gay Jew, I had two lists: Freud, Marx, Einstein..., and Leonardo, Caravaggio, Michelangelo, Keynes, Proust…. The lists never helped very much, either to defend myself against prejudice or to lead me accept my own identity, most likely because I was vaguely aware that my gentile, heterosexual friends didn’t have to make such lists.

Perhaps, you may say, I’m being too austere. If it gives them some consolation, why not let gays struggling to accept their sexual orientation look to lists of gay accomplishments, if it lets them feel a bit better? I would counter that a symptom of oppression can’t help you free yourself from it. It is a useless distraction from the real issue: We have human rights because we’re human, not because Leonardo da Vinci liked boys.

Another problem with these lists of gay culture heroes is that they help create and perpetrate the myth of gay superiority. It may be that gays as a group have contributed disproportionately much to the advance of civilization, but I simply can’t accept that there is a direct relationship between sucking cock and painting the Sistine Chapel. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate such a connection. What may, in fact, be the case is that it has something to do with the general human need for some form of immortality. Since most gay men don’t have children, which are a form of continuation of oneself past the grave, they are propelled to extend themselves in other ways--- accomplishments in the arts, sciences, public life, etc. But it is a mistake to think that your sexual orientation in itself gives you a claim to a higher level of talent and accomplishment. Believing in gay superiority is only the flip side of believing in gay inferiority.

So much for the limitations of such lists in helping us deal with ourselves. I am even more convinced of their uselessness, and even counter- productivity, in helping us deal with homophobia.

No one, guys, has ever accused gays as a group of being stupid or untalented. We are disgusting, dangerous, devious, degenerate, even disturbed, but not dumb. Therefore, throwing lists of gay accomplishments in the homophobes’ faces convinces them of nothing; I would venture that it even makes the situation worse by reminding them of our talents and how much civilization owes us. Again, the analogy with Jews comes to mind. The Nazis were perfectly aware of the contribution of Jews to German and Austrian culture. They were perfectly willing to forego enjoyment or utilization of Jewish contributions to culture and science. Awareness of how much was owed to Jews culturally made their anti-Semitism even more hysterical.

So, if you must, go ahead and take your homophobic Evangelical neighbors to the next Caravaggio exhibition at your local museum, but if it doesn’t work, don’t say I didn’t tell you so.

2007-01-11T08:10:00.001-08:00

What persecution has done to gay people in much of the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa

Many of us in Europe and North America have read reports of the oppression, including executions and long term imprisonment, of gay people in many non- Western countries, but it may be difficult for some of us comprehend the dimensions of the damage that this oppression has created not only to the bodies but also in the hearts and souls of its victims. It has not only created an atmosphere in which gay men and women are filled with self loathing and afraid to realize themselves by acting on their sexual orientation; it has resulted in a situation in which gays are so paralyzed by fear and lack of self esteem that they do no even run for their lives or seek relief from their oppression.

Officially, at least, there is a way out for many gays suffering persecution or fear of such in Africa and Asia: an asylum claim in the West. There are, however, very few gay men and women from countries such as Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or many African countries, where homosexuality is punishable by death or long prison terms, who have sought asylum in Europe or North America.

Most European and even North American governments would be practically obliged by their asylum laws and policies to grant them refugee status under the 1951 Geneva Convention as members of a persecuted social group. Even if those applying have not been directly persecuted, they would qualify because they could be judged as having a reasonable fear of persecution. With few exceptions, the few cases that have been presented in the West with such a claim, especially from countries where homosexuality between consenting adults is illegal and severely punished, have been positively adjudicated.

Since April 1993 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has recognized in several Advisory Opinions that gays and lesbians qualify as members of a "particular social group" for the purposes of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. In its publication "Protecting Refugees," the UNHCR states: "Homosexuals may be eligible for refugee status on the basis of persecution because of their membership of a particular social group. It is the policy of the UNHCR that persons facing attack, inhuman treatment, or serious discrimination because of their homosexuality, and whose governments are unable or unwilling to protect them, should be recognized as refugees." (UNHCR/PI/Q&A-UK1.PM5/Feb. 1996)

There are, of course, large numbers of people from these countries trying to enter Western countries for economic reasons and who file spurious refugee claims. Many gay people from such countries, on the other hand, should not have much trouble receiving legal, refugee status if they would, in fact, apply on the grounds of persecution or fear of such because of their sexual orientation. Nevertheless, in my over 25 years of experience working in refugee assistance programs in North America, Europe, and Africa, and after having heard the claims of persecution from literally thousands of asylum applicants over the course of the years, I have never received a claim of persecution from someone because of sexual orientation.

Of course, leaving one’s native country and culture is not easy. There is, of course, also the risk that a gay person may have the bad luck of having a homophobic asylum adjudicator or judge handle his asylum request when he arrives in the West. But here he would have the support not only of an organized gay community, but also of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Even in the off chance that his initial request would be rejected, the chances of his winning on appeal or at least being given permission to stay in the West are very good.

That so few gay people have chosen to use this option is good indication of the devastating psychological effect of growing up gay in such an environment. One could posit that they are so ashamed of their sexuality, still so afraid to admit it, even to themselves, that they cannot utilize this path of escape.

2007-01-07T08:39:00.001-08:00

Are you part of nature’s population control mechanism?

From time to time posts appear on gay blogs countering the idea that homosexuality is “unnatural.” These posts sometimes justify homosexuality on anthropological grounds as nature’s population control mechanism.

I certainly sympathize with the desire to explain homosexuality as a natural condition (Any gay man who has been in love with another man, and has been loved in return, has no doubt as to the naturalness and “rightness” of his condition. But this is, of course, an emotional, and not a rational explanation.) I do, however, have doubts as to the function of human homosexuality as simply a population control mechanism.

The problem lies in the mistaken linking of human sexuality too closely, or too narrowly to reproduction. Let’s look, for a moment at the possible functions of sexuality in general.

Why, for example, are people still sexually active not only past the age of female fertility but also past the age in which their offspring would need the protection of parents? Obviously, this sexual attraction that exists frequently overtly, but always subliminally, in geriatrics serves simply to keep people together. Once the children are no longer dependent on their parents, the bonding of post- menopausal parents that is helped, or even caused by sexuality, can only be an end in itself.

Moreover, this social function of sexuality seems to be a uniquely human phenomenon. Although homosexuality exists in other animals, sexual attraction with other animals seems to be more clearly linked to reproduction. In other mammals, the female is attractive to the male and accepts him only during the fertile days of her cycle. Humans have long broken free of the fertility link to sexuality.

Because of the narrow linkage between sexuality and reproduction in other animals, one could possibly accept the population control explanation of homosexuality for them. But in the case of humans, where sexual attraction is so clearly free of having a simply reproductive function, this explanation simply won’t wash. An anthropological function of homosexuality in humans, therefore, doesn’t seem to make much sense.

Moreover, when Mother Nature wants to remove a certain percentage of a species from the gene pool, she is generally quite brutal about it, not caring about the sexual fulfillment of those removed. She simply renders them sterile, impotent, frigid, or sexually repulsive to the opposite sex. Why bother making them homosexual?

In addition, homosexuals don’t seem to be carrying genes that would act to the detriment of the species. When they have children, their children are of the same genetic quality as those produced by their straight counterparts. In general, according to Darwinian evolutionary theory, when Mother Nature wants to remove a group from the reproductive pool, there is a genetic logic behind her decision. The link between homosexuality and (non) reproduction, however, is really quite unclear.

It is a generally accepted thesis that we all are, to one degree or another, attracted to both sexes. The question as to whether one defines himself as, and acts as, a homo- or a heterosexual depends upon the degree to which that type of attraction is active within him. He has, however, no choice in the matter; he naturally is bound to his dominant sexual orientation.

The thesis continues to posit that since sexuality is an essential part of all human relationships, it is still a factor even in our relationships to the sex to which we are not primarily attracted. It posits that without a certain amount of sexual attraction, affection or even friendly relationships to people to which we are not overtly sexually attracted would be impossible.

This thesis seems to be borne out by vague feelings of sexual attraction that most gay men can admit to having had at least once in their lives towards a woman. Most lesbians have had some attraction to a man, and many have actually had heterosexual contact. It is necessary also for male bonding among straight men, and its suppressed version is generally credited with causing homosexual panic and even homophobia in essentially straight men. Also, when straight men are deprived of a heterosexual outlet, many have no problem in opting for a homosexual alternative (prisons, puritanical societies that allow no contact between sexes before marriage).

It is clear, then, that our sexuality serves a function quite above and beyond simple physical reproduction. Dr. Freud perhaps overestimated the role of sexuality in informing a large part of our lives not directly related to the sex act itself, but in humans it obviously plays a role much greater than that of the physical continuation of the human race. It perhaps would not be an exaggeration to claim that it is the mortar that holds the building blocks of society together.

I would, moreover, suggest that the need for a procreative (or even population control) explanation of sexuality is a manifestation of general discomfort with sexuality in general. Why must we justify it any further than accepting it as a natural mechanism allowing us, even commanding us, driving us, if you will, to love each other?

But what about the question of why some people are gay and some straight? Ah, sweet mystery of life!

2006-12-27T17:31:00.000-08:00

On coming out to your parents

It is only natural that during this holiday season there have been several discussions on gay blogs concerning coming out to one’s parents. At this time of year when family concerns are at there most intense, those gay men who are still “living a lie” to their parents come under increased pressure. Most of the discussions on this topic have given unreserved support in the direction of coming out to those who are struggling with this issue. I would like to add my voice to those giving support, but with certain reservations.

Before going into this issue, it may be worthwhile to consider that the relationship with his parents is probably somewhat more important to a gay man than it is to most of our straight counterparts. A man’s relationship to his parents changes substantially when he has children of his own; he sees himself principally no longer as his parents’ child, but rather as his own child’s father. Of course, having children of his own doesn’t cancel out a man’s relationship to his parents, but the emphasis changes. His parents are no longer his primary blood relationship. While a substantial number of us are also gay fathers, the large majority of gay men are childless. Their primary blood bond remains with their parents.

This parent- child bond is substantially different than that which one can have with a partner or spouse. No matter how passionately in love one is with one’s partner, and no matter how long or stable the relationship is, it is still a relationship of choice and ultimately revocable. Moreover, the partner --- and, in fact, here may lie the sexual fascination--- always remains “the other.” A man’s parents and children are biologically and phychologically, at least partially, extensions of himself. He can leave them, disown or be disowned by them, but they are still his “flesh and blood.” Of course, the change in life orientation a man undergoes when he leaves his parents and joins with a partner is immensely significant, but the separation is not as complete as when he has children of his own. If he doesn’t have them, as is the case with most gay men, he essentially remains his parents’ child, no matter what happens.

But despite the importance of this parent- child bond for most gay men, it is still destined to attenuate as both the gay adult and the parents grow older. In some of the coming out discussions I mentioned earlier, a young gay adult feels a need to reveal the truth about his sexual orientation to his parents because he wants to maintain a high level of intimacy with them, or, as one young man put it, he wants them to continue to be part of every aspect of his life. I would urge him, however, to look at the relationship that most of his straight friends have with their parents, even before they have children. There is a natural, and healthy generation gap between parents and children, which necessarily widens as the parties grow older, even without the problem of the son’s sexual orientation. We can pretty safely say to this young man that even if his parents do totally accept his homosexuality, the intimacy he craves with them is a fragile and fleeting thing; in about ten years there will probably be lots of things, besides his sexual orientation, that he won’t want to tell Dad and Mom, and they, for that matter, won’t want to tell him.

Because of the ultimately unseverable bond between the gay man and his parents, coming out to them is essentially different from coming out to bosses, colleagues, or friends. It’s even different from coming out to siblings. All of these people are free to accept or reject you on a personal level; they can, if they wish, emotionally walk away from the situation. Our parents, on the other hand, simply can’t. They can reject you, throw you out of the house, disinherit you, and refuse to take your phone calls; but chances are that if a gay man’s parents aren’t ready to accept his homosexuality, regardless of how they react, being forced to confront it will cause them as much emotional turmoil as it causes him. The practical effects for them may be less troublesome (They, in the worst cases, will still have a roof over their heads), but the pain will be about the same.

So, it’s ultimately undemocratic and coercive to come out to your parents without good indication that they’re ready for it. It leaves them with no real choice. Although they can accept it or reject it, they still have to deal with it, frequently at a high emotional cost. Justifying unheeded coming out by claiming to love them so much you can’t stand to live a lie, simply won’t wash. You don’t emotionally corner people you love.

Many gay men follow a course of living a normal gay life, even introducing their partners to their parents, but stopping short of forcing a confrontation on the issue. This is, frankly, the path I took. I did nothing to hide my homosexuality from my mother, including bringing my partner home to my family several times a year. I never presented him as simply a friend; but I didn’t press the nature of our relationship, either. After a few decades, my mother stopped asking me which women I was seeing and when I planned to settle down with one of them. But she still was in denial until circumstances moved her to come to terms with what should have been obvious for years. When she did finally admit to herself that her son was gay, she was also pretty much ready to accept it.

I must admit that there were times I would have loved to tell my parents directly that I am gay, and, I my case, there would have been no practical repercussions. By the time I came to terms myself with my homosexuality, I was well into my 20s, no longer living at home and financially independent. Also, both my parents loved me beyond all reason, and there was no way they could have cut themselves off from me.

I didn’t come out to them simply because I had too much respect for their feelings; it would have brought them a great deal of emotional turmoil, and it was not at all clear what it would have brought me. By the time I accepted my own homosexuality, I already had a life quite separate from that of my parents. Although we had a strong emotional bond, our way of looking at the world was already quite different. Coming out to them might have made me feel better for a while, but I don’t see how it would have brought me and my parents closer.

So, guys, I can understand the pressure that many of you are under as you celebrate the holidays with your families. And I can understand your desire to stop living a lie, to tell your parents, and to get the whole business over with. I also applaud your desire to be honest and open with the people you love. Some parents are, of course, ready to receive the news. Others, however, need to be cut a bit of slack, and telling them directly may not be the best way to handle the matter.

2006-12-24T04:16:00.000-08:00

And now for something totally different: A holiday card from Venice

A reader has asked me to post some pictures of Venice on my blog. I’m sorry to disappoint, but I can’t; or more truthfully, I won’t. I consider myself a fairly accomplished and even passionate amateur photographer; I always carry a camera when I travel. I have, however, never been tempted to photograph this spectacularly beautiful city where I have the privilege of living.

