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!

The Gay/Bisexual Debate

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has issued a 148 page report on Bisexual Health which may have some shaking their heads in disbelief (it can be downloaded at the Task Force's website); I certainly found a lot of it mind-bogglingly stupid.

First let me say that I never really saw the need to have a separate bi movement, and its interesting to me that a really strong one has never quite emerged after all these years – although it's certainly got certain gay rights groups by the balls. Even today the Bi Movement seems to consist of a few souls carrying a big politically correct stick as opposed to a huge congregation of committed bisexuals. [No doubt books are being sold and people are getting attention yapping about Bi Rights, which seems to be the reason behind just about everything]. My thinking was that if a bi-identified person wanted to live a gay lifestyle, they were already covered under the gay rights umbrella. And if they wanted to live a straight lifestyle, they didn't need protection because they'd be perceived as hetero and hence were “safe.”

The main focus in the Task Force's report, of course, is on health issues, and the fact that many people, especially men, who have sex with both genders, are both at risk and putting others at risk for AIDS. These are men who are on the “down low,” which was first reported in the New York Times as being a phenomenon of the African-American community but which in my experience occurs in every ethnic background. The “down low” is nothing new of course. There have always been men who who can't accept their homosexuality, who can't feel “macho” if they admit to being gay or even bi, and who have sex with men [generally but not always being the “top”] but who also have relationships with a wife or girlfriend. There's a word for this sort of thing and it isn't “bisexual.” It's called “being in the closet.”

Not that members of the not very huge Bisexual Movement would agree. [The web site that's linked to the Task Force's site is kind of thrown-together, and I was amused by the fact that the late male founder of the Bisexual Foundation had had a long-term relationship – with another man. If this guy occasionally had sex with women, would that really have made him bisexual?] There are some disturbing things to be read in the Bi Health Report, including the incredible new definition of bisexuality. According to the report “a bisexual orientation speaks to the potential for, but not requirement of, involvement with more than one gender.” Potential ---!? By that definition, virtually anyone could be considered bisexual! This is an attempt by the rather bullying bi movement – who've got Matt Foreman and others of the Task Force and other groups locked up tight in a grip of political correctness – to bolster their numbers to a ridiculous proportion. Why, there must be more bisexuals than gays and straights combined! [Yes, I understand that the report's compilers could argue that some people will always be gay and others will always be straight, and these are not seen to have any “potential,” but this is still a impossibly vague and nearly all-encompassing description.] According to the report bi's also “have a greater likelihood of suffering from depression due to biphobia.” Well, maybe they're depressed because they can't come out of the closet? Because they can't deal with being gay? Because they want to be completely straight but can't be?

Let me make it clear that if you now ascribe to the old theory that most bi's are gays who aren't yet comfortable in a gay skin, you're considered not only old-fashioned but a bigot. The funny thing is, until I read this report I was perfectly willing to rethink my position on bisexuality. In my experience, most bisexuals clearly had a sexual preference, generally their own sex. I had always thought that there might be a few – maybe quite a few – genuine bisexuals, but these I would describe as people who are sincerely attracted as much to men as they are to women, kind of a 50/50 deal. Just because I or any other gay man may occasionally be attracted to a woman, or may have had sexual congress with females in the past, doesn't make me “bisexual.” But according to the Task Force's report all you really have to do is have the “potential” to sleep with both sexes and – bingo! -- you're bi. Suddenly my shit-o-meter was on high alert and I began to think that I was right all along. I think the Task Force will find that rather than revise people's opinion on the whole bi question, their report may have the opposite effect.

Now I'm beginning to think that the bi's protest too much, and I question the research, statistics, and science of the report. I detest the “politic-speak” that the report is riddled with, silly terms such as “MSMW” to describe a man who has sex with both men and women [whatever happened to bisexual, for crying out loud, which is supposed to be the whole point?] And all the pc crap such as how two men in a committed relationship are no longer a “gay couple” but a ”same-sex couple” [presumably because we could both take up with women at any moment. Sure].

The Task Force (and GLAAD) protested a June '06 piece in the New York Times -- “Gay, Straight or Lying”-- for sloppy research methods but their report isn't much better. The Times piece at least went so far as to present opposing viewpoints; in fact --aside from some dumb, ill-considered quotes -- I found it reasoned and balanced. [For the record the piece described how when a group of men were shown gay and straight porn and their sexual responses were monitored, most of the “bisexual” men reacted to the gay porn but not to the straight. Big surprise.] It essentially left the whole matter up in the air, which is where it may always remain. Most people will never be honest – even to themselves – when it comes to sexual orientation so perhaps all we'll ever have is opinions without conclusions. [Although my opinions are at least based on decades of personal experience and interactions with people who have variously identified themselves as gay, straight or bi, not on a series of interviews or what-have-you with a small cross section of men or women.]

But most importantly, when you consider the stigma that still exists to this day over being gay, it's no wonder so many people refuse to use that as a label. Even saying they're “bi” gives them a kind of cachet, a connection to the straight world, the feeling that they're not quite as “abnormal” as if they were exclusively gay. Frankly, it's become very tiresome and even offensive. This was not what the Gay Rights movement was supposed to be about.

