Doo Wop at the Stonewall -- or Not

OR HOW THE GAY COMMUNITY WAS HOOD-WINKED BY THE STRAIGHT OWNERS OF THE STONEWALL

So exactly how gay-owned is the new Stonewall Inn anyway?

While reviewing and updating my piece about being pounded on by an inebriated, supremely hideous straight guy at the not always gay-friendly Stonewall, something clicked in my mind about the name Bill Morgan, who is one of the co-owners of the Stonewall (as well as the primarily straight Duplex Inn up the street.)

I recall a few years ago there was a guy named Bill Morgan who sang and worked in the Duplex and other bars in the West Village area. He would occasionally poke into the Five Oaks and sing, and he was bartender there for a brief time (perhaps he was just filling in for someone). I only saw him in the mixed bars, never in the out and out gay cruise bars for hungry men such as Ty's and Boots and Saddle, and I really had no reason to think he was anything other than straight (and still don't for that matter). Morgan seemed perfectly pleasant and more or less gay-friendly, but I never did get to know him very well. I had a gay friend at the time who was a little smitten with Morgan -- I don't think poor Morgan quite knew what to make of him -- but Morgan was not my type and I had no particular interest in ferreting out any hidden truths about his orientation, assuming there were any. All I can say is that he specialized in a kind of "doo wop" kind of singing, that I have no appreciation for, and whenever he came on at the Five Oaks (I didn't go to the Duplex very often, and when I did usually went to the gayer bar upstairs) I figured it would be a good time to go to the rest room. I've no doubt he did Doo Wop as well as anyone, but I'm not surprised he didn't make a career of it. Can anyone make a career of Doo Wop these days -- who knows?

I read that after working at the Duplex for many years, he became the co-owner of that bar along with Tony DeCicco. Writing about their acquisition of the Stonewall Inn in 2007 (along with Kurt Kelly, who now manages Stonewall), most reporters assumed Morgan and DeCicco were a gay couple, but it is quite possible both are simply heterosexual business partners. On his "My Space" page Morgan mentions how he owns both bars (he does not mention either co-owner) and on the list of personal statistics says that he is "married" and "straight." Oddly, while there are several photographs on his page, there is none of his wife -- there doesn't even seem to be a mention of her. (I'm assuming there is or was a wife because he says "straight" and "married.") Morgan does not mention being married on his page on the Duplex web site, but DeCicco mentions his "lovely wife Donna" and his two children on the same site.

Now let me make it clear that I am not saying that this is the case, but wouldn't it be bizarre -- and a little funny/sad considering the bar they co-own -- if DeCicco were Morgan's "wife?" If Morgan and DeCicco were gay or bi but say they're strictly straight when they co-own the bar that ushered in the whole modern-day Gay Rights Movement? I'm not saying this is the case -- and frankly I hope it isn't -- but remember it was in the Stonewall Inn that I met young Mike, the bartender who told everyone he was straight with a girlfriend but confided in me that he also "fooled around with men" (but couldn't even go so far as to identify as bisexual). So who the hell knows?

Now if both Morgan and DeCicco are actually straight -- which they may be (and with a wife and children DeCicco is clearly living a straight lifestyle, but this doesn't necessarily make him a married homosexual) -- they get points for not going out of their way to point that out in all the interviews they gave on their acquisition of the Stonewall. They could be two cool straight guys who know there's nothing wrong in being gay and don't really care if some people wrongly think they're homos. Or do they get points? Perhaps they only let everyone assume they were gay and didn't correct them because they didn't want everyone in the gay community to know that the ol' Stonewall was still primarily straight-owned, that it was two straight businessmen who were taking over a spot that meant so much to the gay community. Which may explain why the place hasn't fulfilled its promise to become a great gay bar for the whole community and has just turned into a bland (gay and straight) mixed cocktail lounge that might as well be called The Duplex II. They downplayed their hetero status, played up that house queer Kurt Kelly would be co-owner (of how big a chunk, one wonders?), and made him manager, even as all three men made statements about how the previous owner of the Stonewall had done such a lousy job because he was -- you guessed it -- a straight guy (with a gay staff and probably gay manager, so what's the diff?)

I'd be willing to bet that the two straight guys are really calling the shots at the Stonewall Inn, and that they bought the place not to preserve it for the gay community but to eventually turn it into just what it's become, the Duplex II. They brought in prominent and gullible gay and lesbian investors for cash and appearance's sake, all the while knowing that most of the younger bar-happy gays in the city didn't remember and in general couldn't care less about the Stonewall Rebellion. If the straight overflow from the Duplex drove the gay customers away, why should Morgan and DeCicco care? That's ultimately just what they were hoping for, and that's just what's happening. If some gay groups who aren't in the loop occasionally hold a function there, so much the better. The bar will continue to hold on to some form of gay pedigree, and gay tourists with a sense of history will inoocently wander into the place and buy drinks -- although they probably won't stay very long.

I have to say I'm troubled that on Morgan's MySpace page he has a photo of himself with good buddy Danny Bonaduce - I think I'd be embarrassed to be a friend of Bonaduce's -- and lists one of his favorite TV shows as Hardball with the virulently homophobic host Chris Matthews! Also on his MySpace page Morgan has one "moving" photo of himself standing in front of the Stonewall. Jeez -- the camera pans down over his basket as if its some gay code or something. I'm not saying there aren't some gay people who might find him attractive but he's more likely to find them across the avenue at Boots and Saddle or down at the Dug Out -- well, maybe not, he's not exactly a macho bear-type -- than at the Stonewall, which seems more welcoming these days to drunken straights than it is to Out and Proud Gay Men.

But who knows?

All I know is that the slogan of the Stonewall Inn is "Where Pride Began" without the word "Gay." And I also know that a straight man (no matter how presumably gay-friendly or gay-supportive) -- or possibly a gay/bi man who says he's straight on his MySpace page? -- is probably not going to have much of a vested interest in making The Stonewall Inn the living homage to Gay Rights, and the Great Gay Bar, that people like me were hoping it would be.

Personally, I think the gay community was taken for a ride.

But then, The Stonewall Inn is all about money and has nothing whatsoever to do with Gay Pride. And anyone who doesn't realize it is a fool.

Of Hollywood, Gable, and Gays

It always used to bug me the way some critics, readers and fans would cry out in a decidedly homophobic manner if a biographer dared suggest that one of their favorite film stars was gay or bi. It always seemed especially egregious when the star in question was some supposedly "macho" sort who couldn't possibly be gay, as if it never occurred to these people that Hollywood was all about illusion and image.

