As the Gay World Turns

Never did I dream that one day I would be recommending a soap opera, but I have to say that the gay developments on a CBS soap called As The World Turns have become increasingly interesting and decidedly pro-gay.

Luke (Van Hansis) and Noah (Jake Silbermann) are the young college-age gay couple on the program. Luke came out of the closet first, while Noah -- whom Luke suspected was gay -- was dating a young lady. Noah resisted at first, but eventually came out of the closet, which prompted his homophobic father to take a shot at Luke. Luckily, Luke survived the attack and Noah's father eventually died.

After awhile the producers introduced a young lady who needed to get married or else she would be sent back to her homeland and in all likelihood killed. So she and Noah got married and moved in together, but the producers assured gay viewers that the storyline was not going to go the way they feared. Noah and the young lady did not hop into the sack, and in fact so far the show has resisted making Noah bisexual. [TV shows often make gay characters bisexual not to explore or highlight the bisexual lifestyle, but because they know the mostly heterosexual viewers will feel more comfortable with a character who, despite their same-sex attraction, can enter into an audience-pleasing relationship with a member of the opposite sex at any time. And anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.] Noah, like Luke, appears to have been conceived as a gay character, and hopefully that is the way it will remain.

Luke and Noah nearly broke up for one reason or another before they even had a chance to make love. Complaints that they rarely kissed were responded to with a scene of them happily smooching. A few weeks later they finally went to bed together. Now, we didn't actually see them in bed together the way we see straight couples -- which is, admittedly, annoying, and not because I have a prurient interest in seeing anything -- but at least they have given the guys an active sex life.

I also like the way that Luke is the more political and militant of the two, an activist, while Noah, who took much longer to accept himself, is more of a laid-back, make no waves kind of guy. It makes for interesting conflicts. But the two have also argued, like most couples, about things unrelated to their sexual orientation. However, they were recently denied housing because they were gay, which prompted Luke to hold a rally. I was ready to go until I remembered these are just ficitional characters, although they're playing out situations that occur in real life.

An interesting development occurred when Luke's grandmother's new, much younger and rather handsome husband made a pass at Luke! At first he denied being gay, then said he didn't label himself (where have I heard that before?) then came out only a few days after Lucinda, the grandmother, threw him out of the house for lying to and using her. Frankly, I think the show should have let this situation go on a little longer. The guy, who was closeted for years, seemed to find self-acceptance almost overnight. The producers seemed too anxious to wrap up the storyline. (Maybe the whole bit about married homosexuals just made them too nervous.)

A wild moment occurred when Luke came on to this guy on the very same night that he and Noah were supposed to make love for the first time. Noah went off with his ex-girlfriend -- now just a good friend -- but Luke, misunderstanding, got paranoid and drunk [Luke is not perfect and neither is Noah, another thing I like about them] and made a flagrant pass at his grandmother's husband. Noah, of course, came across the two of them making out and was furious. Most guys would have found it kind of funny -- your boyfriend kissing your grandmother's gay husband -- but Noah has always been a bit humorless as compared to Luke. They made up eventually, of course.

Just this week Luke's biological father Damian -- who sent him to a horrible camp when he found out he was gay -- is back in town, saying he's changed, and begging forgiveness. Frankly, I think it would be great if this sexy Italian told his son "I couldn't accept that you were gay because I couldn't accept myself" so he could come out of the closet, too, and maybe look up Lucinda's gay ex-husband-- they'd make a hot pair!

Ah, but has the homophobic Damian really turned over a new leaf -- or is there something else on his mind? Stay tuned.

Seriously, think what you will about soap operas, this is certainly a major development in the treatment of gay characters, who have been disproportionately non-existent on most soaps. If the storyline of Luke and Noah will make some housewives, house husbands, college kids and others rethink their position on Gay Rights, so much the better. It's also refreshing to see an uncompromising gay activist on daytime television (or anywhere for that matter). This would have been unheard of back in my Gay Activists Alliance media committee days, when all you generally saw were self-hating homos and suicidal lesbians.

As The World Turns has proven that there can be compelling drama in the story of a man's coming out, accepting himself, and fighting against prejudice in the most uncompromising of ways.

As for the rest of the show, I admit I fast forward through the other storylines because I just don't have time to watch a whole hour every day (Luke and Noah are not on every day or every week).

Finally, a clap of my hands to those young actors Van Hansis and Jake Silbermann who, in my opinion, do a splendid job of playing Luke and Noah. I have no idea of their private sexual orientation, and while it might be nice if gay actors were enacting these roles, I have to say that whether they're gay or straight they have my admiration for a job very well done.

As the World Turns is on Monday - Friday from 2 PM to 3 PM on CBS.

