"Otterly" Ridiculous

Okay, now and then I'm told by someone that I'm not a bear. Usually it's meant as some kind of compliment or a simple clarification. But I like being a bear.

Here's the deal: True, I am not a bear in the classic sense. The bear stereotype is a very big man, six feet two, say, built like a football player, with a big, big belly and a massive soup catcher that would put Santa Claus' beard to shame. It doesn't hurt if he has a big chest and a bass voice to match. He should be working-class, or at least look like he is. Middle-aged or on the cusp. The guys in the photo to the left won "bear" beauty contests or whatever they call them so I suppose they could be considered closer to the classic standard..

Now the bear community has expanded (to the dismay of some classic bears, I'm told, though I've never seen concrete evidence of this so far), and there are many different categories of bear. Younger bears are "bear cubs." Older bears are "daddy bears." Bears who aren't quite so large -- or fat, if we're to be blunt -- can be "otters," and even "wolves," if they're very slender.

I've lost quite a few pounds in the last few years, going on a self-improvement kick. I had my admirers when I was a larger (more bear-like?) man, but frankly I seem to do better today. So perhaps I'm not a bear, but an otter. I'll have to become really skinny before I'm a wolf, although friends tell me that's the correct classification already (and they don't mean bear classification). And I'm not "working class," as such, being a writer, although that's the class I was born into.

So sue me. I'm a "furry bear" (very hairy guy) par excellence, and I honestly don't know what else to call myself. My best friend took an objective look at me and said, "Bill, you're somewhere in the middle between otter and bear." Cool.

The bear community is fun and friendly, with no attitude. I've met some great bears and bear admirers online and elsewhere. It isn't about how young, pretty and slender you are, and a hairy body is considered an asset, not something those four "fabulous" Queer Guys would go "ewwww, yuchhh" about, recommending you get a body peel or something equally feminizing and idiotic. You can be a more mature person and not be ignored as you might be in a bar full of "fabulous" twenty-somethings (unless you wave around a few bucks or pick up everybody's bar tab and even then you'll probably go home alone).

In other words, bears are great.

Shit -- I'm a bear!

Woof!

Wanna Fuck Buck?

Ever since the days of Christine Jorgensen the public has been aware that there were men who got sex changes and became women. A comparatively recent phenomenon is the female-to-male transsexual, and there seem to be many of them these days. Although many of these FTM transgenders get artificial penises, apparently these do not look very convincing and in addition cost around $100,000. So some of the FTM transgenders just keep their vaginas. A case in point is the transgender porn star Buck Angel [see the comically overstated photo above], who is billed as "the man with a pussy." Buck appears in adult films targeted for the gay market and identifies himself as, you guessed it, bisexual. He has a bisexual wife (a body-piercing "weirdo" named Elayne Angel) but told one interviewer that he and other FTMs like him go to gay bars and pick up the "edgier" or "kinkier" members of gay male society. In other words, people who think it would be kinda cool to fuck a guy with a pussy (although I imagine many of them would prefer to go in through the back door, if you know what I mean). Buck says he has never been fucked in the ass, however.

We’ll get back to Buck and his ilk in a moment. First let me say that I support rights for the transgendered – including gay and straight transsexuals, gays with characteristics of the opposite sex or transvestites with opposite sex identities, the androgynous, and so on. I can’t say I identity with any of these people in any particular fashion (aside from acknowledging the fact that we’re all "queer" and discriminated against) but I do sympathize with their struggles. Today many of the transgendered have a remarkable confidence and pride -- at least when they're in a group and/or have support from loved ones -- and while you can feel sorry for them and what they have to go through in a prejudicial society, I can’t say that I find them in any way pitiable, (although perhaps at one time I did. And some, of course, may be just a teensy bit odd.)

Still, there are troubling questions, some of which center on transsexuals who identify as straight. Most of these, of course, would have been considered homosexual while they were still in their original biological bodies. After transitioning, they generally remain attracted to the same sex as before and therefore become – in a way – heterosexual. (Transsexuals feel that whatever their biological condition, they are actually male or female, as the case may be, both before and after surgery. Therefore a gay male transgender was a gay man even when he had breasts and a vagina, and other trannies insist they were always heterosexual. Boy do they insist!

And this is where the troubling aspect comes in, the borderline (and not so borderline) homophobic attitudes that have been expressed – too often for my comfort zone – by straight-identified transsexuals. External and internalized homophobia can strike every segment of the LGBT community it seems. For instance, on the LOGO TV series Transgeneration (which seemed to focus primarily on straight-identified trannies), a male to female trans named Raci gives a lecture on what it’s like to be transsexual and is asked if she’s ever had sex with another woman. Raci makes a disgusted face and says "No! Never!" as if the very idea is anathema to her. The lecture hall bursts into laughter, but whether the people there were giving in to their own homophobia, reacting to Raci’s, or simply thinking to themselves "of course she doesn’t want to have sex with a woman – she’s basically a gay man" is uncertain. Probably all three.

In the documentary film Southern Comfort, a transgendered man named Robert Eads insists over and over that he’s hetero even though the object of his affection – supposedly a male to female transsexual named Lola who lives most of the time as a man named John – comes off as nothing so much as a typical (and very likable) drag queen. They come off as a gay couple by any objective standard. Raci (although she can "pass" easier than others) also comes off as a drag queen and so does another MTF hetero trannie from Transgeneration named Gabbie, who is less successful than Rani at "passing." Watching Gabbie dining with her family and boyfriend or accepting an award from GLAAD, she seems little different from the stereotypical "queen."

Eads and the other FTM transsexuals in Southern Comfort for the most part seem very masculine, and if you weren’t clued in from the beginning you would probably take them for "ordinary" males. However, late in the film we see the dying Eads in a wheelchair and you can catch sight of the "woman" who once existed (Eads had been married and pregnant more than once) underneath the world-weary facade – Eads simply looks like a grandmother who’s pasted on a false mustache and beard so she can have fun with her grand kids on Halloween.

Undoubtedly the truth is that the transsexual community can be as diverse as the gay community, and there are some "transitions" that are more successful and convincing than others. Yet some times you’re given a sudden disturbing impression that reminds one of the now politically-incorrect observation that transsexuals are just gay people who can’t deal with their sexuality and would rather cross over and become heterosexual than face the facts. Of course this is pretty far-fetched – surely it’s easier to accept one’s homosexuality than to have a sex-change operation and everything that goes with it. And many transsexuals do clearly come off as the opposite gender (as opposed to merely being "effeminate" or "mannish") even before they have any surgery, making it clear – to me at least – that definite transsexuals do exist. (And I fear that young teen trannies get a hell of a lot more support than those who "come out" and transition much later in life.) But in some cases ...