So I applaud the fact that some biographers are no longer being coy when it comes to their subject's sexuality. People can complain that it seems as if just about every dead star -- and a few living ones -- are being outed, but the fact remains that Hollywood has had its fair share of closet cases, probably more than its share when one considers what was at stake. And if that's a problem for some people, too bad.

But I have to say that books like David Bret's Clark Gable, Tormented Star, don't help the situation. Author James Robert Parish intelligently wrote about Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy in his book on the former, employing key facts and educated speculation to formulate what he posits about their sexuality, but Bret (and others like him) seem to simply pass along a lot of unsubstantiated gossip. This only provides aid and comfort to those who would deny that this or that star was gay, and who can point to books like CGTS (Clark Gable, Tormented Star) and chortle that it has absolutely no source notes and many of its conclusions are just thrown at the reader without any solid foundation to back them up. The book has virtually no interviews as well.

Now I'm not saying that Clark Gable wasn't gay or bi. However he saw himself in his own mind, I believe he had sex with men. But not because of anything I read in Bret's book, but in others written by those who were around at the time or at least had spoken to people who were first-hand observers. And because a very good friend of mine -- now in his eighties -- has a lot of inside information about the goings-on in Old Hollywood. Many people reading Bret's book will just roll their eyes and think "how does he know any of this?" Bret isn't old enough to have had sex with Gable himself (mind you, I'm not saying Bret is gay; I have no idea).

There were some things I liked about the book. Bret points out how ridiculous it was for people to assume a hairy chest meant a man had to be heterosexual, and other "Gay Lib"-like zingers along those lines. He tries to expose the hypocrisy of machismo and the studio system, the foolish belief in a star's image above all and everything that went with it. But because the book never substantiates any of its claims about Gable himself, this bio will hardly convince any of the many Doubting Thomases. This is the right book by the wrong author.

Bret, who writes many books about gay/bi celebrities and has a wife, seems to have recreated Clark Gable as a kind of super-bisexual for the 21st century, but this is possibly just as phony as the image of Gable as super-straight. He doesn't deny Gable's numerous homosexual liaisons, nor that not all (according to him) were for profit of one kind or another, although he first suggests that Gable was "gay for pay." [Having homoerotic liaisons for cash does not preclude the hustler being gay himself, even if he's closeted or sees himself as being straight.] Gable used men and women right and left, but Bret feels that the true loves of his life were all women. This despite the fact that Bret makes clear that Gable became more and more closeted (that is, less sex with men; he was always in the closet) the more famous he became. Bret accepts Gable's marriages, such as to Carol Lombard, as serious love matches despite the fact that Hollywood is full of homosexuals who marry one woman after another (Cary Grant comes to mind), and indeed Bret even refers to one fellow, a non-actor, as a gay man who had four wives.

Yeah, maybe Gable was bisexual, but he also could have been a homosexual man who did everything he could ( some of it mentioned by Bret) to run from his true sexuality and distance himself from any perception by the public that he could have been queer. (That he was bisexual in the technical sense, involved with both men and women like many married homosexuals, I do not doubt.)

But then, in Bret's apparent world-view, going by what I read in CGTS, everyone but everyone (except perhaps the aforementioned gay guy with four wives) is bisexual. George Raft, George Brent, this one and that one, virtually everyone named in the book, no sources ever given, practically all of Hollywood does it with both men and women. There is no talk of internalized homophobia or anything along those lines -- all these people are just swingin' happy bi's. So why exactly was Gable so "tormented" then, as the title suggests? Fear of exposure, even though his wives and affairs with females would have put paid to such stories in that gullible era? Was he tormented and conflicted by his sexuality as he got older? Bret doesn't know or write about it at all. Maybe the real love of his life was Ben Maddox, the writer/reporter he (allegedly) had an affair with (who was -- of course! -- also bisexual).

Gable would not have been the first homosexual (or bisexual) man to dump a male lover of his youth to stick with women for the rest of his life. Nor the first to make homophobic remarks both as a cover-up and as an expression of self-hatred. You can talk about sexual fluidity all you want, most guys who do this are sticking their asses in the closet -- it doesn't mean they've gone straight nor that they're essentially hetero. In any case, even stories in Confidential about Gable's gay involvements would probably not have been believed by the public then (or now). And money and fame can do a lot of ease a person's "torment," be it over his sexuality or his (by now legendary) halitosis.

There are some stupid moments in the book, and despite all the bed-hopping and bisexuality, it's not really a particularly good read. The book even becomes comical at times. One passage goes: "[actor John] Hodiak was a volatile individual who had recently emerged emotionally scarred from a torrid affair with Tallulah Bankhead on the set of Hitchcock's Lifeboat -- to take up with Lana [Turner] while shooting the ironically mistitled Marriage is a Private Affair, and all the while married to Anne Baxter. On the rebound, Lana ended up in the arms of Tyrone Power, separated from his French actress wife, Arabella -- and also involved with Cesar Romero, who had recently ended a relationship with John Hodiak!"

Don't get me wrong. There were a lot of gay goings-on in Old (and New) Hollywood, and a lot of bed-hopping to the point of in-breeding. Maybe somebody told Bret about Hodiak being with Romero who was with Ty Power, who was with .... but, if so, who was it who told him? I'm all for letting people know how many people, famous or not, engage in gay behavior and love affairs, but if it's not backed up by solid journalism or at least some good interview quotes from people who were there or have credible inside knowledge, what good does it do?

As for the great love affair between Gable and Joan Crawford? For all we know that could be the case of a woman who was essentially a lesbian being "in love" with a man who was essentially a homosexual, no more serious than the Great Love Affair of Tracy and Hepburn.

But who knows? Unless that proverbial fly on the wall shows up and spouts off, we may never know.

As for Gable, I never quite understood what all the fuss was about. He's never been of much interest to me. He may have thrilled millions of people, male and female, in his hey day, but I never found him especially appealing either as an actor or a sex symbol.

Not even if he'd had the freshest breath on the planet.

TV's Superficial 20/20

In late April 2008 20/20 ran another segment of their "What Would You Do?" series in which hidden cameras record reactions to various events. One of the events on this episode was a same-sex couple kissing and being affectionate in public. The show (separately) used one gay male couple, and one lesbian couple -- yes, just four people -- in a grand total of two locations, one in the South and the other in a more liberal Northern state. While the program recorded some distinctly homophobic reactions and did make a brief mention of gay-bashing incidents, 20/20's conclusion was that most people didn't give a damn. The show seemed to contradict itself, first saying that older people were more likely to be repulsed by same sex PDA (Public Display of Affection) then saying at the end of the report that it didn't seem to matter how old people were, most thought it was no big deal.

