Scotty Bowers is a Flaming Queen: A review of "Full Service"

SCOTTY BOWERS IS A FLAMING QUEEN: A REVIEW OF "FULL SERVICE: My Adventures in Hollywood and the Secret Sex Lives of the Stars." Scotty Bowers with Lionel Friedberg. Grove Press; 2012.

Oy vey! The lengths some people will go to to deny they're gay even while writing about all the guys they've been to bed with, and not always for money. Scotty Bowers, procurer for the stars and male prostitute in old Hollywood -- he is now 88 -- writes about many married men with wives and kids who were secretly homosexual, but seems to think because he keeps saying he really prefers women, adds one chapter about two women he was allegedly in love with, and has an [un-pictured] wife he married past the age of sixty, that this means he's not gay! One at least hopes he wouldn't resist the label "bisexual" although if memory serves me well he doesn't use it to describe himself in this pretty tedious book.

Look, we already know about Rock Hudson, Tyrone Power, Cary Grant and Randolph Scott, the phony "romance" between Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, and so on. The only thing that may be new in here is that both the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were bisexual [well on one page they're bisexual; on the next page they're "essentially gay."] Bowers claims to have had sex with both of them. You'd think he'd be embarrassed to admit it, but then this guy thinks Walter Pidgeon is "handsome."

If Gore Vidal and William Mann, who has written books on Hepburn and Gay Old Hollywood [hopefully not with Bowers as a major source], want to praise this piece of shit, let them, although I wonder if they wrote their endorsements before actually reading the book! It's not that many of Bowers' assertions about the homosexuality of Hollywood's leading players and the many closeted gays among the "straight" married community are false, but that Bowers is absolutely the wrong person to be relaying the information. First, rightly or wrongly, who takes whores and procurers seriously? Second, even if some of his claims are true, it's hard to believe that Bowers personally witnessed or experienced everything he says -- much of it actually sounds like second or third-hand knowledge [if not gossip and rumors]. Third, Bowers, despite his strong connection to the gay community [or the closeted variation thereof back in the day], does his unconvincing best to set himself somehow above and apart the "queens" he mostly writes about. He gives lip service to Gay Rights, but this is a guy who has fond memories of being molested at nine and of the men who molested him as well, which is just pathetic. Do we really want his support?

I suppose one could argue that his being molested [assuming the story is even true] made him sexually confused and non-judgmental about sexuality [and more adventurous], but he really just comes off like a self-deluding "old queen." [And in his book jacket photo, in which he seems to have Shirley Temple curls on his head, certainly looks like one, which is ironic.] He writes that when he read a piece Tennessee Williams [for a whore he certainly had a whole shitload of important "friends," all of whom, of course, were close confidantes] wrote about him, he urged the famed playwright to destroy it because it made him seem like the "fairy godmother of the entire gay world in the City of Angels." And that certainly wouldn't do for such a straight stud as Scotty.

While it may be entirely admirable that Bowers has a healthy, realistic and non-judgmental attitude towards different kinds of sexuality [although his acceptance of pedophilia is rather problematic to say the least!] his sensibility is still stuck back in the pre-Stonewall period. He talks about all the married men who like cock, referring to some of them as bisexuals, but then writes about many of the hustlers who had sex with his clients as "straight" guys just because they may have had girlfriends or slept with women. Duh! It's that whole tiresome "rough trade," allegedly "gay for pay" crap that in these days of "Out and Proud" just seems terribly unrealistic and dated, "sexual fluidity" be damned. Besides if his clients can supposedly be bisexual, why couldn't the hustlers be as well?

The book is so indifferently written that it fails to make any of these people come alive with any depth, and it certainly has no compelling erotic descriptions like well-written porn.

Amazingly, Full Service is kind of boring. I imagine unsophisticated straight people from Iowa [no offense,Iowa] may find this "juicy" but for everyone else I would recommend saving your money.  

Going Off Half-"Cocked": A Review of Mike Barlett's play "Cock"

COCK. [Or Bob and Rose Redux]. A play by Mike Bartlett.

[NOTE: This is a review of the published play, which originally appeared in London before being exported to New York, not of a particular production or performance.]