Attack of the Self-Hating Homos

Okay, you've heard of Attack of the 50 Foot Woman and Attack of the Giant Leeches, but have you ever been subjected to an attack by a self-hating homo? As much as I'd like to think that SHH's are a dying breed, they still exist. Most of them are in the religious ex-gay camps or on the down low, but a few identify as gay and can be found in gay bars and parties. They can strike when you least expect it.

It usually goes like this. SHH is offended by your gay identity because he or she has none of his/her own. Instead they're dealing with a lot of internalized homophobia. They are almost never out of the closet, even to family and [non-gay] friends, even though just about everyone knows that they're gay anyway.

What brings on an attack can be anything, but especially a discussion on gay rights and gay marriage. Self-hating homos will employ the same arguments that straight bigots use when discussing gay marriage and gay rights ["special privileges" to them]. Regardless of how old they are, they're stuck back in the 1970's.

Because they are on the periphery of the gay scene, they have little knowledge of it beyond their own sexual urges. They know little of homophobia or of the struggle for acceptance, and couldn't care less -- to their minds, it doesn't concern them. They tend to eschew relationships and their sex is of the anonymous (as opposed to casual) variety. They have sex not in actual beds and bedrooms but in parked cars and bushes. Even if they are not in heterosexual relationships (wife and kids), they very much resemble those kind of closet cases. Since they think of gay men in the most stereotypical of terms, and feel they are not in any way like them (except, ahem, for the attraction-to-men bit), they want to disassociate themselves as much as possible from gay guys. They deign to have friendships with openly gay men. [As if we need them.]

They speak of gays as if they are somehow apart from them (which in many ways is true; these people are homosexual but hardly Out and Proud). Like straight bigots they will point out all the outrageous [to them] participants in Gay Pride parades -- "those drag and leather queens, why would I want to march with them?" -- blindly ignoring the fact that most participants in Gay Marches are just average folk who happen to be gay. [Let me make it clear that I am not putting down the more flamboyant marchers.]

They speak of total disdain for gay culture, gay life. Because they are essentially unhappy, they blame it all on their being homosexual. They brag about how they hardly ever go to gay bars, how they have few if any gay friends. In their own minds this somehow makes them better than the rest of us. Their superiority complex only masks an inferiority complex -- but it doesn't fool anyone.

An aside: Most of us certainly have and should have heterosexual friends. But whenever I meet a homosexual person who says, in that certain "superior" tone, that most of their friends are straight, I always get an impression that they feel this makes them somehow better in their own eyes because after all, they think heterosexuals are better than gays [or at least that it's better to be straight than gay].

Sometimes you can help a self-hating homo to find acceptance. More often they set up a stony wall of attitude that it's impossible to breach. They need therapy and counseling but will rarely seek it. They prefer to wallow in their misery.

Some of these people stay shivering in their closets. Others do real damage to themselves and others. They never understand that by acting as if there's something wrong with being gay, they insult every gay person they choose to associate with.

SHH's are all over the Internet. They have strong opinions, but their opinions are always ill-conceived and uneducated because, as they admit, they are on the periphery of gay life. Still they persist in mouthing off on message boards and blogs.

Always anonymously.

Cutting Through the Bullshit

I'm still getting some responses to my post on asexuality, but I'm not going to revisit that issue, except to include one final comment that I received a few days ago, which actually raises a whole other issue; It goes like this:

Look... Buddy...I actually agree with a few of your points here. I agree that this is not a natural orientation. I agree that the LGBT community taking it on is a very stupid idea. I agree that all those who are asexual and experience problems because of it [are] in need of help. I especially agree with your last paragraph that states that if they don't want help, let them go for it. I myself have an asexual friend who is perfectly content with it. There's nothing wrong with that. I may not think it's natural but they're far more content with life than I myself am, so, let them.But your wording - your referring to it as a disability - your tone... It's just far too offensive. Many of your points are valid but you are not going to convince anyone with an approach like that. If anything you're just going to make them more resolute in their ways. I can understand how you would be upset and offended about this, but to have any hope of a credible point, you just need to calm down. (Shinkada) 3/4/09

Shinkada makes some good points. Actually I am a pretty calm person for the most part. But I've never suffered fools gladly, and my sense of humor, irreverence, and my refusal to always adhere to political correctness, may make me seem overly blunt, even nasty, to some people.

I myself have told others that if you tell somebody something in a nasty tone, the other person will miss your message and only focus on the nastiness. That being said, I don't think my post was especially nasty -- when I come across something that I just feel is kind of dopey, my let's-cut-through-the-bullshit attitude comes flaring forth and there's little I can do to stop it. My irreverent tone, my belief that there's humor in almost all things, pisses off those who take themselves, perhaps, way too seriously.

Anyway, on to other issues ....

The hate ... The hate...