Now this would be great news if this had been a truly scientific -- instead of an absurdly superficial -- study conducted by ABC news man John Quinones and his 20/20 crew. I threw up my hands long ago and rarely expect -in-depth reporting or serious journalism from these "news entertainment" shows, but this was really ridiculous. My problems with this 20/20 report were as follows:

1.) Only two couples in two locations. It is ludicrous to jump to any conclusions on such a slender body of evidence.

2.) Although the men were a bit borderline "queeny," they were not that stereotypical and were attractive. The women were also non-stereotypical and attractive. In fact a group of straight men reacted as if they were "babes" and some (presumably) older straight women thought the two guys were "eye candy" and therefore could move in "next door" if they wanted.

Now, wouldn't the results have been very different if the two men had been screaming queens, and not so good-looking? If the two women had been stereotypical "dykes" with absolutely no "babe" appeal. Quinones seems to think that the fact that some straight guys got turned on (as many straight guys seemingly do) by the two sexy women kissing means that they are totally supportive of gay rights -- give me a break! Would these fellows' reaction have been so supposedly positive if the two lesbians were mannish, obese, and not so sexy? [Not to suggest most lesbians are like that, but straight people do tend to react more negatively to stereotypes.]

There was a hidden camera-in-a-cab sequence where some passengers let out their full homophobic feelings, but although 20/20 showed it they seemed to completely gloss it over. That plus the fact that some people might not have wanted to admit being homophobic (or racist or anti-Semitic) on camera.

I applaud that the piece was done at all and was essentially gay-friendly. But as a journalist -- and a gay man -- I was pretty much appalled by its utterly simplistic approach. Our lives and our fight for equality reduced to a few sounds bites and a silly "experiment."

Even here in New York City I do not see gay couples walking hand in hand all that often. Frequently when I do I can see the wary look on their faces -- yes, even in the Village and Chelsea -- as if they're wondering what comments or actions they might draw from the crowd passing by. I don't believe it is improbable that a gay couple could embrace on the corner of 7th Avenue across the street from The Monster on a busy Saturday night and have pejoratives hurled at them from cars driving by -- or worse.

A study on this issue could and should be done -- but not by the "journalists" at 20/20.

Cruise Mind-Control

I DON'T KNOW IF TOM CRUISE IS GAY BUT HE SURE IS NUTS!

I don't know anything about Tom Cruise's sexual orientation, and I couldn't care less. I've met more than one person who claims they saw him at the hustler bar Rounds in his pre-stardom days, but it's never been substantiated, and it could easily have been someone who only resembled Cruise. Who knows?

So along comes Andrew Morton's book Tom Cruise: The Unauthorized Biography. The first few chapters are, frankly, kind of dull. Like I say, I don't know if Cruise is gay or not, but Morton spends too many pages trying to prove he isn't. He quotes one old girlfriend saying she can't understand the rumors because, like, she and Tom screwed in his car years ago so how can he be gay, and that sort of thing. Duh!

Jeez, how many Jim McGreevey scandals will it take before people realize that sexual activity with the opposite sex -- even having a wife and children a la McGreevey -- does not preclude gayness or a bisexual lifestyle. Again, I ain't saying Cruise is gay, just that the fact that he may have screwed a few women and has at least one biological kid doesn't mean much. Last year The Advocate ran a story about a military man who was married for twenty years and had five biological children --and, yes, he was gay. Among my friends and acquaintances I number several gay (at at least homosexual) men who were either married with children in the past or still are.

Whatever his orientation, Cruise is definitely homophobic. Lots of actors have to deal with gay rumors, but most of them don't sue over it at the drop of a hat. They figure it goes with the territory, they may not be gay but being gay isn't so awful, they have gay friends or relatives and support gay rights -- it's no big deal. Cruise doesn't realize that all his law suits, instead of beating out brush fires, only inflame them. People wonder: what's all the fuss about? Talking about one suit when his adopted kids were about one or two years old, he whined to Barbara Walters (about the gay rumors) "I mean, I have children."No, he wasn't saying that that proved he was straight (or was he?), he was saying his children, one or two years old, shouldn't have to hear that being said about their old man. As if they would have given a damn at that age! Whenever Cruise sues over alleged inferences that he's gay, the press releases always include something about how "he doesn't care what lifestyle people lead" and all that shit, but I'm certain that's his lawyers trying to do damage control. Cruise does care about your "lifestyle," especially if you're not a scientologist like he is.

As for scientology, it's all well and good to say that most religions are a bit dopey, weird, and homophobic (I write this as the pope invades Manhattan), but the scientologists are even worse than the fundamentalists. In the scientology "religion," a person must cut off all ties with other family members who don't also embrace the "faith," and scientologists mercilessly hound and harass ex-members who speak out publicly against the group. Many of their activities, according to Morton, are downright criminal. Members of the cult -- and it is a cult, nothing more or less -- believe that founder L. Ron Hubbard will come back to life (and Earth) and help them take over the world. Hubbard believed homosexuality was a disease and that homosexuals should be quietly "disposed" of.

They are total nut cases. And Tom Cruise is a fervent scientologist.

Tom Cruise is a nut job.

Frankly, I hope he's not gay.

Morton's book is a good, eye-opening, even frightening read. It examines the strange relationship between Cruise and scientology head David Miscavige, another certified weirdo.

Everybody should know what scientology is up to. Because they're strange, they're homophobic, they're crazy, and they're out to control the world.

No shit.

Read this book or any other that's been written about the cult. Most journalists don't ask Cruise the tough questions about scientology and their homophobic attitudes because Cruise won't do an interview if such questions come up. It's a wall of silence. If somebody wants Cruise on their TV show or magazine cover they have to put up with these demands.

As for me, I have no great desire to see a Tom Cruise movie, but if I do I'll get it for free from the library.

Cruise and his cultists aren't going to get any moola from this gay guy!

Final Thoughts on "Chuck and Larry"

NOT TO MENTION STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

A fireman begs his best friend to pretend to be a gay couple with him so that they can reap financial benefits, but have to keep up a deception when an official comes around to investigate the veracity of their claim.

