Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
- Joined
- Nov 3, 1999
- Messages
- 84,998
Pride Parade!
- Thread starter femmme fatal
- Start date
Infinite Jest
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- May 9, 2000
- Messages
- 24,398
Spencer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 21, 1999
- Messages
- 8,041
Ok, how about another quick round of "Devils Advocate" (and again, please note that these are just topics. I do not necisarily stand by them as my personal beliefs).
-Homosexuality is viewed by some as, literally, a crime against nature. Sex is, in the basest terms, the means in which any species procreates and continues on. (A very easy topic do shoot down with intelligent commentary, but still, an issue none the less)
- For phil - a little bit of simplification - The rules of "The White Man" are pretty much the standard for american life. One of the main parts of the Gay Rights agenda is to be treated fair and equally (which, in reality, means treated like "the white man"). "the white man" is becoming an ever increasing target for bias, bigotry, hate, and unfiar treatment, both socially, and in the professional workplace environment. So, what i ask is, Do homosexuals *really* want to be treated "fairly and equally"?
*my head hurts now.*
-Homosexuality is viewed by some as, literally, a crime against nature. Sex is, in the basest terms, the means in which any species procreates and continues on. (A very easy topic do shoot down with intelligent commentary, but still, an issue none the less)
- For phil - a little bit of simplification - The rules of "The White Man" are pretty much the standard for american life. One of the main parts of the Gay Rights agenda is to be treated fair and equally (which, in reality, means treated like "the white man"). "the white man" is becoming an ever increasing target for bias, bigotry, hate, and unfiar treatment, both socially, and in the professional workplace environment. So, what i ask is, Do homosexuals *really* want to be treated "fairly and equally"?
*my head hurts now.*
Originally posted by Spencer:
-Homosexuality is viewed by some as, literally, a crime against nature. Sex is, in the basest terms, the means in which any species procreates and continues on.
This is surely a matter of privacy. The day you're ready to have your government tell you no longer have the right to get a blowjob, come to me (no that's not a pun nor a come on--oh shit, did it again). OH WAIT--TOO LATE!
"Twelve states, plus Puerto Rico, currently have laws on the books which prohibit "sodomy" between any two individuals, regardless of sex. Three states, Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma, allow any consensual sexual act between opposite-sex partners, but make same-sex acts illegal. Arkansas' law is currently being challenged in court."
Sodomy is defined as anal OR oral sex.
Noodle
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 21, 1999
- Messages
- 36,058
Any sexual act beyond coitus is a perversion.
That is the definition of the word.
If you are having sex without the honest and single-minded intention of procreating then YOU too are a pervert.
Now that is a simple fact.
Ok...now the most pure of virgins may line up here to criticize any carnal acts outside of the need to procreate.
If you are not a virgin and are without children, then maybe you haven't a leg to stand on your favorite soapbox....do you?
[ 09 July 2002: Message edited by: Noodle ]
That is the definition of the word.
If you are having sex without the honest and single-minded intention of procreating then YOU too are a pervert.
Now that is a simple fact.
Ok...now the most pure of virgins may line up here to criticize any carnal acts outside of the need to procreate.
If you are not a virgin and are without children, then maybe you haven't a leg to stand on your favorite soapbox....do you?
[ 09 July 2002: Message edited by: Noodle ]
Buzz_light_year
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 28, 2002
- Messages
- 35
I haven't posted on this since page 1 but i have read it all through and think that there is a good balance of arguments there.
I have never been a flag waver for the gay cause mainly because i have always felt insecure and scared of the reactions of others to me. Including friends. HOWEVER I have always been grateful for the flag wavers in society. Because only for them i would not be able to have the quality of life that i do now as a semi open gay man. There is a long way to go, there's no denying that but major steps are being made by gay men and women and indeed straight people too.
So thank you to all the flag wavers on this board and supportive people too. It is energy giving to read some of your posts. Thanks
I have never been a flag waver for the gay cause mainly because i have always felt insecure and scared of the reactions of others to me. Including friends. HOWEVER I have always been grateful for the flag wavers in society. Because only for them i would not be able to have the quality of life that i do now as a semi open gay man. There is a long way to go, there's no denying that but major steps are being made by gay men and women and indeed straight people too.
So thank you to all the flag wavers on this board and supportive people too. It is energy giving to read some of your posts. Thanks
It's like this with any group that is different, especially if said group raises moral and religious issues with the other side as gays do.
Imagine you're the only white in a slum in the city. The majority of your neighbors are black. Who do you think will end up getting robbed, mugged, and raped? It doesn't mean you should be given special priviledges. Your lifestyle is different from the norm, and some people are not going to accept you. Whether it be for religious, moral, or other reasons there will always be someone out there judging you based on your sexuality. I still don't see why the lewd behavior could not be cut out, march on - just without all that shit.
Imagine you're the only white in a slum in the city. The majority of your neighbors are black. Who do you think will end up getting robbed, mugged, and raped? It doesn't mean you should be given special priviledges. Your lifestyle is different from the norm, and some people are not going to accept you. Whether it be for religious, moral, or other reasons there will always be someone out there judging you based on your sexuality. I still don't see why the lewd behavior could not be cut out, march on - just without all that shit.