Why on earth is it that if you happen to disagree with someone or with some group, you're immediately told that you're full of hate. I can certainly disagree -- vehemently disagree with someone -- without "hating" them (although it doesn't seem to work in reverse). On my recent post on asexuality -- in which I simply expressed an opinion; I did not rage that asexuality is evil or that asexuals should be rounded up and shot -- I got the impression that most of the people who disagreed with me hated me a lot more than I supposedly hated them. [For the record I don't hate people who identify as asexual. And I don't hate those who identify as bisexual, although I've been called biphobic more than once, mostly because I don't always believe that everyone who says they're bisexual is genuinely bisexual anymore than I think everyone who claims to be straight is actually straight. Sue me.]

It seems the only way you can convince some people that you don't hate them is to agree with everything they say. Jeez-- what would be the point then of writing anything or even expressing an opinion? I have never lied about how I feel just to get people to like me. Sure I can be wrong at times, and when and if I come to that conclusion -- about anything -- I'll say so.

As a gay man I'm almost constantly told that because I'm discriminated against I mustn't dare say anything about any group that might be considered a teensy bit negative. I've been told that I must be transphobic (even though I've mentioned more than once that I support transgender rights) because I don't write more often about transgender issues. Actually I have written a few posts on transsexuality, sometimes with irreverence, never with hatred.

But the fact remains that I can not be a spokesperson for the transgender community. I am a gay man, and am knowledgeable of what it means and what it's like to be a gay man. I am not transsexual and can't write from personal experience about what it means and what it's like to be transgender. There are plenty of transgender blogs for that. And asexuals can have their say by starting their own blogs. I do have to say -- here comes the "hatred" again -- that while I find aspects of transsexuality to be rather fascinating, I do not have a similar fascination with asexuality [or bisexuality, for that matter]. There will be immature people who will instantly decide that I therefore must hate asexuals. So far no lesbian has ever accused me of being anti-lesbian, misogynous, or homophobic because I may write more about gay men -- understandably -- than about lesbians.

Some of this attitude comes from youthful mis-directed fervor, some from immaturity, some from mental instability. We don't like to talk about it much, but just like the straight community, the GLBT community and other "out there" groups have some members who are not playing with a full deck or to put it more kindly have mental or emotional "issues." This is not due to their various sexual orientations (although it could be exacerbated by self-hatred or society's disdain) but comes from a variety of causes as it does with straights.

The trouble is that a gay man and activist is not allowed to come right out and say "I think this is silly, I think it's stupid, I think you have emotional or mental issues," even if this is the case. Right away you're slapped back with "but gay people were once thought [still are in some quarters] to be mentally unstable -- how can you discriminate against anyone else?"

Well ... if I think someone is a little nutty (as opposed to eccentric), I think they're nutty, and it doesn't matter if they're also gay or at least GLBT. They are perfectly free to think I'm nutty, too.

For instance, on one progressive message board a person suggested that F for Furry be added to GLBT. "Furries" are people who dress up as cartoon animals, hold conventions, and the like. This person thought of furries as a persecuted minority group and felt that since many furries were gay, they should be added to GLBT. [Let me make it clear that unlike the groups on my "sexual minorities you never heard of" post, furries actually exist! Yes!]

Frankly, even on this progressive board, he didn't get much sympathy.

I left a comment that went something like this. "Perhaps we should add an H for Honeymooners to GLBT. I am a gay man who loves The Honeymooners with Jackie Gleason. There are many gay Honeymooners fans so surely this would be the right thing to do."

Naturally, the furry and a couple of GLBT furry supporters slammed me as a bigot and said I was full of -- you guessed it -- hatred.

I didn't hate that guy. I just thought he was being foolish. But saying someone is being foolish is enough to get you branded a hateful bigot these days. Especially in the modern GLBT community where sensitivity and touchiness is at an all-time high. I understand the reasons for it -- attacks from the Religious Right, the ongoing gay marriage debate, and so on, everyone needing their own space and spotlight, wanting complete understanding (and total agreement -- or else) -- but when it leads to gay men being called Fascists and Nazis simply because they have a differing opinion it's a little ridiculous. [Most of the people who fling out the terms Fascist and Nazi at people who disagree with them have no idea what those terms really mean. Talk about hatred!]

Years ago there was this guy who invited me and a friend to a party without first telling me that most of the guests were into not men but boys. Young boys. As soon as I realized it I turned to my friend and said "put down your drink. Head for the door. Do not say good-bye to anyone. Just leave." When I saw the guy who extended the invitation days later I freely admit I shunned him. "Oh ... the hate, the hate," he muttered as he walked away. Did I hate him? Let's just say I was furious that he had simply assumed because I was a gay activist that I was "okay" with pedophilia, which I'm certainly not, and found his guests to be repellant. People like this have been no help to Gay Rights and have only helped perpetuate ugly stereotypes.

Compared to those people, I haven't much of a beef with asexuals.