Sounds like last summer's movie I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, doesn't it?

Actually it's a 2004 Australian film entitled Strange Bedfellows, starring Paul Hogan (Vince) and Michael Caton (Ralph). Yes, it has the exact same premise as Chuck and Larry. (The last I heard, the producers of Strange Bedfellows were suing the producers of Chuck and Larry.) Strange Bedfellows was written by Dean Murphy (who also directed the film) and Stewart Faichney.

Chuck and Larry was accused of being a mass of stereotypes with a message of tolerance tacked on at the end. Actually, that description is more apt of Bedfellows, which is pretty much the movie everyone was afraid Chuck and Larry would be.

Bedfellows takes place in a small town, while C&L takes place in a big city. Bedfellows begins with Hogan, hit with a huge tax bill, reading a story in the paper about a (mythical) law allowing tax benefits to same-sex couples. As in C&L, one of the two guys seems more live-and-let-live about gays than the other.

In Bedfellows, the two men take photos of the town "faggot" (not referred to as such, although "poofter" is used now and then throughout the film) or hairdresser, a very stereotypical gay male, so that they can mimic his mannerisms for the tax official. There's a twist when it turns out that the effeminate man is actually straight, or at least having sex with half the women in town. While this bit could have made the point that there are girlish straight men and masculine gay guys, it's all ruined by the revelation that the hairdresser's mannerisms are all put on. He acts gay because "it's expected of" him and because he can sneak around having sex with half of the wives and daughters in town. Sure, as if any straight guy would want to be known as the town faggot!

Perhaps the worst scene in the movie has the straight if nelly-acting hairdresser teaching our two heroes how to "swish." At least Chuck and Larry doesn't have an equivalent sequence. The hairdresser also says that gay men refer to themselves as "girls" and "she." Indeed in a gay bar scene later on, there are leather men calling themselves "girls." I don't think so. (There may still be some gay men who do this, but they are a dying breed and they are definitely not leather men or bears.)

The gay bar scene presents most of the customers as freaks of one sort or another -- or at least wants the viewers to see them that way for the alleged comedic value. One perfectly "normal" man has a conversation with Hogan at the bar but he's vastly outnumbered by much more "fabulous" characters, all of whom are at least likable and who seem a bit perturbed when Ralph makes some comment about what's stranger than being a "poof." Still thinking he's gay, they pause and then giggle.

Unlike C&L, in Bedfellows there is no scene when an official suggests how wrong and obscene it would be for straight people, liars, to take advantage of laws supposed to benefit a minority group that has had to struggle for its rights for decades.

At the end of the film, we learn that Ralph's daughter is gay. While her girlfriend thinks her father is cool, the daughter herself, besides being closeted, seems full of internalized homophobia. "I don't want you to be that way," she says, because gay people are laughed at behind their backs. I can understand why a gay child might be uncomfortable with a gay parent -- most children don't even want to think of their parents as being sexual, gay or straight -- but her reaction is decidedly negative and even old-fashioned. You imagine that if a gay gene is ever isolated, this gal would want any kids she might have to be "straightened" out. Of course, she's only onscreen for five minutes so we learn very little about her. She's introduced to set up the ending, and her complaining about "being laughed at" is the springboard for her father's speech. But it makes her seem a very regressive character.

After learning his daughter is gay -- and not before -- Ralph gives the well-intentioned "tolerance" speech at the end of the film. He makes the point that everyone has known him and Vince for many years and what they do in the privacy of their homes shouldn't make any difference. I won't go into details, but it all comes down to the fact that Ralph and Vince really love each other -- aww-- albeit not in the romantic or sexual sense. The tax official, Russell (Pete Postlethwaite), who may or may not be gay, sort of forgives them and let's them off the hook because he hasn't seen "a stronger bond or a greater love between two men in many a year." So let's see, two straight guys can love each other more than two gay men who are in love with each other?

Strange Bedfellows may mean well -- or at least it tries to have some pro-gay sentiments to offset all the stereotypical crap -- but it just doesn't get it. The film is well-acted by all, has some mildly amusing moments, but it's too stupid and even offensive to make a positive impression.

So now we come to I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, which -- believe it or not -- is an improvement. Very few gay people that I know have actually sat through the movie. I think nobody actually wanted to go to a theater, plunk down twelve dollars, and possibly have to sit through the picture with a bunch of homophobic teens making crass remarks all the while.

Curiously, C&L, while it'll never be one of my favorite films, and there were aspects of it that I really disliked, was not nearly as bad as I had feared. DISCLAIMER: Remember that I didn't watch this in a theater with a straight audience, but at home with a gay friend, which probably affected my perception of the film to a certain degree. Had I seen it with a straight -- especially a straight homophobic audience -- laughing at or commenting on the stereotypes, I would have found it a much worse experience than watching my borrowed library copy at home.

First of all, contrary to popular belief GLAAD did not "endorse" Chuck and Larry. You can find my New York Blade story and interview with GLAAD's president here, which explains what really happened and how GLAAD tried to improve the film and may have helped to do so.

Okay, Adam Sandler's not a horrible-looking guy, but it's pretty comical (in the wrong sense) that he would wind up with half a dozen gorgeous twenty-something babes in his bedroom at the same time, as he does early in the movie. The real Adam Sandler, a billionaire movie star, probably has no problem getting babes, but an average-looking firefighter on the cusp of middle-age? But that's just typical Adam Sandler, aging-stud stuff that all geeky movie comics from Bob Hope to Jim Carrey indulge in. And especially in a movie with a sort of gay theme, Sandler probably felt he had to establish the character's heterosexuality in an as over-the-top way as possible. That is also the reason for a really stupid scene in which the lady social worker who helps them (Jessica Biel) let's Chuck (Sandler) touch her naked boobs so she can prove to him that they're real. Sure -- as if a professional woman would allow a male -- or any -- client to do such a thing!

On the positive side, the film makes fun of homophobes, and while there's a silly sequence when Chuck and Larry try to find some "gay garbage" to fool the domestic partnership inspector, they never swish around and act stereotypically gay as the guys do in Strange Bedfellows. Chuck makes a speech about how ugly and hurtful the word "faggot" is, comparing it to someone calling him "kike." I liked the gay mailman, and I especially liked the way the film winds up with a gay wedding instead of a straight one.