Exx_head
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2000
- Messages
- 2,216
What are these SPECIAL PRIVILEGES you keep referring to? I have never seen any gay group ask for special rights. EQUAL RIGHTS are not SPECIAL rights. People want to deny gays the right to marry, though heterosexuals can, then they criticize gays for not being monogomous. Why should they? They don't get the same benefits as married couples (automatic inheritance, rights to see patients in hospitals, etc). Please point out these special rights you keep referring to. And as was pointed out, overtly sexual behavior is not a right only given to gays.
Old Roller
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Messages
- 268
IMO, the first amendment (freedom of speech) is by far the most important to guarantee a free society. Silencing any group is dangerous. First amendment scholars generally take the position that if an individual finds certain speech offensive, the remedy is not to repress that speech, but to offer more speech in the form of a differing opinion.
Whether you agree or disagree with the gay lifestyle, and whether you agree or disagree about flagrant shows of any opinion, the fact remains that the freedom to have a parade that expresses that opinion (even if disagreeable to some or most) is a most fundamental freedom that should never be eroded.
For example, I adamantly disagree with the KKK and other white supremist groups, but would support their right to march in a parade and express their point of view. Whether it causes extra traffic and is burdensome to the local police force, and whether it is offensive to me is irrelevant in the face of the absolute importance of protecting the first amendment right of freedom of expression.
Whether you agree or disagree with the gay lifestyle, and whether you agree or disagree about flagrant shows of any opinion, the fact remains that the freedom to have a parade that expresses that opinion (even if disagreeable to some or most) is a most fundamental freedom that should never be eroded.
For example, I adamantly disagree with the KKK and other white supremist groups, but would support their right to march in a parade and express their point of view. Whether it causes extra traffic and is burdensome to the local police force, and whether it is offensive to me is irrelevant in the face of the absolute importance of protecting the first amendment right of freedom of expression.
beachboy_ty
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2002
- Messages
- 4
By way of explanation, I had to create this login so as to post until an administrator gets back to me about sending my password to my new email addy, or resetting it for me. Hence why I have not posted here or anywhere else in over a week.
I have followed the development of this thread with understandable interest. A lot has been said from a myriad of perspectives, most of which represents legitimate questions/observations and some of which is simply intellectually anemic. So, I think I'll take my opportunity to share my own thoughts and let everyone reach their own judgements concerning where my comments fall along that spectrum.
While I in no way claim to have a monopoly on wisdom when it comes to race/sexual communities and how they understand one another, I do think I can contribute uniquely to the dialogue for having lived comfortably within the ethic and worldview of both white and non-white, gay and straight.
There is a poem by Harlem Renaissance leader, Langston Hughes, wherein he reflects on his own mixed heritage and the questions and observations they uniquely cultivate within him.
My old man's a white old man
And my old mother's black.
If ever I cursed my white old man
I take my curses back.
If ever I cursed my black old mother
and wished she were in hell,
I'm sorry for that evil wish
And now I wish her well.
My old man died in a fine big house.
My ma died in a shack.
I wonder where I'm gonna die,
Being neither white nor black?
Most of us can probably point to some area where we have operated within and been accepted within two different subcultures that traditionally generate competetive, if not downright antagonistic, dialogue between them. What we will have found in most cases is that both sides have legitimacy with respect to what they affirm about their own viewpoints, but seem to lack clarity with respect to what they reject in the affirmations of the other side. The result being that both sides seem to talk past one another more often than not, leaving those of us with dual citizenship in both groups to shake our heads and wonder why the world insists on "either/or" realities and is so uncomfortable with "both/and" perspectives that are usually more soundly based in truth.
This is true regardless of the cultural friction being considered, certainly no less true with respect to race and sexual identity. People of color question how white people can bitch and moan about the remote possibility of losing an opportunity because of Affirmative Action or because they are the only group that lacks social support to organize and express group pride. Considering that white is still "normal" and non-white requires an adjective describing it when referring to every American cultural institution except ghettos, rap groups and basketball stars...is there really the sense among white people that there is any overall better group to belong to in America than white Christian heterosexual males?
But then whites wonder how the movement toward justice and equality that has driven this country for the last 40+ years has embraced an intrinsically unjust and unequal ethic of "payback's a bitch, get used to it". How does one speak of justice and equality when one's solutions for reaching these goals involve acceptance and promotion of systemic institutional and cultural inequalities that target white male populations?
Both of these observations are legitimate. But either side refuses to honestly engage the other's legitimate question but impatiently demands that it's own question be answered. Hence, they just continue to speak past one another, all the while using the silence on the other end as proof positive that they are right and the other side just refuses to admit it.
In a like manner, straights wonder why gays fiercely defend their right to flaunt their sexuality in a manner unacceptable for non-gays, but then asks the rest of society to view them as equal and no-different than anyone else. How can someone say in the same breath that gays make great parents for children, but that there is nothing troubling about wearing fetish-oriented, over-revealing clothing in broad daylight on public streets?