Years ago all of [most of?] the sexual minorities were lumped together under the GLBT banner for political purposes. While in some ways this makes perfect sense, it has also created its own set of problems. Gays and bi's and transsexuals do not always look at the world in the same way or from the same vantage point. Bad enough that within the gay community itself there are nasty disagreements based on varying levels of "outness" and identifications (butch vs femme etc.). And of course there are generational disagreements.

Many of the ones who feel "hated" are people in their teens and twenties with various identities who want very much to be taken seriously and are furious when they're not. Believe me, I, too, was young once, so I get that. What I get and they generally don't get is that people in their teens and twenties are still finding themselves for the most part. [Older people can still be finding themselves, of course, but it's more often a phenomenon of youth.] They may be bisexual at 25 and gay at 30. They may see themselves as being gay at 14 and realize that they're really transsexual four years later. Some of the attitudes that they most cherish while in college may seem as ridiculous to them as they do to me when they've been out in the real world for several years. But you just can't tell them this; they have to learn it for themselves. And along with generational conflicts comes age discrimination, which can admittedly work in both directions but which is more likely to target the older person, despite the fact that he or she is clearly more experienced, at least at some things.

If you're gay you sometimes feel as if you're almost forced to stand up for the entire experience of the sexual spectrum, whether you're qualified to or not. You don't dare criticize. At all times you must be politically correct and totally progressive. If you don't you're branded a bigot. And you're always slapped with that "But you're gay so you of all people should understand ..." and so on. I'm really beginning to resent it. This doesn't just come from outside the gay community but from within it. I have actually heard gay men who complain that their favorite gay bar and safe haven is becoming a little too straight for their comfort level being called "heterophobic" from other (and very, very silly) gay men. The former gay men don't hate heterosexuals nor do they wish to discriminate against them, they just get a little nervous when a bar becomes so straight-friendly that straights who are not so gay-friendly come into the place in droves and take over the joint.

But some GLBTers see objecting to this as bigotry. If I think they're ninnies, I'm going to say so. [Ironically I have straight friends who completely understand where the gay guys are coming from and don't in any way, shape or form see this as anti-straight discrimination.]

And why is it politically correct to talk about biphobia and transphobia among gay men and lesbians but politically incorrect to talk about homophobia among some bi's and transsexuals?

Yes, gay men are discriminated against. That doesn't mean we have to buy or agree with everything or risk being branded a bigot.

Our community is diverse. Let's celebrate that diversity [of opinion] and not expect everyone to toe the line and have the exact same opinion and attitude of everyone else.

Just my opinion.

Sex Groups You May Never Have Heard Of

Okay, people. I know you've all heard of homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and asexuals, but it's recently come to my attention that there are many, many other sex-oriented groups and minorities out there that you may have been unaware of. For example:

Vegan sensualists: These are people who are only sexually attracted to vegetables. It gives a whole new meaning to the term "carrot top!"

Ambidextrous ambisexuals: These people insist, rather haughtily, that they are very different from "ordinary" bisexuals. "We are ambidextrous as well as bisexual," says Jeremy N. a representative of the group. "Not only can we shake hands with either our right or left hand, but we can screw both a man and a woman at exactly the same time."

Intersectionists: I've mentioned these before. I'll let Joey Taylor, the President of Intersectionists International, explain it. "Do you have a friend you've known for years but whose home you've never been to, in fact you only have a vague idea of where he lives and the two of you always meet at some intersection? Our orientation is to intersections, which is our fetish. We are turned on by avenues meeting streets, and prefer to have sex only at intersections. Hence no one ever sees our apartments." O-kay.

anal retentive narcissists: These are people who are only turned on by their own assholes.

excessive avoirdupois-ists: These people used to be called "chubby chasers" before the term became politically incorrect.

extra hemorrhoidal action activists: People who find it sexy that they -- or their sex partner -- has hemorrhoids. This group is organizing and planning many militant actions to advance their cause and stamp out hemorrhoidal-obia.

anti-transvestism interiorists: These people insist that they are only "interior" transvestites in that they refuse to dress up in male or female drag. There is a raging debate as to whether they are true transvestites or not. Madame LaBanca, drag queen par excellance, insists that "Honey, these mothers are closet transvestites too hung up to come out in all their finery. I am the real deal, they are just TV wannabees." [I'm staying out of this one!]

ambidextrous fruitandveggie ambisexual sensualists: The 7 members of this group insist that they are not only different from bisexuals, but from ambidextrous ambisexuals and vegan sensualists. "Please!" says group leader Maggie LaFarge. "Those people are so vanilla, so limited. We don't just have sex with vegetables, but fruits as well, and we can have sex with two people at the same time while juggling bananas and cucumbers."

adolphitis-ists: These are people who are only attracted to men or women who look like Adolph Hitler, including the mustache.

joanrivers-ites: These are people who can only have sex with anyone who has obviously had a great deal of plastic surgery. They are the exact opposite of robertredford-ites who are only attracted to people who have obviously not had plastic surgery.