The trans who merely seem like drag queens or butch lesbians may be less successful attempts at transitioning, but it begs the question if some of them are in a different classification. And the fact that some in this grouping are a bit homophobic only makes it more confusing. If prejudice is generally caused by an inferiority complex, you can understand why the transgendered can be homophobic. I’m not saying transsexuals are inferior, only that it’s no wonder many of them feel that way given the level of misunderstanding and prejudice they have to deal with, something that all other minority groups from gays to African-Americans can certainly understand. But while there may be a reason behind it that doesn’t excuse it.

Candidates for sexual realignment surgery must receive counseling, but are all psychiatrists sophisticated enough to tell a self-hating homosexual, or a dizzy queen who wants to make his fantasies of being a real lady become real, from a true transsexual? Hopefully most of them are, and don’t just react in a pc manner that says "If you say you’re transsexual you must be transsexual." Which doesn’t make any more sense that accepting that someone is straight or bisexual just because he or she says so. (As I’ve said many times, people rarely lie about being gay.) Even Buck Angel says that switching genders is becoming easy and "trendy," and that some people go underground to get hormones and wind up deeply regretting their decision.

Of course we then have to turn around and ask if many drag queens, especially those who live as women most of the time, are really gay men or are instead transsexuals. Is having a female identification the same as being female? Traditionally there are reasons why some gay men think of themselves in female terms (their attraction to men, for instance). It may also be an acknowledgment of – and even pride in – their effeminate demeanor. This may be entirely different from being transsexual, however. You occasionally hear butch gay men calling each other "Mary" or something along those lines, but this (or a variation of it) seems to happen more often amongst femmes. Some femmes identity strongly with women, and others – despite a vaguely effeminate demeanor or androgynous manner – are strictly guys, and think of themselves as same. Effeminacy and transsexualism don’t always go together. Is a drag queen who is basically female 24/7 a transsexual deep down or a type of gay man living out a "fabulous" fantasy? Ironically, some very effeminate men get very angry if you talk to them as if they’re women despite the drag, make up, mannerisms, and all that goes with it.

As for Buck Angel: Is the porn star with a pussy – as well as a beard, chest hair, and a masculine aura – a true transsexual, or a strange bi-identified lady living out one of the world’s most bizarre and complicated fetishes? Is this role-playing, acting, carried to a strange and fascinating extreme? In his "former life," Angel was supposedly a very feminine top fashion model ["I was not an ugly bulkdyke (italics mine)," he says, perhaps revealing a little more of that trans- homophobia we've been talking about.] Watching Robert Eads and and his buddy, another FTM transsexual named Max, conferring in Southern Comfort, it almost feels as if you’re watching two women giving a frantic theatrical performance, each trying to out-butch the other as the camera and the audience looks on. Observing FTM transsexuals at work and play you occasionally get the impression that some of them have an almost desperate (and understandable) need to come off as much, much butcher than any man who was actually born with a penis (a need to come off as macho? -- gee, they really are men, aren’t they?), just as drag queens want to come off as more fabulous, feminine and glamorous than any actual female. (Honest-to-goodness transgendered females seem to be less ostentatious than drag queens.) [PC advisory: these are admittedly subjective impressions, not meant to put anyone down.]

Buck Angel claims that a penis doesn't define a man, but it certainly helps. (He has to use dildoes when he wants to fuck anyone.) In one sense, of course, he's right, in that men who can't perform, have been castrated, or lost their organs due to illness or accident, are still male. But a man with a pussy (or an expensive "penis" that doesn't quite look right) must feel an awful need to be as hyper-masculine as possible to make up for it. And can this lead to a kind of macho mind-set that can be as unappealing, if not more so, in men-who-were-once-women (and "ordinary" women) as it is in men born with cocks? Judging from interviews (his porn films don't interest me, but then I've never had much interest in porn, it being a spectator sport) Buck sort of comes off in part like one of these swaggering a-holes who fuck around with other men but God forbid if you dare suggest they're gay.

Buck does his best to deny that having a pussy makes him less of a man, then turns around and says that when he's getting screwed by men in his "gay" porn films, the vagina makes the action kind of "straight" as well. He's got a point, of course, but gee, I thought he was supposed to be all-man -- how can his male on male action be considered straight? Buck does everything else -- can't he get used to taking it up the ass as well? Or is that too "gay?" Maybe he and other FTMs keep the pussy because they really prefer it over a dick, even one that came up to their -- and everyone else's -- standards. Buck says he'd get a dick if the science and surgey was up to par, but who knows? [Let's make it clear now that Buck is only one kind of FTM transgender male, and we shouldn't assume that every FTM acts like him or agrees with him. For instance, many FTMs feel a penis is quite important. And I'm sure most are not swaggering a-holes.]

I don’t know if there are as many FTM trans men cruising the back rooms of gay bars as Buck Angel suggests. Talking about Buck, friends of mine admitted they sometimes get freaked out looking around the bar and wondering which of those hot macho studs with their beards and chest hair and attitudes could be hiding a pussy under his jeans. This is not bigotry and it isn't a "fear" of the vagina; gay men tend to be into dick, after all. I find it homophobic to suggest, as some do [occasionally bi's and trans, wouldn't you know it?], that there's something wrong with a man because he doesn't find a pussy all that desirable. Most gay men may not be out and out disgusted by vaginas, women, or heterosexuality, but pussies are not exactly a big turn on, either. [On this point Buck seems to be clueless.] That's just being gay and what the hell is wrong with that?

Anyway, the next time you're in the Eagle -- in whatever city -- take a closer look at that hairy, overcompensating, hyper-macho mustachioed man busy acting up a storm before you chat him up.

Or you could be in for some Vagina Monologues.

The Serious Issue of Straight Male Hairdressers

In the magazine business we have what are known as "fake issue" pieces. This is when a writer or editor creates a story about a supposed issue or trend that needs to be addressed, but the trend or issue doesn’t really exist: the magazine is only trying to create an issue in order to get people excited and sell copies. Or simply to fill up space or be controversial and get attention.

In gay terms, a recent "fake issue" was about "metrosexuals." Metrosexuals were straight men who were supposedly like gay men; in other words they cared about their appearance, were neat and fastidious, and wouldn’t need any help from those four Queer Guys on Bravo. The whole idea of metrosexuals was, frankly, as insulting to straight men as it was to gay men. There have always been heterosexual men who cared about their appearance – lawyers, politicians, any professional man – some even when they went casual on weekends. We used to call them "snappy dressers," or perhaps, in a long- ago era, dandies. Just as it’s ridiculous to suggest that every well-dressed businessman is gay, it’s equally ridiculous to suggest that every gay man gives a shit about clothes. I’m a complete slob and proud of it, and many of my gay male friends are just the same – and we are not by any means a small minority of the gay male community. Some straight men are neat and in fashion; many gay men are not. Let’s get over it. ["Metrosexuals" -- at least in its current meaning -- was coined by the New York Times, not the National Enquirer, although it should have been. Apparently the Times style editor borrowed the term from a British writer who meant it to describe how various modern-day grooming products were affecting hetero men or something along those lines.]