On the other side, many gays wonder how straights can even raise the specter of "broadcasting" one's sexuality when they day in and day out provide evidence of their heterosexuality through the course of normal conversation and living. Have these straights ever had to test the waters at work before putting up a picture of their partner at their desk, or had to make the on-the-spot judgement call whether or not to change the gender pronouns when answering "what did you do this weekend?" Someone can say that you are straight within 2 hours of conversing with you in a typical conversation. A gay person typically has to decide whether to "come-out" within that same two hour conversation with every person they meet.
Once again, both sides raise legitimate questions that the other side ignores for not having their own observations addressed.
Lets talk specifically about the issue at hand, Pride Parades. What many straights don't know, or don't use common sense enough to figure out on their own, is that all gay people do not think alike or have the same priorities. Far more often than I hear from straights about the debauchery at Pride, I hear from people within the gay world expressing the same sentiment. Every Pride season there arises within gay communities (notice plural)spirited debate about the necessity of Pride in general and specifically about the overt sexuality on display at Pride.
So, what I share here will not be THE gay perspective, merely MY gay perspective. It will however, point out some objective and historical realities that inform different perspectives. As I have attempted to point out up to this point, we tend to talk past one another because we aren't familiar with the shoes in which our opponent has walked that have brought her to her present contrary position.
Three things you need to know about the history of Pride Parades:
1. They arose within a mainstream context (and in response to it)where the greatest threat to gays living their lives was not "gay-bashing" at the hands of homophobes, but arrest and prosecution under "decency and morality" laws that were targeted directly at the ability of gays to enjoy their lives relationally with one another. I am not just speaking about "sodomy laws" that made anal sex illegal, Im talking about the fact that well into the 70's, police could and regularly did raid gay bars and arrest people for not dressing in a "gender conforming" manner, for displaying affection toward someone of the same gender, and even for dancing with someone of the same gender without a person of the opposite gender in between the two. the very first Pride parade in Los Angeles, CA was organized in part by Rev. Troy Perry as a protest against the idea that the public interest was served by preventing gay people from doing ANYTHING, in public or private, that could be described as "gay". The ethos of the parade was a clear statement that "gay" behavior was not going to go away, and that in fact, the more society tried to put it out of sight, the more "in your face" frustrated gays were going to make it from this point forward. The flagrant flaunting of sexuality, the offensive adopting of prudish religious icons/themes into a fetish sexual celebration (The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence) was not primarily an expression of how the typical gay person acts and what they like sexually. It was an intentional political statement that was seen as being a legitimate and powerful form of civil and social disobedience.
2. The non-mainstream subcultures, wherein out homosexuals found their social and political acceptance, were caught up in the middle of what we call the "Sexual Revolution" that was empowering women, gays, mixed couples, unmarried couples, swingers, singles, etc to stand up and challenge the traditional sexual morrays that drew them outside the box of social acceptability. The embracing of open, unapologetic, in your face sexual expression was the order of the day and completely normal within the subculture that gave support, alliances and a voice to the gay communities.
3. In those days, gay people who were willing to stand up and fight were, by and large, those whose physical and behavioral traits did not afford them the luxury of hiding the closet. The transgendered (known as drag queens in those days), the unmistakeably effeminate, the unignorably flamboyant...they had nothing to lose because they could not hide, so they led the way at the frontlines of the struggle for gay civil rights. Because they were the only ones taking the risks, they got to decide how pride parades and the like were going to look.
At the risk of over-simplification then, these are the roots of gay pride. Like any dynamic movement invariably does, gay pride has in many ways become institutionalized, existing for its own end rather than some as-of-yet unreached objective.
So the criticisms of straight people and many gays is well-founded to an extent. More gays are worried about that next circuit party, that all gay cruise through the Mediterreanean, that next "see and be seen" black tie Human Rights Campaign dinner, than they are about getting arrested for sodomy in Mississippi, fired from a job in Virginia, or murdered by low-lifes in Wyoming. Sure we have some rights that we need to keep fighting for, but the climate and context that we find ourselves in today makes some of those old Pride models antiquated, unnecessary and even perhaps counter-productive to the goals that we still do have to reach.
But the progressive gays, like progressives in every civil rights movement, are loathe to give up the "icons" of the early days of the movement. Just last month I read an article by a very liberal progressive gay writer who lamented that gay pride parades are currently inundated with corporate sponsors, religious church groups, gay conservative organizations, politicians and less leather studded fetish lovers wearing nun habbits. He felt that we were assimilating into the system and losing our identity as counter-culture. For him, and other progressives, its often a more meaningful existence to be persecuted and fighting back than to be gradually becoming mainstream.
Personally, I am the furthest thing from a gay progressive, being the President of the largest chapter of the major gay conservative political organization in the country. I personally think that Pride parades would lose nothing if all the shock value sexuality faded completely off the scene. As it is, there is hardly any of that left anymore except for in San Fran and possibly New York, and of course New Orleans.