The problem is that the beauty of Venice is rendered trivial and banal when reduced to a photograph. There are many attractive buildings in Venice, but with the exception of the Sansovino library, the Ca’ d’Oro, and perhaps the Miracoli and Redentore churches and a few others, truly fine architectural examples are rare. The beauty of Venice depends upon the wonderful, ever changing light of the city, sometimes cold, steely grey- blue, sometimes violet- pink, sometimes golden, produced by the sun, the water, and the mist. Painters (Canaletto, Guardi, Turner) have done a much better job than photographers of capturing the beauty of the city. But even those painters couldn’t capture the wonder of the city as one moves through it on a small boat or gondola through the back canals, seeing each building and vista in the context of the last. It’s a beauty that has to be appreciated in motion, not from a static perspective. You just have to come here to understand.

Nevertheless, I feel some obligation to share something of Venice with people who may be interested. I frequently am asked by visitors to the city what it is like living here; perhaps trying to answer that question, including discussing what it’s like being an openly gay person in this city, will be more useful than any photograph I could post.

Many people who live in very beautiful cities may become so accustomed to the beauty of their surroundings that they are no longer aware of it. I also spend a good deal of time in Paris, and I do, at times, lose sight of how beautiful Paris is. Such dampening of the aesthetic sensibilities never happens in the case of Venice; not with me, and not even with the simplest, least sophisticated native- born Venetian. I attribute this constant wonderment caused by Venice to the kaleidoscopic nature of her beauty; every day, at every hour, with the changes in sunlight, tides, and atmosphere, she presents you with a new face, and all of them are beautiful.

What many visitors really mean when they ask what it is like to live in Venice is how we who live here cope with the millions of tourists that traipse through our city every year. The answer is: barely. Ever since its political decline in the XVI century, Venice has been a city that has lived, at least partially, off of tourism, so tourism has long been a fact of Venetian life. Even the famous Venetian Carnival is not really a real Venetian festival; it was initiated in the XVIII century to attract tourists to the city. The situation has changed substantially, however, in the last thirty years or so, with the advent of mass tourism. No only has the number of tourists visiting Venice increased exponentially; the type of tourist has changed.

When I was given a trip to Europe as a college graduation present by my parents, I was instructed by them that I was to conduct myself abroad as I would as a guest in someone’s home. Tourists now coming to Venice show very little consideration for the people who live here; Venetians who used to be unbelievably kind and accommodating to tourists have begun to lose patience.

Thankfully, however, 90% of the tourists limit themselves to the water busses and to about 10% of the city, so the resident comes into contact with them only on public transportation or if he has to go into certain sections of the city (where no resident in his right mind would live). Also thankfully, the 10% of the city that the tourists do frequent is not even necessarily the most beautiful or most interesting part of the city. So, if you walk instead of taking the frequently tourist impacted public transport, despite the huge numbers of tourists that visit this city, you can be blissfully unaware of them.

But even if you don’t come into contact with tourists very often, mass tourism has had a negative effect on the quality of life of everyone here. It has driven real estate prices through the roof, making it almost impossible for middle class young Venetians to afford apartments and forcing them to move to the mainland. Aside from people (such as me and my partner) associated with one of the three universities here in Venice, which essentially comprise the second largest industry in the city, the middle class has fled, driven away largely by exaggeratedly high housing costs. It city, in fact, has actually begun a program to discourage tourism, since it threatens the demographic infrastructure of the city and has negatively affected the quality of life.

My partner and I have a strong circle of friends, composed in equal parts of native Venetians, Italians from other regions that have moved here, and foreigners. We have this social situation, however, essentially because we are involved with the university and with the city administration, the last bastions of the middle class left in Venice. Professional people, especially expatriates, not involved with these sectors have a much more difficult time connecting socially here. The non- university expats are basically isolated in the expat community, which has very little to do with the life of the city.

Despite the middle class flight from the city and the hoards of tourists, Venice has miraculously remained a real place and has avoided becoming a Disneyland image of itself. Venetian culture is still quite alive in the city. Most non- Italian visitors don’t understand that the language they hear spoken in Venice is very frequently not Italian, but rather Venetian dialect, a language with its own history and an illustrious literary tradition. Venice is the only city in northern Italy in which the local dialect is spoken as frequently as standard Italian. If you understand Venetian, it is not difficult to find an excellent performance of a play by Venice’s world class XVIII century playwright, Carlo Goldoni. A foreigner or a non- Venetian Italian is not expected to speak Venetian, but he is expected to understand it. Venetians will begin speaking to a non- Venetian in Italian, but will very quickly slip into Venetian. It is both more comfortable for them and an expression of acceptance and intimacy.

Another area in which Venetian culture is alive and well is the kitchen. Venetian cuisine cannot compete in variety and complexity with the three or four major centers of Italian cuisine, Emiglia- Romagna, Piemonte, Sicily, and, perhaps Naples (You haven’t eaten pizza until you’ve eaten it at the Pizzeria Trianon in Naples, but that’s another story). But the Venetian lagoon, its islands, and the neighboring mainland produce the best fish and vegetables in Italy; so, Venetian cuisine is quite minimalist, depending on simple preparations of excellent ingredients. A typical Venetian meal would have as an antipasto fried fresh sardines marinated in olive oil, vinegar, onions and raisins --- remember, Venice has strong Byzantine, middle eastern roots---, followed by a risotto made either with fish or, better, with the tiny white artichokes from the lagoon island of San Erasmo, followed by a fresh caught (not farmed!) grilled sea bass from the lagoon. Desert is generally fresh fruit from the neighboring mainland.

What? No pasta? Except for a whole- wheat pasta generally served with an anchovy- onion sauce, Venice is corn meal (polenta) and risotto country. (So much for the myth of Marco Polo’s having brought pasta to Italy from China; if that were the case, wouldn’t pasta be part of the cuisine of his native city?). We eat lots of pasta in Venice, but we consider it slightly “foreign.”

People who live in Venice tend to avoid restaurants and tend to eat and entertain at home much more often than people in other cities. There are some very good restaurants in Venice that have resisted the corrupting influence of floods of tourists who don’t understand Venetian food, and won’t be back anyway. In order to cultivate a local clientele, most Venetian restaurants have special prices for residents. But residents tend to avoid restaurants since some staples of Venetian cuisine, such as risotto, can’t be made properly in a restaurant (It requires 30 minutes of constant attention and stirring, can’t be made for more than six people at a time, and must be served immediately.) Fresh caught fish generally costs at least double the farmed variety; so, serving it in a moderately priced restaurant would be difficult (Most fish served to tourists is farmed.).

Because Venetian residents entertain so much at home --- having people in, or eating at friends’ homes two or three times a week is not a rarity--- the level of intimacy in friendly relations is quite high. Also, since space is at a premium in an island city that can’t expand either outward or up, people live very close to each other. Unless you are very rich and have a palazzo of your own, you smell your neighbor’s sardines frying up for lunch, and you hear his arguments with his spouse. In short, privacy is almost non- existent. Living in Venice is like living in a very beautiful fish bowl. (The positive side of this is that Venice is perhaps the safest city in Europe.)

This living on top of one another has, of course, a strong impact on gay life in the city. There are no gay bars or specifically gay clubs--- they are all are on the mainland. Venetians tend, because of their imperial history and also the influence of tourism, to be very tolerant of non- conformity and cultural differences--- much more so than in many other cities in highly conformist Italy. But unless you’re out to your friends, colleagues, and family, you couldn’t frequent a gay bar in a city in which secrets are almost impossible. So, Venetian gay guys use the bars and baths in Bologna or Padua; even the few gay places in the mainland section of Venice, Mestre, are too close to home for them. The gay venues in Mestre are generally patronized by tourists and Italians from other cities, as are the few open air cruising places in Venice.

Ironically, there is a gay nude beach with an adjacent pine grove for immediate consumption. It is used by Venetians, resident outsiders, and well informed tourists. I suppose it works because people are less inclined to gossip when they themselves have obviously been bare- assed in the dunes. Gossip, then, involves a certain amount of self- indictment.

Perhaps because of the legacy of Henry James, Venice has the image to those who don’t know her as an elegant, mysterious, and snobbish place. But because of its imperial and mercantile history it is also the most culturally tolerant and cosmopolitan of cities. It confined its Jews to the ghetto, but it didn’t expel them, as many medieval and renaissance Italian and European cities did. And now, despite Venice’s location in Italy’s politically conservative and even xenophobic northeast, the city has a traditionally leftist government and a model program for assistance to people seeking political asylum. Quite a different thing from sipping tea in the garden of a crumbling palazzo on the Grand Canal--- we have that, too, but it’s clearly no the whole picture.

I hope this brief verbal sketch of life in Venice has done justice to La Serenissima.

Best wishes to you all for the happiest of holidays!

2006-12-23T08:38:00.000-08:00

On Evangelical Compassion II- The gay Evangelical rank and file

On Dec. 12 the New York Times, prompted by the same events that prompted me to write my first post “On Evangelical Compassion,” ran a very informative article on rank and file gay Evangelicals, their difficulties with their belief system and with other Evangelicals, and their attempts at coping with their situation. Most of those gay Evangelicals who assert their homosexuality justify their position ideologically by reinterpreting the passages in the Bible that have been traditionally understood as injunctions against homosexuality. Gay Evangelicals have also established several web sites and on line magazines that promote these unorthodox interpretations and provide emotional support to fellow gay Evangelicals struggling either with their own feelings of religious transgression or with the ostracism of their more orthodox coreligionists.

While a few of these web sites seem designed, Elmer Gantry style, essentially to milk some poor gay Evangelical of a few dollars, the majority of them are run and staffed by what seem to be sincere gay men and women who have suffered a great deal, both spiritually and socially, because of the contradictions between their homosexuality and Evangelical teaching. Regardless of what one thinks or feels about their professed beliefs, one has to accept that the intent and function of these web sites is to alleviate suffering; if their claims are true, and I have little doubt that they are, they have actually prevented suicide. So, despite my own lack of sympathy with their religious position in general, I must applaud their efforts. When it comes to saving a life, or alleviating suffering, one’s passion for the truth sometimes has to be put on hold.

Unfortunately, however, these gay Evangelical web sites and the groups generated around them, despite the comfort they offer their gay coreligionists, cannot be viewed as elements of progress for the rest of us. They are almost entirely reactive, and, as the Times article points out, they do very little to try to change the aggressively homophobic stance of the Evangelical Churches and rein in their attempts to influence legislation and public policy. They seem radically parochial, little preoccupied with the concerns of the gay community in general, and interested primarily in creating a safe area within existing Evangelical belief and practice where gay Evangelicals can survive.

Their failure to assume a more active position against homophobic Evangelical policy and political activity is probably derived, at least in part, from the weakness of their arguments justifying homosexuality within an Evangelical context. Their unorthodox interpretations of scripture have been almost universally rejected not only by traditional Evangelicals but also by secular Biblical scholars.

Moreover, they are so fixated on the question of the Biblical injunction against homosexuality that they have not dealt at all with the ultimately more difficult issue of the general Christian discomfort with non- procreative sex. Even if we chose to disregard or reinterpret what is written in the Bible about homosexuality, homosexuality still involves non- procreative sex and thereby is a “sin of the flesh.” In short, intellectually, they are in no position to do battle with traditional Evangelical Churches on their own ground. It is, therefore, sadly understandable that gay Evangelical leaders have to take a duck and cover position.

Given this situation, it could well be argued that the best advice a friend could give a gay Evangelical would be to kick the Church in the balls, get the hell out of there, and start living a normal life. But I suspect that for a large number of Evangelicals, getting out simply isn’t an option.

It isn’t merely a matter of religious fervor. The world is full of lapsed Catholics who were brought up going to mass every Sunday; my mother, who came from a very religious but non- Hassidic Jewish home, would feel at most a vague twinge of discomfort as she served a pork roast to her family for dinner on Yom Kippur. But Evangelical Christianity, like monastic Catholicism, Hassidic Judaism and certain types of radical Islam, are mystical, charismatic forms of religion that rule out the possibility of a secular existence. They are not simply religions, but rather the keystones of an entire cultural complex. The individual cannot leave since his whole identity is wrapped up in the Church. Generally, if one does manage to leave, despite the pain the Church may have caused him, he still feels a longing for what he left behind.

It is, therefore, understandable that gay Evangelicals do whatever they humanly can to stay within the fold. It is, moreover, also understandable that they have no real interest in the rest of us, unless, of course, they can convert us. After having come down so hard on Evangelicals in my last post, I wrote to some gay Evangelical web sites inviting them to a dialogue. I sent out the following e mail:

Dear xxx

I have read a few pieces from your magazine and enjoyed them. You and your colleagues are sensitive, intelligent, and good writers.

I would invite you and your colleagues, if you have the time, to look at my blog . I am a rationalist and highly critical of religion, especially of monotheistic religions, and very especially of Evangelical Christianity. I suppose that Evangelical Christianity receives the brunt of my criticism not because it is worse than the other organized monotheistic religions, but rather because it has become so influential in forming the attitudes of the current American administration.

There are several posts there that may interest you, and I would welcome your comments. I am interested not only in comments of gay men who agree with me or who come from my own cultural milieu, but also of those who come from a very different standpoint.

I promise I will not try to dissuade you from your religious beliefs, and I trust that you will also respect my rationalist position and not try to convert me. I hope we can have an interesting and fruitful dialogue.

With very best wishes,

Bruce

I have, as yet, not received any response. I’m not betting that I will.

2006-12-13T05:34:00.000-08:00

On Evangelical Compassion

According to an article in today’s New York Times, the recent coming out and subsequent resignation of yet another prominent Evangelical minister has prompted several Church leaders to urge a modification of the Church’s aggressively hostile attitude toward homosexuals; while still maintaining that homosexuality is sinful, they urged compassion towards homosexuals, especially those within the Evangelical Church. As explained in statements issued by these Church leaders, it was having respected colleagues who had struggled with their sexual orientation that had brought about their change in attitude.

I suppose we should be grateful for small favors and accept the Evangelicals’ change in attitude as some sort of progress. Nevertheless, as a man who ascribes a great deal of importance to rational processes, I still find their expressed justification for their change in attitude shocking: Formerly, they supported aggressively hostile behavior towards homosexuals; now they urge compassion, but the reason for that compassion is that some important members of their own social group have been affected. It was not reason that brought about the change, no change in the determination of what is right and what is wrong, but rather an emotional reaction based upon personal contact or association.

Why is this important, and why am I so negative? According the Evangelicals’ expressed decision- making process, it was acceptable to be hostile as long as no one who they knew and was important to them was affected. By extension, since we know no one in Darfur, have never been driven from our homes, and have never been on the verge of starving to death, the Evangelical Church would have to conclude that withholding compassion for the Darfur refugees is acceptable.

This is, of course, nonsense, as is the way in which the Evangelicals arrived at a compassionate attitude towards gays. It also gives us an idea of how difficult to effect a real change in attitude will be in a group who rejects reason as a vehicle in the decision making process. I almost prefer the old hostility rather than a compassion based upon reference to some self loathing gay minister.