jerkoffmoviemusicalists: These are people who can only get off while watching old movie musicals. Since they're generally unable to find people to watch along with them, they wind up jerking off.

masculinefemaledressers: These men are a variety of drag queen but instead of trying to look as feminine as possible, they put on women's clothing but eschew make up, wear beards, and are very macho. Sometimes they are called "bra bears" but this is considered mfd-phobic.

antidisestablishment sex heads: These are people who run around giving sudden blow jobs to surprised -- indeed shocked -- people in the most unlikely places, such as the supermarket, church, and The Center for Asexual Studies.. They see themselves as a kind of guerrilla movement. "Our job is to blow your mind while we're blowing your joint!" says Poindexter Twittle, the movement's founder. Mr. Twittle has asked me to say that the group is in desperate need of legal defense funds due to the number of arrests. At last count, virtually the entire membership was in jail.

atomicmutantxites: People who are only sexually aroused by members of Marvel Comics mutant super-hero team, The X-Men. Since the X-Men are merely fictional comic book characters, the members of this minority do not get laid very often, and Hugh Jackman has had to take out restraining orders on several of them.

flatulovables: are people who are turned on by flatulence. They publish a newsletter which is printed on toilet paper and entitled "Gastric Mistress."

Bettina Linney is a woman who insists that she alone is a persecuted minority group. "How can you be a minority group when you're only one person?" Miss Linney is asked on a regular basis. She replies that, "Look, like, it's this way, I don't really see how that's relevant. I mean, how dare you judge me and tell me who or what I am? You're a bigot, bigot, bigot!"

If you know of any more, let me know!

Asexuals United! -- Give Me a Break!

or NO SEX PLEASE -- WE'RE GLBTA!

You may or may not have noticed how some GLBT bloggers are adding "asexuals" to the list of oppressed minorities (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender). If you have any sense at all, you're probably going "what the fuck?" [Or perhaps "what the no-fuck" might be more appropriate.] Salon and The New York Times both did articles on the (small) number of people who are identifying as asexual and who claim that, like gay or straight, it is an orientation.

No, I'm not making this up!

It's almost becoming -- hell it has become--comical the way that groups are stealing the language of gay liberation -- "asexual and proud" like hell! -- and appropriating it for their own pathetic purposes. Of course, some dim bulbs in the GLBT movement are perfectly happy to let them do it. As I've said before, some well-meaning but intellectually challenged individuals are loathe to discriminate against anyone who might be "oppressed," so they''ll add just about any group imaginable to GLBT (thank goodness that does not extend to pedophiles or bestialists, but in the future, who knows?)

Asexuality has different meanings but for our purposes it refers to people who have no sexual attraction for anyone, male or female. Naturally they have no sex lives, or if they do, don't get any pleasure out of them. As far as I'm concerned, this isn't an orientation -- it's a disability and it does no one -- least of all the asexuals who are missing out on one of life's greatest pleasures -- any good to pretend otherwise.

Frankly, as a gay man I find it deeply offensive to have these "asexuals" comparing themselves to gay people. Sex is the big bugaboo in our society, not a lack of it. I don't know of anyone being beaten to death because they were asexual, or being fired from their job because of it, or any really negative societal response except maybe laughter, pity, or disbelief. The fact that homosexuality was once seen as a mental or medical disorder doesn't change my mind one bit. Homosexuality is not a disability; asexuality is.

David Jay (pictured) founded a group for asexuals called Aven when he was all of 19. Many people don't know if they're gay, straight, bi or what-have-you at 19, but Jay has identified as an asexual for the past four years. Even people at 23 or (much) older often haven't determined exactly where they are on the sexual scale, so it seems a mite premature of Jay to classify himself as anything. But the asexual movement -- pause for a big guffaw right here -- is just the kind of stupid thing that an immature mind would conceive of and post on the Internet.

There are different reports as to the number of members in AVEN, everything from 100 (which seems reasonable) to 4000 (which is pathetic). I've no doubt that a lot of sad, sexless people who for one (bad) reason or another have zero sex drive have happily signed up with the group to validate their dysfunctional lives. Some of them may be people who couldn't get laid if they showed up in hooker heaven with a pile of thousand dollar bills in their fists. Many therapists [unless they're politically over-correct assholes] agree that these are people who need therapy and counseling, not to be told that their asexuality is just another "orientation."

Comments that Jay makes to reporters make it clear that he has a very negative attitude toward sex, which is either the cause or result of his "asexuality." He literally doesn't seem to understand what it is that he's missing.

It's appalling that some GLBT people would take the asexual movement seriously. Again, I can only assume its very young or at least very immature people who have no real sense of the long-time gay movement, the struggles before and after Stonewall (and still on-going) and really don't understand why comparing asexuals to homosexuals is blatantly ludicrous, inaccurate, and even, as I said, offensive.