See, the whole "metrosexual"business, bolstered by a silly show like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, which only perpetuated straight and gay stereotypes, was nonsense, a "fake issue" if ever there were one. Along the same lines, as far as gay issues go, was a short piece about "hasbians" in New York Magazine in 2003. According to the author, Amy Sohn, "hasbians" were lesbians who were no longer gay, who had once had female lovers but who were now with men. She seemed to think this was a trend but offered no statistics or sources; it sounded as if she were merely quoting a couple of bisexual or conflicted female friends -- a fake issue piece par shit.

Now we have – get this – The Secret World of Straight Hairdressers – an "inside story," no less– by Marisa Meltzer. Now, this one did not appear in New York but in Page Six Magazine brought out Sunday [10/14/07] by the New York Post, so naturally I didn’t expect anything intellectual. In fact, the "magazine" consists of virtually nothing but fake issue pieces.

First of all, there’s never been any doubt that some male hairdressers are straight – who cares? (And not because of that stupid movie Shampoo.) It’s a total non-issue right off the bat. And it’s no surprise that more and more male hairdressers may be at least identifying as straight. Even some of the gay ones may be sick and tired of everyone automatically assuming they’re gay. In this article the author, of course, naturally accepts that every one of the SMH [straight male hairdressers] interviewed is actually straight. I have my doubts, but that’s another story. Again, bisexuality and internalized homophobia never enter the equation. These guys are straight and that’s that. Like I say, I’ve no doubt there are SMHs as well as straight male interior decorators, just as there are gay football players, firemen, cops, and marines. But we rarely have stories about the latter group because so few are willing to come out of the closet.

Naturally, these SMHs can’t just say that they do hair because they like it and can make good money. They have to say that they do women’s hair because they’re straight and want to meet – or at least be around – beautiful women. Goodness – they certainly don’t want people to think they’re "fags." What – you have to become a hairdresser to meet attractive females? You can't just go to a singles bar? That’s just as ridiculous as a straight guy working in a gay bar so he can hit on the "sisters" of the gay men who frequent the bar. Surely there are easier ways for a legitimate straight guy to get a date! Most of the SMHs go out of their way to establish their hetero credentials. One of them, Emiliano De Pasqual (now that’s the name of a hairdresser if ever there were one), we’re told, assured his father that he was "totally the opposite" and describes himself – with great humility – as "good-looking, Italian, and very talented."Well... he’s not my type so who cares if he’s straight. [see photo above.] If you’re into Harpo Marx you might like Emiliano.

Meltzer does interview a couple of openly gay hairdressers, one of whom explains why gay men do better hair cuts, although she also mentions that he "giggles." Sure, there are girlish gay hairdresssers, but I’ve also known some that are butcher than the straight ones.

So here’s the rub. Once again, straight guys have entered a provenance identified rightly or wrongly with (some) gay males (ballet dancing, male modeling etc.), and then – in somewhat obnoxious fashion – do their best to disassociate themselves from the very men who made these professions acceptable for guys in the first place.

It would be nice to meet a genuine straight male hairdresser who – instead of barking about how straight he is – just says "I do hair because, just like my gay brothers in this business, I like working with hair, making people look good, and maybe creating something artistic out of tresses. Okay?"

Okay.

Bisexual Advocate? OR Why I'd Rather Not Date a Bisexual

A writer named Job Brother has written a humor piece on reactions to his bisexuality for the online edition of The Advocate ("Fairy Tales" commentary/October 2007). He tells how when he told his gay date that he was bisexual the man reacted as if he might as well have said he was a mythical "unicorn." Brother then goes on with a certain flair and flippancy to paint the usual abused and misunderstood portrait of the bisexual, and to mock the reasons why gays don't think they exist. He then says -- incredibly -- that gays are far more prejudiced toward bisexuals than straights. Yeah, sure. That's why we call it the GLBT movement. The article is gay -- pardon me, gay/bi -- politics Lite, with no solid underpinning or substance to bolster its arguments. Cute. And superficial.

First of all, given the vast diversity of human nature, experience, sexuality, and psychology, it makes perfect sense that some people are genuinely bisexual, although to what degree is the question. Some people call themselves bi simply because they've had one or two experiences with the opposite sex in a lifetime of same-sex involvements. Some people -- Jim McGreevey, for instance -- are technically bisexual, because they have had wives and children yet are essentially gay. Some people say they are bi because they think at some point they might have a relationship with a member of the opposite gender, although it hasn't happened yet -- and probably never will. I have encountered only one person who has ever said they they were equally -- that is fifty-fifty-- attracted to both men and women. Some people are genuinely bi, at least in the technical sense, and some people are just full of shit. I'm not saying bi's don't exist, just not in the record numbers that bi advocates would have us believe. And that "bisexual" is often a label just as phony and misleading as "straight," post-gay, non-gay and --sorry -- ex-gay. I believe that "bisexual" is actually an umbrella title that has many different meanings to many different people.

As for straight people supposedly being more bi-friendly than gays... Undoubtedly Brother is choosy about which straights he reveals his bi-status to, probably gay-friendly straight friends. Well, why would they have a negative reaction to his bisexuality when they're already okay with people being gay? Straight people can relate more to bi's, because they see them as being part-straight, or still able to, at some point, lead a straight life like them. They can share baby photos and all that shit. Straight male pals of Brother's can think to themselves, "Hey, Job and I can go out and have a few beers and pick up chicks, just the way we used to. Cool!" Why should gay-friendly straight people care if Brother is bi? Gay people aren't so much biphobic, but skeptical -- and often for good reasons. And gays tend to identify with other gays more than bi's. Bi's just have to deal with it.

The main problem with Brother's piece, despite its hip-and-clever-sounding attempt to clarify the issue, is that he avoids the main reasons why gays are so often cynical about the reality of bisexuals. Underlining the piece's superficial approach is that Brother makes no mention of the undeniable fact that we live in -- to all intents and purposes -- a straight world and not a gay one. It is gay people who are persecuted, excoriated, and belittled for their sexuality, not straight people. Yes, Brother makes the excellent point that gay bashers would hardly exclude him from their vicious ire just because he also dates/has sex with women, but the bi-identified, like the straight-identified (regardless of the truth of their orientation), often hold on to heterosexual privileges, a certain bond with straight or "normal" society, that gay people lose when they come out as strictly gay. First, it's hard for gays to feel much sympathy for bi's (many of whom are closeted/married/in straight relationships) who in general don't have to put up with all the crap that gays do, and second, anyone who thinks this doesn't influence some of those who call themselves bisexual, even if on a sub-conscious level, is a fool. Brother never goes into -- in fact, few bisexuals ever go into -- where he might be on the Kinsey scale, or exactly how gay he is or exactly how straight. So he dates/screws women from time to time to keep his hand in, hold on to a certain heterosexual pedigree -- does that really add up to being bisexual. Who knows?