My point that I originally made in this thread to Memnon was only that Pride parade is what it is, and it will change as it has changed. But for straights, gays or whoever to allow the presence of a few shock value relics of an older era to be central to their negative thoughts about Pride is frivolous. It elevates a red herring issue to a level where it clouds the many other profitable discussions about the nature, purpose and legitimacy of Pride. I wouldn't mind seeing the ludeness taken out of Pride parades (though I insist that it stay at Southern Decadence in New Orleans so we can have our own Mardi Gras ), but I'm not myopic enough to allow its enduring presence to take away from what Pride still does to benefit so many people, particularly the young, who still struggle with accepting themselves and dealing with less than accepting parents, family and friends.
We have come a long way. And in some ways, critics are right in asking us to re-examine the relevancy of some our traditional structures. But the reality that so many straight people still do not see is that the discovery that you do not fit into the sexual structures that have been ingrained into your head since childhood is still incredibly painful. It is incredibly lonely. It is incredibly confusing. It is incredibly dark. And if you're lucky, that is as bad as it gets. For many it means a loss of home, a loss of friends, a loss of family relationships, a loss of social respect and status within one's favorite organizations (like the Boy Scouts).
Irrefutable statistics tell us that at least 30% of all adolescent suicide attempts have at their core, at least in part, issues related to sexual identity. The fact that every person who discovers they are gay does so as a "First generation" homosexual begs that our larger gay community remain committed to overcoming its natural invisibility (as opposed to ethnic communities)and be visable, vibrant and celebratory. One gay writer writes that straight people often wonder how "the love that dares not speak its name has in modern times become the love that just won't shut the hell up". I commiserate with to an extant with this sentiment. Yet balanced against the possibility of minimizing the length of time a young newly self-discovered gay person feels like they are alone, unloveable, flawed and freakish before they find the new lease on life that Pride and gay communities represent, I have to humbly request that those who are uncomfortable with the "out, loud and proud" model simply grin and bear it and avoid being around it where you can.
I am one of those who has a long thin prism-colored strip (what you call rainbows) on the back of his pick-up truck. When I originally put it on there 2 years ago I wrestled with the decision heavily. In my former life as a minister I loathed the idea of putting cheesy religious things on my vehicle. The concept of reducing something as profoundly personal and powerful as spirituality to a slogan, logo or bumpersticker seemed as repugnant as it did trite. An additional reservation had to do with the simple reality that while I felt and still feel that anyone wanting to gay bash me better bring it 100% and have some good health insurance to back them up, I cannot always be there to protect my mode of transportation from the immature and sociopathic cowardice of some idiots out there.
But in the end, I decided to honor the fleeting yet significant experiences I had had while struggling alone with the realization that I was gay. I knew NO ONE who was gay, and practically no one who would understand or accept it. I can distinctly remember seeing a car with rainbow colors on the back and going out of my way by several blocks just to catch up and get a look at the driver. She was nothing special, but when finally saw her and caught her eye, I felt for that brief moment like I wasn't actually all alone, and that maybe my life wasn't really about to end with coming out. So I put that sticker on my truck against the day that some young person is driving down the street swimming in the same horrific despair and lonliness I was, and then he/she looks over and sees normal ol me in my normal ol pick-up driving along living my normal ol life as an out gay man.
Funny thing, no one has ever done anything to my truck. My friends who originally teased me for putting it on there now do the same thing, and to be bluntly honest...that sticker has gotten me laid several times, it has gotten me out of a ticket and flirted with by a beyond-hot motorcycle cop, and it gets me honks, waves and flirtatious smiles from other drivers every day. From a purely selfish standpoint...one of the best decisions I ever made
As a final thought, I would address some of what has been said with a specific reference to me and my behavior here at bluelight. I flirt not because Im gay, but because Im me. Its the way I was raised. My family were the whistling, cat-call types that most civilized people abhor. But we had fun doing it. When I was chasing girls growing up, I was constantly being told I was not discreet enough, too obvious in my glances, too bold in my comments to women, etc....ya know what, I got laid a LOT more than they did .
As a gay man, I am the exact same way in every way. I see a hot guy, I let him know. If he can't handle it oh well...he'll forget about it in no time with no bruises or broken bones to speak of. My hot friends, I flirt with whether they be straight or gay. I have always made it clear with my straight friends that it is all in fun. I have NO desire to sleep with any person who does not want to sleep with me...PERIOD. I have also made it clear to my straight friends that if they are uncomfortable at all with the joking, let me know and I will cease and desist immediately and not think less of them for it. We all have our personal boundaries. To this day, no one has ever taken me up on that. I have found that with straight guys, particularly those who have not been exposed to many gay guys, if you can crack a good gay joke at your own expense and dymythologize the fear that being flirted with by a guy somehow threatens their own masculinity...they end up being a LOT more comfortable with you and with gay people in general. You let them know by your behavior that there are no "taboo" areas that they have to mind their PC p's and q's about around you, and that there is absolutely nothing threatening about your friendship because you've told him you'd suck his cock in a New York minute and lo and behold...he's still as straight as he was before!
So, Im just being me...for good or bad. It could be that Im a sexually innappropriate freak who detracts from others' enjoyment of bluelight by always noting the hotties and flirting with one or two of them at a time...If so, someone needs to have a one-on-one with me about it and put me in my place so that I correct my behavior. But none of that has anything to do with me being gay or any other gay person out there, on bluelight or otherwise. Its not germaine to any dialogue about gay issues.