And there's something else that's troubling about this. In a New York Times piece written by Mary Duenwald, she writes about a 32-year-old man who got married hoping that it would "fix" his asexuality. Unfortunately, it only resulted in divorce. Duenwald then writes: "now he is living with a younger man in a relationship that he described as loving and romantic but free of sex."

Frankly, this guy sounds more like someone who's gay and in denial, someone who desires men sexually but is too hung up for whatever reason to act upon it, then a genuine (if there is such a thing) "asexual." [Asexual may merely be the opposite of bisexual and just as trendy, if not yet as political.]

And how many more of the men and women attracted to AVEN are in this category, how many more will fall victim to Jay's childishness and irresponsibility. Even if one believes that some people are "oriented" to be asexual (that's like not liking food, as one therapist puts it), it doesn't mean that many people who classify themselves as such don't need counseling and sex therapy and help of some kind to discover why there is this abnormal gap in their psycho-sexual make up. GLBT activists should not and hopefully most will not enable these people in their delusion.

Sure, there may be people who are not sexually active and may be happy in spite of it. You can be deaf and blind and still be happy -- but you're still disabled. Just like deaf people who refuse to get cochlear impants, "asexuals" have the right to refuse treatment or advice. But they are not an oppressed minority group, and I believe -- despite all the pc fools out there -- if they continue to insist that they are it will only backfire on them.

Now I'm going to have some safe sex. The rest of you -- jerk off!

What An Ass!

I ran across a post about Freedom to Marry Week -- Mombian has a list of them with links -- that really boggled my mind with its stupidity.

Seems there's this bi-identified gal who's angry that the term "gay marriage" somehow excludes bisexuals.

What?

First of all the term "marriage equality" is used just as frequently as "gay marriage." Second, you might understandably wonder why our bi gal is so upset. After all, if she marries a man then she doesn't have to worry about marriage equality. And if she marries a woman she's part of a same-sex couple and will naturally want to have the protections that marriage equality may engender. Right?

Wrong. The bi-gal objects because -- as she puts it -- just because two women are a couple doesn't make them -- pardon me -- a lesbian [or gay] couple, and that's why she's in a dither. That's why she won't support gay marriage (or, presumably, marriage equality). Just because she may someday want to marry a woman doesn't make her, like, a yucky dyke. [Admittedly, she doesn't come right out and say that or use that term but that's definitely the inference I got. And they say bi's are never homophobic. Bullshit! For those who may be unaware of this some bi-identified individuals feel they are entirely separate from -- and sometimes superior to -- gay people.]

Now I understand that she feels invisible or excluded or something but to not support gay marriage, which would benefit not only gays but -- yes -- same-sex bisexual couples as well (whether it's one or both partners who consider themselves bi)! Does that make any sense at all? Does she seriously think any gay person would consider her an ally? Does she think her attitude will make people take her or the bi-cause she espouses seriously? The term gay marriage or even same-sex marriage is convenient and easy and hardly meant to oppress anybody who loves or desires a member of their own sex, which -- as far as I know -- bisexuals frequently do. So what's the fucking problem?

Frankly, I don't think this gal is going to get a lot of support, even from the bi community (except for a few homophobic dim wits). Most intelligent bisexuals recognize that when they are in same-sex relationships the world pretty much sees them as gay (and what the hell is wrong with that?) and they don't necessarily get hysterical about it. Some bi's strongly identify with gays and others would rather shoot themselves than be considered "monosexual" (although it's usually being thought homosexual that bothers them, not heterosexual. Wonder why?)You can bet that this gal probably wouldn't object half as much to being called one half of a straight couple when she's out with a boyfriend.

But I've often said that some bi's suffer from internalized homophobia, even if it's not politically correct to say so.

Way to go, gal. Show your support for homosexuality, gay people, lesbians, alternative lifestyles, and so on by acting like a fucking bigot.

Bisexuals have far more to worry about from the religious right than they do from gays, some of whom have supported bi-rights for decades.

This gal calls herself, if I remember correctly, cowtown bi.

I think cowpie bi might be more appropriate.

What an ass. If she decides to leave the GLBT movement, I doubt if it will be much of a loss.

FREEDOM TO MARRY WEEK

A quick post and a reminder that February 8th to February 14th is Freedom to Marry Week.

You can get more information here.

Marriage equality is as much about equality as it is about marriage. Frankly, while I can understand why bigoted Republicans have problems with gay marriage -- and gays in general -- I'm not exactly thrilled with supposedly liberal democrats (yes, I include Obama and Clinton etc.) who are presumably gay-friendly (or so we think) but who don't support Full Marriage Equality. Yes, maybe in some cases they want to take small steps and are thinking of their more narrow-minded constituents, but now that Obama is in office we'll have to see what happens (Rick Warren, anyone?)