Some genuine bisexuals feel that that they shouldn't be tarred with the same brush as closeted homosexuals who identity as (or at least are labeled) bisexual or even straight. This is a good point. But generally, it's the latter kind of "bisexual" that irks the average gay. So -- if the bisexuals that we rail against at times aren't really bisexual, I guess we can't be called "biphobic," can we? Also, it's these kind of dishonest or loopy bi's who create so much cynicism when it comes to the subject of bisexuality. True story. One bi female once told me "I don't like the term bisexual, but I can't call myself a lesbian because once in a blue moon (italics mine) I'm attracted to a man." Duh? "Once in a blue moon?" Once in a blue moon means "hardly ever," doesn't she know that. "Once in a blue moon" I'm attracted to a female, but that hardly makes me bisexual. I wish that true bi's would get angry at these people who trivialize the whole bisexual question and not at those of us in the gay community who can't help but be a bit perplexed/skeptical when we hear stuff like this from people who rabidly insist that they're bi and you better accept it or else. Sadly, it's this kind of utter silliness that often seems to dominate discussions of the bisexual question. Gay people can hardly be blamed for that. (At least some bi-identified individuals rightly roll their eyes at straight people who say that they're "bi" because they think it's hip or want to impress their gay friends, but who have no intention of ever getting involved in gay sex or a same-sex relationship.)

Brother never goes into the negative or condescending attitudes that some bisexuals (or at least the bi-identified) have toward gays or "monosexuals." Or the fact that even out bi's (excepting many who are in long-term same-sex relationships) don't have much gay pride because they aren't gay. And this may be why some gay people with a strong sense of pride and gay identity, may not be able to relate to the bisexual and vice versa. But honestly, I know few gay people who, despite their occasional cynicism, really hate or fear bisexuals. On the other hand, some gays feel that they can be loving friends with bisexuals, but they'd rather not date one.

Now bisexuals could argue that a bisexual is capable of falling in love with someone of the same sex, so why not date a bi? Well, it could be that lack of gay pride mentioned above. Or it could be simply for practical reasons. I mean, who needs the competition? If you date a gay man that you really like, you've got enough competition from other gay men. If you date a bisexual man you really like, your competition not only includes gay men but straight women -- and there are a hell of a lot more straight women than gay men. If you date a gay man, it's unlikely he'll call you one day and tell you he's getting married -- to a woman. Yuchhh. Not only are you rejected, but so is your entire gay life. [Don't try to explain this to your bi-identified friends. Believe me, they will not get it.] Sure, I know that you could always fall for a totally gay guy who falls for someone else, but maybe with a gay guy the odds are more in your favor.

Now, Brother is different from all these real and alleged bi's who leave posts on GLBT message boards, hiding behind cute nicknames that could conceal Lord knows who or what. (I find so many of their stories to be full of holes, illogic, immaturity, confusion, not to mention glaring Freudian slips, while a few others are intelligent, reasoned, and much more convincing.) His piece is on the Internet with his photograph. I have met out of the closet bi's, and know of at least one who remains committed to Gay Rights although he now has a girlfriend after having a long-time boyfriend (who, I believe, dumped him -- not the other way around.) Perhaps if we gay people met more of these types of bisexuals in the real world and not hiding behind nicknames on message boards, we might have a different attitude. (Some of the posts I've read about bisexuality are truly bizarre. One gay man said he could always tell that a man was bisexual because they always oozed a certain overpowering and intoxicating charm -- or something along those lines. What - gay men are never charming? I had the feeling this gay guy was a bit "intoxicated" himself. Maybe it's the old pre-Stonewall "straight guys are the ultimate thrill" business and bisexual men were the closest he could get to a straight guy. )

Then we have these bi guys who say they can have sex with men but can only have emotional feelings for women. Now wait a minute! The modern-day definition of bisexual is someone who can fall in love with either a man or a woman. But if you have no emotional feelings for men, how can you possibly fall in love with a guy? Are men like this really bisexual? We certainly can't call them straight. Maybe they're really homosexual men suffering from internalized homophobia. I mean, the fact that life will be easier for them (or so they think) if they are in a heterosexual relationship as opposed to a gay one, has nothing to do with their maintaining that guys are just for sex ... uh, sure. (If you believe that, I could probably sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.) Adding to the confusion is that while many of the guys like this are actually on the down-low and identify as straight, there are some who seem to support Gay Rights and at least say that they have told everyone -- including their female dates -- that they're bisexual. At least they say this on message boards while hiding behind nicknames. One thing's for sure, why would any gay man looking for a relationship with another man choose to date a guy who says he can only form emotional (that is, romantic) attachments with women? A one-night stand maybe, but serious dating? Come on!

So is Brother really bisexual? Who knows? Maybe he has a need to be seen as a little more "macho" (i.e. straighter than) the average gay male (And believe me, that is one BIG reason why some essentially gay guys call themselves bi. More on this below.) That's his hang up. Maybe he genuinely likes the companionship and bodies of both men and women equally (the only kind of people I truly believe are bisexual). Maybe he'll buck society's hatred and wind up in a lifetime partnership with a man instead of a woman. Or maybe he'll get married to a woman and never, ever write for The Advocate again. Certainly not with an accompanying photo. (Now, honestly, doesn't "Job Brother" sound like a pseudonym to you?) While we can't necessarily blame Brother for this, I wish his piece hadn't been entitled Fairy Tales. Yes, I know it refers to the mythical unicorn/mythical bisexual, but still ... It comes off like a vulgar slap in the face to all those mean bi-hating homos out there. (Okay, I'm a little sensitive.)

As for that whole "macho" thing I referred to in the paragraph above. Why is it that whenever I meet a bi-identified man, he's almost always -- sorry to put it this way -- a little "nellie?" The last one I met was a couple of months ago. He was fifty-two and trying to convince me that in a few years when I was his age I'd be sleeping with women. I told him that I'd gotten all of my hetero impulses out of me years ago. I'm occasionally attracted to women in a flesh-is-flesh sort of way, but not enough to pursue them, lead them on, and engage in some kind of faux relationship with them. This bisexual really began to annoy me, it was as if he was saying there was something wrong with me because I was only into males, but I'm a nice guy and didn't tell him what was on my mind: Which was that maybe the reason he slept with women -- or at least intimated that he did -- was because I could stand on West Street, he could stand across the Hudson River in New Jersey, and I'd still be able to tell from that distance that he was gay. Okay, I'm exaggerating. But most people meeting this man would instantly peg him as a fairly stereotypical gay guy and maybe sleeping with/fantasizing about women made him feel more "manly." With the exception of cool, out of the closet, self-accepting "femmes," most men -- gay, straight, or bi -- like to think of themselves as being "manly" to a certain degree. This 52-year-old might be proof that not all bi's are in their twenties (although it certainly seems that way at times), but it's a question of when he decided he was bi. Maybe in youth, maybe more recently. Not because of the fashionable "fluidity" of sexuality that we hear so much about these days, but perhaps because all the trendy talk about bisexuality has given him a way to feel like more of a "man." Sad. Frankly, he came off as being much more confused about his sexuality than "fluid."