2006-12-03T16:13:00.000-08:00

What’s a nice gay guy like you doing at IKEA? Or,
A Few Gay Targeted Ads Don’t Make a Gay Friendly Environment

As some of you may have noticed, I’ve been rather absent from blogland in the past few weeks. I haven’t even answered some of the very interesting comments made on my last post (sorry, guys). My silence, however, should not be understood as indicating a waning interest in discussing issues. It’s just that my partner and I have been in the midst of restoring a (small) apartment we bought in Paris last summer. It has been a rather consuming experience. But the worst component of these tribulations--- even worse than having to fire, through a lawyer, the first contractor we had hired--- has been putting in the kitchen from IKEA, a company with which I had no previous experience. The IKEA experience was not only insanely time consuming and stressful; it also involved coming into contact with a social philosophy I found repugnant and even dangerous.

IKEA has occasionally run ads seeming to target a gay clientele. Why shouldn’t they? We have tremendous buying power and it would simply be bad business not to encourage our patronage. We should not, however, be deceived by organizations and businesses that seek our support and patronage and at the same time espouse a social philosophy that is implicitly contradictory to the openness, flexibility, and respect for individualism that we as gays need to thrive. IKEA is certainly not overtly homophobic, but it is also hardly a comfortable place for a gay man.

The founder and guiding light of IKEA was the son of Nazi sympathizing Swedish farmers; he himself had a considerable flirtation with Swedish Nazism even after the War. Much later, in the 1990s, when his brown tinted past was discovered, he recanted and called his former association with Nazism a mistake. Even, however, if the founder’s separation from Nazism is completely sincere, and although the more brutal and overtly militaristic aspects of Nazism are certainly absent from IKEA’s identity, it still is nevertheless clear that much of the social philosophy underpinning Nazism is still present in IKEA.

As soon as one enters an IKEA store, the enterprise’s definition of society becomes quite clear. This is a space made for young families with children--- play areas for the kids abound, and none of the staff seems to be over 35. So, despite the gay targeted ads, IKEA hardly provides a homey atmosphere for a middle aged gay couple. Youth, family values, well, you all know the scene.

Most important, however, is that the furniture and accessories offered are uniformly austere, correct, and unmitigatedly bland, negating the possibility of the expression of the least amount of individualism on the part of the consumer. No whimsy, no daring, not ugly, but not beautiful either--- the most neutral stuff you can imagine. The furniture is fresh, clean, safe, and incredibly inexpensive, leading the buyer even to forget that he has an individual personality to express. He is seduced by the low prices and the comfort of the assurance that there is no way he can get out of step.

IKEA’s sense of design not only protects the aesthetically insecure from choosing a piece in bad taste; it avoids the issue of taste all together. Taste involves the assertion of self through discrimination, and in IKEA this process is for all intents and purposes eliminated. Stylistic differentiation is present only in the most generalized sense, and within those divisions, pieces differ primarily in size, function, and perhaps the color of the (frequently artificial) wood. At IKEA everything can be matched with everything else; the IKEA sofa you choose may be too large or small, but you can be sure that it will match any side table from IKEA that you pick. No exercise of taste, or expression of individualism, is necessary, or, for that matter, possible.

Not only does IKEA free us from the “burden” of individual taste; it also carefully avoids any reference to social class. Unlike most furniture enterprises, where various levels of quality and modesty or luxury are presented, at IKEA everything is of the same adequate, but non- luxurious quality. In fact, IKEA has even run ads ridiculing people who aspire to a more elegant, aristocratically inspired style. No marble work surfaces for the kitchens, no solid, rare woods. Not only our individual taste, but also our class determined taste is eliminated. We are all safely, comfortably, the same.

Not only does IKEA seduce us into accepting the negation of our individuality and our social identities, it also negates the importance of one of our most precious possessions--- our time. IKEA’s low prices depend on their low level of costumer service, with interminable waiting at the check out and merchandise delivery desks, unconcerned and inefficient staff at the help desks, and, of course, the costumer’s having to transport and assemble much of the merchandise himself. The implication is that if you’re not willing to spend your time and effort into buying, transporting and setting up your furniture, there’s no room for you in the IKEA family. He who resists is viewed somehow as lazy and decadent. It also means that the buyer values his time and effort so little that he is willing to swap huge--- yes, really huge quantities of it to save some money.

And just in case you’re still under the illusion that you’re in an ordinary store where, aside from the “hidden persuaders” of advertising, you’re free you go in, buy what you want, and leave, consider IKEA’s practice of naming all of their merchandise with bizarre Scandinavian appearing names (they are, as I found out, not even all really Swedish or Norwegian). In order do any substantial shopping at IKEA, you have to learn their language. This is a technique taken straight from Nazi practice and the practice of other authoritarian regimes. The Nazis renamed all sorts of common objects, giving them Arian names in order to transform reality into their terms. Having someone adopt your language is a well established mechanism of thought control.

Many department stores make you wander around the store for a bit before you find what you came for or before you find the exit, but IKEA carries this technique to extremes. No matter what you came for, you have to walk through the entire store, and frequently all the floors, to get to the object, pick it up from the warehouse section, pay for it, and get out. It makes a visit to IKEA of under an hour pretty impossible; generally it takes at least two. You wind up picking up a few things you don’t really need both because they’re cheap and because you have to justify all that time you spent. More important, you must totally surrender to the order and rhythm of shopping that IKEA imposes upon you.

And to what end this thought and movement control? If IKEA’s very low prices haven’t been sufficient to make you renounce your last vestiges of individualism and self determination, a few hours of being bombarded with a strange, exotic language and being forced to walk what seems like kilometers through stacks of merchandise that you originally had no intention of buying breaks down any nascent rebellion against the IKEA ethos that may be stirring within you.

None of this is in the least by chance. IKEA’s founder makes no bones about the firm’s having a very specific philosophy and his desire to impose it not only on his staff but also on the public. He set it all down with evangelical zeal in a tractate he called “The Testament of a Furniture Dealer,” in which he makes it clear that IKEA in not simply a business, but rather the embodiment of a social and moral philosophy in which simplicity, hard work, and conformity are absolute values. In a series the Guardian ran on IKEA starting June 17, 2004 http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1240462,00.html, the author aptly refers to IKEA as a “cult.” The Guardian articles also quote some rather chilling passages from the “Testament.”

Not that there is anything wrong with simplicity and hard work, but when these values are put in the context of conformity, one becomes a bit uneasy. The combination becomes downright creepy when you see how the institution not only seduces people into renouncing their individualism and personal taste through low prices; getting people to compromise values because of low price is perhaps pretty much what many businesses do, but what makes IKEA dangerous is that it makes people rejoice in that renunciation of self because it’s safe and relieves them of the responsibility of choice. In short, no storm troopers, Sieg Heils, or brown shirts, but more than a whiff of fascist stench.

So, IKEA can run as many gay targeted ads as it wishes, but it still won’t get my vote for a “Gay Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.” An attempt to attract gay clientele and the projection of a tolerant and open social philosophy that encourages individualism and diversity are very different phenomena.

At this point the reader may well ask why, if I have this opinion of IKEA, did I buy a kitchen from them in the first place. Well, I simply didn’t have any idea of what I was getting into, and the IKEA price was less than half of what an equivalent kitchen would have cost anywhere else. I had no idea when I began the process of what the human and emotional costs would be.

Also, the bland, functionalism of IKEA furniture seems very well adapted to the context of a kitchen, essentially a practical work space, and in all fairness, the IKEA kitchen we bought finally turned out fairly well. But it also cost an inordinate amount of our time (eight visits to the IKEA store, the briefest of which was about two hours) and stress. These non monetary costs were caused mostly by the incompetence and indifference of the overworked, underpaid and exploited IKEA staff; I’ll spare you the details, but let it suffice to say that what the IKEA kitchen planners could do wrong (planning a kitchen without a fridge, for example), they did. But IKEA’s well-documentedly disastrous customer service and exploitation of staff are only symptoms of larger, more serious problems with the institution.
.

2006-11-09T12:10:00.000-08:00

Gays who promote the homophobic agenda

In the weeks following the breaking of the Foley affair, many of us, including myself, have been shocked to discover the significant role gay men have played in fostering the homophobic agenda in the US. We learned first of Foley, then of the numerous gay congressional aides, some very powerful, and now of Ted Haggard, a leading Evangelical minister and a nationally influential homophobe. We in the gay community have been rightly shocked by their hypocrisy and have engaged in discussions of the ethical and political ramifications of “outing” such people. During these past weeks I have begun to wonder, however, whether framing this discourse in ethical terms is really helpful.

It has become evident that we in the gay community should be dealing with the issue of gay collaboration in the homophobic agenda; in order to deal with the phenomenon, however, we have to understand it, and it is not at all clear that we have come very far in this regard. In such cases ethical labeling, such as designating certain actions as hypocritical may be, while accurate, ultimately counterproductive in that such labeling tends to deflect our interest away from gaining a deeper understanding of the matter. We tend simply to say, “They are hypocrites; do we need to go any farther?” I’m afraid we do.

What the revelations of the past weeks have taught us is that those gay men who have fostered the homophobic agenda are not all deeply closeted, secretive homosexuals; some, like Haggard, fit that profile; others, such as Foley, are not particularly careful about disguising their sexual preference, although they still officially deny their homosexuality as long as they can; yet others, such as some very powerful congressional aides, are in partnerships and are quite open to their bosses, colleagues, and congressional associates concerning their sexual orientation.

Despite the important differences in the degree to which these men were “out” before their homosexuality received public attention, they all reacted in essentially similar ways when the spotlight of public attention was focused on them: not one of them in any way repudiated his support of the homophobic agenda. Haggard and Foley retreated under versions of the claim: “The Devil made me do it.” The congressional aides scurried to show that they were not part of the Foley cover up, while still depending upon the protection of the homophobic power structure of the Republican Party.

At this point we may very well ask why these men still persist in cringingly seeking the support of the homophobes and thereby supporting, albeit indirectly, the homophobic agenda. After all, now they have nothing to loose by trying to come to terms with their sexual orientation. Haggard and Foley’s careers are, for all intents and purposes, over. They are now “out” to their families. There is, however, no indication that they intend to rebuild their lives with anything resembling a positive attitude toward their homosexuality.

In like fashion, those gay congressional aides whose homophobic bosses have not been kicked out of office by the recent election continue to work in an atmosphere that is now even more likely to turn against them now that attention has been drawn to them as gay men. Now that it has become common knowledge that the homophobic agenda in congress is staffed in large part by gays, those gay men remaining in service to homophobic congressmen will naturally be called upon to prove even more actively their allegiance to that agenda. Nevertheless, it seems that the large majority of these men will continue to stay and work for the interests and policies of their gay hating bosses.

It’s not as if they don’t have a choice. It is quite common for congressional aides to move from one congressman to another, and not all Republican congressmen are fostering the anti gay agenda. Moreover, having been a congressional aide is one of the most useful resumé entries one can have in Washington; there are plenty of job opportunities, in and out of government, for a fiscally conservative gay man with congressional experience. Despite these possibilities for a professionally fulfilling life in which their situation as gay men would not be compromised, they prefer to remain within a context that fosters homophobia.

As Frank Rich said in his article I reprinted in this blog some weeks ago, the situation goes beyond hypocrisy; it really smacks of pathology. These men are betraying themselves and their fellow gay men not because of opportunism involving political, social, or financial gain; opportunism may have been the initial motivation for their hypocritical behavior, but it clearly can no longer be the case. There can be no possible advantage, either practical or psychological, to these men in staying in the homophobic camp. What seems to be the case is that these men really believe, at least to a certain extent, in the homophobic agenda.

It isn’t as bizarre as it sounds. As I have mentioned before, it is a well documented phenomenon that people subject to torture or long- term severe persecution eventually believe that their tormentors are justified in persecuting them and even collaborate in their own torment. This seems to be the case with Haggard and Foley.

The situation of the openly gay congressional aides who work for homophobic congressmen is, in fact, almost parallel to that of the “Hofjüde” or court Jew in anti-Semitic central European courts in the XVIII and XIX centuries: The “Hofjüde,” who was openly Jewish but secularized, educated and therefore well received at court, collaborated with the anti-Semitic authorities in exploiting the Jewish community. No one was tempted by economic or social advantage to become a “Hofjüde.” There were plenty of economic and social opportunities for the few highly educated, secularized Jews in XVIII an XIX century Europe; one became a “Hofjüde” because of deeply ambivalent feelings about being Jewish. The “Hofjüde” was thus both a product and victim of, and a perpetrator of, anti-Semitism. So the case with gay men who foster the homophobic agenda.

Like most of us, I was thrilled with Haggard’s unmasking and humiliation. But we should remember that Haggard was as much a victim as he was a demon. According to reports, he is now in a retreat, praying for forgiveness. The problem is that he’s asking for pardon from the wrong sources. God? God made you gay, honey, so why should you ask for forgiveness from him? The Evangelical community? Well, you lied to them, but they forced you into the lie by making you deny who you are. They’ll only forgive you if you continue in that denial.

Haggart’s only hope for absolution is to turn to us, the gay community. His homophobic rants certainly give us a lot to forgive him for. But only we as gay men are in a position to understand the torment to which he was subjected by a pitiless, bigoted, and cruel society who denied his very humanity. Almost all of us, especially those of us who grew up before Stonewall, to one extent or another have been in his shoes. Most of us have had enough courage, however, not to allow society’s homophobia to take root within us and fester into self hate to the extent it has with Haggard and the other gay men discussed here. But is unreasonable to expect courage from everyone.

So, branding such men as hypocrites and anathematizing them is, of course, understandable, but it doesn’t really get to the heart of the matter. They have betrayed us not because they are especially evil or even because they are opportunistic. It is, in fact, pathology. A homophobic society has infected them with self- hate.

They are as much victims as they are perpetrators. They do a great deal of harm, and that harm must be stopped, but they are not the real enemy. Gay homophobes are indeed a problem, but the more serious problem is the homophobic society itself.

2006-10-19T16:42:00.000-07:00

On Political "Outing"

While browsing gay blogland recently, I ran across of poll in which readers were asked to vote and comment on whether various hypothetical examples of closeted political figures should be “outed,” or have their homosexuality publicly exposed. The results of this poll, which was most likely inspired by the revelation that the avowedly homophobic Republican Party is riddled with powerful gays, were overwhelmingly in favor of “outing” gay political figures who support anti gay policies and legislation. I can’t go along with this. In fact, I find this attitude somewhat disturbing.

