Disturbing Matters -- and the Stonewall Again!

It's a shame to realize that even in these much more [but not completely] enlightened times there are still young gay men (and women) killing themselves. There's the tragic case of Tyler Clementi [pictured] who committed suicide after his roommate at Rutgers and another "friend" taped him having a homoerotic encounter and then posted it on the Internet. These people may not have thought Tyler was doing anything wrong, they may have felt they were doing the right thing in "outing" him, but a.) they were committing a gross invasion of privacy [which would have been the case even had the encounter been heteroerotic in nature] and b.) they should have realized that "coming out" is a rite of passage that everyone comes to in his or her own time. Outing hypocritical homophobes is one thing; an 18-year-old college student is another. [The legal aspects of this are so, sadly, fascinating that you can bet this story will be used as the basis for a Law and Order:SVU episode as well as many others].

Tyler probably had other issues. He seems like a sensitive young man. He was not conventionally handsome but he had a sweet face and other qualities that may have in time attracted someone to share his life with him, had that been what he desired. His roommate took what might have been a tentative first step into finding and accepting himself and turned it, whatever his intentions, into a dirty joke. Tyler may not have killed himself over being gay, but it's clear that having his actions taped and displayed for all the world to see drove him over the edge.

Despite all the achievements in Gay Rights, gay teen suicide is still a very real and terrible issue.

As is homophobia in general. Although things are much better than they once were, there still are plenty of reports that remind us that to some people we're as hated as ever.

Just the other day a man was gay-bashed in the famous [or infamous] Stonewall bar here in New York. Not that this surprises me, as I had an unpleasant encounter there myself many moons ago. The victim was taking an honest piss when they guy beside him asked what kind of bar it was, and when he discovered he was in -- gasp! -- a gay bar, took out his aggression on the customer. Another straight guy joined in. Both of the gay-bashers were arrested.

What kills me is that the Stonewall is claiming they do everything to protect their customers, to have a safe environment for everyone. But how did this [probably] shit-faced straight guy [or self-hater] get into the bar in the first place? There used to be a time when bouncers in gay bars made sure that every customer, especially the straight ones who wandered in, were aware they were in a gay bar, so that they could withdraw -- or be refused admittance -- if their reaction was hostile or negative. Now most gay bars don't even bother to do this, the reason allegedly being that gays and straights mingle more today and no one should be excluded etc. etc. but which really has more to do with money. Years ago straight people entered gay bars with their gay friends, and they were generally cool and respectful. Now we get inebriated meatheads who bounce in, unaware they're in a gay bar or too drunk to care [until they're made aware of it], and gay customers wind up paying the price for it.

I hope the guy who was gay-bashed sues the straight owners of the Stonewall. [Yes, they are straight, don't let anybody fool you. They gave a gay bartender at their other place, the Duplex down the street, a piece of the action and made him manager so they can say it's "gay-owned," which is a trifle disingenuous in my opinion.] The Stonewall gets the overflow from the Duplex, and it's been said that Duplex employees encourage [are told to encourage] the mostly straight, generally drunken tourists pouring out of the Duplex to go to the Stonewall; sometimes they mix with the gay customers like oil and water.

One of the gay-bashers' lawyers claims it wasn't a hate crime. But even if the guy turns out to be homosexual himself, it doesn't matter. If you beat somebody up because they're gay and call them a fag all the while it's a hate crime, be assured.

HAPPY GAY PRIDE

HAPPY GAY PRIDE, EVERYONE!

HAVE A GREAT DAY!

AND IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY. COME OUT TO SOMEONE YOU CARE ABOUT!

BILL SCHOELL

Gay Teens Coming Out in the New York Times

The September 27th 2009 New York Times Magazine section had an interesting article entitled "Coming Out in Middle School" by Benoit Denizet-Lewis. [I believe he's the same guy who wrote the piece about young gay couples a few months ago, the one with the weird photos that made the guys sort of look like Stepford Wives.]

According to this piece young people are coming out earlier and earlier these days, at 13, 14 or 15. These are not even high schoolers, but junior high schoolers. Most of the boys at that age identify as gay; many of the girls as bisexual. [Are there no lesbians anymore? Of course there are!]

A good point is made that it's offensive to ask a gay kid if he's sure he's gay when nobody ever asks a young person who identifies as straight if they're sure they're straight. No one tells straight-identified kids that they're just going through a phase, so why should anyone say it to gay kids?

Now it was awhile ago -- don't laugh, and you know who you are! -- but I recall having an attraction to men not long after reaching puberty, although by no means did I identify as gay. That didn't happen until I was in my early twenties.