Well, after reading this play in its published form, I'm glad I didn't waste money going to see the new production. I just finished reading it and I'm jotting down my impressions quickly, because Cock is the kind of play you forget not long after seeing -- or in this case -- reading it.

The premise may seem new, but isn't. A man named John has been in a committed relationship with another man [simply called "M"] for several years but feels some dissatisfaction with his mate. During a brief "separation" John meets a woman [simply called "W"], has sex with her, and thinks he may have fallen in love, even though he's never had the slightest interest in women before. He goes back to M, however, but continues to see W. In a completely contrived situation [but then the whole play is contrived] John suggests that he, M, and W all have dinner together at M's home, where M's father [simply called "F"] also shows up to give his son moral support. Without giving anything away, John seems to make a choice but still seems conflicted at the end. For me a highly offensive note of the latest production is that the whole thing plays like some kind of boxing match, with Gay Man vs Straight Woman for the love of [unworthy] John. 40 years after Stonewall and we're still not past this shit?

Plays, stories and films about men being torn between women and other men are nothing new. [The movie A Different Story, the play Find Your Way Home, British TV's Bob and Rose are just a few.] The "new" wrinkle is the playwright's suggestion that John is bisexual, although it seems unlikely, even if he'd never had a heterosexual experience, that he wouldn't have realized long before that he was attracted to women. Surely in college he knew plenty of women, saw sexy ladies in advertisements, knew a few people who labeled themselves bisexual. His explanation is that everyone was congratulating him for coming out, he found a support network, etc., but this is all quite unconvincing. There was nothing to prevent him from dating/sleeping with women, as some gay men do on occasion, and he admits that he was always just interested in guys. Some may buy into the notion of "latent heterosexuality" but I think it's a crock.

John comes off less as a genuine bisexual than as a gay guy who's disillusioned with his lover [and therefore, ridiculously, with gay life], likes the way this rather desperate woman makes him feel like a man [whereas his lover makes him feel like a child], yet the play never examines the fact that there are plenty of men out there who don't feel as if they're "real" men unless they're fucking or involved with women. Playwright Bartlett simply dodges this aspect of internalized homophobia. Let's put it this way -- if John is bisexual, he definitely has a preference, and it isn't women. [It must be said that Bartlett does seem to capture the tiresome angst of some bi-identified individuals on the Internet, where he probably got most of his ideas and much of his dialogue.]

Late in the play John complains that it was his parents' generation who came up with "gay" and "straight" and who needs the labels now that "we have our rights," to which his lover wisely answers that we don't have all our rights and people are always trying to chip away at them anyway. John -- and perhaps playwright Bartlett -- may have a point that it shouldn't matter who or what you're sleeping with, but both miss the point that the disparity between acceptance of hetero and homo behavior is still wide, and Gay Pride has for years been one way of addressing and correcting that. Instead of Gay Pride, Cock gives us a gay man about to meet his boyfriend's female lover and saying it will be "THE ULTIMATE BITCHFIGHT!" Yuchh!

Just as big a problem is that Bartlett fails to create three-dimensional characters. I know we're long past the days of Eugene O'Neill and Tennessee Williams, but Bartlett can't even give his characters names let alone real substance. M comes dangerously close to being a gay stereotype. W never explains why she clings so desperately to a man who's essentially queer [be he gay or bi] -- why can't she just let the fellow be gay and find a perfectly nice straight fellow -- just because of one bad marriage? F for Father, a gay-friendly straight man who loves his son and cares for John, delivers more of the Gay Lib stuff than his son does, but that's probably not a bad decision on Bartlett's part, but he, too, seems to exist just to make a few good points. I suppose the point could be made that John is a conflicted bisexual stereotype as well, as if he needs both male and female lovers when Bi advocates always claim that is simply not true of bi people.