Sorry for this excessively epic post (even for me) but Ive been sitting on these thoughts for a week now Its like that massive orgasm you have after you've been forced to let Big Willy Style go without attention for a while. So now my knees are shaking, my toes are curling under themselves, my breath is catching, my legs are stiff and cramping and Im trying to hit send while my hands tremble. Here goes!.......
I have followed the development of this thread with understandable interest. A lot has been said from a myriad of perspectives, most of which represents legitimate questions/observations and some of which is simply intellectually anemic. So, I think I'll take my opportunity to share my own thoughts and let everyone reach their own judgements concerning where my comments fall along that spectrum.
While I in no way claim to have a monopoly on wisdom when it comes to race/sexual communities and how they understand one another, I do think I can contribute uniquely to the dialogue for having lived comfortably within the ethic and worldview of both white and non-white, gay and straight.
There is a poem by Harlem Renaissance leader, Langston Hughes, wherein he reflects on his own mixed heritage and the questions and observations they uniquely cultivate within him.
My old man's a white old man
And my old mother's black.
If ever I cursed my white old man
I take my curses back.
If ever I cursed my black old mother
and wished she were in hell,
I'm sorry for that evil wish
And now I wish her well.
My old man died in a fine big house.
My ma died in a shack.
I wonder where I'm gonna die,
Being neither white nor black?
Most of us can probably point to some area where we have operated within and been accepted within two different subcultures that traditionally generate competetive, if not downright antagonistic, dialogue between them. What we will have found in most cases is that both sides have legitimacy with respect to what they affirm about their own viewpoints, but seem to lack clarity with respect to what they reject in the affirmations of the other side. The result being that both sides seem to talk past one another more often than not, leaving those of us with dual citizenship in both groups to shake our heads and wonder why the world insists on "either/or" realities and is so uncomfortable with "both/and" perspectives that are usually more soundly based in truth.
This is true regardless of the cultural friction being considered, certainly no less true with respect to race and sexual identity. People of color question how white people can bitch and moan about the remote possibility of losing an opportunity because of Affirmative Action or because they are the only group that lacks social support to organize and express group pride. Considering that white is still "normal" and non-white requires an adjective describing it when referring to every American cultural institution except ghettos, rap groups and basketball stars...is there really the sense among white people that there is any overall better group to belong to in America than white Christian heterosexual males?
But then whites wonder how the movement toward justice and equality that has driven this country for the last 40+ years has embraced an intrinsically unjust and unequal ethic of "payback's a bitch, get used to it". How does one speak of justice and equality when one's solutions for reaching these goals involve acceptance and promotion of systemic institutional and cultural inequalities that target white male populations?
Both of these observations are legitimate. But either side refuses to honestly engage the other's legitimate question but impatiently demands that it's own question be answered. Hence, they just continue to speak past one another, all the while using the silence on the other end as proof positive that they are right and the other side just refuses to admit it.
In a like manner, straights wonder why gays fiercely defend their right to flaunt their sexuality in a manner unacceptable for non-gays, but then asks the rest of society to view them as equal and no-different than anyone else. How can someone say in the same breath that gays make great parents for children, but that there is nothing troubling about wearing fetish-oriented, over-revealing clothing in broad daylight on public streets?
On the other side, many gays wonder how straights can even raise the specter of "broadcasting" one's sexuality when they day in and day out provide evidence of their heterosexuality through the course of normal conversation and living. Have these straights ever had to test the waters at work before putting up a picture of their partner at their desk, or had to make the on-the-spot judgement call whether or not to change the gender pronouns when answering "what did you do this weekend?" Someone can say that you are straight within 2 hours of conversing with you in a typical conversation. A gay person typically has to decide whether to "come-out" within that same two hour conversation with every person they meet.
Once again, both sides raise legitimate questions that the other side ignores for not having their own observations addressed.
Lets talk specifically about the issue at hand, Pride Parades. What many straights don't know, or don't use common sense enough to figure out on their own, is that all gay people do not think alike or have the same priorities. Far more often than I hear from straights about the debauchery at Pride, I hear from people within the gay world expressing the same sentiment. Every Pride season there arises within gay communities (notice plural)spirited debate about the necessity of Pride in general and specifically about the overt sexuality on display at Pride.
So, what I share here will not be THE gay perspective, merely MY gay perspective. It will however, point out some objective and historical realities that inform different perspectives. As I have attempted to point out up to this point, we tend to talk past one another because we aren't familiar with the shoes in which our opponent has walked that have brought her to her present contrary position.
