'Gay' vs 'really gay'?

[Johnny Mayberry]

But if you say "I'll accept these gays but not those gays" or "I'll accept gays if they behave in a way that doesn't make me uncomfortable" you are, in effect, granting permission to be gay to some, and withholding it from others.

That is the crux of the objection to your remarks.

The problem with the idea that more "mainstream" gays and lesbians ought to disassociate themselves from our more flamboyant or controversial brothers and sisters in order to placate the discomfort of straights is simply not tenable, for several reasons.

As I expect to be accepted for my sexuality and insist on my right to express it as I see fit, I can not turn around and deny the same right to others.

And where will we draw that line? Is a little bit of sashaying alright. Will we establish guidelines for just how limp a man's wrist can be, or how spiky a woman can wear her hair?

And what assurances do we have that any such compromise would be acceptable? I think we can agree that there will always be straights to object to our very existence, and no moderation of our behavior or appearance will be sufficient to placate them.

It's been said so many times that it has become a cliche, but it remains appropriate.

We're here.

We're queer.

Get used to it.

Yeah...it is a cliche, and you can save your little jingles...

You act as though I was making some sweeping declaration about gay rights, when all I was talking about was a personal opinion about something that annoys me. I certainly wasn't saying that only some gay people deserve full rights and participation in society. I think so long as you aren't hurting anyone, do what you like...but just like someone has the right to annoy me, I have the right to gripe about it...at length...to anyone who will listen.

 

[glamorilla]

or you were acting like a jerk.

 

[lavender]

I don't know if zipman is reading this thread still, but I think I would like to comment on some of his posts. I am intentionally ignoring some other posts, including Johnny Mayberry's, because I think zipman is more likely to be reasoned with, and quite honesty, his posts surprise me the most.

Denying that some gays demonstrate extremely effeminate behavior as an affectation is as ridiculous as saying some heterosexual men don't affect an overly macho attitude as an affectation.

Let's at least be honest in the discussion!

Zipman, I'd like to place this in a BDSM context for you. There have been many occasions on the GB when someone has jokingly discussed the fact that "Doms" are assholes. I understand your ire when you come in and contradict this. I know that you have dealt with educating others about BDSM and it is incredibly frustrating to continually deal with the stereotypes about Doms in the lifestyle. I have watched your responses to these threads and posts on numerous occasions.

And yet, you come in on the GLBT forum and ask the posters here, most of whom are gay or bisexual, to be "honest in this discussion."

I think if a similar thread were posted in the BDSM forum or on the GB you would be the first to come in, as Queersetti or Glam or others did in this thread.

Before you point out the differences, I can see them. You believe that the threads and posts you have responded to have addressed Doms as a whole not allowing them individuality. You would be willing to discuss a topic that dealt with certain Doms who express certain traits and you believe this thread is dealing with certain gay men who exhibit certain specific traits - rather than dealing with gay men as a whole.

But, I honestly believe it is a bit different. While BDSM is a community, the vast majority of those in the lifestyle will freely admit that men who demonstrate such negative characteristics, do not truly understand or practice BDSM as you define it or believe it to be. Those who in literature discuss needs for safety when dealing with unexperienced Doms or those who truly do not comport to the philosophy of BDSM are not embraced by the community if they have a history of seriously harming women or other men.

In this way, BDSM differs from the gay community and this topic. Even the most effeminate gays are still part of the community - their sexuality is not in question. The gay community, while critical at times, still somewhat embraces all types of queer sexuality.

I'm not making sense. I have so much I want to say. But, I'll move on to your next post.

 

[lavender]

Admitting that both heterosexuals and homosexuals try and fit into certain "stereotypes" establishes a common ground for discussing the issue of the "swishy stereotype."


Isn't this the correct forum for such a discussion to take place?

The problem, zipman, is that heterosexuals and heterosexual run institution have fostered this stereotype. It is the dominant culture who has created the stereotype and promulgated it through society. The reason that this is the stereotype for gay males is because it is the characteristic that the dominant culture is most frightened by. It is the effiminate gay man or the very masculine lesbian that truly rocks our cultural and gender constructs more than anyone other "type" of person within the gay community.

Why should the posters on the GLBT forum use Johnny's or your common ground for discussing this topic? Why should they use the common ground created by the heterosexist culture to discuss this topic at all? Why must they have to acknowledge and answer the perpetuation of the dominant stereotype about gays that is completely different from the actuality?

Don't you think they are tired of defending this? Don't you think they are tired of how many homosexuals are portrayed in the media - such as on TV, in film, and in politics? Why should they be forced, on their "safe haven" forum to deal once again with the discrimination and the dominant culture's stereotypes?

I'm sure you understand being tired of defending certain stereotypes. And, I'm pretty sure you would deal with a thread like this on the BDSM forum in a very similar matter.

There is also a difference that I see between a BDSM educational approach and a GLBT education approach. Homosexuality has been discussed in our culture to a far greater degree than BDSM. BDSM is a much more insular minority - partly due to its own desire, and partly due to fear.