One could argue that at least some of Bartlett's dialogue is clever, but that likely means he'd be better off writing sitcoms than serious theater. In interviews the unprepossessing Bartlett refuses to reveal if he's gay, straight, bi, or even A for Asexual. Again we get the "I'm against labels" argument, but I've always suspected that those who are against labels are just queers who are in the closet out of shame and embarrassment. Reading Cock, I got the impression that Bartlett simply did a little research on the Internet, watched some old TV shows, and threw together something that he felt would be provocative, giving it an attention-getting title [Cock indeed!], and hoped for the best. The reviews have been surprisingly favorable, perhaps for the actors or perhaps because straight critics want to seem trendy and gay-friendly and gay critics are terrified of being seen as politically-incorrect [whereas I don't give a shit]. I find Cock to be so generally clueless and superficial that it could easily have been written by some straight married guy who doesn't have the vaguest understanding of what he's even writing about. I mean this is a play in which a gay man and straight woman are pitted against each other [whereas in real life many gay men and straight and gay women have wonderful non-sexual relationships] and both are more or less presented as "bitches!" How progressive is that!

Reading the play gives you time to explore and go-over the dialogue, which you can't do in the theater. I have to say that ultimately it doesn't matter whether you think John is gay or bisexual, should stay with M or go off with W. The fact remains that Cock just isn't a very good play any way you look at it. A writer of some depth, intelligence and real talent might have made something of the premise, but more likely a writer of that stripe wouldn't start with such a stupid , rather offensive, and even somewhat homophobic premise to begin with.    

Perfect Husbands?

What's it with all these guys named Peterson murdering their wives?

First there's Drew Peterson, the former police sergeant, who's been charged with murdering both his third and fourth wives. I can't get why four women would marry this guy. If he walked into the Eagle I wouldn't give him a first look, let alone a second one.

Then there's Scott Peterson, whose wife Laci went missing. He was later convicted of murdering her [first degree] and their prenatal son [second degree].

And then we've got Michael Peterson, the subject of at least one book [A Perfect Husband by Aphrodite Jones], a foreign documentary, a made-for-television movie starring Treat Williams as Peterson, and many, many hours on Dateline, 20/20 and other news programs.

The most sensational aspect of the case was when the male prostitute Brent Wolgamott was called in to testify that he and Peterson had made arrangements -- never fulfilled -- to hook up for paid sex.

First let's deal with the hustler, also known as "Brad." Whatever he is, Wolgamott is not too bright. He was quoted as saying that the majority of his clients were "predominantly straight with minor homosexual tendencies." Apparently he's never heard of married homosexuals. It makes no sense that a man with supposedly minor homosexual tendencies would explore gay porn web sites with abandon and want to hire a male hooker for sex.

As Jones writes in her book "from the explicit nature of Michael's e-mails, it was obvious that he was not only an adulterer, but that he was perhaps more homosexual than straight." She adds: "the thought of [his murdered wife] Kathleen's marriage being a sham, especially when she was paying for everything ... was all the more hurtful to her sisters and [her daughter] Caitlin."

Michael Peterson claimed that he was "bisexual" and that Kathleen already knew that. He enlisted his brother to say that he knew about Michael's bisexuality since they were teens.

Well, whether Peterson was "bisexual" or just a married, ashamed homosexual -- and I think the latter is more accurate -- I don't think his wife knew the score.

Of course, most married homosexuals don't want to murder their wives, just cheat on them.

Although I must say that more and more we're learning about the gay secret lives of certain men accused of murdering their wives or at least making them disappear forever. [Recently there was the case of murder victim Karen Tipton, whose husband David had gay porn on his computer.] Sure, some of this may be an attempt to demonize a suspect, give him another motive for doing away with the little woman, but given what we know of the whole "down low" business of homosexuality, much of it is probably accurate. While the whole business of murdering your wife in the 21st century because she finds out you're gay [with the resultant exposure, divorce, and financial loss] sounds like a bad Law and Order episode, apparently it sometimes happens.

In any case, it's safe to say that these men -- these murderers of women -- are not Out and Proud members of our community, but dysfunctional and often sociopathic losers whose poor wives pay the price for their inability to accept themselves.

In any case Michael Peterson is spending the rest of his life in prison.

Just as many of these guys spend their whole, pathetic lives in the closet.

Coming Out with Codicils

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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.

"Family" Men

The number of supposed "family men" who fool around sexually with guys is probably legion, but because there's only an occasional Jim McGreevey "scandal" outing these guys most of the public still thinks if a man's got a wife and kids he's straight.

Now let's talk about Paul Newman.