Three things you need to know about the history of Pride Parades:
1. They arose within a mainstream context (and in response to it)where the greatest threat to gays living their lives was not "gay-bashing" at the hands of homophobes, but arrest and prosecution under "decency and morality" laws that were targeted directly at the ability of gays to enjoy their lives relationally with one another. I am not just speaking about "sodomy laws" that made anal sex illegal, Im talking about the fact that well into the 70's, police could and regularly did raid gay bars and arrest people for not dressing in a "gender conforming" manner, for displaying affection toward someone of the same gender, and even for dancing with someone of the same gender without a person of the opposite gender in between the two. the very first Pride parade in Los Angeles, CA was organized in part by Rev. Troy Perry as a protest against the idea that the public interest was served by preventing gay people from doing ANYTHING, in public or private, that could be described as "gay". The ethos of the parade was a clear statement that "gay" behavior was not going to go away, and that in fact, the more society tried to put it out of sight, the more "in your face" frustrated gays were going to make it from this point forward. The flagrant flaunting of sexuality, the offensive adopting of prudish religious icons/themes into a fetish sexual celebration (The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence) was not primarily an expression of how the typical gay person acts and what they like sexually. It was an intentional political statement that was seen as being a legitimate and powerful form of civil and social disobedience.
2. The non-mainstream subcultures, wherein out homosexuals found their social and political acceptance, were caught up in the middle of what we call the "Sexual Revolution" that was empowering women, gays, mixed couples, unmarried couples, swingers, singles, etc to stand up and challenge the traditional sexual morrays that drew them outside the box of social acceptability. The embracing of open, unapologetic, in your face sexual expression was the order of the day and completely normal within the subculture that gave support, alliances and a voice to the gay communities.
3. In those days, gay people who were willing to stand up and fight were, by and large, those whose physical and behavioral traits did not afford them the luxury of hiding the closet. The transgendered (known as drag queens in those days), the unmistakeably effeminate, the unignorably flamboyant...they had nothing to lose because they could not hide, so they led the way at the frontlines of the struggle for gay civil rights. Because they were the only ones taking the risks, they got to decide how pride parades and the like were going to look.
At the risk of over-simplification then, these are the roots of gay pride. Like any dynamic movement invariably does, gay pride has in many ways become institutionalized, existing for its own end rather than some as-of-yet unreached objective.
So the criticisms of straight people and many gays is well-founded to an extent. More gays are worried about that next circuit party, that all gay cruise through the Mediterreanean, that next "see and be seen" black tie Human Rights Campaign dinner, than they are about getting arrested for sodomy in Mississippi, fired from a job in Virginia, or murdered by low-lifes in Wyoming. Sure we have some rights that we need to keep fighting for, but the climate and context that we find ourselves in today makes some of those old Pride models antiquated, unnecessary and even perhaps counter-productive to the goals that we still do have to reach.
But the progressive gays, like progressives in every civil rights movement, are loathe to give up the "icons" of the early days of the movement. Just last month I read an article by a very liberal progressive gay writer who lamented that gay pride parades are currently inundated with corporate sponsors, religious church groups, gay conservative organizations, politicians and less leather studded fetish lovers wearing nun habbits. He felt that we were assimilating into the system and losing our identity as counter-culture. For him, and other progressives, its often a more meaningful existence to be persecuted and fighting back than to be gradually becoming mainstream.
Personally, I am the furthest thing from a gay progressive, being the President of the largest chapter of the major gay conservative political organization in the country. I personally think that Pride parades would lose nothing if all the shock value sexuality faded completely off the scene. As it is, there is hardly any of that left anymore except for in San Fran and possibly New York, and of course New Orleans.
My point that I originally made in this thread to Memnon was only that Pride parade is what it is, and it will change as it has changed. But for straights, gays or whoever to allow the presence of a few shock value relics of an older era to be central to their negative thoughts about Pride is frivolous. It elevates a red herring issue to a level where it clouds the many other profitable discussions about the nature, purpose and legitimacy of Pride. I wouldn't mind seeing the ludeness taken out of Pride parades (though I insist that it stay at Southern Decadence in New Orleans so we can have our own Mardi Gras
), but I'm not myopic enough to allow its enduring presence to take away from what Pride still does to benefit so many people, particularly the young, who still struggle with accepting themselves and dealing with less than accepting parents, family and friends.We have come a long way. And in some ways, critics are right in asking us to re-examine the relevancy of some our traditional structures. But the reality that so many straight people still do not see is that the discovery that you do not fit into the sexual structures that have been ingrained into your head since childhood is still incredibly painful. It is incredibly lonely. It is incredibly confusing. It is incredibly dark. And if you're lucky, that is as bad as it gets. For many it means a loss of home, a loss of friends, a loss of family relationships, a loss of social respect and status within one's favorite organizations (like the Boy Scouts).
Irrefutable statistics tell us that at least 30% of all adolescent suicide attempts have at their core, at least in part, issues related to sexual identity. The fact that every person who discovers they are gay does so as a "First generation" homosexual begs that our larger gay community remain committed to overcoming its natural invisibility (as opposed to ethnic communities)and be visable, vibrant and celebratory. One gay writer writes that straight people often wonder how "the love that dares not speak its name has in modern times become the love that just won't shut the hell up". I commiserate with to an extant with this sentiment. Yet balanced against the possibility of minimizing the length of time a young newly self-discovered gay person feels like they are alone, unloveable, flawed and freakish before they find the new lease on life that Pride and gay communities represent, I have to humbly request that those who are uncomfortable with the "out, loud and proud" model simply grin and bear it and avoid being around it where you can.