Homosexual desire and the gay culture has been discussed to a far greater degree. Our understanding of homosexuals, and the lifestyle, should be far greater than the understanding and knowledge individuals have about BDSM sexuality. Maybe in a perfect world that's not the case, but it sure is in the real world.

 

[lavender]

Well, we could discuss the need for "fitting into a stereotype." I have always been amazed at the false bravado and machismo that many men feel is how they should behave. Even more so, I think some of them feel a societal expectation to act that way.

That seems like a worthwile type of discussion to have, from both the heterosexual as well as homosexual standpoints. Indeed, if the participants really looked for similar reasons why such dynamics exist, some of us might just understand the other guy's point of view a little better.

Or you could just keep up with the snippy remarks. Your choice.

I believe the difference lies within history. Historically, machismo, the man as the breadwinner, and all sorts of other "manly" stereotypes have been bred in western culture for centuries.

The idea of the effiminate homosexual was not around until sometime in the mid 19th century. It wasn't until then that the term homosexual even came about. If you study Foucault's History of Sexuality, you will realize prior to this time there was no "heterosexual" and "homosexual." There as no bright-line or defined polarization between individuals based upon their sexual preference. Sexuality was quite a bit more fluid before this construct was created.

But, once the construct was created, stereotypes emerged. They have increasingly become more prevalent in western culture over the last 150 years or so.

I don't know. I think the two stereotypes are like comparing appleas to oranges. The dominant culture creates the stereotypes, and yet the "macho men" fit within the dominant culture where as the "swishy" man does not. The "macho men" were part and parcel of creating the stereotype whereas the "swishy" man and the individuals that he "supposedly" represents had no part in it.

In fact, the "macho man" stereotype comes from the dominant cultures fear of the "swishy" man. I believe that the stereotypes should not be discussed in terms of how individuals should be, but why the dominant culture has such a fear of others - those who do not fit within the confines of the dominant culture's belief of the way things should be.

I think your desire to speak about these issues comes from a completely faulty premise. Instead of discussing what's "wrong" with these people and why they are annoying, we should actually be discussing why the dominant culture has such strict gender identities and gender roles and why anyone who deviates from those roles are seen as outcasts.

 

[lavender]

Sorry, my bad, I didn't realize that GLBT stood for Gay Lesbian Bisexual Treehouse.

The anti-heterosexual bias against anyone who posts here is pretty ugly.

Congrats Etoile! You've fostered a place where dialogue and or criticism is not permitted unless it is uttered by a member of they forum.

Othwerwise, any comments are met with pettiness and defensiveness.


Just perfect for a discussion board

This is just out of line. I have NEVER seen ANY anti-heterosexual bias on this board.

Zip, people aren't responding to Johnny, Rosco and you in this manner because you are straight but because of the posts you have made.

This post was absolutely out of line.

 

[yourdestonie]

Yeah...it is a cliche, and you can save your little jingles...

You act as though I was making some sweeping declaration about gay rights, when all I was talking about was a personal opinion about something that annoys me. I certainly wasn't saying that only some gay people deserve full rights and participation in society. I think so long as you aren't hurting anyone, do what you like...but just like someone has the right to annoy me, I have the right to gripe about it...at length...to anyone who will listen.

Exactly what I was trying to say. Don't we all have that right? I thought thats what the USA was founded on.


And yeah before you get all rilled up you have the right to not like it too.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

or you were acting like a jerk.

...yeah, that too!

 

[Pookie]

Exactly what I was trying to say. Don't we all have that right? I thought thats what the USA was founded on.


And yeah before you get all rilled up you have the right to not like it too.

You do have the right to say what you want. But don't be surprised at the natural backlash for the things you say, especially when sitting among those you criticize.

I find it amazing that some seem to want to call us responding to an attack on part of the gay community as "straight bashing". I've yet to see ANY comment in this thread (or any thread in this forum) that could be considered straight bashing. JM's first post in this thread appeared to be an attack on part of the gay community, if not the gay community as a whole. It took pages for him to say he didn't mean it the way it was stated. The response by us to his initial post was a correct and very natural one, and shouldn't have been unexpected by him or anyone else.

Also, Zipman's comment, "The anti-heterosexual bias against anyone who posts here is pretty ugly", is completely absurd based on the posts here. People disagreed with his opinion, so they were labeled "anti-heterosexual". I find that very offensive and insulting.


Edited for typos.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

There has only been mild anti-heterosexual commenting in this...on the other hand, there has ben a bit too much defensiveness, in my opinion.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Also, LOL at Lavender for using the phrase 'heterosexist'...

 

[Queersetti]

Yeah...it is a cliche, and you can save your little jingles...

You act as though I was making some sweeping declaration about gay rights, when all I was talking about was a personal opinion about something that annoys me. I certainly wasn't saying that only some gay people deserve full rights and participation in society. I think so long as you aren't hurting anyone, do what you like...but just like someone has the right to annoy me, I have the right to gripe about it...at length...to anyone who will listen.