Years ago I tricked with a guy who said to me: "Paul Newman is gay."

"He is?" I said. "How do you know?"

He said: "I only say people are gay if I've had sex with them."

Now it's true that many people will say they have had sex with celebrities as a way of making themselves more fascinating and the like, but I found this guy completely credible. He was also an actor, one of the actors in The Boys in the Band, in fact, and I could certainly see him and Newman together.

Whether you believe this or not, if it's true, Newman would certainly not be the first family man who liked dick. Whether you want to call him a bisexual or a married homosexual, I wouldn't be surprised if, however he defined himself, he was attracted to men and suppressed it as much as he could because, after all, "fags" don't become superstars. In this Newman would not be the first or the last movie star to closet himself with a wife and children for the sake of a career. Newman was not known as a skirt-chaser. He built a private cottage for himself on his property which wife and children were not allowed to enter. If he occasionally indulged in his passion for men while presenting a heterosexual front, it would make him no different from tens of thousands of other men over the decades. It's ironic that he played the conflicted "Brick" in the film adaptation of Tennessee Williams' Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

When it came to Gay Rights Newman could be quite contrary. On one hand, he and wife Joanne Woodward were liberals who presumably supported Gay Rights. Newman gave serious thought to playing the gay coach in the film version of Patrica Nell Warren's gay novel The Front Runner. On the other hand he decided to make the film Slapshot instead of Front Runner, and while the homophobia of the hockey players and fans in the movie was hardly unrealistic, the script also had him telling a woman that her son would grow up to be sucking dick (the old domineering mother creates faggots nonsense). He also taunted a hockey player that his wife was a "dyke, dyke, dyke!" which some dumb-ass New York Post critic, writing about the "best" scenes in Newman's movies, seemed to think was hilarious (it wasn't). Many gay activists thought Newman's guilt or fear over his own activities so panicked him that he chose the macho, homophobic role of Slapshot over the sympathetic gay role of The Front Runner coach.

Whatever the true story with Newman, his legacy will be that of the typical heterosexual family man whose wife and kids meant everything to him. Of course, men who love dick can certainly love their children and (in their own way) care deeply about their wives, but it's not the whole story. Had he come out at least as a bisexual -- had he only appeared in The Front Runner -- it might have done a lot of good but he chose not to. Those heterosexual privileges, even when he was wealthy and essentially retired, clearly meant too much to him. Some men in this position don't come out because they don't want to hurt or embarrass their wives, but in Newman's case I bet it was more about his image. So the "family man" legacy, no matter how much of it is pure bullshit, will go on until some biographer or other person with solid, substantiated information tells the world otherwise, and even then much of the world won't want to believe it. Paul Newman a fag! We in the Gay Community have made great progress in the past few decades, but sometimes I think we haven't made any at all.

One last thing about Newman. As co-author of a book on Robert Redford, I can tell you that the rumors of an affair between Newman and Redford, no matter how delicious some people may find it, appear to be completely unfounded, and I've never uncovered any substantiated gay rumors about Redford.

Beware of SCB's!

Many gay men will at some point in their lives have an encounter, experience or relationship of some kind with an SCB.

SCB stands for Straight/Conflicted/Bisexual. An SCB is a man who flits around the gay community and gay men for one reason or another but does not identify as gay. He may be straight (or simply say/think he is), conflicted (not certain what he is, which usually means he's gay but can't quite get past the shame/stigma of it even though he may know many happily Out and Proud gay men) or genuinely or technically bisexual, which especially in the latter case means he may date/sleep with both men and women but even if he has a decided preference for men will never admit it -- not even to himself. [This is in contrast to those openly bi-identified men who admit they prefer men and/or have strong sympathetic ties to the gay community. Okay, I'm being a little PC here. Sue me!]

Some SCBs are hustlers, go go boys, bartenders in gay bars, models, work in the porn industry etc. As I say, they flit around getting what they can get, but they have no gay pride whatsoever -- which is my problem with them. They want the advantage of being gay -- or should I say they want to take advantage of gay men -- but as macho as they may think they are they completely lack the courage to deal with any possible disadvantages of being out of the closet.