On the negative side, I could have done without the way Larry's supposedly gay young son Eric was handled. He hits all the stereotype buttons and literally screams when he looks at a nude female centerfold. Eric and his father get into a fight with another man and his kid, not because of the latter pair's homophobia but because they say Eric is gay (but the film is supposed to be saying that it's okay to be gay). After he comes out of the closet, butch firefighter Duncan (Ving Rhames) turns kind of "queeny" -- he sings "I'm Every Woman" in the shower -- the tiresome old notion that masculine gay men just "butch it up" but are big "fairies" inside. Then there's the whole business about whether it's Chuck or Larry who's "the woman" in the relationship, and the social worker taking Chuck out for a "girls' day," which she would hardly say to a masculine gay guy like Chuck. And I don't believe for one second that the gay community of New York would come to see Chuck and Larry as some kind of gay heroes or icons, especially after they've been exposed as straight. Sandler socks one of the homophobes outside of the gay bar, but I would have liked it better if an actual gay character had thrown the punch. (I have to admit that the fireman's calender that ends the film is kind of funny.)

Of course, some of the good points that are made about gays are kind of blunted or made pointless because Chuck and Larry aren't really gay (if only the film had had the courage to have one of them sincerely come out of the closet at the end of the picture.)

There are people who think Chuck and Larry is a lot tougher on Asians (part Filipino Rob Schneider's minister, who says "loom" for "room") and very obese people (the funny-gross opening with the guys rescuing an enormous home bound man from a burning building) than it is on gays.

Would I have gotten my old Gay Activist Alliance buddies to picket this film the way we did Cruising, A Different Story and Windows? -- Maybe not. While I can understand the negative gay reaction to the film, I can't quite understand why even straight reviewers were so brutal.

Was it because they objected to the stereotyping -- or, privately, to the message of tolerance and gay marriage equality at the end? Considering this was an Adam Sandler film geared toward a young, unsophisticated audience, it could have been much, much worse.

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry was written by Barry Fanaro, Alexander Payne, and Jim Taylor. The director was Dennis Dugan, who had a role in the execrable "gay" movie Norman ... Is That You? in 1976.

Another Good Reason to Wear Condoms!

Okay, first off, I support full rights for transsexuals and sympathize with the plight of those trans men who, for one reason or another, retain their female sexual organs and find themselves a bit adrift in a world, gay or straight, that worships cock. I'm not trying to make fun of anyone or of their choices, but I can't help but find a certain bizarre aspect to this that I think has its humorous aspects. Let's face it -- sexuality can sure be funny. In fact, if I were religious I'd say that sex was God's little joke on humanity.

Anyway, on a previous post I went into the reaction some gay males have to learning that there are gay (trans) men out there cruising gay bars who have pussies. Now we have a man, Thomas Beatie -- a Trans Man (a female-to-male transsexual) -- who seems to have retained his female sexual organs not because artificial penises don't look good or because they're too expensive, but because he wanted to get pregnant. Which is, of course, his prerogative. (His wife -- apparently he is a hetero Trans Man -- cannot have children.)

Frankly, I have to wonder if all Trans Men are thrilled with this development. Here they are, innately male, trying to be as outwardly masculine as they can be, some Out and Proud as Transgender, some trying to "pass," but still wanting to be recognized by the world as men.

And along comes Thomas Beatie, a Trans Man who's carrying a baby! (And apparently he's not the first. Just the most publicized and the first to get a book deal.) Beatie says that he's all man inside. "I see pregnancy as a process. It doesn't define who I am."

Beatie is quick to make it clear that he was never a lesbian. "When I was a teenager I had an attraction to women, but it wasn't a sexual attraction." But if he was always innately male deep within himself, even a sexual attraction to women wouldn't have made him a lesbian, would it? (It would be ironic -- and a little sad -- if Beatie, who is a man carrying a baby, was embarrassed or ashamed to have anybody think he might be or might have once been a "dyke!" Oy vey!)

The New York Post did a surprisingly respectful strictly-the-facts piece on Beatie (although one wonders how respectful it would have been had Beatie's partner been a man). Still, the piece, by Michael Starr, admirably avoided any snideness or judgmental attitude. But it also avoided any tough questions.

Will most people, even in the gay community, see Beatie as a true man, a grotesque combination of male and female, or just a lesbian who isn't facing the facts about herself? A woman who wants a sense of male power while retaining abilities peculiar to females? I, and many others scoffed at a young bisexual lady on a gay message board who suggested that there was a trend in "butch lesbians" transitioning into men -- even Trans Man porn star Buck Angel remarked that switching sexes is becoming easy and "trendy" -- but while most transsexuals are truly transsexual, sometimes you have to wonder.

One reason many guys will have trouble seeing Beatie as really being a guy is the simple fact that he actually wanted to get pregnant. Guys not only do not want to get pregnant, most don't want to get anybody else pregnant, although many stupidly do because they're drunk, horny, and can't bother with a condom. I speak primarily of straight guys, of course, along with some bi-identified men and even a few gay men who occasionally enjoy a poke with a kinky female friend.

But now there's this new wrinkle. I can picture it. Horny, drunk gay guy gets picked up by a macho, bearded stud in the local leather bar. Once home, they tear each other's clothing off, only the gay guy discovers that the other gay guy is a Trans Man with a vagina. Initially distressed by the phallic-less state of his date, he's drunk enough to fuck him anyway. He figures, what the hell? Pussy or no pussy, at least the guy looks like a hairy macho man.

Then a few months later, a very pregnant bearded guy walks into the Eagle and slaps the gay guy with a court order for child support!

Yikes!

Like I say, get out those condoms, fellas, LOL!

Barbara Walters Special: Elderly Women Will Turn Lesbian

Okay, there was a Barbara Walters special on longevity one night early in April 2008. Most of the show was fairly superficial, going into the expected stuff such as cryogenics [freezing bodies until such a time as a cure for whatever killed you is found, at which point you'll be defrosted. Aside from the simple fact that everyone you know may be dead and your money long since spent by the people you left it to, there is the simple problem that -- even if they've found the cure for cancer or heart disease -- you're still dead. Nobody ever talks about keeping you frozen until a method is found to, like, resuscitate corpses.]

But I digress. Late in the program, Baba Waba introduces us to a man named Stephen J. Dubner, author of a book called "Freakonomics." This man, an ABC news correspondent and expert on economics, apparently fancies himself an expert on (homo)sexuality as well. Talking with Barbara about the effects of people living longer, resulting in there being a larger elderly population in the U.S., Dubner says that it may decrease prejudice against the elderly. But one problem, he says, is that women generally outlive men, including their husbands (although one would imagine all of these life-lengthening treatments might correct that disparity) so there will be a dearth of older men for the widows and other elderly ladies to have relationships with. Therefore, according to "Dubner and Dumber," there will be much "elderly lesbianism" in the future.