Well, from a guy who started the thread by saying that people who annoyed him should be shut up, I'll take that as a sign of progress.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Well, from a guy who started the thread by saying that people who annoyed him should be shut up, I'll take that as a sign of progress.

Hey, when I said someone should shut them up, I meant by shushing them librarian-style, not a boot to the groin or anything.

 

[Queersetti]

Hey, when I said someone should shut them up, I meant by shushing them librarian-style, not a boot to the groin or anything.

Don't you think that if I shushed them librarian style, I might come off as a little swishy myself?

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Don't you think that if I shushed them librarian style, I might come off as a little swishy myself?

Depends on whether or not you have granny glasses dangling from a chain on your chest.

 

[ExistentialLuv]

As a liberal straight male, I am by nature all for people putting anything they want into any other consenting adult, so long as it is in private. On the other hand, I find myself offended by a certain segemnt of the gay population. You know the ones I mean. The 'really gay' men. The swishy, effeninate types, who play into the whole gay stereotype. Grrrr...

Can't the rest of you shut those guys up?!?

And pretell what do you consider as the sterotype. As someone who was just recently sterotyped because I every once in a while wear a doo rag, have never really shaved my legs, and do not wear really any makeup except lipstick. If it was not for the fact I am gay I might have really taken offence to this. I am very fem but my outwards appearance should not justify someones opinion of me. Shit I could have just been an earth muffin. Watched a good movie this weekend on sterotyping gays, think I will start a thread on it.

 

[glamorilla]

Very impressive Lavy!

Just paraphrasing I think the flaming gay stereo type along with the butch lesbian is most used in popular media simply becouse popular media tends to think in broad general stereo types.

For example the character of "Jack" on Will and Grace. Initially I thought the character was a very clever satire on gay life in the big city. I only follow the show on late night reruns before i go to sleep but from what I see the character is no longer gay. Jack is borderline transexual and I'd have more respect for the show if they would handle him as such. The minor romantic backdrop involving Will and Jack as possible "soulmates" is kind of funny to me becouse transexuals dont end up with gay men like Will~they end up with straight and bi sexual men who are attracted to transexuals and the whole thing leaves me wondering if the show has any gay writers. He's written this way becouse it's funny to the general public to see a man have feminine traits. It makes them feel much safer that way.

I don't think you guys understand the pressure that exists within the gay community to be masculine. Just becouse gay men tend to like fashion,interior design and the creative arts doesn't mean it isnt expressed in a masculine way. Some of you guys have stated you've worked in manhattan restaurants and have been privvy to knowing several funny flamey gay men...well have any of you guys ever really sauntered through chelsea~it's like navigating through a football field led by drill sargents. The only difference being is we can also recognize qualities and emotions and attitudes that are generally labelled as "effeminate" and unlike straight men we aren't afraid to embrace them.

I think that does leave us (gay men) better off.

There are just as many if not more by nature of the majority flambouyant straight men.

We just look better doing it.

*edited for some typos.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I don't think you guys understand the pressure that exists within the gay community to be masculine. Just becouse gay men tend to like fashion,interior design and the creative arts doesn't mean it isnt expressed in a masculine way. Some of you guys have stated you've worked in manhattan restaurants and have been privvy to knowing several funny flamey gay men...well have any of you guys ever really sauntered through chelsea~it's like navigating through a football field led by drill sargents. The only difference being is we can also recognize qualities and emotions and attitudes that are generally labelled as "effeminate" and unlike straight men we aren't afraid to embrace them.


*edited for some typos.

You learn something new every day...

 

[rosco rathbone]

well have any of you guys ever really sauntered through chelsea~it's like navigating through a football field led by drill sargents.

Yeah....drill-sergeants in tight shorts, booth tans, flip-flops, manicures, and those haircuts with the cute little cowlick in front.

 

[glamorilla]

yeah they turn me on too.

 

[Netzach]

Sounds like my fiance, except his tan is an outdoor one and his cowlick is longer.

Works for me.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I just wanted to bump this to say I'm really, really, really sorry for this...really!

Boy, I look back, and yeah, I came off as a real bastard...I was trying to be playful, when you folks really don't know me or my sense of humor. Won't happen again, I promise!

 

[Queersetti]

I just wanted to bump this to say I'm really, really, really sorry for this...really!

Boy, I look back, and yeah, I came off as a real bastard...I was trying to be playful, when you folks really don't know me or my sense of humor. Won't happen again, I promise!

That's very gracious of you, Johnny.

I hope that in the future we can have many friendly and productive discussions.

 

[Pookie]

I just wanted to bump this to say I'm really, really, really sorry for this...really!

Boy, I look back, and yeah, I came off as a real bastard...I was trying to be playful, when you folks really don't know me or my sense of humor. Won't happen again, I promise!

You and I had already chatted in a PM before. I think this is way cool.