28 posts tagged “gay”

I'm reading Edmund White's 'States of Desire: Travels in Gay America', which I found in a bookstore outside of Sydney for $2. It was written in 1980, the final year of un-ballasted gay hedonism. It opens with a passage about L.A.:

The almost Oriental politeness of the West Coast is one of its distinctive regional features, in marked contrast to the contentiousness of the East Coast. On e may grumble at a television performer out West but never at someone appearing 'live'. So few human contacts in Los Angeles go unmediated by glass (either a TV screen or an automobile windshield), that the direct confrontation renders the participants docile, stunned, sweet.
[...]
The polite friendliness of Californians is an ambiguous quality. Within the first ten minutes a visitor is showered with affection and familiarity, but that may be as close as one is ever likely to get to someone out West. This openhanded but superficial civility, linked to an obdurate and profound reticence, is precisely the granite wedge that all those hostile forms of California therapy are trying to dynamite. There is, however, a great public if not personal benefit to be derived from uniform good manners. People are able to cooperate. They can accomplish things.

This reminds me of Seattle, how everyone you meet is instantly welcoming and impressed with you, but that's as far as you ever get. Denmark has poured some bitter black coffee into the sweet cream of my West Coast superficio-ductions, but I still catch myself doing this.

I also liked this part about a New York acquaintance moving out to LA.

His tenement pallor is giving way to a tan. His monologue pauses occasionally now for reflection or even for listening, and he has discovered in California that politeness I have mentioned, which he mistakes for acceptance.

I'm only on page fucking 21, and I can't stop quoting this thing:

'The real problem here,' [He's now quoting a gay psychotherapist in LA] 'is that smart people don't know each other. In a large nomadic population such as the gay group in this city, the rules must be kept very simple. In Los Angeles the one rule is sexual display and curiosity. Even the most brilliant man, once he is at a party, will succumb to the general vapidness. From nine to five these people are bright, clever, grownup, but after five they become emotional morons. At parties there are no serious conversations and little real warmth. People arrive an hour late (a sign of hostility) and leave saying it was a terrible bore. Of course they were disappointed; what they needed was companionship but what they thought they wanted was sexual adventure.'

You have to resist the impluse to nostalgize this period in contemporary gay life. It's tempting to reclaim the pre-AIDS period in 'those were the days' terms. But they weren't, objectively. A lot of these men were profoundly damaged. No one was out of the closet. The cops openly harassed gay bars and assaulted patrons. Legal and civil rights were nonexistent, as everyone in this book would discover in the next decade. Still, it's hard to not to find a wistful sigh on every page. 

You know how parents are always worried about their kids searching for something innocuous on the internet and then ending up being exposed to a bunch of unseemly shit? Like they Google 'juice box' and end up on piss-on-this-face.com?

Every once in awhile that happens in real life.

So we went to Berlin last weekend. The end of summer! Cultural capital! This'll be fun, right?

We didn't know that the first weekend of September is the Folsom Street Fair in Berlin. Apparently every homosexual in Europe is aware of this except for us.

Folsom is a gathering of the 'fetish community' from around Europe. Which pretty much means that it's about 10,000 middle-aged homosexuals in leather, drinking beer and lamenting the weekend's carb intake. Think of it like the European equivalent of a State Fair, except the petting zoo pets back.

Once we figured out that it was in Berlin at the same time we were, we thought we would go check it out. There was a nice Central European dude handing out fliers at the entrance, yelling 'Come and meet your fellow perverts!'

So we went, we chatted, we learned and we took pictures. I was going to preface these with some kind of disclaimer, like 'This is not representative of gay life in general. We'll stop doing this shit if you let us get married!' or something. But I'm not going to apologize for these people. They're just hanging out and having fun in a way that makes them feel comfortable, and they're not remotely bothering anyone else.

Besides, we actually had a really good time. Everyone we chatted to was way friendly, nobody minded us giggling at their bove-wear, and they were all happy to answer our I-grew-up-in-Repressostan questions. Plus, they all let me take their picture.