So back to Brother's date, y'know, who reacted to his bisexuality as if he were a mythical unicorn. Brother writes that he never saw the man again. I can understand why. The gay man might have thought to himself "either this guy is really bi or he's full of shit. If it's the latter he's carrying all sorts of issues and baggage that I as a gay man can really do without. If it's the former, I'll have to compete with straight women as well as gay men. In either case, he's really not gay like me, meaning we're not all that compatible." Unfair? Maybe. But with so many attractive gay men of all different types out there, why take chances? And bisexuals can always date other bisexuals. They have social groups, after all. (Years ago, the bi group used to meet bi-weekly -- no pun intended -- at the HQ of the Gay Activists Alliance in New York. I had always intended to attend because there was a time when I, myself -- yes! -- thought of myself as bisexual. (I got over it pretty quickly for reasons I'll go into elsewhere.) Later, I thought I would attend just to see what went on. There were a lot of articles about "the new bisexuality" and how hip it was during this period, but one piece -- I believe it was in New York magazine -- said that at the bi socials the guys cruised the guys and the girls cruised the girls. Maybe because they didn't want to go into gay bars -- internalized homophobia? Maybe they weren't so bi, after all? I decided not to go because I'd be there under false pretenses, although then -- as now -- I thought I was probably a heck of a lot more "bi" than many of the bi's in the group. I did eventually wind up at a bi social accidentally, but I'll save that funny story for another post.

It's difficult if not impossible to discuss these issues relating to bisexuality with some bi-identified individuals who come off as a bit militant -- definitely for lack of a better word -- even bullying, and become so defensive that they simply will not engage in a serious discourse or listen to anything you have to say, no matter how friendly or open-minded your tone. In these pc days gay people are not even allowed to be a bit questioning about certain aspects of bisexuality. Either you damn well accept that everyone who says they're bi is bi, or you're a hateful bigot who should be thrown out of the GLBT movement. Imagine if we were all supposed to accept that everyone who said they were straight was really straight? Bisexuals often have their own agenda (others don't seem to really care, they just sleep/live with who they want to, and have no particular problem in being referred to as gay). You can't say that even some bi's are gay and you don't dare suggest that most bi's have a decided preference (their own sex?) It's reaching the point where I'm beginning to think that some gays and some bi's are really not compatible.

So it's like this. I'd prefer to date a gay man over a bisexual one. I'd prefer to date a Democrat over a Republican. But I do have friends who -- at least at some point in their lives -- were technically bisexual, and I even have friends who are Republican (but we rarely talk politics).
Am I biphobic simply because I'd prefer to be dating, looking forward to a possible romantic relationship, with someone who may understand me and have a similar world-view?

Friendship is one thing, but a partnership is a whole different matter.

I recognize other gays will feel differently, and that's their prerogative. I wish we lived in a world where Gay was considered just as good as Straight, and therefore people had no need to hide behind labels, whatever they might be, and there would be much less cynicism, confusion, and misunderstanding. People could be absolutely free to be what they are: gay, straight, bi, hell even asexual, if they wanted (but what sane person would want it?) I truly don't want anyone fired from their jobs or beaten up because they are -- or call themselves -- gay, bi, transsexual, or anything else.

But let's remember that in a world full of so much homophobia, where what seems like an increasing number of people who have same-sex relationships do not want to identify as gay, GAY PRIDE should still have -- must still have -- meaning and power. Remember, whatever Job Brother may say, the gay community is much more accepting of bi's (however skeptical we may be at times) than the straight world at large. After all, it's the homosexual leanings of bi people that set them apart from the larger straight society and make them controversial and even, at times, excoriated (by society in general). And the very reason why many gays and genuine bi's would rather shoot themselves than come out as, or be thought of as, totally gay (don't kid yourself), even in this day and age.

When Gay Pride no longer has any meaning, we're all lost.

McGreevey's Confession

A friend had my television on and was watching the news while I was shaving. I heard something about "New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey's 'shocking' announcement." I knew my friend had always thought McGreevey was "sexy" for some reason, so I came out of the bathroom and joked: "Hey, I bet he's going to say he's gay." Little did I realize.

I finally got around to reading his book.

I confess I have mixed emotions about James E. McGreevey's autobiography The Confession. First, I found former Governor and future priest McGreevey's religiosity to be oppressive (Let me reiterate that I was raised as a Protestant but consider myself Jewish in the racial sense because my mother was Jewish. I am not in any way religious). In truth, I didn't learn much I didn't already know about the closeted lives of married homosexuals and the way they use women as beards. He talks about the shame he felt having homosexual feelings, and the power it gave him to know he could interest, date, and have sexual relations with women. He would invite male friends to his hotel room just in time to catch some gal waltzing out of the bedroom tugging on her dress. (Of course, a lot of straight guys do exactly the same.)

The portrait of McGreevey etched by the former governor and his co-author David France (whose name does not appear on the cover) is that of a self-absorbed little prick who only came out when it suited him and when he faced exposure. I don't envy his new lover, and I'm not sure what to make of Golan Cipel, his former male lover. McGreevey sort of tries to paint him as a hustler and opportunist -- even suggesting that for all he knows Cipel could be straight (more on that later) -- and Cipel's public denial of his homosexuality and consensual relations with McGreevey hardly make him a candidate for Gay of the Year any more than McGreevey. But is it possible that Cipel really loved McGreevey, and became just another in a long line of gay men who are exploited by married homosexuals and then dumped when it's convenient -- or rather when their affair becomes inconvenient? While I don't necessarily see Cipel as a victim, I wonder which of the two men was the real opportunist.

McGreevey -- or France -- tries to debunk a few gay stereotypes in the book, which is fine. However ... At the opening of McGreevey's "coming out" speech he says one has to look deeply into the mirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world, not as we may want to see it or hope to see it, but as it is. And so my truth is that I am a gay American. Let's take another look at that phrase: "Not as we may want to see it or hope to see it" eh? Even when he was supposedly coming out with pride, McGreevey was still sending the message that it is not okay to be gay.

McGreevey began his affair with Cipel just when his second wife Dina was giving birth to his second daughter. Yes, the affair began practically at the start of their marriage and lasted for quite a long time. McGreevey can talk about how conflicted he was, but he also knew -- and admits -- that he could go further professionally with a family. So his two wives merely functioned as decorative beards and little else. McGreevey says little about Dina in his book, giving a sort of half-hearted apology at one point. He very much tacitly tries to make it sound as if Dina knew about his true interests to a certain extent and stayed with him for her own social and political purposes. Whether this is true or not, it doesn't excuse his exploitation of women (he's careful to say what a supposedly great relationship he has with his daughters, one of whom lives with him and his lover). I suspect neither of his wives knew McGreevey was a full-fledged homosexual nor about his numerous "furtive" encounters with males.