Make no mistake about it. My gut reaction would be to buy billboards, television time, and even a skywriting plane to expose their hypocrisy. But there are some important principles involved that we can’t allow ourselves to compromise, no matter how sweet the vengeance or great the immediate political gain.

“Outing” denies the individual’s right to a private life. Everyone, including political figures, has a right to a private life as long as that private life does not involve any illegal or seriously unethical behavior. Denying public figures a right to this privacy is a tactic that seems to have been invented by the radical right; of course, the most spectacular case was the Republicans’ exploitation of Clinton’s private life in the Monica Lewinsky affair. Aside from the ethical and philosophical issues involved, has America really benefited by bringing the details of people’s personal lives into politics?

Gay Republicans supporting anti gay measures are, of course, hypocrites. But regardless of any hypocrisies that may be involved, what should matter to the public is the person’s public record. Turning the political tables, we can ask ourselves what difference it makes if a congressman hasn’t any gay friends if he strongly supports gay rights legislation? Are we really going to try to destroy politically a tireless fighter for ecology if we find out that his windows aren’t double- glazed. If we want to protect the right to privacy for people whose positions we agree with, we have to do the same for those whose positions we abhor.

Equally important, any victory we would attain by “outing” would probably be short lived, since we would be attacking and destroying only the carrier, and not the disease. What is important is to convince the electorate of the wrongness of homophobia, not just of the hypocrisy of the homophobes. We may politically kill off a few homophobes, but the disease they carry will continue to plague us until we defeat the idea itself.

Moreover, trying to defeat an idea by attacking the personal qualities of its proponents is, of course, intellectually very dangerous. It sets precedents, or continues practices that we really would not want to live with. Ad hominem arguments are intellectually impossibly shabby. We have perfectly sound grounds with which to attack homophobia; we don’t need to debase ourselves with ad hominem arguments.

I can, of course, understand those who say that we have to fight fire with fire; the Republicans began the practice of dredging up aspects of political opponents’ sex lives. It might be emotionally gratifying to give them some of their own medicine. But do we really want to develop a political culture that operates on that level? It’s not just a question of rejecting the idea of the end’s justifying the means; it’s a question of debasing the whole level of political discourse. You can’t build a just society using such shoddy bricks.

In another post I said that we all, and every gay rights organization worth its salt, should apply as much pressure as possible to gay Republicans to get them to leave the party or at least publicly renounce the party’s homophobic stance. But legitimate pressure is one thing; blackmail is quite a different matter.

2006-10-16T09:03:00.000-07:00

On gay activism and identity

Recent events have brought up to me once again the issue of gay activism. I am generally not prone to feeling of guilt on a non- personal level; I am generally satisfied with my level of compliance with civic responsibilities. But I am quite aware that the freedoms my partner and I now enjoy, a life in which the nature of our relationship is known to all who are interested and we are respected members of a mixed gay/ straight society (in fact, mostly straight), are the product of years of struggle and sacrifice on the part of many of our gay brothers. Both of us have been quite active in promoting the rights of other groups and minorities, and I myself have been involved with the Democratic Party during the 2004 campaign; so we are not exactly apolitical and distant from social issues. Yet we have nothing for the cause of gay rights. I don’t feel very good about this.

It’s not only a question of shirking political and civic responsibility. The implications of why I have not been involved with gay activism are not easy to face. As I know from my years as a Jewish activist (low key, but nevertheless out there), being an effective activist for the rights of a minority group in which one is also a member requires pretty much full self acceptance of one’s identity within that group.

As a Jewish activist I had not only to have emotionally dealt with any feelings of self hate that growing up in a mildly anti-Semitic environment may have provoked, I had to be willing to be identified with segments of the group not only whose ideas but also whose public image was radically different from mine. I belonged to the fully secular, even anti religious, leftist, university educated (and snobbishly elitist), Israel questioning wing of the Jewish community, and had to stand shoulder to shoulder with Jewish groups radically different from my own not only in content, but --- even more difficult--- in form and public appearance, including cassock clad, forelock wearing, religiously obsessed, homophobic Hassidic Jews. I have not only to defend their rights but also be socially identified with them. This is not the place for me to go into the trials and tribulations of carrying this off, but I think you know where I am heading here: I was--- or at least made myself--- sufficiently self accepting as a Jew; I’m not sure I’m there yet as a gay man.

I feel I can claim sincerely to be at total peace with myself as a masculine (not macho), straight acting, monogamous, homosexual man. I will give my partner a peck on the cheek or even on the lips at a train or bus station, but no more extreme public displays of affection--- but since my partner is from Milan and very socially reserved, he would probably not make out with someone in public even if he were straight, and since I also tend to be a rather private person, I don’t think I would, either. In short, we are pretty comfortable with our own image of what a gay man is.

I’ll go one step further: I don’t have any problem being with or befriending gay people with more radical gay images. I have close acquaintanceships with both rather effeminate men and with leatherboys. I am also quite aware that it was the “queens” who rioted and went to jail during the Stonewall period, not the straight acting, socially more acceptable gay men of my lifestyle. We all owe the “queens” both thanks and respect. Courage has nothing to do with machismo. But it is true that while I socialize with gay men with non- conventional images, I do, in fact, prefer to see them in a gay environment.

I of course have never hesitated to carry on a conversation in public with a nellie or leather clad friend, even if I was also with straight friends or colleagues. But I have to confess that my comfort level was not the same as it would have been in a gay environment or without the straights’ being present. I haven’t run away from such situations, but I don’t quite take them in my stride. As I said, I’m not quite there yet.

More difficult for me still is to deal with the rejection of my rather reserved and outwardly “tame” life style by those whose version of gay is either exclusivist or “in your face.” There is a sector of the gay leather community that is open and friendly to all comers, but there is another that is highly exclusivist that will, by policy, “ice” anyone they perceive to be outside of their narrowly defined group. I understand that since they are they are involved in potentially dangerous practices, they must know and be comfortable with people with whom they associate, but confronted with these guys, I feel as rejected as I did when a Hassidic Jew bearing forelocks and pale from studying the Talmud 12 hours a day, told me that I, as a secular Jew, am personally responsible for delaying the coming of the Messiah.

“Queens” are mercifully tolerant of more “up tight” guys such as myself and my partner (They are still probably the most effectively politicized segment of the gay community), but the more flamboyantly polyandrous guys (I have the impression that “promiscuous” is no longer politically correct.) tend to be moderately to severely scornful of those of us monogamous guys whose life patterns they see as running too parallel to those of conventional, straight society. I have no problem in engaging these guys in an intellectual exchange on this matter, in which they may have, admitted, some very valid points. Their position, however, tends to involve social and emotional rejection of gay men with a more conventional life pattern.

Of course, if it were only a case of my own personal relationship with guys in these groups, it wouldn’t present much of a problem. I could cope as well as I could with being rejected or my own tendencies to reject on the basis of style and image, hoping that I would handle the situation better next time. But being an activist for a minority group means that you must be comfortable with all these groups and issues in order to be effective. Of course, it doesn’t at all mean that you have to be in agreement or share the position of all factions within the group; but you can’t feel threatened personally by the situation. And, as I said, I’m not quite there yet.

2006-10-15T00:28:00.000-07:00

Gay Republicans II

For those of us who don't have access to the New York Times, I reproduce here Frank Rich's excellent article in today's (Oct. 15) edition. The only objection I have is one of tone. Rich's tone is serious, but jocular. I can't even crack a cynical smile at the spectacle of a substantial number of powerful gay men working to perpetrate, continue and even intensify the persecution of gay people in America. It is time now for the gay community as a whole, every gay rights organization worth its salt, to repudiate these "scabs." The argument that it is better to have our own people inside the Republican party, and that they will change the party's homophobic stance from whithin, is absurd. The powerful gays in the Republican party have given absolutely no indication of having that intention. Read Rich's article and weep, guys:

Op-Ed Columnist
TimesSelect The Gay Old Party Comes Out
FRANK RICH
Published: October 15, 2006

PAGING Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council: Here’s a gay Republican story you probably did not hear last week. On Tuesday a card-carrying homosexual, Mark Dybul, was sworn into office at the State Department with his partner holding the Bible. Dr. Dybul, the administration’s new global AIDS coordinator, was flanked by Laura Bush and Condi Rice. In her official remarks, the secretary of state referred to the mother of Dr. Dybul’s partner as his “mother-in-law.”

Could wedding bells be far behind? It was all on display, photo included, on www.state.gov. And while you’re cruising the Internet, a little creative Googling will yield a long list of who else is gay, openly and not, in the highest ranks of both the Bush administration and the Republican hierarchy. The openly gay range from Steve Herbits, the prescient right-hand consultant to Donald Rumsfeld who foresees disaster in Iraq in Bob Woodward’s book “State of Denial,” to Israel Hernandez, the former Bush personal aide and current Commerce Department official whom the president nicknamed “Altoid boy.” (Let’s not go there.)

If anything good has come out of the Foley scandal, it is surely this: The revelation that the political party fond of demonizing homosexuals each election year is as well-stocked with trusted and accomplished gay leaders as virtually every other power center in America. “What you’re really seeing is the Republican Party on the Hill,” says Rich Tafel, the former leader of the gay Log Cabin Republicans whom George W. Bush refused to meet with during the 2000 campaign. “Across the board gay people are in leadership positions.” Yet it is this same party’s Congressional leadership that in 2006 did almost nothing about government spending, Iraq, immigration or ethics reform, but did drop everything to focus on a doomed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The split between the Republicans’ outward homophobia and inner gayness isn’t just hypocrisy; it’s pathology. Take the bizarre case of Karl Rove. Every one of his Bush campaigns has been marked by a dirty dealing of the gay card, dating back to the lesbian whispers that pursued Ann Richards when Mr. Bush ousted her as Texas governor in 1994. Yet we now learn from “The Architect,” the recent book by the Texas journalists James Moore and Wayne Slater, that Mr. Rove’s own (and beloved) adoptive father, Louis Rove, was openly gay in the years before his death in 2004. This will be a future case study for psychiatric clinicians as well as historians.

So will Kirk Fordham, the former Congressional aide who worked not only for Mark Foley but also for such gay-baiters as Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma (who gratuitously bragged this year that no one in his family’s “recorded history” was gay) and Senator Mel Martinez of Florida (who vilified his 2004 Republican primary opponent, a fellow conservative, as a tool of the “radical homosexual agenda”). Then again, even Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania senator who brought up incest and “man-on-dog” sex while decrying same-sex marriage, has employed a gay director of communications. In the G.O.P. such switch-hitting is as second nature as cutting taxes.

As for Mr. Foley, he is no more representative of gay men, whatever their political orientation, than Joey Buttafuoco is of straight men. Yet he’s a useful creep at this historical juncture because his behavior has exposed and will continue to expose a larger dynamic on the right. The longer the aftermath of this scandal continues, with its maniacal finger-pointing and relentless spotlight on the Republican closet, the harder it will be for his party to return to the double-dealing that has made gay Americans election-year bogeymen (and women) for so long.

The moment Mr. Foley’s e-mails became known, we saw that brand of fearmongering and bigotry at full tilt: Bush administration allies exploited the former Congressman’s predatory history to spread the grotesque canard that homosexuality is a direct path to pedophilia. It’s the kind of blood libel that in another era was spread about Jews.

The Family Research Council’s Mr. Perkins, a frequent White House ally and visitor, led the way. “When we elevate tolerance and diversity to the guidepost of public life,” he said on Fox News Channel, “this is what we get — men chasing 16-year-old boys around the halls of Congress.” A related note was struck by The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, which asked, “Could a gay Congressman be quarantined?” The answer was no because “today’s politically correct culture” — tolerance of “private lifestyle choices” — gives predatory gay men a free pass. Newt Gingrich made the same point when he announced on TV that Mr. Foley had not been policed because Republicans “would have been accused of gay bashing.” Translation: Those in favor of gay civil rights would countenance and protect sex offenders.

This line of attack was soon followed by another classic from the annals of anti-Semitism: the shadowy conspiracy. “The secret Capitol Hill homosexual network must be exposed and dismantled,” said Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media, another right-wing outfit that serves as a grass-roots auxiliary to the Bush administration. This network, he claims, was allowed “to infiltrate and manipulate the party apparatus” and worked “behind the scenes to sabotage a conservative pro-family agenda in Congress.”

There are two problems with this theory. First, gay people did not “infiltrate” the party apparatus — they are the party apparatus. Rare is the conservative Republican Congressional leader who does not have a gay staffer wielding clout in a major position. Second, any inference that gay Republicans on the Hill conspired to cover up Mr. Foley’s behavior is preposterous. Mr. Fordham, the gay former Foley aide who spent Thursday testifying under oath about his warnings to Denny Hastert’s staff, is to date the closest this sordid mess has to a whistle-blower, however tardy. So far, the slackers in curbing Mr. Foley over the past three years seem more straight than gay, led by the Buffalo Congressman Tom Reynolds, who is now running a guilt-ridden campaign commercial desperately apologizing to voters.

A Washington Post poll last week found that two-thirds of Americans believe that Democrats would behave just as badly as the Hastert gang in covering up a scandal like this to protect their own power. They are no doubt right. But the reason why the Foley scandal has legs — and why it has upstaged most other news, from the Congressional bill countenancing torture to North Korea’s nuclear test — is not just that sex trumps everything else in a tabloid-besotted America. The Republicans, unlike most Democrats (Joe Lieberman always excepted), can’t stop advertising their “family values,” which is why their pitfalls are as irresistible as a Molière farce. It was entertaining enough to learn that the former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed wanted to go “humping in corporate accounts” with the corrupt gambling lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The only way that comic setup could be topped was by the news that Mr. Foley was chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus. It beggars the imagination that he wasn’t also entrusted with No Child Left Behind.

Cultural conservatives who fell for the G.O.P.’s pious propaganda now look like dupes. Tonight on “60 Minutes,” David Kuo, a former top official in the administration’s faith-based initiatives program, is scheduled to discuss his new book recounting how evangelical supporters were privately ridiculed as “nuts” in the White House. If they have any self-respect, they’ll exact their own revenge.

We must hope as well that this crisis will lead to a repudiation of the ritual targeting of gay people for sport at the top levels of the Republican leadership in and out of the White House. For all the president’s talk of tolerance and “compassionate conservatism,” he has repeatedly joined Congress in wielding same-sex marriage as a club for divisive political purposes. He sat idly by while his secretary of education, Margaret Spellings, attacked a PBS children’s show because an animated rabbit visited a lesbian couple and their children. Ms. Spellings was worried about children being exposed to that “lifestyle” — itself a code word for “deviance” — even as the daughter of the vice president was preparing to expose the country to that lifestyle in a highly promoted book.