Frankly, I think these guys -- while they can at times be charming and attractive -- are asses and bores. They act like it's 1950 instead of the 21st century, like we haven't had forty years (and more) of Gay Lib. Their attitudes are strictly pre-Stonewall.

Some of them can, however, bring out feelings of lust, romantic yearning, affection, and even love in gay men their own age and (especially?) older.

I remember an older acquaintance, "Joe," who lived in Boston and had a lover we'll call Frank. Joe was older than Frank but the age gap was not that wide. The two lived together, travelled together, the two seemed in every way a couple. Frank and I would dance together in Boston's gay bars (Joe did not enjoy dancing).

On one trip to Boston I ran into Joe who told me that Frank had married a woman. He said he knew he liked women and was perfectly okay with it. How could anybody be okay with having the man they were in love with go off with someone else? I never did get all the facts. Was Frank bisexual, and did he prefer this woman (or perhaps more to the point, a straight life) to living with Joe? Had he only been using Joe (I mean, who was paying for their vacations together?) While I seriously doubt if Frank was totally straight, perhaps he -- and even Joe -- thought of himself as a heterosexual. Was Joe so in love, so lonely, that he'd take up with a "straight" guy, knowing all the while that he'd inevitably walk out on him? Was Joe invited to the wedding? Did he stand there pretending to be happy for the man he loved while his heart was breaking? Did he make any attempt to make Frank see that his marriage could merely have been an act of internalized homophobia? (Joe was not exactly an activist type, however.) We lost touch and I never got the answers to these questions, or learned how he ultimately dealt with losing his companion. I don't even know if he's alive.

I think some gay men just fall for these SCBs and desperately hope that they're not only gay but will eventually feel the same way about them. Or at the very least that the SCB will make the smitten one part of their lives. Maybe they hope that they'll be able to turn them into loving friends or son substitutes -- they're just so infatuated that they desperately need to be part of their lives in some capacity. (And of course there are some self-hating homosexuals who feel they can only love a "straight" man -- talk about pre-Stonewall attitudes!)

Another friend of mine fell in love with a younger, straight co-worker. He denied he felt this way -- for some reason the gay men who fall for SCBs never want to admit it (more on that later) -- but (as is always the case) he talked and talked about the SCB practically to the exclusion of all else, which is a dead giveaway, trust me on this. The two became fast friends, a friendship which has survived the straight guy's two or three marriages. My friend has sort of been adopted by the family, and is godfather to some of the younger man's children. For his sake I hope that by this time he thinks of the SCB as a good, loving friend and nothing more. But this friend has always had strong guilt feelings over his homosexuality, and a sexless relationship with a straight man is, to him, sadly, preferable to a romantic and sexual relationship with another gay man. [This is of course similar to the situation with married homosexuals.]

Since I have no guilt feelings over being gay, it was a surprise to me when I (briefly) became infatuated myself with one of these SCBs. This was a complete surprise to me and I was not in any way thrilled with the development. After a couple of months of intense, foolish feelings, something clicked in my brain and common sense prevailed. I made no passes, asked for no dates, and certainly spent no money (he was not a hustler in any case). Now a bar friend of mine has become "best buddies" with the very same guy, goes out to dinner with him, exchanges text messages, and so forth and so on. He vehemently denies that he is in love with him, but talks and talks and talks about him incessantly....

Oy vey. When I look at him and see the goofy love light in his eyes, I can only shake my head ruefully and think "better him than me." Who on earth knows where this will lead but I know it probably won't be anywhere good -- or at least very sexy.

I dodged a bullet and don't I know it!

We gay men do not need SCBs. There are plenty of Great Gay Guys out there, out and proud men who will never give us half the grief and bullshit of the SCBs. Sure, gay men aren't perfect, not every relationship works and some gay guys wind up married to Out and Proud stinkers, but at least you don't have to spend half your time wondering "Is he or isn't he?" or "Is he really 'bi' or just ashamed ?" and all the rest of the crap.

SCBs haunt the gay community like prick-teasing incubi. Hopefully some of them will finally grow up and turn into Out and Proud Gay Men -- and the rest will just go away!

Of Hollywood, Gable, and Gays

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Flex Sex" -- Say What?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk about scraping the bottom of the crock pot!