I rigidly repressed my attraction to men all through high school and through most of college. I did not have sexual fantasies about any of my college roommates. It wasn't until I was 19 or 20 that I got a full-fledged "crush" on another male classmate. [Joey, what ever became of ye? He was a hot little guy. What is there about hot little guys?]

If these kids can avoid all the angst and drama and have a secure sexual identity when they're younger, so much the better. And for those who ask if they're "boxing themselves in" with a gay identity, what's the problem if they are? What's wrong with a gay identity? What's wrong with being gay? [Frankly I've had enough of this "sexual fluidity" bullshit.]

According to this article, some of these kids knew they were attracted to their own sex as early as age ten! Now I have on occasion met gay men who say they knew they had homosexual feelings as early as nine or ten, but it does seem a little remarkable as most people don't reach puberty until 12 or 13. Perhaps the "attraction" they felt wasn't exactly sexual in nature -- until the hormones kicked in. As for me, who remembers that far back?

As for the "how do you know you're really gay if you don't try it with women?" -- well, just try saying that in reverse. I tried it with women, and it was no big deal. Definitely not my cup of java. And please don't send me emails insisting I'm really bisexual just because I fucked a few women in my younger days. It certainly doesn't make me more of a man than gay guys who've never slept with a gal. But in our macho American society if you don't fuck women you ain't a stud, which is why so many guys who are -- if they're honest with themselves -- gay keep insisting that they're bi. Get real!

The article was hopeful in many ways. For instance: "Many parents just don't assume anymore that their kids will have a sad, difficult life just because they're gay."

And: "This is the first generation of gay kids who have the great joy of being able to argue with their parents about dating, just like their straight peers do."

Now, more than ever, self-hating homos just seem so ludicrously out of date.

Coming Out with Codicils

Okay, so I was at my favorite watering hole one night when American Idol came on. [I'm not a fan of the show.] I'd heard one of the front runners was gay and I asked someone to point him out to me when he came on. Naturally, he turned out to be the one male contestant I would never fuck [and I'm sure he'd feel the same way]. Adam Lambert is nice looking in that "queeny" sort of way --not that there's anything wrong with that -- but why is it when celebrities or pseudo-celebrities or people famous for five minutes come out a.) you can sort of already tell that they're gay because they ring all the stereotype buttons and b.) if they're guys they have to have the whole teased hair, lip gloss kind of thing going on. If you knew how many gay men I know who are nothing like that ...

Of course the teased hair/lip gloss business is as much -- if not more -- theatrical than it is gay. I mean, we have to remember Gene Simmons of the rock group Kiss in his outrageous make up and he, presumably, is straight. [Why is it that so many hetero lover boys are well, repulsive -- you know, Charlie Sheen almost turns my stomach. It's not even their looks so much as a certain oily factor ... anyway, I digress.]

Some things never change. Lambert was interviewed on 20/20 -- not exactly a hard news program -- and they made a big fuckin' deal out of something he said late in the program. They even announced that Lambert was going to say something surprising. The presumably straight and nerdy male interviewer was practically smacking his lips over this announcement.

No, it wasn't that Lambert was gay, which he confirmed to 20/20 as he had to Rolling Stone in his interview there. No it was that Lambert, although not bisexual, wasn't opposed to -- gosh -- a little pussy. He claimed he made out with women when he'd had a few drinks [no surprise there] and that someday he might go all the way. "Who will be the lucky woman?" he wondered.

Give me a break! Lambert seems like a nice guy, but when he goes to bed with a woman it will be an act of lesbianism. I could be wrong, but I suspect he's a bottom -- nothing wrong with that -- so if he isn't interested in fucking guys he's going to be a big disappointment with whatever starstruck can-I-borrow-your-lip gloss gal he decides to hit the sheets with.

But there's a bigger question here. Who put Lambert up to this business and why did 20/20 have to make such a big deal of it. It was as if they were saying "Sure, he's a fag, but he's part normal, he might fuck a woman someday." What is this shit?

If Lambert made his remarks on his own it's due to his need to seem like a "regular guy," after all, to America. [Hint, Adam: Lose the shiny lip gloss.] But I suspect it may have been his advisers or business manager or agent. After all, many of his fans are young straight women. They might not buy his records or stay fans of his if they come to the conclusion that he's a hopeless, total fag. [To be fair, Lambert may have had nothing to do with the assholes at 20/20 playing up this part of the interview as if it were the most important thing Lambert had to say. Still ... ]

So again we have someone coming out, saying they're comfortable with their sexuality.