“The hypocrisy, the winking and nodding is catching up with the party,” says Mr. Tafel, the former Log Cabin leader. “Republicans must welcome their diversity as the party of Lincoln or purge the party of all gays. The middle ground — we’re a diverse party but we can bash gays too — will no longer work.” He adds that “the ironic point is that the G.O.P. isn’t as homophobic as it pretends to be.” Indeed two likely leading presidential competitors in 2008, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, are consistent supporters of gay civil rights.

Another ironic point, of course, is that the effort to eradicate AIDS, led by a number of openly gay appointees like Dr. Dybul, may prove to be the single most beneficent achievement of this beleaguered White House. To paraphrase a show tune you’re unlikely to hear around the Family Research Council, isn’t that queer?

2006-10-11T00:46:00.000-07:00

Gay Republicans

On Oct. 8 the NY Times ran an article on how the Foley case is causing panic among gay Republicans in Washington. It seems that a large number of powerful Republican congressional aids are gay. On Oct. 5 in the Guardian, Sydney Blumenthal called the group of Republican congressional aids the largest walk in closet in Washington.

I don't know whether to be more horrified by an impending anti gay witch hunt or by being made aware that there are so many, so powerful gay Republicans.

The gay Republicans justify their position by claiming that they are fiscal and even social conservatives, but want to change the Republican party's anti gay stance. I can't buy that position, especially since gay Republicans have been instrumental in drafting and promoting anti gay policies and legislation. Their role can be explained only by their own self loathing and selfish pursuit of power and career gains.

But perhaps we shouldn't be all that surprised. Gays are no different from any other persecuted minority. Historically, there have frequently been members of the persecuted group who have gone over to the side of the oppressors. As I have mentioned in comments on other posts, Torquemada, the most feared of the Spanish inquisitors, was a converted Jew. I work in a field dealing with political, social, and racial persecution, and my work gives me, unfortunately, an opportunity to see examples of this "turncoating" regularly.

2006-10-05T17:45:00.000-07:00

The Foley Affair--- Are Americans still so uncomfortable with sex?

The Foley affair now raging in the US makes me rather uneasy. Make no mistake; Foley is a self loathing hypocrite; I am also, of course, delighted that the Republicans are taking a hit, but the issue threatens to be exploited by the right in their anti gay campaign, as noted by the NY Times editorial of 5 Oct. Pat Buchanan, for example, used the Foley affair as an occasion to remark absurdly that there is a proclivity toward child abuse among homosexuals. Furthermore, the manner in which the whole discourse around the Foley affair is couched makes me suspect that not as much has been accomplished by the so called sexual revolution that supposedly started about 40 years ago.

The real issue here is not Foley’s sexual orientation, but rather that a man who made political hay out of an anti- pedophilia campaign has, in fact, documented pedophile tendencies himself. (Calling 16 year olds children, especially since 16 year olds are allowed to marry in many states --- and many have already engaged in sex with their contemporaries--- is absurd, but that is how Foley himself defined the issue in his anti pedophilia campaign.) Foley's "crime," as it were, is essentially hypocritical political exploitation of a sensationalistic topic.

He is morally reprehensible, but it is, in fact, unclear that Foley committed any crime for which he could be charged: The e mail messages were suggestive, but neither obscene nor graphic. Moreover, although Foley is being portrayed as a child molester, there, as yet, been no indication that he ever so much as touched any of the pages. There was no physical, much less sexual contact.

The argument of unfair exercise of power is also doubtful, since none of the pages concerned worked directly for Foley, and he, as far as I know, in no way attempted to coerce them. Moreover, the work environment hardly entailed a boss/ employee relationship in which sexual harassment could take place.

The congressional pages are not dependent for their livelihood upon their income from that work, nor is service as a congressional page an essential part of a career trajectory. Therefore, it is not at all clear that a page would have suffered damaging consequences if he had simply asked Foley to stop messaging him or even if he had taken more serious action against him. It seems, moreover, that pages have, in fact, complained about the messages, and while no action was taken against Foley, no action seems to have been taken against the complaining pages, either. To be presecutible, harassment and abuse of power have to have consequences. There don't seem to have been any here.

I hardly want to be in the position of defending Mr. Foley. As I said, he is a self- loathing hypocrite. But he is more pathetic than detestable; he was obviously self destructive enough to put his future in the hands of adolescents, without any reason to trust that they would keep his confidence. He may even have been sufficiently arrogant to believe that these teenagers would have been so taken with his charm and position that they would not take any action against him. Mr. Foley, however, in the world of politics, has no monopoly on the sin of arrogance.

His actions, then, while hypocritical, inappropriate, morally reprehensible, and outright stupid, hardly seem to be criminal. Nevertheless, he is being portrayed by both parties and even in the more responsible press as a full- fledged child molester whose homosexuality is stressed at every turn. As the Times editorial mentioned above brought out, there are many more important scandals involved with this congress and administration that have received considerably less notice. Nevertheless, Americans seem to be transfixed by the Foley affair, as they were by the Monica Lewinsky affair during the Clinton administration. And here, there wasn't even any documentable sexual activity involved!

That the Democrats are making as much political hay out of this affair as possible is understandable, but that the Republicans are eager to enflame the situation even more, constantly stressing Foley’s sexual orientation, seems to be a very ominous sign. Moreover, even the gay community seems eager to rush in to condemn Foley as a vicious sexual predator, not just as a legislative and political hypocrite. Should we really be buying into this?

2006-09-28T13:54:00.000-07:00

On European Gay Life

Since I’m an American who has lived in Europe for the last 25 years or so, it might be of some interest for me to outline some of the differences I have observed and experienced between American and European gay life. I should say at the outset, however, that the quality of specifically gay life in Europe, which is in some ways better than that in the US, and in some ways more problematical, was not a major factor in my deciding to make my life here. I came to Europe and stayed because of work, because I fell in love with and established a relationship with a European man, and because I found and continue to find the quality of life in general here in Europe to be superior to what I had or could have in the US.

The most obvious difference between gay life in Europe and in the US is that
with the exception of retrograde Poland, the countries of the European Union offer gay people grater legal equality than does much of the US. Gay couples can marry in several European Union countries, and civil unions carrying rights approaching those enjoyed by married heterosexual couples are possible in others; discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is legally considered a breach of human rights. Despite these advantages, however, this more secure legal status in no way indicates that everyday life in Europe is more “gay friendly” than it is in the US.

The more secure legal status we enjoy in Europe is a result of a general social situation having, in fact, only tangentially to do with attitudes towards homosexuality. Briefly stated, although the US was the first country to declare officially the separation of Church and state, this separation is now on much firmer ground in Europe. Historically, many European peoples have had to struggle to throw off Church domination, and the Church has failed too often in modern times to provide moral leadership; most Europeans, even those who are regular church members, support the idea that the Church should stay out of politics. Even in Italy, where the Church still has some political clout, the electorate has, in recent times, strongly asserted the separation of Church and state. Throughout western and central Europe, without a politically active and potent Church to turn homophobia into doctrine and then into law, the way is open for reason to prevail and for gay people to be able to claim their rights.

So, gay people have a stronger legal situation in Europe not necessarily because there is more popular tolerance of homosexuality, but rather because the Church (Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish), which has been the major force in blocking such progress in the US, is politically much weaker here. On the other hand, the social situation, the general environment effecting gay people in their daily lives, may, in fact, be more positive in the US than it is in Europe. But again, the difference may depend not so much upon attitudes toward homosexuality as it does upon the general structures of the two societies.

In Europe, the relationship between the individual and his immediate and extended family, the social circle into which he was born and raised, his home- town, and his work situation is much less fluid and flexible than it is in the US. American cities provide refuge to millions of gay people who have fled limiting or overtly homophobic family, social and work environments in small towns or smaller cities. Much the same happens in Europe, but it is much more difficult for the individual gay man to pull off, and frequently the flight is partial and incomplete.

Both my American and my European friends seem to have pretty much the same proportions of family who has accepted, rejected, or accepted only conditionally their homosexuality. The Americans, however, seem to be much freer in being able to tell hostile, homophobic family where to get off. Of course, not all American gay men with “difficult” families are capable of physical and emotional separation, but the system itself doesn’t make it much more difficult than it is on a personal level.

The European family, however, is much tighter, and the social opprobrium against breaking ties with family is even stronger than the opprobrium against homosexuality. Even if a European gay man manages to move away to a different city, he is still expected to, and almost always does maintain very close contact with his family, even if they are inveterate homophobes. This situation is most extreme in Italy, where a man’s ties to his mother are legendary, but it is even true in the northern countries. It is, therefore, very difficult for a European gay man to separate emotionally from a family that refuses to accept his sexual orientation.

Contributing to this problem is the general physical immobility of European society. Most Europeans grow up, are educated, work, and die in or very near the city where they were born. Also, unlike more recent American society, changing jobs too often is seen, in Europe as a sign of unreliability, disloyalty, and general instability.

Most important, gay Europeans are gay, buy they are still Europeans. They may suffer under homophobic family, social, and work environments, but they still subscribe to those very same values that make it very difficult for them to break away. A gay Italian or Austrian guy with homophobic parents, friends, or boss hesitates to move to a different, bigger city or new job not only because the move is practically difficult; he, like his straight friends, would really prefer to stay with his family, childhood friends, and old colleagues in his home town.

When an American gay guy decides to flee Peoria for the flesh pots of Chicago or New York, he also can arrange for a soft landing. Perhaps because of the mobile nature of American society, there is the institution of support groups he can turn to in the big city. Moreover, Americans, again perhaps because of this physical mobility, tend to be able to make friends, or at least form close acquaintanceships, at every stage of their lives. Europeans, on the other hand, after their formative years ending, perhaps, with the end of formal education, find making new friends exceedingly difficult. It happens, but it requires a great deal of initiative and determination. For a European gay man coming to the city from the provinces, it is perhaps easier for him to find a lover than to develop a circle of friends. It isn’t just that others reject him; he himself is reluctant to extend himself toward new people. His culture has taught him that his circle of friends essentially closes after university graduation (and for many after high school or even elementary school, even if they have gone on to university).

Those gay support groups that do have some success in Europe tend to center around specific sexual tastes. Continental Europeans--- the English are an exception here--- traditionally have a hard time joining clubs or interest groups, especially if the clubs involve a high degree of personal interaction. The cover of a sexual interest, however, seems to help them overcome their reticence in this regard. One of the most successful gay support groups in Europe seems to be the “bears.” I know several men who seem to have developed tastes in this direction not particularly because they are more turned on by hairy, hefty guys than they are by smooth, slim ones, but rather because the bear groups tend to be accepting, friendly, and supportive.

These sexual interest groups such as the “bears” seem to have a more important role in European gay life than they do in the US. Because discussion of personal problems or feelings with anyone outside of family or the most intimate, life long circle of friends is impossible for much of European society in general, gay men from non gay friendly social environments frequently have nowhere to go in this regard. The “bears” or other such groups become an ersatz family where, under what is sometimes at least in part a pretext of having similar sexual tastes, and isolated gay man can find a pal to talk to.

Obviously, such groups perform similar functions in the US, but there the individual gay man has many more options open to him. Specifically sexual opportunities seem to be about the same in Europe in the US; bars, baths, and bushes don’t seem to differ from place to place, and specifically sexually oriented internet contact sites and chat rooms have changed the nature of gay cruising as much in Europe as they have in the US. But because of European reluctance to open up to anyone but a childhood bosom buddy, making new friends or even engaging in a personal blog is very difficult. If personal blog sites do exist among gay Europeans (I, frankly, don’t know of any at all), I would assume that they would be used primarily by very young people.

The gay community in Europe is not nearly as well organized and politicized as it is in the US. In fact, when politically oriented European gays compare their organizations with what their brothers and sisters in the US have accomplished in this regard, there is generally much rending of garments, beating of breasts, and moaning about how unserious and uncommitted we in Europe are. The problem, however, has very little to do with commitment.

Political life and social activism in Europe operates almost entirely within the scope of the existing political parties. We in Europe do, of course, have important and resourceful gay activists, but they tend to relate to the existing political parties instead of building independent gay political and social action organizations. There are, of course, gay political and social action periodicals, but nothing on the scale or scope of the LA or New York gay newspapers.

All these factors considered, therefore, I would say that it is probably easier to be gay in the US, especially in a city, than it is in Europe. Despite much firmer legal status and protection, and despite more or less the same degree of acceptance by the straight community, European gay men have a somewhat more difficult time integrating their sexual identity into their everyday lives than their American brothers do.

2006-09-11T09:00:00.000-07:00

A Dose of Cavafy, After Overindulgence in Kant, Gay Political Correctness, and other Austerities

This morning, after several days of obnoxiously rigorous and dower intellectual activity, I went to the beach with an old friend, a well worn volume of Cavafy’s poems. It is one of the last glorious days of summer (Such splendorous crystalline perfection can’t last much longer.), and I could think of no one better to guide me along the brilliantly lit strand decorated with the languorous forms of those sun bronzed, fine muscled young men Italy seems to produce in prodigious abundance. Venice isn’t, after all, so far from Alexandria.

Cavafy is arguably our greatest homosexual poet. There are, of course, other great poets who happened to be homosexual (Auden, García Lorca, Rimbaud, Walt Whitman, just to name a few), but I can’t think of any other great poet for whom the transformation of homosexual love into poetry played nearly as important a role. But how can I extol the pleasures of Cavafy after even partially ascribing to the austerities of Kantian ethics, beating the drum for monogamy, and urging us all to be out, proud and comfortable with our sexual orientation?

Cavafy’s voice comes from a world totally outside such considerations. As Auden says in his introduction to the major English language translation of Cavafy’s collected poems, “The erotic world he depicts is one of casual pick ups and short- lived affairs….At the same time he refuses to pretend that his memories of moments of sensual pleasure are unhappy or spoiled by feelings of guilt.” So much for Kant. And for Cavafy, homosexual pleasure almost always has an undertaste of shame and the savour of forbidden fruit. So much for our liberated gay sensibilities and political correctness.

But who can resist lines such as:

The fulfillment of their deviate, sensual delight
Is done. They rose from the mattress,
And they dress hurriedly without speaking.
They leave the house separately, furtively; and as
They walk somewhat uneasily on the street, it seems
as if they suspect that something about them betrays
into what kind of bed they fell a little while back.

(From “Their Beginning,” trans. Rae Dalven)

It seems that no matter how Kantian or post- Stonewallian we are, Cavafy’s lines go straight to our innermost souls. He speaks to the part of us that exists outside (or perhaps prior to) our sense of morality or social awareness. He is direct and honest about his feelings, his longings, his shame, and he asks, demands, the same of the reader. If the reader denies he ever had such feelings, the poetry has nothing to say to him. In that sense, Cavafy is supremely Kantian. There is no manipulation, no seduction of the reader. He speaks of shame, but is not ashamed to do so. He speaks to and evokes our deepest humanity. (But somehow, I still don’t think he would be Kant’s favorite poet.)