Huh?

I sent Dubner the following email:

Re. your comments on the Barbara Walters special earlier tonight (that since women generally outlive men, there will be a shortage of men in the golden years and therefore there will be a lot of "elderly lesbianism.") What on earth what you were thinking?

Now if you were saying that some elderly women who have been closeted lesbians or bisexuals throughout their lives will come out of the closet in old age, it might have made some sense. But to suggest that old women will simply turn homo because there aren't enough older men around makes no sense whatsoever (what about younger men, for Pete's sake?).Same-sex episodes (or rapes) among straight men I can understand in prisons. But somehow I can't see women who have been legitimately straight all their lives suddenly going gay as if it were something you could turn on and off like a switch. When I think of the long struggle it can be for many people to accept themselves, and how being gay is about so much more than sex, and how it's not a "lifestyle" but a life, it's ridiculous for you to reduce it to "not enough men around -- just go lesbian."

A lot of progress has been made by gay rights over the years, but comments like yours make me realize we've still got a hell of a long way to go when it comes to being understood.

With all due respect stick to economics and leave the comments on (homo) sexuality to others, okay?

To date I've received no reply.

Silent Partner

NOTES ON A DISCARDED WIFE or DINA MATOS MCGREEVEY'S SIDE OF IT

I have already recorded my (mostly negative) reactions to Jim McGreevey's book The Confession on this blog. Now I'll relate my reactions to his spouse's tome, Silent Partner, as well as the recent "news" story involving McGreevey's aide Teddy Pedersen and the alleged threesomes he had with the couple.

First of all, as I've said before, I have always been sympathetic to women who inadvertently marry homosexual men and whose lives are devastated when those men finally come out of the closet. Some of those men can't deal with being gay and get married in a more or less "honest" attempt to be straight. Others, like McGreevey, pretty much know that they're homosexual but get married because they can't give up heterosexual privileges, and feel that being perceived as straight will take them further in life -- and in politics. I agree with DMM (Dina Matos McGreevey) that her husband -- certainly with his second marriage to Dina and perhaps his first as well -- was the latter kind of homosexual male. I have zero sympathy for him. Sure, he may have had religious and family pressures, but so do other gay men who still manage to become Out and Proud. Many men who are older than McGreevey came out, paid their dues, while McGreevey blithely ignored the Gay Rights movement in the name of ambition. Women like DMM have to realize that they did not marry a gay man (not if you use the term "gay" to describe someone who's Out and Proud, as I do); she married a sneaky, self-hating, Larry Craig-style homosexual, a different animal entirely.

[Another clue: Homo men in denial generally wind up with girlfriends or wives who seem to fit a certain stereotype, a category that DMM and McGreevey's first wife do not belong to. These other women are not as attractive as their husbands, are frequently overweight, are not very sexy, and often have more money than the husband or boyfriend. I have seen this pattern so often over the years that friends and I have joked that their must be a factory that spits out Gay Guys' Girlfriends! However, as I say, neither DMM nor McGreevey's first wife, both of whom are very attractive women, fit this pattern. They are, in a sense, decorative trophy wives for the well-dressed homosexual politician/executive who needs to project a certain image. Needless to say, DMM --and undoubtedly his first wife as well -- is an intelligent women of accomplishment and deserved a lot better.)

Except for one short instance, DMM sort of ignores the whole subject of homosexuality. Like many a straight democrat (including Obama and Clinton), she supports gay domestic partnerships but thinks that "marriage is a sacrament reserved for a union between a man and a woman." (That alone may make many people lose sympathy for her and I confess that it doesn't thrill me.)

Silent Partner: A Memoir of My Marriage is compelling, readable, and well-written. Oddly, I enjoyed it more than I did McGreevey's memoir. DMM clearly and concisely explains her point of view. However much you may want to take what she says with a grain of salt -- how could she help but be embittered? -- her portrait of McGreevey is not a pleasant one. DMM only found out that McGreevey was going to come out as "a Gay American" when she was handed a copy of his speech not long before the event itself. There was no discussion beforehand and, according to her, McGreevey coldly gave her exact instructions on what to say and do during a press conference that must have been unbelievably humiliating to her. She writes that after McGreevey told her about Golan Cipel's attempted blackmail -- and even after the press conference -- he hardly dealt with her at all (and only gave her a half-hearted apology weeks later) perhaps out of embarrassment.

DMM writes that when their baby was due at any moment, McGreevey flew to Las Vegas to be with his lover Golan Cipel. "Lust," she writes, "it seemed, trumped everything else." Dina misses the point that it wasn't just lust that had McGreevey neglecting his wife to fly to his lover, it was romance. Generally, married homosexuals (who are bisexual in the technical sense but are innately homosexual) such as McGreevey, take huge risks or come out once they finally develop emotional feelings for another male. This may have helped McGreevey begin to develop some kind of gay identity; maybe not. [In any case he only "came out" -- after he and Cipel were no longer together -- due to the blackmail. Otherwise, he might still be in the closet and using DMM as a beard.]

There are always two ways of looking at situations like this. For the gay community, a person's coming out and accepting themselves is a cause for celebration. Unfortunately, for the discarded wife or husband, it's the exact opposite. Of course, many straights see a spouse's coming out as some sort of tragedy -- a sentiment I always find rather obnoxious, although I understand it -- and this attitude is certainly intensified if a person is homophobic.

While I wouldn't quite describe her as "gay-friendly" necessarily -- maybe because she simply knows so little about the subject, ironically -- DMM doesn't indulge in gay-bashing in her book. Admirably, she acknowledges her husband's contributions while rightly condemning his utter stupidity in giving his boyfriend a post -- related to national security no less -- that he was not at all qualified for and which could have had serious consequences. However much McGreevey may have wanted to come out and declare his love for Cipel deep down, he certainly went about it in the wrong way. As I've said before, McGreevey is no gay hero and should not be seen that way by anyone.