To paraphrase an old quote "When the Devil wants absolution, the Devil a monk would be." Well, McGreevey was hardly the Devil -- not even the Jersey Devil -- but he seems to want to be absolved of his guilt over his early anonymous sexual pursuits by suggesting that good, healthy gays are thoroughly domesticated like he is with his new post-Cipel lover Mark O'Donnell. From the closeted slut and adulterer to the Perfect Gay with the house husband, the 1.5 children, and no doubt a house with a white picket fence to boot. Give me a break! As if this jerk should be the Poster Boy for Gay Male America!

As for Cipel being "straight" -- well, it's highly unlikely that a totally hetero man would repeatedly sleep with another guy just because he wanted to supposedly use him. (And I don't believe any male prostitutes are 100% hetero either.) McGreevey wonders if Cipel's affair with him was similar to his "crossing over" to marry two women and live a supposedly straight life. Hardly. With McGreevey it was all about image and power and his shame over being homosexual. In a world that helps foster such attitudes, it's unlikely a heterosexual man (who has no compulsion to have sex with other men) would sleep with a guy when there was no societal pressure to do so, no matter what the "rewards" of the relationship might have been. With his "crush" on Cipel, McGreevey might have showered him with favors, attention, and inapprorpriate positions (no pun intended) even if the Israeli had never slept with him, so if Cipel were "straight" -- or had lousy sex with McGreevey -- he really was as big a loser as the governor, no?

The book got good reviews from liberal critics who responded, and were sympathetic, to McGreevey's tale of the tortures of being in the closet (McGreevey's chief "torture" was his fear of exposure). Being in the closet can indeed be a terrible, oppressive thing. But since McGreevey only married to further his political ambitions, the fact that his marriage was an utter sham was probably not as much of an anguish to him as it can be to other married homosexuals. Besides, McGreevey is in no way a hero. The activists who led the way both before and after Stonewall, all the gay people who live Out and Proud lives and don't use members of the opposite sex to hide behind, they are the heroes.

Borrow this from the library if you'd like to know more about married homosexuals. Otherwise, it is in no way an essential read.

You can read my reaction to Dina Matos McGreevey's book Silent Partner here.

Larry Craig in the Men's Room

The incident with Republican homophobe and hypocrite Larry Craig [right photo to your left] being arrested in an airport men's room for trying to play hanky panky with an undercover cop brings forth a whole slew of sub-issues.

1,) This is yet another Republican who excoriates gays and homosexuality, who tries to shoot down gay rights, yet is privately homosexual. Sometimes they seem to be coming out of the woodwork. Most people agree that they can be sympathetic toward "closet queens" but draw the line on men like Craig, who are publicly homophobic.

2.) In one sense, when Craig denies that he is gay, he is telling the truth. If you equate "gay" with being out of the closet, self-accepting, and proud of who are you, then Craig is definitely NOT gay. He is, however, definitely a self-hating homo. But absolutely under no circumstances should he ever be considered "straight." Straight men do not have sex with other men in bathrooms or anywhere else.

3.) Most gay men these days do not cruise public men's rooms. It has been called a non-issue, and it is. Decades ago some gay men had no other outlets or meeting places, and men's rooms often became trysting or pick-up places. Nowadays there are many gay bars where men can meet, as well as clubs and on-line sex/dating sites. Guys cruising public men's rooms are more likely to be closeted married types like Larry Craig. But not always ...

4.) Some gay men (as well as straight men and women) are turned on by the bathroom atmosphere, by the risk, by the idea of public sex -- or all of the above. These men are in the minority, of course. And it must be said that there are plenty of heterosexuals who enjoy sex in the bathroom with members of the opposite sex. As well as public sex elsewhere. And all the rest. Many would nevertheless consider indulging in public bathroom sex to be pre-Stonewall behavior as far as gay men are concerned. Maybe. Maybe not.

5.) Children are not "at risk" as they are unlikely to ever run into two guys getting it on in a public restroom. Besides, these guys are homosexual, not pedophiles. (Child molesters, who can strike at children anywhere, are a whole 'nother issue.) And the men having sex would probably be locked in a stall in any case. Besides, kids who hear "something funny" going on might be confused or grossed out, but it's unlikely they would be traumatized. (Very young children are generally accompanied by a parent in any case.)

6.) Men -- or women -- who engage in bathroom sex may be edgy or different from you but that doesn't make them "perverts." Larry Craig may be a hypocrite and a total asshole, but he is NOT a "pervert." Just because a homosexual person is not a healthy, out and proud gay man does not make him perverted, and it's homophobic to suggest so. Many supposedly gay-friendly straight people reveal the issues they have with gays when they suggest only out and proud gay people are not "perverted." There is nothing perverted about sexual (or romantic) relationships between two men or two women even if the two people are closeted hypocrites. They may feel like perverts, ashamed of what they're doing, but it's exactly those negative societal attitudes (which they've absorbed) that they need to overcome.

7.) Age does not excuse Larry Craig. Craig and many others of his ilk carry a great deal of internalized homophobia within themselves. This does not in any way excuse them for attacking the gay community when they themselves indulge in homosexual behavior. Neither does his being sixty-two. There are many out and proud people in the gay community who are much, much older than Craig, who came out in an even more difficult time period, and who are, indeed, gay activists. Craig may have come of age during an even more unenlightened era, but he has lived through Stonewall, the birth of Gay Pride, and all of the newer attitudes towards homosexuality that have developed over these many years. He has been alive while all these advances were being made. Besides, it is a sad fact that there are many much, much younger men and women who are equally hypocritical and/or have the same problem in coming out even today.

8.) Larry Craig's actions in the bathroom were not that terrible, and he was definitely entrapped. Okay, you don't have to have sympathy for this hypocritical asshole, but let's look at what the man actually did in the bathroom. He didn't make a grab for somebody's dick or try to assault someone. He went through a series of silly codes with the guy in the next stall, and the guy -- a plainclothes cop -- apparently responded to these "gay" codes in the affirmative. Next thing Craig was arrested. In this day and age haven't the police got something better to do? Make no mistake, the pious homophobes who are blasting Craig couldn't care less that he was cruising a bathroom, they care about the fact that he was soliciting homosexual activities. Sure, you could make the point that Craig would have been arrested if the cop were female (albeit it's unlikely she'd be in the same bathroom), or if he solicited a female prostitute. I've no doubt people would still make the charges of "pervert" and there would still be plenty of bad jokes. But don't kid yourself -- it wouldn't be quite as bad. And the jokes wouldn't be homophobic. (In fact, in some quarters he might be admired just for being sexual -- heterosexual that is.) In any case, let's just face reality and get past this business that "oh, it's not about his being homosexual, it's just that he wanted to do it in a bathroom." It is about his being homosexual.

9.) What about the cop? [Photo above on the left.] Could he be a self-hating homo as well? You have to wonder about these guys who go on entrapment duty. Why do they volunteer? If they're not volunteers, why are they selected? Do the other cops wonder about them, think a homo will more likely go after another guy who seems gay? Wouldn't it be pathetic if this cop were struggling with his own sexual identity and had to go through with this entrapment nonsense? Or is it possible he's a closeted but not necessarily self-hating cop who was hoping to entrap a Republican hypocrite? Sadly, that's probably just wishful thinking.