I am one of those who has a long thin prism-colored strip (what you call rainbows) on the back of his pick-up truck. When I originally put it on there 2 years ago I wrestled with the decision heavily. In my former life as a minister I loathed the idea of putting cheesy religious things on my vehicle. The concept of reducing something as profoundly personal and powerful as spirituality to a slogan, logo or bumpersticker seemed as repugnant as it did trite. An additional reservation had to do with the simple reality that while I felt and still feel that anyone wanting to gay bash me better bring it 100% and have some good health insurance to back them up, I cannot always be there to protect my mode of transportation from the immature and sociopathic cowardice of some idiots out there.
But in the end, I decided to honor the fleeting yet significant experiences I had had while struggling alone with the realization that I was gay. I knew NO ONE who was gay, and practically no one who would understand or accept it. I can distinctly remember seeing a car with rainbow colors on the back and going out of my way by several blocks just to catch up and get a look at the driver. She was nothing special, but when finally saw her and caught her eye, I felt for that brief moment like I wasn't actually all alone, and that maybe my life wasn't really about to end with coming out. So I put that sticker on my truck against the day that some young person is driving down the street swimming in the same horrific despair and lonliness I was, and then he/she looks over and sees normal ol me in my normal ol pick-up driving along living my normal ol life as an out gay man.
Funny thing, no one has ever done anything to my truck. My friends who originally teased me for putting it on there now do the same thing, and to be bluntly honest...that sticker has gotten me laid several times, it has gotten me out of a ticket and flirted with by a beyond-hot motorcycle cop, and it gets me honks, waves and flirtatious smiles from other drivers every day. From a purely selfish standpoint...one of the best decisions I ever made
As a final thought, I would address some of what has been said with a specific reference to me and my behavior here at bluelight. I flirt not because Im gay, but because Im me. Its the way I was raised. My family were the whistling, cat-call types that most civilized people abhor. But we had fun doing it. When I was chasing girls growing up, I was constantly being told I was not discreet enough, too obvious in my glances, too bold in my comments to women, etc....ya know what, I got laid a LOT more than they did
.As a gay man, I am the exact same way in every way. I see a hot guy, I let him know. If he can't handle it oh well...he'll forget about it in no time with no bruises or broken bones to speak of. My hot friends, I flirt with whether they be straight or gay. I have always made it clear with my straight friends that it is all in fun. I have NO desire to sleep with any person who does not want to sleep with me...PERIOD. I have also made it clear to my straight friends that if they are uncomfortable at all with the joking, let me know and I will cease and desist immediately and not think less of them for it. We all have our personal boundaries. To this day, no one has ever taken me up on that. I have found that with straight guys, particularly those who have not been exposed to many gay guys, if you can crack a good gay joke at your own expense and dymythologize the fear that being flirted with by a guy somehow threatens their own masculinity...they end up being a LOT more comfortable with you and with gay people in general. You let them know by your behavior that there are no "taboo" areas that they have to mind their PC p's and q's about around you, and that there is absolutely nothing threatening about your friendship because you've told him you'd suck his cock in a New York minute and lo and behold...he's still as straight as he was before!
So, Im just being me...for good or bad. It could be that Im a sexually innappropriate freak who detracts from others' enjoyment of bluelight by always noting the hotties and flirting with one or two of them at a time...If so, someone needs to have a one-on-one with me about it and put me in my place so that I correct my behavior. But none of that has anything to do with me being gay or any other gay person out there, on bluelight or otherwise. Its not germaine to any dialogue about gay issues.
Sorry for this excessively epic post (even for me) but Ive been sitting on these thoughts for a week now
Its like that massive orgasm you have after you've been forced to let Big Willy Style go without attention for a while. So now my knees are shaking, my toes are curling under themselves, my breath is catching, my legs are stiff and cramping and Im trying to hit send while my hands tremble. Here goes!.......Quicksilverchameleon7
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2002
- Messages
- 87
2) When will White Male America get to march? Should they be allowed? Talk about a group of people whom life is becoming increasingly difficult for.
Okay spence I'm just curious here but how is life becoming more difficult for overprivileged white males? It's a patriarchally dominated society for the most part run by white males who now enjoy the confoprt of a high powered executive position or other high tier positions that typically more often than not usually originate solely from upper middle class backgrounds and above that socioeconomically.
And I don't see anyone actively discriminating against white males. Where is this supposed increase in discrimination actually occuring? In the depths of your overactive imagination? White men run everything so naturally their white male counterparts in high places are happy to provide them with prefferential treatment, and job promotions more readily, and don't start shit about affirmative action because thats besides the point, because I'm not black so it doesn't pertain to me anyways.
I have been unfairly discriminated aginst by heterosexual white males on numerous occassions.
For various reasons. My ex and me would be holding hands in public and often I would get disoaraging looks from men in general but white men in particular the most it would seem. One time some white asshole manager at guitar center saw me and my girlfriend go in the bathroom, and we were in separate stalls taking care of our biological fucntions. And this obnoxious store manager sent some stupid vacuous minded twit to the door to pound on it raucously, and repeatedly harass us.