Recently one of McGreevey's former male aides, Teddy Pedersen, has claimed that he had threesomes with both Jim and his wife, and that Dina had to know all about her husband's homosexuality. However, he also states that his sexual interactions were strictly with Dina, and that at the time of these alleged incidents he didn't know if McGreevey were gay or not. So if he didn't know, why does he think that Dina did? The couple may have been swingers -- although I tend to doubt it -- but unless McGreevey had actual sex with this aide right in front of Dina, how would she know? There are straight guys who like to watch their wives have sex with other men. Somehow I can't see McGreevey bothering with this, however. [NOTE: DMM has denied the threesomes story, saying it was fabricated by McGreevey and Pedersen, who is a good friend of the former governor's. Jim McGreevey says that the stories are true. As of this posting, the McGreevey's are still locked in a bitter divorce battle and scurrilous charges will undoubtedly go back and forth. McGreevey wants people to believe DMM knew he was homo all the time; I don't think such was the case.]

Unless they marry men whom they already know have an attraction to other men, be they gay, bi, or even straight-identified, women generally don't know that their husbands are gay. In fact, I believe DMM when she writes that she actually thought her love rival was McGreevey's first wife. McGreevey even went so far as to throw a party for the woman, without inviting Dina! He told Dina that his ex-wife hadn't been in the states for a while and he wanted her old friends to have a chance to see her. Sounds somewhat reasonable, but it's also another in a long line of McGreevey's utterly thoughtless actions in regards to his second wife. Dina only found out about the party from somebody else.

According to DMM, McGreevey lied in his book when he claimed that their daughter was living with him and his partner. She writes that she found much support at the Straight Spouse Network. [I'm not at all surprised that such an organization exists, but saddened that even in the 21st century we've got this kind of shit going on.] The Straight Spouse Network is pro-gay and, unlike DMM, even supports gay marriage. The theory is that these kinds of hurtful sham marriages, such as the McGreevey's, do not help anyone, and might become a thing of the past with increased (self)acceptance of homosexuality as well as an acceptance of gay marriage equality. The SSN is also against conversion and religious "therapy" as practiced by the ex-gay movement. Good for them!

I suppose some may be surprised that I, a gay man and activist who always rejoices when someone comes out of the closet, seem to support DMM more than Jim McGreevey. I think I've explained myself, but to reiterate: McGreevey only came out because he was forced to, and he treated his wife miserably. Now that he's out of the closet he may or may not become a nicer person, but he and I are not of the same species. I paid my dues -- he was just a craven user and adulterer. I came out in my twenties, and I have never used women as beards, although I had enough of a hetero component in my make up to do so had I chosen.

Jim McGreevey has a new man in his life. Hopefully Dina will have a new man in her life, too, in the near future. Perhaps one day when she's in a happy marriage, she'll change her attitude toward marriages for well-adjusted gay people, getting past her religious intolerance and negative experiences with a self-hating closet case.

"Flex Sex" -- Say What?

Okay, now it's getting a little ridiculous. We've had bisexuality and so-called sexual fluidity, then post-gays, non-gays, and retro gays, but the level of discussion has recently (and hopefully temporarily) descended to something called "Flexsexuality" -- that's right -- which was featured for all of a few minutes a couple of weeks ago on Fox's The Morning Show with Mike (Jerrick) and Juliet (Huddy/pictured). They had this young woman who was attracted to women but was afraid if she acted on this attraction she might lose her fiance, who sat there in the audience looking -- well -- dumb. As his fiancee was a little out of his league to begin with, he probably didn't care if she wanted to get it on with a gal now and then -- especially if she brought the gal home with her and they had a threesome. He didn't seem bright enough to realize that maybe his girlfriend could be -- gasp! -- a lesbian, and frankly no one on the program seemed bright enough to get it either. Instead they were talking mostly about "Flex Sex" -- another way of saying bisexuality and sexual fluidity and all the trendy, fashionable mostly horse shit that passes for serious discussion of homosexuality these days.

Let me make it clear to those who are "questioning" their sexuality. If you think you're attracted to your own sex, you're probably gay. Face it. It's okay to be gay!

One of the professional guests on the show was Dr. Robert Epstein, a geeky guy who insisted he was straight. [I will say at this point that, like sissies, most geeks are not gay and most gays are not geeks.] This makes him an expert on "flex sexuality?" Yeah, right. The male host went out of his way to make it clear to everybody that he never had, never would, couldn't possibly ever be attracted to a guy, but he didn't bother me half as much as one of the guests. That was this silly guy named Ettore Mazzei, who was described by the female host as a "flexsexual." Ettore told how he was attracted to men but would never, ever -- gosh -- date a guy, for crying out loud. He had no yucky, fag-like romantic feelings for men (no, he didn't say "yucky" or "fag-like" but he might as well have.) Googling him, I came across a chef of the same name who has written an ebook about food and sex -- could this be the same guy? Maybe he hoped for a little publicity on The Morning Show, while going out of his way to disassociate himself from the, like, gay community. [If this chef/author is a different person entirely, and not a "flexsexual," my apologies.)

Let me make it clear that I consider a geniunely bisexual -- pardon me, flexsexual -- person to be someone who makes no distinction -- whether it comes to sexual or romantic feelings -- between men and women, whom they find completely interchangeable, and he or she can fall in love with either sex and is equally attracted to both. I seriously doubt if very many of the people who call themselves bisexual fall into this category, however. I've never met one and I've met a lot of people, including bisexuals of varying ages. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there were people who fell into this category given the vast variety of human sexuality and experience. But who knows?

So what are we to make of poor Ettore? Is he straight? Hardly. Perhaps he suffers from that old bugaboo, internalized homophobia. Perhaps he feels more like a stud because he tells everyone that he prefers to screw women. You might ask why would someone so ashamed of his homoerotic longings admit to being attracted to men on a television program? Because in his mind his attraction to men does not make him gay (i.e. -- a fag.) If his straight friends hassle him he can show off the girlfriend, or say his gay experiences were inconsequential, shrug it off in some manner. (Although he probably couldn't shrug off a bunch of fag-bashers.) And of course he can tell his friends he only said he was into Flex Sex to get on the show. Why everyone knows what a fuckin' stud he is! [NOTE: Remember I'm not saying that Ettore is gay, bi, flexsexual or anything else; it's Ettore himself who says on TV that he finds men attractive.]

There are many bi-identified men who feel the same way Ettore does. Women are for real relationships; men are just for sex. And they actually expect us to believe that this attitude has nothing to do with the fact that they live in a world that is still very homophobic and not at all heterophobic in any realistic fashion, where men who sleep with women are studs and men who sleep (exclusively) with men are fags. Sure. They whine about "biphobia" and readily, all-too-conveniently overlook their own homophobia. Pathetic!