But if they're so comfortable -- why the hetero codicil?

You sometimes wish some people would just stay in the closet.

Post-Married Homosexuals

Click here and you'll see my post on "Married Homosexuals," homosexual men who marry women. Today I'm going to discuss homosexual men who come out of the closet, divorce their wives, and become post-Married homosexuals.

In some cases these men (and their lesbian equivalents) become happily and proudly Gay, work out all their problems, shrug off the internalized homophobia and lack of self-esteem that led them to get married in the first place, and live happily ever after as Gay Men.

In other cases, they just can't quite give up those heterosexual privileges. And they can't quite give up the wife (and vice versa).

Some years ago I had a friend we'll call Sid. Sid had been married for many years and had a grown son. He cruised gay bars often -- which is where I met him, although we were never lovers or even a one-night-stand -- and I think he might have wanted a man for a long-term partner. He was having trouble finding a relationship, however, although he seemed to have no trouble getting laid. My problem with him wasn't that he had been married. Sid would call me up to go out bar-hopping, and spend an hour or so talking about all of his problems. When he was finally through and wrung all the advice out of me that I had to give, I would turn to him and start to talk just a little about my life. More likely than not, I would be looking at Sid's back. Now that Sid had gotten everything off his chest, he wanted to cruise and I had become superfluous.

Now there's nothing whatsoever wrong with going out with a friend for a few drinks and later in the evening you both do a bit of cruising. However most friends won't just yak at you but will engage in honest-to-goodness conversation with you for an hour or two before they turn their attention to some serious cruising. Sid would literally turn his back on me, as if dismissing me for the evening. Often I had just ordered a new drink and was in a bar that I didn't feel like cruising in or wasn't even in the mood for cruising. I was out with a friend and wanted to talk. It was as if I had served my purpose -- kept him company and held his hand, figuratively speaking, let him dump his load on me until the two or so beers he'd consumed had given him enough courage to go on some serious man-hunting. I told him I would just as soon go out cruising on my own. I realized that it would have been better if Sid and I had just remained bar friends and never tried to become good friends outside of the bar.

Of course I told Sid how I felt, hoping he would understand and it might either make our friendship stronger or destroy it. It was the latter. Sid merely accused me of being "possessive." Believe me, I did not need him to hang on my every word or sit by my side all evening, but "dismissing" someone because you feel like cruising after they've served their purpose is pretty rude as far as I'm concerned. I liked Sid, thought he had a good sense of humor and was intelligent, but his defensive, negative reaction made it clear that we could not have an intelligent dialogue on the whole issue and that things would never improve. We managed to make our way over to another bar, where he promptly went over to someone he knew, didn't introduce me, and -- damn it -- literally angled his body so that his back was toward me once again. I was being put in my place, I guess. I can cruise with the best of them and have no problem making new friends on my own, but this was not a bar that I especially enjoyed, so I just left, went to a better place, and left a message for Sid that I'd prefer it if he wouldn't bother me anymore.

I don't know if Sid ever found a lover. A few months after this incident I saw him walking down the street with his ex-wife, holding hands, practically skipping, as if they were still the happy couple. (They had a son together and remained friends after the divorce, but I don't think the wife had ever "moved on" in any serious fashion.) I'd be willing to bet that Sid became one of these post-marrieds who got disenchanted with the gay lifestyle when guys didn't flock to his door or a male lover didn't magically appear within a month or two. Was Sid one of these guys who just couldn't make it without the woman at his side and went back to her? (I know gay guys who have, unfortunately, become involved with post-marrieds like this to their ultimate regret.). No, I don't think that was the case. If he went back to his wife it was probably because he was lonely, knew that she loved him, and hadn't found any man who felt the same way. If the two of them re-married I would have to call Sid a post-post-married homosexual, I suppose.

Of course, some married homosexuals never become post-married. Just last month I met a man in his sixties at Ty's bar who told me he had a wife and children. When I asked him if he was bisexual he snapped "No, I'm gay!" and proceeded to give out with all the politically correct verbiage I would expect of someone out and proud like myself. But he was still married and his wife and kids, probably every other relative and straight friend he had, didn't know he was gay. As another patron at Ty's put it, "He's completely and totally gay but he just never divested himself of the wife." This sort of individual can hardly be classified as any kind of gay activist in any real sense, but his pro-gay attitude seemed entirely genuine, although I admit our conversation was hardly in-depth. What was that I was saying about "hetero privileges?"

Bizarre. I'm thankful I knew who and what I was at a relatively early age. There is no greater happiness than that of self-acceptance.