This sense of humanity goes beyond our sexual orientation. Cavafy’s honesty and comfort with who he is speaks not just to gay men but rather to a much wider public. Despite their directness and sensuality, his homosexual poems don’t seem to evoke any embarrassment on the part of straights. Like the case of the Barbarini Faun I discussed in an earlier blog, Cavafy provides another lesson in the power of being comfortable in one’s own skin.

2006-09-09T03:58:00.000-07:00

Monogamy continued, or playing around with Kantian ethics

(I wrote this piece several weeks ago and have resisted publishing it, since it presents me in a light in which I prefer not to see myself. I really don’t believe I’m as much of an austere gay puritan as much of this piece may make me out to be. I really hope not! But in the interests of intellectual honesty, I really do feel obliged to publish it. I ask only that the reader read through to the end before he reacts.)

In dialoguing with one of the guys who has read my previous blogs on monogamy, I said I wanted to bring the whole issue out of the context of morality, a point to which my correspondent offered a certain degree of objection. On giving the matter a bit more thought, I have concluded that it is, in fact, probably impossible to divorce moral considerations from the question.

My correspondent discussed the immorality of betrayal, or breaking of vows of monogamy and consequently hurting your partner. But is sexual betrayal any less immoral if you betray your partner in a way in which you can be absolutely sure he’ll never find out? Is a theft or a lie any less immoral if it is never discovered? Also, as I responded to my correspondent, is sexual betrayal any more serious than other types of emotional betrayal, such as breaking confidences? I don’t think so, and I don’t think that considering the issue from the point of view of betrayal alone is ultimately going to get us very far.

We might just have to bite the bullet, risk being branded authoritarian, puritanical prudes, and discuss the morality of sexual promiscuity head on. It’s inescapable that from a Kantian point of view, and most modern ethical systems derive more or less from Kant, sexual promiscuity involves breaking a basic ethical principle, treating another human being not as an end but as a means, treating a man not as a man, but rather as an object. It’s not hard to see how engaging in promiscuous sex, or any type of sex that doesn’t take the humanity of the other person fully into consideration, flies in the face of this ethical system.

I can think of few acts that turn another human being more completely into an object or use him only as a means more thoroughly than casual sex. In fact, I must admit that at least for myself, when I was single and playing around, it was precisely the impersonal nature of casual sexual encounters that made many of them so wildly exciting. The super hot trick is the perfect foil for our fantasies, to whom we have no real responsibility, with whom we can be as free as we can allow ourselves to be. Of course, we wish the casual partner no harm; we even, very frequently, do everything we can so that he enjoys himself, too. But even there, our striving to please is most frequently an exercise of our own power and a source of our own enjoyment. The other guy is just the object that allows us to do this.

One could, of course, argue that since the other guy consents to this situation, he is exercising his rational will and is thereby asserting his humanity. Engaging him on this level, i.e., having sex with him, would not, then, be treating him as a means, but rather as an end. But what is the guy really consenting to? In agreeing to engage in a casual sexual encounter, the other guy, just like you, is primarily thinking of his own gratification. He is generally not thinking about how the other guy is viewing him. He is not agreeing to become a foil for your fantasies. So, he is not really agreeing to what you are proposing. And even if he did, it would still violate the Kantian ethical system in that one cannot morally deny his own humanity.

(I do, of course, dismiss the idea of throwing out the Kantian argument on the grounds that he did, several times, condemn homosexuality. This condemnation is based more on the prejudices and preconceptions of his times than upon his ethical system. This ethical system still provides a vald approach to the problem.)

That being said, we can now return to the issue of betrayal (sexual or otherwise). The immorality of betrayal consists not in the fact of betrayal itself, but rather in its ultimately involving an overt or covert lie. A lie is ultimately the manipulation, without his consent, of another human being, and hence, it denies his humanity. If my partner assumes my fidelity, and if I go on a business trip and have a wild night with a stranger, never confess, and my partner never finds out, I am nevertheless denying his humanity through the covert lie involved; I am manipulating his feelings and beliefs without his consent.

O.K. That’s the logical ethical argument for monogamy. But I have to confess that while I have no intention of cheating on my partner, the whole business strikes me as a bit austere. Kant is almost inhuman in his insistence upon our humanity. I still can’t condemn my friends who enjoy (even obsessively) wild nights at the baths or a dance with a stranger. And as I’ve said in other contexts, if my partner is seduced in a moment of weakness by a pair of fetching eyes, it will not destroy the years of trust and intimacy we have built together. And maybe here we have reached the limits of logic.

2006-09-08T15:12:00.000-07:00

On religion

As I said in the intro to this blog, I am a rationalist who believes that the Enlightenment was one of the more noble human endeavors. So, I don't really have much patience for religion. I am, in fact, quite at peace with my rejection of that enterprise.

I can, however, understand how some people, including gay people, need to associate themselves with some sort of "higher power" (for want of a better term). While I do not share their need, I don't question their sanity.

I do, however, question the sanity of those of us gay men who insist upon identifying themselves with any one of the several monotheistic religions that have ruthlessly persecuted homosexuals for eons. Some conventionally religious gay men desperately search religious scripture or church history for some sort of legal or historical loophole that allows homosexuality; others try to ignore the religion's condemnation of homosexuality and seperate it out from the rest of religious doctrine. Frankly, these efforts strike me as rather useless and even counterproductive and their practitioners seem to be engaged in a rather bizarre and ultimately unrewarding form of masochism.

The problem is that transcendental theistic religions such as Christianity and Islam can't logically ever accept homosexuality, since they deny all persuits of purely physical pleasure or earthly attachments such as romantic love unrelated to procreation. They have a big problem with sex in general, let alone homosexual sex. Judaism, while less transcendental, simply can't get around the biblical injunction, although the rabbis are sometimes pretty good at explaining away inconvenient biblical passages. And, of course, we do have the example of David and Jonathan. But still, I really don't hold out much hope for Judaism either (since the rabbis haven't done much to explain away the biblical injunction against homosexuality, but continue to explain David and Jonathan as a "chaste friendship.")

So, guys, in terms of the major Western religions, it really isn't going to happen. They have persecuted us to the point of frequently denying our humanity not because they want to be mean, but rather because homosexual sex and love undermine the keystones of their dogma.

Although certain factions of individual churches may offer us a certain amount of tolerance and even accept gay clergy, these are essentially political concessions that deny or ignore the religion's own internal logic. Ultimately, asking them for substantial and lasting acceptance is like asking water to flow uphill.

So, guys, give it up, or as many of you have suggested, have faith in yourselves or, if you must, look into a non theistic or polytheistic religion.

As for those guys who insist upon staying with traditional western religions simply because they were born and educated in them, all I can do is ask them to remember that an unexamined life is not really much of a life at all.

2006-09-07T04:34:00.001-07:00

On aging as a gay man

Since I am 63, I suppose I really should say something in my blog about aging as a gay man. I should, however, make clear at the outset that this is not a topic that preoccupies me very much; I really don’t often think about my age and, in fact, even regard people 15 years younger as my contemporaries. But perhaps my lack of concern with the topic is, in fact, part of the issue.

It seems that many gay men feel that growing old presents a special problem for gay men not shared by straights. The alleged gay obsession with youth and beauty supposedly brings us closer to the position taken by women on this issue. But it is conventionally accepted that women resort to make- up and cosmetic surgery to maintain their youthful power to attract men, while this solution is still not viewed among most men as an acceptable masculine solution to the problem of a turkey neck, sagging chest and ass, or wrinkles. Straight men are supposed not to care (but many of them, believe me, secretly do), while gay men supposedly live in terror of being branded aging queens or, in fact, even think of themselves that way. For most gay men, cosmetic surgery is still viewed as an attack on their masculinity.

The issue of gay fear of aging, however, involves several myths, the most important being perhaps the gay obsession with youth and beauty itself. If such an obsession exists, it is hardly limited to gays. The middle- aged straight man who cheats on his wife with a younger, more physically attractive woman is, in fact, a cliché. Men in general seem to be, at least in part, biologically wired to gravitate toward younger, sexually active and fertile partners. It probably has to do with increasing our reproductive potential; it is, therefore, not our gay identities, but rather what is straight in us that send us toward young, strong, and physically healthy partners. It is, hence, not really a gay problem.

The parallelism with the straight situation can be carried even further. Just as many women are genuinely turned on by older men because of the power and protection they project, a fair number of younger gay guys prefer older men precisely for the same reasons. (I am talking about authentic sexual attraction--- not about sexual predators of either sex or orientation looking for sugar daddies.) This attraction seems, moreover, to be somewhat independent of active or passive sexual roles. Healthy older gay men who have kept themselves in decent shape, are well groomed, and who have not made themselves ridiculous by trying to seem younger through make- up and a dye bottle will confirm that there always seem to be enough younger men around to keep them busy.

There are, of course, problems. If an older straight man wants a female partner of his own age, he will have little problem finding her. In fact, he’ll have to fend aspiring aging girl friends off with clubs. But an older gay man looking for a contemporary as a partner--- who doesn’t want to deal with the generation gap--- will have a much harder time. Most older gay men, since they are, in fact, men, prefer younger partners and thereby are unavailable to their contemporaries.

Even more difficult is the role reversal required of the no longer young, protected guy who has to assume the daddy role later in life. This is not simply a matter of physical sexual roles, but much more importantly one of who protects whom. But the situation need not be so bleak. Just as there are young women who get off on protecting their aging husbands, there are young gay guys out there who find great fulfillment in protecting their aging partners.

So much for the youth part of our alleged obsession with youth and beauty: How about beauty? This is, in fact, an easier issue to handle. Canons of both male and female beauty have been constantly in flux throughout the ages (Marilyn Monroe would be considered fat in 2006 and most 1930s Tarzans would seem to have unremarkable bodies to us.) There really are no absolutes here, and as the general population ages in the West, it’s likely that the “ideal man” will also begin to look older. In the gay community, the “bear” phenomenon has also made canons of male beauty much more flexible in the last few years.

The major problem is, in fact, not so much one of attracting sexual partners but rather one of our own self- image. Straight men, who are most likely just as vain as gay men, have less of a problem adjusting their canon of male beauty to conform to an ageing face and body, since they are not overtly attracted to the younger version of that face and body. Because they have no internal younger standard to compare themselves against, they more readily accept their status as potentially attractive older men. They may wish they could play football the way they did at 25, but they don’t really care much about looking 25.

A gay man, on the other hand, is--- to be honest--- generally turned on by a handsome 25 year old guy, at least physically. And in gay sexual attraction, there is almost always an element of desired emulation. Most of us, in our heart of hearts, really wish we looked 25 no matter how often we have evidence that we are sexy at 60. We may have a bevy of young bucks groveling at our feet --- precisely because we are 60 --- but we still wish we looked like them and not like the bundle of sags and wrinkles we see in the mirror. A lot of this problem is really in our heads, guys.

Another area in which ageing may be more of a problem for gay men than it is for straights has to do with a loss of control. We all, gay or straight, get older and thereby suffer a process out of our control, but it may be that the control issue is more serious for us. For most straight men, their sexual identity is simply a matter of fact; for us, on the other hand, the discovery that we are homosexual was frequently fraught with fear, confusion, and denial and in many cases the feeling that our sexual orientation was somehow imposed upon us without our consent. Our sexual identity itself becomes something beyond our control.

Even those of us (and lets hope it will one day be all of us) who have accepted our sexual orientation and are happy with it may still at times feel that our homosexuality is a trick nature has played upon us--- God made me gay---. And aging is yet another one. The straight guy grows up seeing his sexuality and his aging process as integral to himself; a gay man may very well look upon these phenomena as something imposed upon him, things they he may even enjoy, but still things beyond his control.

This intensified feeling of helplessness may be why many gay men obsess about getting older. Even those who have partners who love them, active sex lives, and a circle of admirers seem to spend more effort than straight men do on staying in shape, grooming, staying sexually active and other things we can do to counteract the onslaught of the years. These measures are, of course, things we can do to reassert our control over our lives. It may be just an attempt to regain control, and not so much our desire to attract, that makes us go on that diet, sends us to the gym, or has us pay $75 for a haircut.

2006-08-12T05:52:00.000-07:00

The Sleeping Satyr in Munich

I've posted the photo of the Sleeping Satyr in the Munich Glyptotheck, a.k.a. the Barberini Faun, not only because it's very beautiful and one of my favorite statues. The satyr, although sleeping, has a good deal to tell us.

The statue is a Hellenistic work of about the III century b.c.e., or a Roman copy of a few hundred years later. It lives in Munich, but has a near twin in the Louvre in Paris. It is one of the oldest examples, and argueably the most beautiful, of homoerotic art we have. Its homoeroticism, frankly, can't be denied. It has also be the object of wonder and admiration, however, not only of gays, but also of straights, men, women, and even grandmothers. (What's the satyr doing right that we're not doing, guys?)

In fact, if the satyr is being slighted by any segment of the public, its the gay community. The gay sculptural icon of choice is undoubtedly Michelangelo's David, whose plaster copy appears in almost every non- leather gay bar or bath in the western world. The Barberini Faun is practically unknown in the gay community except for people specifically interested in ancient art. Why is, in fact, this major monument of homoerotic art largely ignored by the gay community? Why, in fact, has the gay community preferred the David, which, while undoubtedly very beautiful, is also clearly not nearly as sexually overt and homoerotic as the faun?

I would submit that the Sleeping Satyr, although it expressed the values and tastes to which many of us gay men aspire, is still expressive of a world that is, unfortunately, quite alien to us. It was a world that was much more comfortable with male/ male sexual and emotional relationships than we are even in the liberated XXI century. Emperors, such as Alexander and Hadrian were openly in love with, and sexually enjoyed, men. Statues such as the Sleeping Satyr probably originally adorned public baths, where homoerotic feelings were clearly but discretely expressed.

The Greco- Roman world was not just more accepting of male/ male sexual attraction; it had a more comfortable attitude toward the body in general. Roman patricians had sculptural portraits made of themselves that eternalized them with their pimples and paunches. There was a deep acceptance of, and even joy in the physical nature of being. This comfort with the body is something that we seem to have lost, perhaps irretrivably, with the dominance of monotheism and transcendental religion in the western world. (The East Asians don't seem ever to have had it, either--- for their own reasons. The frank sensuality of much of Indian art, however, seems to suggest other possibilities. Native tendencies or Hellenistic influence?)