Forgive me if I'm cynical, but I've been around the block a few times. Forty years since Stonewall and there's still so fucking far to go. Still, I have to remember that in the days right after Stonewall the idea of gay marriage would have been inconceivable.

So maybe there's reason to hope after all.

We'll see.

Gay Activists Alliance

Now that we've lost the battle with Proposition 8, and others as well, I've noticed a lot of talk over the Internet about getting back to the kind of gay militancy that existed in the seventies and eighties. It's being said that the polite approach of modern-gay GLBT groups just isn't working, despite the fact that such groups have undoubtedly done much good.

When I was in New York's Gay Activists Alliance -- I ran the media committee for several years through various regimes (I even pretty much ran it when I was ousted once) -- no one in the gay movement received a salary (except maybe some people in the budding National Gay Task Force), and there were no fancy cocktail parties. [That's me above on the left just before GAA days -- the enemy, time, in us all, as Tennessee Williams put it in Sweet Bird of Youth. I've often said that being a gay activist made all my hair fall out!]

Activists in those days were not professional gays; they were dedicated human rights advocates who cared so damn much about making a difference that they neglected careers, love lives, went hungry, pretty much turned their whole lives over to their dedication to Gay Liberation. (Well we did get laid now and then, and I remember many companionable nights in Boots and Saddle and elsewhere. And it's not true that activists have no sense of humor --we actually laughed quite a bit. )

Don't get me wrong. I think it's great that today's gay activists can actually make a living at doing what we all did for free back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth (at least that's how some of today's activists make us older people feel). But when you're doing it for a living, maybe the dedication isn't quite as pervasive, maybe after all it just becomes a job.

The Gay Activists Alliance was the country's first militant Gay Rights group. When I say "militant," I do not mean violent. We were not terrorists or zanies (although there were a couple of zany members). I'm not suggesting today that we get so angry that we start lobbing bombs. But I believe that the militant approach of GAA is needed more than ever. Maybe it will be "ordinary" gay men and lesbians and not the "professional gays,"who will undoubtedly make the difference.

I have fond memories of GAA (and a few bitter ones), and I'm intensely proud of my activities with the outfit. Many in the group saw the media committee -- and there were a great, dedicated bunch of people on the committee -- as simply the part of the group that would get out the news about GAA's activities. I saw it differently, rechristening it the media image committee. I felt that the way gays were portrayed in books, movies, plays and on television could make a big difference in how we were perceived, as people then and now learn a lot (often a lot of wrong things) from popular culture. Years later the group GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) basically started out from the same idea and ran with it.

Some of the other members were unimpressed."Who watches television?" they'd say. Millions of people, I'd rejoinder. One episode of All in the Family could educate more people (rightly or wrongly) than a hundred zaps or a thousand picketers. Monitoring our image was to me and others an extremely important thing to do. We organized protests against homophobic movies such as Cruising, Windows and A Different Story. The press releases we sent out about the films were quoted in reviews and elsewhere in the New York Times and other papers. We communicated and met with producers of various TV shows and magazines that presented homophobic portrayals and material, and tried to educate authors, performers and others that there was much more to the gay experience than shame, negation, "perversity," murder, and suicide.

Not that I didn't enjoy the "zaps" or actions that we held. Infiltrating a meeting of the homophobic cult the Aesthetic Realists (who married off self-hating lesbians to self-hating gay men, a forerunner of today's "ex-gays") and passing out pro-gay literature to the members and observers. Disrupting a lecture given by "S.O.B.," the trio of homophobic psychiatrists Socarides, Ovesy and Bieber, who made a living by convincing gay men they were "sick"and needed (to pay thousands) to be treated. Again we passed out leaflets with the truth printed on them. And there were plenty of other zaps, pickets, and actions.

I was not in GAA from the first, so I missed the famous "firehouse" era and the pioneer activists who were active at the time (most of whom had "burnt out"by the time I joined a few years later). GAA was a rag tag bunch with a slovenly Lower East Side HQ when I first joined up, but by the time Anita Bryant had reared her ugly head with her "Save Our Children" campaign(which posited the moronic theory that gay men had to molest and recruit children to get more "members") in the late seventies, GAA membership had swelled to over 300 men and women. Not all members had the time to devote to the group or the movement, and it wasn't long before AIDS activism became the number one concern and GAA eventually disbanded in favor of groups such as ACT UP.

GAA -- or at least its brand of in-your-face activism -- is sorely needed today. I'm not saying gays should run around ranting uncontrollably or without a game plan, but should employ intelligent actions as GAA did to get the maximum effect. To tell people we just won't put up with homophobia anymore. When a comic tells a fag joke on TV -- and yes comics still do this, although they generally are smart enough not to actually use the word "fag" -- their next live appearance should be picketed. GAA never let homophobic wise guys put down gays without calling them on it.