10.) The Larry Craig business has brought out the homophobes -- even among the democrats. Again, people think it's okay to make negative comments about "perverts" and "deviants" and "predators" and the like because Craig is a closeted hypocrite -- he's not one of those "nice" gays. But what does this say about how they really feel about homosexuals in general? Some have even trotted out that old nonsense about gay men being child molesters (the cop in this case was a bit baby-faced but he definitely wasn't a kid, nor did he look like one). It's also reminded me how many supposedly gay-friendly straight people are only comfortable with gay people if we trod the "straight and narrow:" i.e. that nice gay couple next door with the 2.5 children and the monogamous relationship (as if all straights have monogamous relationships). They find it a lot harder to deal with gays who are political, demanding their rights and equal treatment, and even harder to deal with gays who are highly sexual (in bathrooms or otherwise) or who don't fit so neatly into the mainstream. Single gay men who are sexually active, for instance, or partnered men who are in "open" relationships. Yes, there are single sexually active straight people, as well as an occasional straight couple with an open relationship, but am I wrong in that these people are more accepted by the hetero majority than their gay counterparts? Just asking.

What to do you think? Feel free to comment if you'd like. You can also email me if you'd prefer to send a private message.

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.

Dizzy Queens

Okay, it's a term you don't hear much anymore. "Dizzy Queens."

Although I'm a bear, I get along better with femmes than some bears do because I'm more of an "art and culture" kind of guy -- I'm an author, after all -- than a camping and backpacking type. (Let me state at the outset that there are plenty of bears who enjoy culture and no doubt there are femmes who like to go camping -- uh -- let me rephrase that... There are femmes who enjoy outdoor activities. There are also bears who are femmes and so on. Confusing, isn't it?)

To get back to my point, I also get along better with femmes than some of my bear buddies because I'm a nice guy who cares about all of his gay brothers (and my lesbian sisters). I can even get along with dizzy queens. But I have to confess on the (thankfully) rare occasions I encounter one they often drive me nuts. (There are plenty of "dizzy" men and women in the heterosexual community, of course. But as this is a gay blog, we'll stick to our own beloved variety of dizzy person. )

So, what exactly is a dizzy queen (also known as a "superficial queen")?

First, most femmes are not dizzy queens. Intelligence, bravery, courage, toughness, are qualities you can find in the more stereotypical gay men as well as in the less stereotypical butch numbers. Second, there are dizzy butch numbers in the world (or rather "dizzy queens" can be butch.) And dizzy queens don't necessarily lack some of the finer human qualities.

Dizzy queens can be perfectly nice guys, but they're ... well, they're just not too bright. I'm not saying every guy who walks around in weird outfits trying to get attention and screaming about how "fabulous" he is is dizzy (or that all dizzy queens are "fabulous" or weird dressers but that's a discussion for another day) , but -- he's probably not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Dizzy queens tend to have a very old-fashioned sensibility, and to think of gay people in terms more stereotypical than the average straight person. If it's outside their experience they can't imagine it. They think every gay person is just like them because they haven't the smarts to think differently. They can't think of anything in depth because they're not that deep. They walk around in a dither of campiness and superficiality, sometimes sweet, sometimes bitchy, often both, always with their brains in a fog of simple, simpleminded dumbness.

Dizzy queens (or dizzy butch numbers) are rarely political animals -- I mean, gay rights -- but when they are their fuzzy-headedness and lack of depth and judgment leads them to have truly startling opinions. If someone in a bar, butch or femme, ever says about a third party "He's not gay, I met his girlfriend" or "He's not gay, he has a wife" then the chances are good that they're pretty, well, dizzy. (In certain circles people feel that if you prefer Elton John's Aida to Verdi's, then that is not only dizzy but inexplicably dizzy.)

Now I don't want to be mean, but the problem with dizzy queens is that they can be surprisingly influential. Some of them have popular platforms or work behind the scenes on shows and the like that test the patience of the average out, proud gay person. Surely it was a dizzy queen who came up with Queer Eye or Gay, Straight or Taken. You might think these characters only have influence over other dizzy queens, but as they're seen as representatives of the gay community by certain straights -- well, if you wonder where straight people get some of their odd ideas about gays, look no farther than the nearest dizzy queen. [And dare I say it -- isn't it true that at least 25% of our gay bloggers are dizzy queens? I'm sorry, but take a look at what's out there and you'll see what I mean! Dizzy Queens may only account for a tiny percentage of gay men, but on the Internet they are ubiquitous! And not just the more obvious bloggers who call themselves "Pink Pearl" or "Honeystuff" or something like that, but even posters on the more "political" blogs, although DQs tend to dominate more in the pop culture/celebrity-oriented sites.]

Possibly the dizziest dizzy queen that I have seen within recent memory is "Ross the Intern," who is Jay Leno's "house faggot" -- a gay version of Stephin Fetchit -- on The Tonight Show. Ross seems oblivious to all the fag jokes that Leno tells on the show. Someone makes a homophobic remark or gesture and he only giggles. I'm not even being funny here -- this is a man who is completely without a brain. Leno keeps him around because he helps reinforce every possible stereotype about gay men. Some people think he's sweet. So is saccharine. I find him completely and totally repulsive on virtually every level.

Some dizzy queens are dizzy only on occasion. There is a certain gay advice columnist and blogger -- I think his name was Something Savage [get real!] but don't quote me or him -- whose militant opinions I often agreed with. But one day he got an email from a guy who said he was messy, had long-hair and a beard, and despaired of ever getting any of the really "great guys" to date or for a lover. The columnist -- get this! -- told him he had to clean up his act, straighten out his apartment, shave, cut his hair -- or else he'd be forever stuck with the "dregs" of gay society.

Think for a minute (I hope you won't have to.) What's wrong with this advice?

Here's what's wrong in case it hasn't occurred to you, for shame: Hasn't the columnist ever heard of bears for pete's sake? I would have told this guy to keep his beard, keep his long hair, leave his apartment as messy as he wants it to be -- and get to the nearest fuckin' bear bar where (hopefully) few supercilious, precious, overly fastidious dizzy queens ever go. I mean, I read the columnist's answer in utter disbelief. Bears were outside his field of experience, so of course they didn't exist. He was completely unable to give some good advice to this poor, lonely guy who would have found a lot more acceptance in the bear community than at Bingo night at the nearest gay bar full of hairless twenty-something "twinks" and "girls" talking about the latest episode of Desperate Housewives (which I have watched myself, thank you very much, but I'll deny it if I want to)!

Gay life might be a little duller without our gay "fabs" but if we could only somehow arrange brain transplants for our dizzy little queens how much more productive they might be.

I've no doubt that there are dizzy lesbians, but I have no idea what they're called, and won't even hazard a guess.