This asshole told her to tell us to come out of there or she was going to come in because he thought she was a boy. Funny thing is she didn't look like a boy, and I'm the one that came out first, and politely explained to them that they were mistaken , and they still insisted that a boy was in the restroom . Also don't give me some shit about how she probably did look like a boy because she didn't, and don't start in with deriding comments about gender idenity disorders because they don't exist. Plus like I said she didn't look like a boy, this asshole threatened to have us thrown out of the store for nothing. Simply because he obviously saw us holding hands and couldn't tolerate it. So tell me a little more about some...neurotic white men.,
Whte men don't need a pride march their prideful and egotystical and self assured enough already. They are continuously reassured by external bootlicking that they constantly receive that they are respected. They aren't facing issues of discrimination/harassment/violence hate crimes, so why do they need to be more prideful, and selfish than they already are.
[ 10 July 2002: Message edited by: Quicksilverchameleon7 ]
Okay spence I'm just curious here but how is life becoming more difficult for overprivileged white males? It's a patriarchally dominated society for the most part run by white males who now enjoy the confoprt of a high powered executive position or other high tier positions that typically more often than not usually originate solely from upper middle class backgrounds and above that socioeconomically.
And I don't see anyone actively discriminating against white males. Where is this supposed increase in discrimination actually occuring? In the depths of your overactive imagination? White men run everything so naturally their white male counterparts in high places are happy to provide them with prefferential treatment, and job promotions more readily, and don't start shit about affirmative action because thats besides the point, because I'm not black so it doesn't pertain to me anyways.
I have been unfairly discriminated aginst by heterosexual white males on numerous occassions.
For various reasons. My ex and me would be holding hands in public and often I would get disoaraging looks from men in general but white men in particular the most it would seem. One time some white asshole manager at guitar center saw me and my girlfriend go in the bathroom, and we were in separate stalls taking care of our biological fucntions. And this obnoxious store manager sent some stupid vacuous minded twit to the door to pound on it raucously, and repeatedly harass us.
This asshole told her to tell us to come out of there or she was going to come in because he thought she was a boy. Funny thing is she didn't look like a boy, and I'm the one that came out first, and politely explained to them that they were mistaken , and they still insisted that a boy was in the restroom . Also don't give me some shit about how she probably did look like a boy because she didn't, and don't start in with deriding comments about gender idenity disorders because they don't exist. Plus like I said she didn't look like a boy, this asshole threatened to have us thrown out of the store for nothing. Simply because he obviously saw us holding hands and couldn't tolerate it. So tell me a little more about some...neurotic white men.,
Whte men don't need a pride march their prideful and egotystical and self assured enough already. They are continuously reassured by external bootlicking that they constantly receive that they are respected. They aren't facing issues of discrimination/harassment/violence hate crimes, so why do they need to be more prideful, and selfish than they already are.
[ 10 July 2002: Message edited by: Quicksilverchameleon7 ]
Cyc
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2000
- Messages
- 11,370
beachboyty - Let me be the first to say that your post was one of the most vibrant and brilliant that I have read here to date.
Again, you have opened my eyes to an exceptionally written and best of all, fair point of view.
You, my friend, are a gentleman and a scholar.
Kyk.
Again, you have opened my eyes to an exceptionally written and best of all, fair point of view.
You, my friend, are a gentleman and a scholar.
Kyk.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
- Joined
- Nov 3, 1999
- Messages
- 84,998
Fucking ty. we have had our talk about intelligence and different methods of argumentation. But i should have not posted anything because you of course presented everything i wish i could without knowing how. I felt the issue, you talked about the issue. I am extremely glad i have met you. And am even more glad that you do not mind talking to me, even after meeting me . I find it a gratifying exsperience.
. I find it a gratifying exsperience.I couldn't agree more with Kyk. beachboyty, you have to be one of the most intelligent and well-spoken individuals I have had the pleasure to converse with on this board, or in life. Much love to you, a gentleman and a scholar indeed.
This particular segment of your post particularly caught my eye, as it almost sums up my point in its entirety.
This particular segment of your post particularly caught my eye, as it almost sums up my point in its entirety.
Noodle
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 21, 1999
- Messages
- 36,058
^
What does a few men running around in tights or leather have to do with adopting children at all?
How does a rational and reasonable individual conceptually extend the lewd behavior of a small number of persons, at a public event, to each and every member of a minority group?
Do similar kinds of lewd antics by straights at similar events put all straights in a bad light?
To me this seems less like a truly logical and detached assesment, but more of an assumption colored by an internal and ingrained prejudice against gays in general: That somehow all gays share the same values and beliefs.
If many people truly think this way, then that is a more significant problem that should be addressed, at least in my mind.
[ 10 July 2002: Message edited by: Noodle ]
What does a few men running around in tights or leather have to do with adopting children at all?
How does a rational and reasonable individual conceptually extend the lewd behavior of a small number of persons, at a public event, to each and every member of a minority group?
Do similar kinds of lewd antics by straights at similar events put all straights in a bad light?
To me this seems less like a truly logical and detached assesment, but more of an assumption colored by an internal and ingrained prejudice against gays in general: That somehow all gays share the same values and beliefs.
If many people truly think this way, then that is a more significant problem that should be addressed, at least in my mind.
[ 10 July 2002: Message edited by: Noodle ]