It's not hard to see how the David is much more attened to our modern, much more limited and, frankly, repressed sensibilities. In comparason to the Sleeping Satyr, the David is much tamer, almost abstract. It is more the idea of a beautiful man than an attempt to replicate one in stone. I have never wanted to touch Michaelangelo's statue; in Munich, with the satyr, I have to restrain myself from breaking museum rules and setting off alarms.

Well, one could object, how about that other gay art icon, Caravaggio? His boys and men are delicious and quite clearly sexy. I would counter that in Caravaggio there is always a hint of prurience, something just a bit kinky. Unlike the faun, who exists in a world relatively comfortable with its sexuality and attitudes towards the physical aspects of human existence, Caravaggio actually exploits our discomfort with these issues. Caravaggio does not counter, but rather actually proves my point.

Perhaps the closest we come to the comfort with sexuality conveyed by the faun is the artist who did the restorations on the statue, Bernini. Bernini was, as far as I know, 100% hetero, and his work has very little, if any, homoerotic content. But we can't discuss the topic of art and sensuality without mentioning the artist who gave us what is most likely the world's first (an perhaps still the best) representation of orgasm, "The Ecstasy of Saint Theresa." But although Bernini lacks the sense of outrageousness and prurience we sense in Caravaggio, sensuality for him is still something exceptional and extraordinary, even miraculous, something quite divorced from our everyday experience. The faun is presented to us as something we could reasonably expect to find (if we are lucky and believe in Greco- Roman mythology) while walking through the woods. Not even the most dedicated Catholic could expect to happen upon St. Theresa levitating in her cell. Her orgasm isn't something for all of us; it is a miracle.

So, we are left with our faun, in his comfortable, sensual, harmonious maleness. Sadly, we probably can't really approach his ease in what he is, despite gay liberation and the sexual revolution. But he does set some very worthwile goals and objectives. And just maybe, like the faun, we would be looked upon by other segments of society with wonder and delight, if we were more comfortable in our own skins.

2006-08-12T00:43:00.000-07:00

Why "Not so different"

I called the blog "Not so different" because I would like, among other things, to discuss with other gay men not only the things that separate us from the straight community, but also aspects of gay life and sexuality that are really not all that different from what straight people experience. Every gay man who has not totally cut himself off from the straight community, who has straight friends or is still close to straight relatives knows that many of his feelings and experiences with sexual attraction, relationships, and sexually related social interaction are not all that different from what straight people experience.

This does not have anything to do with accomodating our behavior or attitudes to win acceptance with straights. It's more about combatting that needless feeling of isolation and alienation we sometimes feel as gays. We, of course, have pleanty of reason to feel isolated and alienated, and, of course, it is useless and even self deceptive to deny that be have very important differences with straights. Perhaps, however, it is also productive to examine what we all have in common.

"Not do different" also refers to alleged differences within the gay community itself. Especially among somewhat socially conservative or "straight acting" gay guys (like me, I think), there is a certain discomfort with the more flamboyant of our brothers. (I am still, unfortunately, not free of this). We are the "real men," and they are the "nellies and screaming queens."But we supposedly "real men" should be aware that it is primarily the more flamboyant of our brothers who had the courage to go out on the streets and demand our rights. If I and my partner can be "out" both socially and professionally, it is largely due to the sacrifices and courage of those guys who we still might not have the guts to bring home to mother. It's important too that we see that we're not so different from each other.

2006-08-11T14:58:00.000-07:00

On My Own---

When I first started blogging, I published exclusively on a group authored blog and neglected publishing on my own blog site. I now understand that I would feel more "at home" on my own blog, publishing here and perhaps copying occasional messages to the group site. I have therefore copied some of the blogs I published on the group site, along with the unedited comments they received there, to this site.

2006-08-11T09:40:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, August 09, 2006
The "M" word, continued

Despite the only modest response to my last blog on monogamy (or perhaps because of it), I'd like to offer up a few more ideas on the subject.

One of the obvious difficulties in maintaining a monogamous gay relationship I didn't mention in my last blog is that the gay community seems to lend very little support to this type of relationship. While I don't believe that straights are any more naturally monogamous than gays, the straight community has clearly set monogamy as the norm in their world, and any deviation incurs strong social opprobrium. The gay community, however, is much less defined in this respect; it does not immediately sympathize with the "wronged" partner. The immediate reaction in the gay community may been "Oh, they must be in an 'open' relationship." or even "What in the hell did he (the wronged partner) expect. After all, Così fan tutti."

Perhaps one of the reasons I felt compelled to write about gay monogamy at all was that I feel a tacit accusation of priggishness or prudishness from many gay contacts concerning our monogamous relationship. I haven't failed to register the glee with which infidelities involving supposedly monogamous relationships are reported in gay circles. Although gays are in this respect little different from straights--- gossip is universally attractive!--- the context and repercussions are different. In the straight world reporting the infidelity to the injured party is generally considered in very bad taste and almost always puts the reporter's motivations into question. In gay circles, such tattle tailing is rampant, and seems to be done to be almost an act of vengeance, as if to say, "Hey guys, you're really no better than all us whores out here! So, dump your pretense of monogamy!" When straights cheat, the wronged partener most often finds out because he actually discovers the infidelity himself; it's rare that someone dares to tell him/ her. If I were to cheat on my partner, it is highly likely that he would find out not by catching me and my paramour in flagrantio, but rather through a "helpful" phone call from one of our gay "friends."

Ironically, as I just intimated, this conspiratorial atmosphere exists not so much because most gay guys have anything really against monogamy itself; it's really because, contrary to what we claim, we really feel guilty about sexual promiscuity. If those of us in open relationships or singles who are promiscuous really felt confortable with their own code of sexual conduct, those slips by those of us trying to be monogamous would attract much less notice and would be handled differently, perhaps more constructively.

Because we get only, at best, weak support from the gay community, it is probably wise for monogamous couples to be more tolerant concerning infidelities than is generally the case in the straight community. (Please understand: I have no intension of cheating on my partner, and I have full trust in his loyalty, sexual and otherwise, to me.) Gay male sex is so generally available, especially in cities. Moreover, because of the lack of support for monogamy, a lot of single and semi- single guys would have no scruples about a roll in the hay with a "married" guy. So, things can, of course, happen. (I have to admit, when I was single and horny, I never quizzed a guy on his domestic status before dropping my pants, not did anyone ever ask me. These questions generally came afterward, if one of us was interested in developing a relationship. I can't even truthfully say that, before being involved in my own monogamous relationship, knowing that a guy was "married" would have stopped me from what I saw as a bit of innocent carnal enjoyment.--- Maybe there were, in fact, such incidents. I can't really remember.)

So, guys, if one of your "friends" tells you he saw your one and only in the bushes with a guy from the basketball team, at least until you know that it is really habitual and relationship threatening, just assume they were there hunting for mushrooms.

posted by Bruce at 9:01 AM
3 Comments:

Rey said...

While I seem to agree with most of the points from your last post, there are some points where we disagree.

I don't believe that monogamy is something to be achieved as a goal, it is neither good nor bad (at least from the moral point of view, you could argue about STD, etc.). It is not something that should require external support from a community. I don't think there are real absolutes about anything, but either one is mostly monogamous or not; and whatever you are, is always subject to change depending on the nature of your partnership, and/or situation.

In my opinion the concept of monogamy was created a means to protect the nuclear family from harm (e.g.: disease, rape, etc). Monogamy has helped society to flourish because in the old days, strange things happened to promiscuous people (e.g.: they got STD for which there was no cure). Many religious practices (like the kosher practice of not mixing utensils for different foods), likely originated out of a practical need: to prevent diseases like salmonella from spreading. I believe the practice of monogamy is not different.

Nowadays, being monogamous can have many advantages, especially for those who fail to understand how a few minutes of pleasure can give you a lifetime disease. But armed with the right information about STD transmission, and being opened to your partner about your desires to do a, b and c, non-monogamy is a perfectly normal lifestyle. In fact, I believe that non-monogamy is a more natural behavior that monogamy; what is not natural is the secrecy that surrounds it.

Regarding reporting someone's infidelity to the wronged partner, I don't have any information that would allow me to compare straight from gay society regarding this issue; but I must say that the idea of reporting someone's infidelity does not necessarily equates with malice. Not reporting something to a friend that you know would hurt them can be just as malicious or cowardly. I think that you need to look at a particular case and use your best judgment. Probably in most cases it is best to butt out of other’s infidelity issues, but in some cases not saying something can cause more harm than keeping quiet.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:10:58 PM

john said...

I think anyone who commits themselves into a relationship, should try to remain faithful. Monogamy should be a part of anyone's life, especially those who take that step towards commitment.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006 5:28:18 PM

Bruce said...

First, thank you both, Rey and John, for responding to my post. It's nice to know that someone's out there....

Rey- I don't think we're as far apart on our concepts of monogamy as you imply. I really believe that monogamous relationships are no more moral or in any other way better than "open" relationships or promiscuity. I am monogamous because I consider all of our acts, including sex, meaningful--- nothing is gratuitous---. Sex, for me, then, is automatically and by definition intimate. Hence, I have little choice but to be monogamous. People who view reality differently can and will come out with different, equally valid conclusions on this matter.

As for what is "natural," I really don't know. Some animals are monogamous, some live in polygamous groupings (males are promiscuous within the group; females all "belong" to the same male. Some are fully promiscuous. But does it really matter what is natural? Civilization is essentially a modifying and rechanneling of what is "natural." Is being homosexual "natural" or a modification developed in societies to deal with overpopulation? I think reasoning from what one considers "natural" can sometimes get you into trouble.

Also, to what extent is the role that monogamy played in primitive societies really relevant? Social norms change from place to place and time to time. Large segments of mankind were, at one time or another, polygamous. So, reasoning from an hypothesis as to the origins of an institution may not tell us much.

Also, STDs were hardly a problem outside of the Americas before 1500. The only form of STD before that time in Europe, Africa and Asia was gonorrehea, which would leave the victim sterile, but would not kill him. The first deadly STD, syphelis, is a gift of the New World to global culture. So, it's highly unlikely they were the reason for the development of monogamy. Most likely, it had to do with the protection of children and women and to assure the men that the kids they were protecting were actually theirs.

As for the need for support in monogamous relationships, in general, you're right. If you're monogamous, your're monogamous regardless of what people think. But everyone at times finds himself in a situation in which he is tempted to violate his own principles. A straight is discouraged from cheating because he knows that he will get no sympathy for his social circle. A gay guy will frequently find his fellows egging him on.

As for letting the injured party know about infidelities, I was really discussing not what is right or wrong in such circumstances--- of course there are times when telling is helpful and necessary--- I was just discussing motivations and attitudes among straights and gays.

John--- I am in no way advocating infidelity in monogamous relationships. But a little tolerance and understanding helps. We are all made of flesh and blood and live in a complex world with many pressures.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006 8:27:24 PM

2006-08-11T09:31:00.000-07:00

Monday, August 07, 2006
The "M" word

That's right, guys, the "M" word is MONOGAMY. Since I've tossed this term around in describing my and my partner's relationship, in order to avoid any misunderstandings, I had better devote a blog to clarifying the situation.

First and foremost, my partner and I are not monogamous out of any ethical, moral, social, or political conviction. We certainly are not monogamous à la Andy Sullivan, modifying our behaviour to win friends and influence people among the straights. Monogamy is right for us and how we define our relationship and our attitudes towards and expectations from sex. It is not necessarily right for everyone, and "open" relationships are certainly no less valid than ours. Some of our best and most respected friends are in "open" relationships or even "happy whores." We are, in fact, the exception; most of our gay friends are in one way or another non- monogamous.

One could, then, justifiably ask why we chose apparently to limit ourselves in this way. First and foremost, it has to do with the worldview that everything we do, even the most apparently insignificant act, has some meaning in terms of our definition of ourselves as a person. Once you accept this premise, you have to admit that sex is a pretty intimate and self- revealing act. I don't want a stranger, or even a friend, to see me in a rapture of sexually induced ecstasy, nor can I see having my face in someone's crotch as anything but something pretty intimate (When one is single, it's a different situation. Revealing oneself this way to a potential partner is a way of opening oneself to him, and potentially, to a new relationship.) In short, seen this way, sex becomes inextricably tied up with trust and intimacy.

One could, of course, object that we don't really need to load sex down with all this psychological baggage. Why not just screw and have fun? If you can successfully divorce actions from meaning, why not, in fact? Of course I am suggesting that doing so is somewhat superficial; but no one's life is fully examined. Everyone has areas of superficiality; life would be unbearable if we didn't. There is really nothing wrong in letting one's sex life float along the surface. You can save profundity for other aspects of your life. That is, of course, if you can carry it off.

But to me, psychologically charged sex expressing intense intimacy is simply much sexier than an anonymous, purely physical roll in the hay, especially in the long run. I'll just come right out and say that to me, depersonalized sex becomes, after a short while, quite boring. There have been times in my life when I have found myself engaging primarily in this type of sex; it was great fun for a while --- the sharp, erotic surge that sometimes comes with touching a new man's body for the first time is, without a doubt, wildly exciting--- but at least for me, it doesn't last. It quickly becomes the sexual equivalent of junk food (apologies to McDonald's addicts). To be sure, however, life would be much easier if I could maintain that level of wild excitement with serial partners, but I can't.

I am, therefore, monogamous simply because I don't have much choice. To me, nothing can compare in excitement to exploring new and different aspects of intimacy with a man I know, care about, and trust. Such intense intimacy can, of course, be frightening at times, and produce a distancing defense reaction. But with time, you begin to recognize these momentary periods of pulling back for what they are, and they become, then, less disturbing.

This is not at all to say that I am not attracted to men other than my partner; I would be very upset if I weren't. Likewise, I know and expect that my partner is attracted to other men, too. This simply proves that our hormones and erotic senses are functioning properly. We understand, however, that picking these fruits of passion would have a certain price. I am quite certain that my partner and I are still, after almost 10 years, deeply attracted sexually to each other because we don't disperse our sexual energy with other people. Most "open" couples that I know eventually stop having sex with each other. Also, that sharp, sexual surge that you get from a new male body can be pretty heady stuff, and if you're the type that automatically associates sex with intimacy and meaning, the price of picking such an apple can be pretty high for your relationship. Life is full of beautiful things. You don't have to possess them to enjoy them.

The most difficult aspect of being monogamous, however, is not renouncing the apparently willing young man with spectacular abs I saw at the beach the other day. It's the difficulty in making gay friends. There's an old joke whose punch line involves a lady telling her social climbing lover, "Sexual intercourse is not an introduction to Philadelphia society." Unfortunately, however, the opposite seems frequently to be the case with gay society. A lot of our friendships seem to form after we've tricked with someone a couple of times. Perhaps there's the desire to eliminate the sexual tension--- get the sex over with--- before we allow a friendship bond to develop. We tend to form friendships with people we find attractive, one way or another, and in order to let the friendship develop, it is necessary to dissipate the potential erotic content of the relationship.