Seriously In Denial

While surfing the net I came across an article in the online edition of U.K.'s New Statesman. A guy who called himself "Howard Lake" told of "My Night in a Gay Sauna." He sort of describes himself as being what we might call "bi curious," but comes off more as bisexual or gay. He'd always had these feelings apparently, and one night "after six pints" he went to explore them in a gay bath house. He had sex with a man, enjoyed it, but is convinced that he is, after all, straight, and will "probably" never go back to the bath house. "I know one less question to ask in my next relationship -- with a girl," he writes. Well... his next relationship may well be with a "girl" but that doesn't mean this guy is straight. "Straight" guys don't go to saunas looking for men to have sex with.

I'm not quite certain why the New Statesman even published this article. What was the point of it? Who was it written for? Conflicted "straight" guys? Gay men who are wondering about straights? Straights who wonder about gays? There's nothing particularly edifying or informative about the piece, and I can't figure out why the editors of the New Statesman would even think anyone would find it that interesting, or see any real value in it. It just comes off like a chance for this sad guy to supposedly prove to himself and the world that he's really hetero, when all he manages to do is pretty much indicate the opposite.

The responses to the article were predictable. His heterosexuality was, wisely, called into question by one correspondent. Another -- a female, I believe -- felt he really was straight, because apparently her boyfriend is, too, "85 days out of 100." She writes that "she wouldn't have it any other way." I think this gal is in as much denial as Howard is.

Now it's possible that the person with the 85% straight/15% gay boyfriend is a man. Oy vey! For the life of me I can't figure out or relate to these guys [a dying breed, I hope] who even after they have sex with a particular man still think of him as "straight." This is sheer idiocy. It smacks of these horribly old-fashioned "queens" who think "straight guys" are the ultimate treat -- an attitude that can best be described as pre-Stonewall, to say the least.

Of course, someone brought up the notion of bisexuality, and while I've been cynical on the subject, I have to say that he or she was right in that Howard should at least consider the notion that it's not always an "either/or" situation, that he could be bisexual. But if Howard is genuinely bisexual -- a big if in my opinion -- he sounds like the kind of conflicted bi who may want, even prefer, sex with men but will need to have that girlfriend or wife to show to the world. [I could devote a whole column to this kind of person -- there are so damn many of them -- and in the near future I will.]

What did I have to say. Here it is:

I think that "Howard" -- and the gal who thinks her boyfriend is only gay 15 nights out of 100 -- are in serious denial. First of all, I don't find Howard very "brave" -- he didn't use his real name, post a picture, and I feel he wasn't even that honest about what happened at the sauna -- assuming this story is even true. 100% hetero men have no desire to go to bath houses and have sex with other men. Sorry -- it just doesn't work that way. I agree that "Howard" is at the very least a "bisexual" man with serious self-esteem issues. The fact that he didn't act on his feelings for years -- and only did so under the influence of alcohol -- also indicates that he suffers from a bad case of internalized homophobia. Even today there is a great deal of homophobia and hence a stigma attached to being openly gay (openly gay people are the "brave" ones in my opinion) but not to being "straight." Many people who are basically gay but have some attraction to the opposite sex (whether you want to call this true bisexuality or not is debatable) fool themselves into thinking that they're really totally straight because they can't accept their homosexuality; they think life will be easier if they're straight. Sadly, this never turns out to be the case. Howard may feel that having sex with a man only convinced him he was straight, but he admits that he enjoyed it -- something that would not be true of a genuinely straight fellow. I have a feeling Howard will be having many more homosexual experiences in his future and will hopefully feel good about his sexual identity, and even be "out and proud," some day. And while it's not "politically correct" to say it, many "bisexual" people are really gays who haven't quite come to terms with their real sexuality. As for the gal who says her boyfriend is straight 85% of the time -- maybe her boyfriend is Howard! Or more likely another guy who hasn't quite accepted his true sexual orientation. Lots of bi (and often totally gay) men have girlfriends (even wives and children) until they reach some kind of self-acceptance in regards to their homosexuality. The wives and girlfriends ALWAYS think the husband or boyfriend is totally or mostly straight -- and most of the time they're wrong. Believe me, I know (having dated many men who turned out to have wives and girlfriends).

One last point. I have often said that a gay man can occasionally have sex with a woman and still be essentially gay (not even bisexual). Some might ask -- doesn't that work in reverse? Can't a straight man have sex once or on occasion with a guy and still be essentially straight? Nope. The reason for this is that stigma I referred to before, plus the fact that society drives us -- all of us -- towards heterosexuality not homosexuality. A man who actually goes out with the purpose of finding a man to have sex with -- as our Howard did -- is NOT straight. Even a man who winds up in bed or fooling around with another guy under the influence of drugs or alcohol is not straight. A guy can wind up in bed with the wrong woman because he's drunk -- a woman he may not normally find attractive, or his sister-in-law, say -- but no amount of beer will change a person's sexual orientation. In the gay community we laugh at guys who have sex with other guys and then the next day say "Boy, was I drunk last night!" Drunk, yes, Straight, no!

Gay Hit Men

Apparently a few people were upset because much of the gay content of a 2005 film entitled The Matador was excised with the cooperation of the director. The film is about -- get this -- a bisexual hit man! Frankly, I've think there have been more than enough movies about hit men -- a vile sub-species that I find much less interesting than other people do -- and I can certainly do without a movie about one that's "bisexual."

The movie's star, Pierce Brosnan of James Bond fame, objected to the gay content and so all we're left with is sex scenes between Brosnan and women. The director insists that you can tell the character is bi from the dialogue and there's supposed to be a scene where Brosnan ogles a male waiter.

I do understand that it can be extremely irritating when gay content is excised from a film, but I don't think I'm going to lose any sleep over this one. Not that gay characters in movies and TV shows all have to be "politically-correct" and perfect, but do we really need a gay/bi hit man? And hasn't that idea been done before in any case (in a James Bond movie no less, Diamonds are Forever)? I've no doubt some "bisexuals" will whine about their continuing invisibility but if they really want a bi hit man for a movie hero then they're asking for what they get.

An aside: the gay hit men appeared in Ian Fleming's novel Diamonds are Forever and if I remember correctly they were pretty tough guys, nothing stereotypical about them. Of course in the film version they were turned into a couple of "fruits." (In another spy movie years ago I believe Brosnan played a hit man who only pretends to be gay so he can murder a guy he picks up and steal his identity or car or something along those lines -- maybe some people will consider The Matador a step up.)

I'm all in favor of positive gay content in motion pictures and TV shows, but gay hit men I can do without. I'd rather see a movie that deals with the epidemic of gay teens who get thrown out of their homes after their families find out that they're gay. Or something that exposes the fact that in many states in the union you can still get fired simply for being gay. Or something that deals with the internalized homophobia that keeps so many men of all different races and backgrounds on the "down low" or has them marrying women or using their girlfriends as beards.

Gay hit men -- you can keep 'em!