Are there genuine bisexuals in the world? Possibly. It depends on the definition. If you think a married man who has children but who has sex with men as well is bisexual, I suppose it may be a reasonably fair statement. Except for the fact that many of these men, when they finally come out of the closet [usually because they've developed romantic feelings for a guy] generally say that they were never straight or bi to begin with, but gay. Lots of gay-identified men can sleep with women and father children. I'll never forget one man on LOGO's TV show “Coming Out Stories” saying that before his marriage he didn't think of himself as gay or bi but “just a straight man who sometimes had sex with guys.” [In other words, he was on the down low.]

Then there's the interesting case of a guy I worked with years ago in the Gay Activists Alliance in New York. I recently learned that he describes himself as bisexual and is now partnered with a woman [I don't recall if he was bi-identified all those years ago, only that he had a male partner for many years]. Admirably, on his web site he doesn't deny his gay past, and even has a picture of his ex-male lover [whom he does not name] and describes how he and his “straight girlfriend” attend gay pride marches. His commitment to gay activism does not seem to have wavered. In fact he was once downright militant, like me, and probably still is. Is he a genuine bisexual, or is his relationship with his lady friend more of a loving friendship born out of mutual loneliness than any kind of serious "grand passion"? He had a long-time relationship with a man; was he simply unable to find another man to share his life with after the first relationship broke up? Is his “straight” relationship emotional or sexual or both? If he'd found the right man would he ever have really considered being with a woman? Only he knows for sure but the answers don't really matter. While he may not have taken up with a woman to “run away” from his gayness, there are still plenty of gays who do just that and if we truly care about these “bisexuals” we can't just let them spend a lifetime lost in indecision and denial.

I admit that there aren't necessarily any clear cut answers, but we should be open-minded without losing sight of certain undeniable realities. If the Task Force and the Bi Movement want to believe that most of the bi-identified are really bisexual, I certainly can't stop them. But if they insist that ALL of the bi-identified are part of some vast bisexual community, then that will be almost criminally irresponsible. Even if there are bisexuals who are not going through a phase between being straight and coming out proudly as gay, the fact remains that a great many of them are doing just that. And they need help accepting their gay orientation, not a lot of blather that will only muddy the waters and make them more confused – and miserable – than ever. This is not “biphobia” -- it is the basis of gay activism and its creed of self-acceptance. It is the whole point of the Gay Movement. If every person were to accept their homosexuality proudly, the struggle for gay rights would be aided immeasurably. Bi activists say that we're "threatened" by bisexuality, but what we're really "threatened" by is a dishonest diffusion of our masses, and the fear that instead of becoming out and proud some gays will only use "bisexual" as a label to hide behind, hoping to have a "real" hetero relationship instead of the satisying gay partnership that will lead to sincere, long-lasting fulfillment.

Let's remember that if many people who insist to themselves and others that they're hetero aren't really straight, it's also true that many who say they're bisexual aren't really bi. Although I could find absolutely no background information about this study in the report from the Task Force, the report claims that one study showed that 10% of men in New York City who identify as straight have had sex with at least one man in the past year, and that 73% of male New Yorkers who have had sex with men identify themselves as hetero. Does anybody really believe this has anything to do with “bisexuality?” Or with the sad, simple fact that these men do not want to be perceived as gay or project a gay image they somehow find distasteful? Why are we worrying about real or alleged bisexuals when our primary goal should be to publicize the diversity of our gay community [heck, we can even include bisexuals if we want to] and to utterly erase the stigma that still attaches itself to homosexuality? We need to get the message out that anyone can be gay, no matter what their style, appearance or demeanor, and life outside the closet is immeasurably sweeter than one lived in constant deceit and denial.

If this wasn't enough to deal with, the report details a conference for bi and bi-curious men and, while it admitted most men were troubled/curious about their gay leanings, there were supposedly some gay-identified men who were bemused by unexpected sexual feelings for women. Again, the fact that I or any gay guy can occasionally think a woman is sexy or even make out with one while inebriated does not necessarily mean that we are straight or bi. But will the moderators at these conferences [it is suggested they be bi-identified or sensitive to bi-issues, not bigoted old poops] be intelligent enough to realize this? [While some may think I'm being unfair, I don't think a man who makes out/has sex with another man while inebriated can get away with saying he's totally straight, again because of the stigma of homosexuality. A drunk straight guy may make out with a woman he wouldn't normally find attractive, but with a man, any man? Don't think so. You may disagree.]

Now I have no doubt that many activists are going to agree with me on this matter but will be afraid to say so, afraid to look narrow-minded or out-of-date. And then there's the fact that many will want to keep their jobs with the professional gay organizations that employ them. They won't want to offend any of their constituency, especially those -- like some bisexual activists perhaps? -- who may contribute generously to their coffers. I recognize that people who have unprotected gay sex but who do not admit to being gay [or bi for that matter] are at great risk for deadly STDS, and perhaps The Task Force felt this was the only way to educate health professionals about treating them. If only the overly political, academic-dumb, so painfully correct it hurts double-speak could have been ruthlessly excised from the report. It pains me that to appeal to these men on the down low we almost have to agree with them that they're “straight” -- they will not admit to being gay – as perhaps the only way to save their lives.

But if we forget all about teaching self-acceptance and gay pride, are we really doing anyone a favor?

NOTE: One of the most fascinating and scholarly articles I have ever read on the subject of bisexuality [through the ages] was written by Rictor Norton and can be found here : http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/social12.htm

UPDATE: In early June 2007 the Task Force released a revised and updated version of the Bisexual Health Report. Maybe because of all the criticism it got?

If you have an opinion about this or any other post on this blog, please leave a comment or email me at trock4304@mypacks.net.