I do not relate to these dumb wannabee macho guys-in-denial. We are not on the same page or the same planet. I don't want any of them telling me "Gee, guy we're going through this together, y'know" because we are definitely not going through it together. Like all the Jim McGreevey's of the world, they are hiding behind their wives, girlfriends, and children, being very selective in who they confess their "bisexuality" to, and not having to deal with many of the things that Out and Proud Gay Men and Women have to deal with in a society that -- let's face it -- still pretty much detests us. These guys who fuck men on the side but have their wives and children to prove their so-called "manhood" to themselves and everyone else are essentially perceived as being straight by the world at large -- and don't they know it!

Now I don't know if this is true for Ettore, but this kind of mentality can be found on many a gay dating site. Y'know, the "married bi's" who are looking for men to have sex -- or commit adultery -- with. On one site I heard from so many of these jerks I had to update my profile and tell them not to bother me.

There are some bi-identified individuals who are in same-sex relationships, have a strong connection to the gay community, and don't get all hysterical if someone says or thinks that they're gay -- they don't consider it an insult. I have no problem with bisexuals of that stripe.

But the other kind -- assuming any sensible person would even label them "bisexual" -- I have no use for at all.

And I have less use for shows like The Morning Show, which is clearly not the place to have a serious discussion about sexuality (any kind) or much of anything else. At least the producers were so uninterested in "flexsexuality" that they spent only a few minutes out of the show discussing it, and each of four guests had only a minute or two, if that, to speak. Guest lists on shows like this seem cobbled together from here and there with little regard for whether or not the guest actually has anything of intelligence or importance to say. I mean, Ettore Mazzei, a flexsexual chef? What exactly is this ninnie an expert on? Cooking, maybe?

Talk about scraping the bottom of the crock pot!

Who's Gay, Who's Not, and Who Cares?

WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING GAY ANYWAY?

Imagine this; a fairly common situation. You're sitting around with some friends, maybe all gay, maybe mixed gay and straight, and somebody wonders -- in a perfectly nice way -- if somebody you all know might possibly be gay. Mind you, this is not a straight bigot nastily suggesting that someone is a "fag," but a gay or gay-friendly person wondering if someone they know might be gay.

Now imagine -- and this happens far too often for my comfort -- that somebody in this group, especially a gay person, objects and says in a sharp tongue. "So and so is not gay!" They are very vehement about it, even outright angry. It's as if by suggesting that, or wondering if, the person in question might be gay you're slandering them, saying something absolutely terrible about them, and this other person is distressed if not outraged by such a thought.

The thing is -- if you really think it's okay to be gay, then what the hell is so awful about suggesting that, or wondering if, somebody might be gay? Okay, maybe you're wrong. Big deal. You're not printing it in the paper or shouting from the rooftops. I'ts a private conversation with people merely expressing opinions. People will think what they think whether you put it in words or not anyway.

I expect to get homophobic attitudes from bigoted straights and self-hating closet cases like Larry Craig but I'm always a bit amazed -- if never surprised, sadly -- when I get them from straight people who are supposed to be gay-friendly, and especially from people who are themselves gay. Sometimes these people will claim that it's not that you're suggesting this person might be gay, but that you're somehow "slandering" them as a closet queen. Why do I never quite buy this? Because it always comes off that the "slander" has to do with suggesting that someone is homosexual, not that they may be in the closet. Besides, while it's not great to be closeted or repressed, it doesn't make someone a terrible person anymore than being gay does. There's always the chance that the closeted individual will come out and live a perfectly happy gay life. So what's the big deal?

Let me make it clear. I don't think one should outright lie about anyone, say someone is absolutely gay when you aren't at all sure about it, (but there's no reason why you can't have an educated opinion). A person who is genuinely straight shouldn't have to deal with the assorted issues that we gays have to deal with, although it certainly might increase his or her understanding of those issues. I don't believe in "outing" someone (unless they're homophobic hypocrites) even if they're gay if I know they're just not ready to take that all-important step on their own; it's an important rite of passage for a gay person.

Some people say somebody is gay to make them more interesting or news-worthy when it really hasn't been proven that they are. [Still, it's not as if you're saying something really terrible about them. Unless deep down you think it really is terrible to be gay.] Then we have people, including gays, who protest vigorously when some biographer says that a favorite actor was gay, even if the information is substantiated by the person's long-time companion and other impregnable sources.

But that isn't what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about simply wondering if or thinking that someone is gay and sharing this with gay friends or acquaintances -- hell, sometimes you wonder if someone is gay because you're attracted to them, so what? -- one or more of whom may act as if you're saying the worst possible thing you can say about anyone. There are, sadly, still some gay people who are not happy and who foolishly blame their orientation for their unhappiness. When you say someone is gay they really do think you're saying something terrible about them. Some of them will even think less of a person they formerly thought of as straight once they find out he or she is gay. Yes, this is that old internalized homophobia rearing its ugly head, and while I think and hope that it affects fewer and fewer people each decade, I know it hasn't been completely eliminated and may never be.

Perhaps it is this -- or just simply naivete -- that leads some gay people to automatically think someone is straight just because that's how they identify or because they're married with children. I recall a ridiculous conversation I had in a bar a few years ago. Someone asked me if I thought a certain individual was gay. Before I could answer, a man I didn't know said "he's straight; I've met his girlfriend." This was right after the Jim McGreevey scandal hit the headlines, and I wondered how any gay man could be so stupid as to assume a man with a girlfriend absolutely, positively must be totally straight when the papers and TV were full of a story about a married man with children who had just come out as a gay man. I mean, so this guy we were talking about supposedly had a girlfriend. So did lots of gay guys in their youth, just as many homosexual men have wives and children well into middle age. It's laughable.

[I think some gay people lead very sheltered lives. They really haven't been around too much. Or else they're just kind of dumb. The young ones at least have the excuse of relatively little experience, but the ones who are middle-aged or older?]

But I got the feeling with this strange man in the bar that he didn't like the notion that this man we were wondering about might be gay, that he would think less of him if he were. Hence he was definitely straight -- the girlfriend "proved" that.

Then there are those, gay and straight,who say with a certain air of self-righteousness: "Oh I don't care who's gay or who isn't. That's so unimportant" -- pretending that they're just so liberal and above it all but what they're really saying as far as I'm concerned is "it's vulgar to wonder if someone is gay or not because I don't think it's really so great to be gay."

And isn't that just pathetic?