So if you really need to distance yourself from this, just remember: These people aren't weird because they're gay. They're weird because they're German.

 

I'm kind of enjoying the fetus of a speechwriting career I've somehow umbilical'd over the course of this year. I've written three speeches for my boss to give to companies, one for my boss-boss to give to the European Parliament and now one for my buddy to give to a throng of drunk, sunburned homosexuals.

My friend HC is the president of the Danish National Association of Gays and Lesbians, and he asked me to write the speech he delivered at the closing ceremony of Copenhagen Gay Pride this year. It was a special year, since the Pride took place at the end of the 10-day Copenhagen OutGames, which are pretty much the gay Olympics and sort of my favorite thing ever now.

Some estimates say that 50,000 people were in the square to hear the speech, but you know how gays inflate numbers. It was probably more like 125 people.

Anyway, here's a snip of what I wrote for him. The full Eva Peron is here.

As most of you know, there was an incident on Tuesday where one spectator thought it’d be a good idea to go to one of the Outgames sporting events and throw fireworks onto the field. A few of them exploded and an American runner was injured.

Now… The problem with harassing gay athletes is that they’re athletes. A couple of them ran after him and held him down until police arrived. He’s now detained by the police, the sports events continued and the runner was already back the next day to participate.

You know, one of the first messages of the gay rights movement was ‘We’re Here, We’re Queer, Get Used to It’. After this week, I’m looking forward to seeing the banners saying ‘We’re Here, We’re Queer, and We Can Run Faster Than You.’

[...]

In October 2009 Denmark celebrates its 20th anniversary as the first country in the world to let same-sex couples enter a civil union. Last weekend we paid honor to Axel Axgil, the founder of our organization and the first man ever to get married to another man. Axel’s presence here demonstrated to me that we’re all a part of something larger.

LGBT people and activists have been around long before I was just a skinny boy in Jutland—realizing I fancied other skinny boys in Jutland. It also made me realize that there are a lot more Axel Axgils out there, waiting for the world to tell them that the future has room for them too.

Events like the OutGames are a way for us to deliver that message. The OutGames is special because it’s an event where lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people can come together and represent not how we love, but what we love. The OutGames lets the world know that we really are everywhere. We’re in your families, we’re at your workplace, we’re on your sports field and yes, we’re in your locker rooms.

People are always talking about ‘the gay community’. But sometimes ‘the gay community’ is hard to see. You know, for a group defined by the term ‘homo’, we’re a pretty diverse bunch.

Some of us are from small towns, others from big cities. Some of us work in fashion or theater, others are plumbers and electricians. Some of us get up early every morning to go swimming, others think the backstroke is something you get at a massage parlor.

What I’m trying to say is, we’re here to celebrate not what makes us different, but what makes us the same.

It’s important for us to acknowledge that the gay community also includes a lot of people who couldn’t join us this week. And I’m not just talking about the members of our community who live in places where it’s illegal or unsafe to be out and open. No matter where you go, whether it’s Moldova or Massachusetts, you’ll find people struggling to be themselves, people who need to hear that the rest of the world supports them.

The OutGames sets an example to LGBT people around the world. It also sends a message to all the straight people: We are everywhere. We are united. And we can run faster than you.

I know I'm supposed to get all pissed off about statements like that, from a pedophile-faced Oklahoma senator in the New York Times. But he's probably right: Integrating the military will affect morale and unit cohesion. People in the military tend to be socially conservative, and this is a change that undeniably will make them uncomfortable.

But that doesn't make it a valid reason for keeping 'don't ask don't tell' in place.

Look at the logic. Gay advocates say 'the military ban on homosexuals represents a denial of rights to a recognized minority group'. Right-wing legislators respond with 'but letting gays fight in the military is hard.'

This is like telling your Senator that your brother has been imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit, and the Senator responds with 'Well there aren't any buses that go to the prison to take him home, so he'll just have to stay.'