UPDATE: * I was contacted by email by the real "HM" -- or at least someone with the same name who does not appear to be a chef or author -- who has apparently thought better of his participation on this program or is afraid people will think he was the guest. I have replaced his real name with fake initials to spare him further embarrassment. Let me make it clear that this piece is a review of "The Morning Show," and I am perfectly within my rights to critically comment on the show and on everyone who appeared on it, as well as the comments they made. If my comments and review are negative that is still my right. "HM" declared himself to be a flexsexual and talked about his attraction to men. He apparently used his real name. It is now part of the public record. I would suggest in the future that HM and everyone else think twice about what programs they go on, which issues they get involved in, and how they are going to be perceived by the public. I am hardly responsible if someone chooses to make public pronouncements that they later regret.

Self-Loathing on the Downlow

I just saw a short 2007 documentary called On the Downlow on LOGO. It is not to be confused with a 2004 film of the same title (about two male gang members in love) nor a TV series that looked into the same subject. NOTE: I've illustrated this post with a photo of author J. L. King, who wrote a book on the DL, being interviewed by Oprah Winfrey. King had nothing to do with this documentary to my knowledge, and I haven't read his tome as yet, although I have seen some revealing quotes from it.

I thought at first that the documentary wasn't doing much to illuminate the "downlow" lifestyle -- if that's what you want to call it -- but later on I realized that in its low-key (downlow?) way it did illustrate the attitudes that lead many men (of all races) to live on the downlow.

Producer/director Abigail Child interviewed four African-American men from Cleveland, Ohio. Most of them identified as bisexual, but of course they all just came off as gay men, some more stereotypical than others. I was surprised that these particular individuals were chosen to talk about the DL, because I'd always thought that guys on the downlow persisted in their insistence that they were "straight." None of these guys said they were straight. However, since the DL is supposed to be a "secret" lifestyle, I can imagine that guys who are actually on the DL would never participate in a film like this. Still, you did obtain some insights, unsurprising as they may have been.

It's no secret that men on the downlow -- as well as many "straight" and "bisexual" men -- do not want to be labeled gay. Some African-American men on the downlow claim that white culture is more accepting of gays than black culture. (Of course, the whole point of Gay Lib and Gay Pride is for you to accept yourself no matter how others in your particular community feel about you). Most of the men on the downlow seem to have extremely stereotypical notions about gay men. "I don't present myself as a soft guy," says one man, "as a real gay guy." Another man says that he has to deal with enough discrimination as a black man, why would he want to come out as a gay man -- pardon me -- bisexual. (Although there are many, many openly and happily gay African-American men.) A third man claims that he prefers to sleep with women because they're "cleaner than gay men" and less likely to give him AIDS. Apparently he's completely unaware that AIDS is not a "gay disease" and that heteros get it all the time.

In other words, men on the downlow are mostly homosexual men who can't deal with their internalized homophobia. The term "downlow" may be new -- but the situation certainly isn't (there are plenty of homosexuals with wives and girlfriends) -- and it certainly isn't limited to the African-American community. They can't see other men as anything other than sex objects because the thought of living an openly gay life with another man is anathema to them, not because they're basically straight or even necessarily bisexual.

Two of the four men seemed to have girlfriends -- the documentary bounces around a lot and can be confusing. One man says that for him to be with a woman she has to be, more or less, drop dead gorgeous (implying that male lovers don't necessarily have to be "tens," which pretty much indicates that he's much more attracted to men than to women -- there have been gay men who are only "attracted" (somewhat) to uncommonly beautiful women, although the women they wind up with may not be so magnificent. This guy was a 7 or 8 while his actual girlfriend or gal pal or desperately-hoping-he's-basically-hetero lady friend was about a 2 or 3. But this seems to happen a lot when gay men have wives or girlfriends.)

Filmmaker Child offers no commentary or point of view; she just lets the men -- and some of their friends and relatives -- talk. On one hand this device works well enough to help us understand them, but as a couple of them seem somewhat inarticulate and not that intelligent (and none are exactly advocates for gay life), you have to read between the lines. Some narration or opposing points of view -- maybe some comments from Out and Proud Black Men who think the "downlow" is bullshit, of which there are quite a few -- might have provided more balance and given the film more perspective -- and sent a more positive message to those who are not in the know.