There was the New York Post or News columnist Bill Reel, who was constantly making "fag" and "fairy" remarks in his column. He wouldn't return phone calls, so I sent him a letter telling him to come down to GAA HQ -- by this time we were in a big building on 9th avenue and 14th street -- and call me and the other members names to our faces. I told him exactly when and where we held our meetings. Not only did he never show up (not that I expected him to, since homophobes, like bullies, tend to be cowards), but he never even answered the letter. (A few years later, when New York was in a grip of a rise in crime due to a crack epidemic, he wrote in a Long Island paper how he never came into Manhattan anymore because he was too scared to get mugged. What a complete wuss. Even my middle-aged mother came into Manhattan to attend the theater or Lincoln Center! Not that women of any age can't be brave.)

The polite "cocktail party" activists have done as much as they can --or want to. Peaceful but firm protests by angry "ordinary" gays who are sick of waiting for their full rights can only complement the efforts of these "professional" gays with their inflated six figure salaries.

Much more on GAA in future posts. For now I'll recall a number of my GAA colleagues. I don't remember the names of all of them after these many years, but I certainly remember Fred Goldhaber and R. Paul Martin (who were both on the media committee); Brian O'Dell; Art Gursh; Joe Kennedy ("I'm a real man who likes real men") whom I rather idolized for a time and who organized some of GAA's most noteworthy zaps; David Thorstaad, who was president when I first joined ("I'm actually bisexual you know") and was quite a character; Seth Lawrence; David Wynyard ("I am ipso facto president of GAA"); my old pal Frank Richter (at least he and I co-produced and co-hosted a WBAI radio show with Wynyard and GAA member David Pike); the inestimable Larry Quirk; the lovable Wally Hoffmann; Tony Dolce; Bobby Drew; and others that I distinctly recall but whose names have become foggy in my memory. My apologies!

Movie: "The Gay Marriage Thing"

The Gay Marriage Thing. A film by Stephanie Higgins.

The debate over gay marriage and how it affects the gay community receives a warm, humorous and sympathetic treatment in The Gay Marriage Thing, an excellent new documentary directed by Stephanie Higgins. The film follows a young lesbian couple, Lorre and Gayle, who have been together for fifteen years, as they prepare to wed in Massachusetts. The two women have moved in with two elderly aunts who can no longer live on their own. As we see them discuss the particulars of their upcoming nuptials and reception with the aunts and each other, various individuals voice their opinions on gay marriage.

There’s the African-American Reverend Carlton Smith, who points out that it’s not him but the state who actually makes the marriage "official" in legal terms. Representing the anti-gay marriage side is Reverend Richard Weisenbach, who tells how he "loves" everyone in the most cloying terms but can’t congratulate two gay men – "great fellows" he "loves" – on their marriage because homosexuality is just plain wrong. Pro-gay representative Kathi Anne Reinstein tells how shocked she was to get virulent hate messages from people "whose lives are not affected by this at all."

One young woman on camera makes it clear that gay marriage opponents just don’t get it. She says that she knows that gay people can love each other, but if love is the only requisite for marriage, then why can’t she marry her mother or father or anyone she loved. She just can’t grasp the reality that gay people can have romantic feelings for one another just as straight people do. After she then claims that most gay people are not in relationships and are not monogamous (as if all heterosexuals are), Higgins cuts to shots of several gay couples who have been in committed relationships for decades.

Higgins allows gay marriage opponents their say; it’s not her fault if they’re clueless. As the bigots wave their vile, ignorant banners, we are reminded that gay marriage, like desegregation, is another important progression in basic human rights and freedom.

You can learn more about the film, including how to buy or rent/download it, at its website: www.thegaymarriagething.com. The film would be perfect to start off a discussion on this important issue in the home or classroom. Of special note, Ms. Higgins recently married her wife and honeymooned in Europe. "It was an amazing, exciting, emotional experience for everyone," says Higgins.

But "it was hard to learn in Italy that Prop 8 passed."

I have to say that I've been very surprised -- and a little dismayed -- by the lack of support that Ms. Higgins' film has been given by the New York gay media. Although a review was submitted to The New York Blade, it wasn't even posted to their web site. (Of course the Blade does not publish as often as it used to, has less space each issue, and its publisher is apparently having serious financial problems). When I queried the editor of Gay City News if he'd like to run an interview with the film's director, I never even heard back. Let's see -- here we have a film made by a member of our community about the issue that's being talked about the most -- gay marriage -- and neither paper can bother to cover it? Yet the Blade had room for a write up on the DVD of that awful old Boys in the Band (which is supposedly still "relevent" -- give me a break!) and Gay City News has room for a piece about Puccini's La rondine. (Now I'm a big opera fan and love La rondine, but the last I heard Puccini wasn't gay.) There's nothing wrong with covering the arts in a gay paper but why not cover The Gay Marriage Thing? I can't believe it's because the film was made by a lesbian instead of some hot young gay guy, so what's going on here?