I have no doubt that racially integrating the military in 1948 negatively affected morale and unit cohesion. The military was socially conservative in the 1940s, too. That shit was hard. But it was the right thing to do, so America sacked up, dealt with the consequences and waited for the new normal.

Unless someone comes up with a good reason why gays aren't a legitimate minority, or that they're not worthy of equal treatment (prevalence of 'Ugly Betty' fan club membership, for example), lowered morale just doesn't cut it.

It's like shooting some heterosexual species of fish. In a barrel shaped like a disco ball.

This is a pretty incredible entry from a pretty incredible blog:

I’m seventeen, and consider myself gay. I’ve told a fair amount of people. My best friend was first. “What?” he said. “You can’t be. I know you too well. It’s just a phase.” That made me smile. A few weeks ago he casually mentioned he always knew. Which version is true I don’t know. Both I guess.

My parents know too. I didn’t tell them. Well no, I did. I didn’t want to though. Both put me in a position where I had to tell them. [...] I’m a little bitter about it. It was mine to tell, not theirs to take. They love me though. In their separate ways. My mother was being selfish – why hadn’t her son told her first? My dad was upset – why can’t his son talk about things with him?

[...]

I often see boys I like. I try and make eye contact. Invisible. That’s what I must be. Oh wait, no. Of course. Boys like girls. Why would they want to look into my eyes?

Last week I went to London for the day. Lots of boys to look at. No boys looked at me. Only a man with a funny accent twice my age. How naïve can I get? The moment the tone changed and I realised what he wanted, I was scared, upset and angry. A man in central London doesn’t talk to you to be friendly. He isn’t interested in my plans for the future. He’s talking to me because he wants to fuck me.

He was trying to charm me into going back to his house. Why me? Do I look gay? The woman next to me can hear what you’re saying. Help me. But he isn’t saying anything bad. Nothing explicit, nothing even remotely sexual. Just a lot of talk about how we could be “friends.” A lot of talk of how he’d like to “entertain” me. No I’m not writing my number down. I’m doing the Sudoku.

A friend of mine here just came out of the closet at age 29. This is mostly hilarious ('Wait, you guys have never slept with girls? Why not?!') and occasionally poignant.

Here's one of the the comments on that entry:

I still remember feeling some of the things you described, Tim. I tried dating girls. I was a good kisser too. One girl said that when I kissed her it made her knees go all weak. I tried to imagine what that might have felt like.

I found out a few years later when I kissed a man for the first time.

My friend is always surprised that he actually wants the people he dates to call him back. He has literally never felt this before.

It's funny seeing an adult go through all the stuff I manhandled at age 16. There's a whole new world out there for him. It's like watching your grandma use Skype for the first time.

because they're resorting to this weak shit:

The proposition on the table right now is that our faith itself is a form of bigotry. [...] Public opinion hasn't changed much at all. What's changed is the punishment the gay marriage movement is inflicting on dissenters, which is narrowing the circle of people willing to speak.

[...]

But the two most important messages I've been telling people: 1. Marriage matters because children need a mom and dad. And 2. Gay marriage is going to effect a lot of people besides Adam and Steve. Because if you disagree with the government's definition of marriage you can expect to be treated like a bigot who opposes interracial marriage.

When I first read this, a few things struck me:

1. If the '90s taught America anything, it's that no group is too powerful or mainstream to posture as if it's a persecuted minority. The 'narrowing circle' referred to above encompasses 76 percent of the U.S. population, including the president and the overwhelming majority of Congress and the Supreme Court. Note to Christian America: You are not the Kurds.
2. The anti-gay marriage right has apparently given up on the center. This message isn't crafted to appeal to moderate soccer-parents who just watched Adam and Steve move in next door. The 'you will be persecuted for living your faith' message only serves to rally the troops. They're going for money and turnout, not hearts and minds.
3. The factual foundation of these arguments is looking sandier by the minute. The statement 'public opinion hasn't changed much at all' is hilarious to anyone who has read a newspaper in the last 6 years.
4. Since when did opposition to gay marriage become a fundamental component of the Christian faith?
5. Christians oppose premarital sex too, but that doesn't give them the right to deny employment or housing to unmarried, cohabiting couples. They're not under any particular seige because this is so. 
6. Besides, it's already illegal in many states to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Refusing to hire Brad the Lisping Intern will still be prohibited, whether he's married or not.
7. By implying that opposition to gay marriage is your faith, they're ignoring the Christians who aren't bothered by same-sex couples. There's a wide range of opinions among religious people on this issue.
8. OK, I might be making that last part up . Who knows what religious people are up to? I live in Europe! I don't know any! Ahahahah!
9. I keep waiting for someone to point that this argument ('No, you're the bigot, you unrepentant minority!') is exactly the one that a Muslim would make if he didn't want to work with Jews. 'You're right, Dr. Muhammad. We're monsters for making you compromise your deeply-held beliefs just to kowtow to the forces of political correctness. We'll get the Schwartzes out of the waiting room.'

In other words, can you guys just shut up and let us win already? We need to get through this so we can move on to our real agenda: Polygamy, incest and bestiality.

A few weeks ago I mentioned how ridiculous it is to pacify Evangelitard voters by 'compromising' the fight for gay marriage. 'We'll leave you alone if you leave us alone' only works between groups that have roughly the same amount of power.

I know that the comparison between the civil rights movement and the gay-bomination movement is flawed, but I thought this was a fascinating description of late-1800s attempts by blacks to compromise with whites:

[Booker T.] Washington basically said to the white South in 1895. "You win. We don't want the right the vote. We just want to till our farms, better ourselves, and be left alone. Leave us in peace, and you'll here no more of this voting or integration business." You have to remember the state of mind of black people, at that time. Reconstruction had been rolled back. The South was wracked by race riots. Three years after Washington's speech, the only coup in American history was orchestrated in Wilmington, North Carolina by racist thugs. Washington was basically conceding what he'd already lost. In return he hoped to simply secure the right of good Christian blacks to work the land in peace.

The dominant logic of the post-Reconstruction era held that the real problem wasn't white racists, but carpetbaggers and meddlers from up North who'd elevated illiterate blacks above their station. The white Southerner, presumably, had no existential objection to blacks, they just didn't want to live next door to them or have an illiterate and morally degenerate population electing their politicians. To this Washington, and much of black America, said Fine. Cease fire. You let us be, we'll let you be.

In retrospect, this was a grievous error. In point of fact, whites actually did have an existential objection to black people. Their beef wasn't that illiterates and moral degenerates might get too much power. Quite the opposite. Their beef was that blacks would prove to not be illiterates and moral degenerates, and thus fully able to compete with them. To see this point illustrated, one need only look at the history of race riots in the South. When white mobs set upon black communities they didn't simply burn down the "morally degenerate" portions--they attacked the South's burgeoning black middle and working class and its institutions. They went for the churches, the schools and the businesses. It's one thing to be opposed to black amorality. It's quite another to be opposed to black progress. The lesson blacks took post-Atlanta Compromise was that whites had used the former to cover for the latter. These days, it's popular to bemoan the fact that Washington has fallen into disfavor. But it wasn't blacks who proved the Atlanta Compromise fraudulent--it was the whites of that era.

There's obviously no direct line from Booker T. Washington in Atlanta 110 years ago to hand-holding lesbians in San Diego today, but it's worth noting that a truce only works if both parties have an interest in keeping it.

Telling religious communities, 'You can keep your Southern-fried bigotry, just let us get married in the states where we live' would never work. So-called 'traditional Christians' have no genuine interest in a compromise with gays. Why would they? Raining on our Pride parade is a great fundraising, publicity and recruitment tool. 

It's up to gays to make the case--the objectively right one--that gay equality threatens nothing and doesn't make anybody worse off. If the thumpers can't get with the program, fuck 'em. Any rights gained by appeasing an ignorant majority aren't worth having.