In the straight world, friendships between single men and women are rare, and friendships between married couples tend to break off into friendships between the husbands and friendships between the wives (unless, of course, there is some hanky- panky going on). Friendship between people who are potential sexual partners is, in fact rare. As gay men, we are all potential sexual partners of each other, and we seem to handle this problem by fucking first first and shaking hands later, after it's clear that the sexual danger is over. This makes it rough for guys in monogamous relationships.

Giving monogamy ethical or moral significance, especially in a gay context, is foolish. Lying, cheating, and other forms of deception in a relationship are, of course, morally reprehensible, but once we discount producing babies as the moral justification for sex, there is no ethical discinction between a monogamous and an "open" relationship, or even outright promiscuity. If sex becomes morally neutral, then it makes no sense to dictate moral terms for its context. So, guys, there no reason you shouldn't do what's best for you.

Previous from Bruce

posted by Bruce at 5:06 AM
3 Comments:

Robguy said...

That must be why I don't have any gay friends. :p I haven't had sex with any of my friends. Seriously though, it would seem that most of my gay friends are either in relationships of their own or on-line friends.

Monday, August 07, 2006 3:58:28 PM

charlie said...

I have have Gay friends. I have not had sex with them. I have had 2 of them ask me to engague in sex with them. I told them no because I said that it would change our friendship. At the time I am not sure that they understood what I meant but after a while they both thanked me for saying no. They soon realizided that our friendship would not be just a friendship. I like them and they like me as feiends and not partners or lovers. We confinde in each other the most intimate details of our lives. I do not think that we could do this is it were more than friendship. Sometimes I think that people fall in "sex" and think it is love at the time, but later on when the sex wears off then they realize that is all they had. To me a Good friend is far more importnt then sex. Of course, I DO LOKE sex. :-) Very Good psting and oh so true.

Charlie

Monday, August 07, 2006 11:24:12 PM

Rey said...

Great post.

I often thought about this topic and wonder if I was from another planet or something. I tend to find myself with a similar dilemma. I've been in a monogamous relationship with my partner for seventeen years, and everything is great, but often we (more I than him) feel isolated from the rest. We go out a lot, but we find that unless there is something sexual do, we don't have much success connecting with other gay people. I sometimes even get the feeling that some people dislike us just because we are a couple (e.g.: "look at those two, don't they ever get sick of one another?"). No, I've never heard anyone say this about us, but I've heard it said about other couples; but I do sense some attitudes. Perhaps is the idea that we have such a close relationship that you can't tell one of us something without the other one finding out? Is because people soon after meeting us realize that there are no secrets between us, and therefore you can't take one without the other?

And like you, my concept of monogamy is not tied to a moral or ethical concept, but to a feeling that sex is more than an ejaculation. Also, my concept of monogamy is different than that of others, in that I don't view an occasional sex encounter with others, with both partners present, as not being monogamous.

I think some/many people think of sex as being something of value, like money or food, and therefore 'one' must take as much of it as 'one' can. It is similar to a behavior observed with people that would eat a lot because it's all you can eat, or get drunk because there's free booze. Like food or drink, you can't accumulate sex satisfaction by doing as much of it as you can regardless of whether you want to or not. I also think that many seek sex for the sake of satisfying an ego need. Nothing wrong with giving into one's ego requests on occasion, but too much energy spent on feeding one's ego is recipe for unhappiness (the ego always wants more).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against having sex outside of a relationship, I'm just saying that sex outside of a relationship is not worth it unless there is more involved than a mere shot of cream. So monogamy is preferable than the endless pursuit of sex with others instead of nurturing your own relationship. I love sex just like the Joe next door, and perhaps more. I always fantasize about sex with the guy on the train or bus or with several of them at the same time. I know if I tried, I could easily have sex as often as I wanted, but knowing me, I would not feel satisfied ninety percent of the time.

Those are my two cents, and it's good to know that I'm not from outer space.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006 11:57:21 AM

2006-08-11T09:21:00.000-07:00

Sunday, August 06, 2006
On coming out

In my last blog I made a point about being out to family, friends, and colleagues at work. I just want to make clear, however, that my coming out was no act of courage on my part; I was pushed out of the closet by the fickle finger of fate. In 1994 my then partner, who has since passed away, contracted a devastating form of lymphoma, and suddenly all my efforts outside of work were dedicated to seeing him through his illness. We had no time or energy to stay in the closet; frankly, we had much more important things to worry about.

Within a few weeks of his becoming ill, my gayness was right out there for the world to see. And lo and behold, it made almost no difference at all. My sister and brother in law were no problem, and even my then 77 year old mother took all of three weeks to get used to the idea. I lost no straight friends, and my relationship with colleagues and business associates was completely unchanged. I remember having thought back to the early 1960s, when even at one of the most liberal and progressive colleges in the US, being caught in an homosexual situation would have resulted in immediate expulsion and therefore, with little exaggeration, a seriously damaged life. Despite all we still have to do in terms of tolerance and acceptance, we have really accomplished a great deal, guys.

Unfortunately, however, I can't advocate breaking down the closet doors for everyone. I'm fully aware that my situation was in certain respects quite privileged:

1) I was director of my office, highly respected in my field, and therefore very useful to business associates and colleagues. Cutting me because I am gay would have been quite self destructive on their part. At that point I was also sufficiently financially established to afford even losing my job, if need be.

2) I was able emotionally to carry the idea across to my mother that either she accept my being gay or she would lose me as a son. I never actually said anything so brutal to her, but she knew that I was perfectly capable of walking out of our relationship if she gave me any trouble in this regard. I learned later that several of her friends who know me, and my sister, had told her the same thing, even quite directly.

3) Although I had never previously said I was gay, I had long since given up playing straight by dating women or saying things to imply that I was straight. So, my friends and colleagues didn't feel deceived when the truth came out.

4) It may be objected that my friends remained with me because it's pretty hard to cut a guy who is devoting a good part of his life to caring for his dying partner. But that isn't really fair to my friends, who have continued our friendship after my partner's death and are still friends with me and my new partner today. I just was pretty good at choosing friends.

So, coming out isn't always for everyone. But guys, it really is a lot easier to breathe outside of the closet.

posted by Bruce at 6:23 PM
3 Comments:

The_Gay_Dude said...

I would never dream of going back into the closet....once ya cross that barrier....whether things are tougher or easier for ya doesn't matter....cuz how ya feel inside....is what counts.....

Monday, August 07, 2006 12:58:08 AM

charlie said...

Bruce Sorry to hear about your partner. It is hard to find a posituve side to things at times but I thik that you having your Gay Freedom is positive. You will never forget your partner I know but if it were not for him you may still be in the closet hiding the real you.

God Bless,
Charlie

So osrry to hear aout your partner, even though it seems like the rest of coming out was a breeze!

My first partner Robbie died of leukemia just two years after we began dating, and even though I wasn't out at the time, my family knew there was something wrong...

My coming out was also by default when finally shared with one of my sisters what I was going through, and she proceeded to tell everyone else...

You have the opportunity now to make a real positve difference in the lives of those you love because of this horrible tragedy... And, from the sounds of your post, you do!

Jason

Monday, August 07, 2006 12:35:37 PM

2006-08-11T09:12:00.000-07:00

Sunday, August 06, 2006
My first blog. Why am I doing this?

Although I have commented on other people's blogs, this is the first blog of my own. Why am I doing this? I'm in a happy, long term monogamous partnership with an intelligent man with whom I can discuss almost anything. The degree of communication between us is, in fact, one of the most sexy aspects of our relationship, not that he isn't quite stimulating in other, perhaps more conventional ways. So, I very fortunately don't need a blog to "open my heart."

So, why blog, then? Although my partner and I are "out" to our families, friends, and at work, and prehaps just because we are so "out," the large majority of our social circle is straight. We have a few good gay friends, but their situation is so different from ours that discussions with them on many aspects of gay life have prooven unfruitful.

We hesitate to discuss gay issues with our straight friends since we do not want to overemphasize this aspect of our lives with them; we want just to be their friends, and not their "gay friends." They generally don't approach us on gay issues, and we don't bring them up with them. There's no taboo on this issue. If a gay topic does come up, we can discuss it with them comfortably. We want, however, to avoid restricting our friendship to our being our straight friends' window on the gay community or a source they would consult to get the gay perspective.

This danger exists, of course, with membership in any social minority. I'm Jewish, and, in fact, quite active in the Jewish community ( hence, with few, if any hang ups in this respect), but I do, in fact, resent people's considering me their "Jewish friend." I have, in fact, dropped relationships with people who have frequently steered the conversation towards this aspect of my being. They don't appear to be in any way antisemitic, in fact, they are generally, if anything, apparently philosemitic; but why can't they accept me just as a man, and go read a book on Jewish issues? If I were black, I would sorely resent indications of friends' emphasizing my race in my relationship with them. So it is with being gay.

In short, despite the high degree of communication I and my partner have with each other, and despite the easy social acceptance we enjoy among friends and colleagues, we suffer nevertheless from a ceratin degree of isolation beyond that which is the case with the human condition. Maybe blogging will help.

posted by Bruce at 2:49 AM
5 Comments:

The_Gay_Dude said...

Welcome Bruce.....and I think that you'll find that blogging helps a lot! Can't wait to hear more from you :)

Sunday, August 06, 2006 11:41:51 AM

charlie said...

Welcome Bruce. Bruce is such a Gay name. :-)
I can relate to what u are saying. I am out to my family amd my friends. Most of my friends are also str8. Being a Nurse I am not out to my coworkers or clients because I do not want it to affect m work enviornment. I have a couple of really close Gay friends that I can say anything to but it is not the same with str8 friends. They are accepting and nonjudgmental but I do not think that they really understand what being Gay is. So, this is a perfect venue for someone like you. I am sure that u will have a Great time.

Charlie

Sunday, August 06, 2006 1:23:00 PM

Robguy said...

Cool! Now I have a gay Jewish friend! Oh wait, already had those...

Welcome to the blog anyway ;)

Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:26:18 PM

Rey said...

Jesus! (Can I say this?)

Several different thoughts crossed my mind after reading this interesting post.

I'm also out at work and family (finally after all these years). But one of the women at work has managed to irritate me by making certain gestures about my gayness to the point where I want to punch her in the face. The irony is that this coworker is the one person I use to regard with the highest esteem, to the point I even consider her a potential great friend. But because or her little gestures, my respect for her have dropped down to near zero. I may be gay, but I have no interest in playing with makeup, or women's clothes, or being a beauty expert. It simply is not my thing, just like playing basketball, or football are not among my favorites activities. It has nothing to do with wanting to appear masculine. But it irritates me so much when someone starts making funny gestures at me, especially in front of others, in an attempt to push me into a stereotype. Whenever the ladies in the office are talking about something womanly, like how great someone's dress or hair look, this person would look at me with a smirk on her face, and while batting her eyelashes she would make some little silly comment like "what do you think, Rey, should she change her hair style/color?". The first time or two, I even joined the joke thinking to myself, oh Rey, kidding about yourself being into womanly stuff will not diminish you as a person in any way. But what I found out is that when you play into these stereotypes, you are indeed being diminished. Even if I was interested in women's fashions, playing into the stereotype is very damaging, if you are not careful who you play with. This is the same stuff that blacks, Jews, etc. have to live with on a daily basis, and people don't realize how obnoxious they are when they behave this way, even if their intensions are not malicious. I don't want you to think that I am this person who gets easily offended with the tiniest of inappropriate comments. I have a very high tolerance for inappropriate use of language, and I am even guilty of stereotyping every one at one time or another (like the very first line of this post). But there is a difference between an occasional joke (right place, time, and person), and a constant bombardment of innuendo towards a person.

Another thing I can relate with is the isolation I feel with the rest of the gay community because I am in a stable relationship (I think). Every connection I make with others, being single people or even couples seem to have some agenda besides just doing things that every one enjoys. If it's not sex, it's money, or property in the Hamptons, or "what you can do for me". Part of this isolation is probably my own fault for not being willing to let my guard down so that people have an opportunity to get to know me, but my being so guarded all the time is probably due to having been exposed to so much disappointment in the process of forming genuine relationships as friends.

As a gay person, I don't feel comfortable living in a ghetto. Everything in my life doesn't have to be about being gay, but I do feel a very strong need to associate with gay people without having everything in my life become gay. I don't want to adopt interests, change where I live, or adopt a certain behavior just to be able to fit in, nor do I want others to change their way for me.

PS: I like thig blog.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006 1:03:23 PM

Bruce said...

Rey-- Thanks very much for your thoughtful response to my post. You and I seem to be very much in the same place on these issues. It's really very difficult to know what to do, or even how to feel in reference to our relationship to straight people.

In another post, I talked about coming out, and how I didn't lose any friends or respect among colleagues or business associates. But I am also convinced that it was so because i was in a position of power in my professional life. No one in my office would have dared to pull what your colleague is pulling with you.

I don't know if you're in a political or emotional position to do so, but I would let her know that she is stereotyping you in a rather degrading way, and that you find it offensive. If she is doing it unconsciously, and, at least on the conscious level, means no offense, she will apologize and stop, and the friendship may be saved. If she really is a homophobe, she will probably try to deflect or trivialize your objections, and you will lose a friendship that wasn't really based on anything sound, anyway.

Of course, Rey, I repeat, I don't know your political position. If she is, in fact, a homophobe, she will probably feel very uncomfortable with you. That's not really your problem unless, of course, she's in a position to interfere with your work or standing in the company. If that's the case, you may have to find another coping strategy. Many non profits have a rather positive policy towards gays people by now, and you may want to have a talk with your human resources officer if your colleague continues to give you trouble.

But all this is only a part of our larger problem, how we relate to the straight world and, frankly, how much we can trust straights. You, like me, don't want your sexual orientation to dominate your life. I think the one thing one can do is to consider only how straight people treat you and how they treat other gay men. If you worry too much about what they feel about you as a gay man in their heart of hearts, you'll go crazy. Of course, this brings us back to our starting point: You can't really discuss personal gay issues and feelings with them. That requires a level of trust which we find it hard to muster up.

So, in order to vent these ideas and feelings, we are left with the gay community. I've contributed two posts now on gay monogamy, and as you can see, I've had exactly the same problem with the gay community on this matter as you have. That almost no one has responded to these posts, even to oppose them, is quite indicative.

Rey, we seem to be quite together on these issues that are very important to us. I look forward to discussing these matters with you further. I have my own blog, outside the GMR site, but I don't use it. So just attach a comment to any to the posts I have left on GMR.

All the best.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006 2:48:44 PM