But there are positive signs in the film which indicate that these four men are not typical DLers. One man comes out to his military father with some trepidation. "I mean I am his only son," he keeps saying, which becomes irritating -- he's only telling him he's attracted to men, not that he's going to throw himself out of a window. He comes out as "bisexual," but as sometimes happens, the father doesn't react much differently than if he said he was gay, and his reaction is essentially positive, if guarded. "I love you." [However, it should be noted that many people tell they're parents they're bi -- whether they really are or not -- to soften the blow, giving parents the hope that they'll opt for hetero marriage and babies and the whole conventional nine yards. No it's not "pc" to say this and I don't give a shit.]

On an even higher note, the film ends with one of the four men talking about his boyfriend, describing how he's the first person he was ever in love with and how he wants to stay with him forever and grow old together "We're gonna be rockin' on that porch," he says.

Now this guy -- no matter where he was before -- is not on the "downlow" any longer. He's gay, and you find yourself hoping that he and his lover do wind up on that porch many, many happy, proud years from now. He's quite a contrast to the pathetic "macho" guy who thinks gay men are all "unclean," has knocked up his girlfriend, and will probably be confused, conflicted, and self-hating for his entire life.

Child could not have given her film a more perfect ending.

Now This is No Surprise

Just as it was no surprise that the bi-identified Tila Tequila ultimately chose a man at the end of the idiotic reality series A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila -- you can read more about it here -- it's also no surprise that she and her chosen one, 25-year-old film student Bobby Banhart, have broken up. Even if anyone had seriously expected that Tequila and Banhart would stay together, the fact that MTV quickly announced a second season of the show should have made it clear that our Tila had not found love -- especially not with a guy.

Tequila and Banhart tell opposing stories. She says that he couldn't put up with her exhausting "work" schedule and dumped her, breaking her heart. He says "she never called me after the last show and no one would give me her number." Somehow I get the feeling that Banhart is telling the truth, but if he decided he didn't want to make a life with a wannabee lesbian who could blame him?

A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila was one of MTV's most popular shows. Straight men and lesbians (none of whom were informed ahead of time of the show's "bisexual" premise) competed for the heart of Tequila. Make no mistake -- the program had nothing to do with Gay Pride or even Bi Pride.

As H L. Mencken once put it (more or less), "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste and intelligence of the American public."

Gay-Friendly Closet Cases

OR I GET A SHOCK AT THE STONEWALL INN

Some months ago a bartender at the newly reopened Stonewall Inn in New York City informed me that although he certainly "fooled around" with men, he had a girlfriend and that was that. "We’re very happy," he told me." I know that’s not what you want to hear."

Well... no. Not from a bartender working at the Birthplace of the Modern-Day Gay Rights Movement. Since he cut off all discussion once he noticed my understandable perplexity – this was the Stonewall, after all – I never did discover if he was telling me he was bisexual or simply a gay guy who needed a "girlfriend" to show to mama and papa and the outside straight world (which happens more often than anyone realizes, even today). Judging from his conspiratorial tone as he told me about his homoerotic activities, I fear it was the latter. It was as if he were saying that men were okay for sex, but for a real relationship he had to have a woman.

[Let me make it clear that I was not cruising this guy, who was in his twenties and nice-looking but not my type at all. I've been told that he generally tells patrons he's "straight" and he did not use the term "bisexual" with me, so he's not even proudly bi, let alone gay. Maybe he doesn't want it getting back to his girlfriend that he has the hots for men as well. Now and then the gal pals of these "straight" bartenders waltz into the bar all bubbly and totally clueless.]

So much for Gay Pride.

And this in the Stonewall Inn, no less!

At least he admitted he has sex with men, which many "straight" bartenders (most gay bars in New York and elsewhere now have at least a couple), go go boys, porn stars and hustlers do not. The strange thing is we are not talking about homophobic ex-gays or people like former gay porn star and Republicans' darling Matt Sanchez, who denounce gays and the gay lifestyle with vehemence. No, this is a much stranger phenomenon. It seems that nearly forty years of Gay Rights since the Stonewall Riots has created a bizarre and unexpected by-product: Gay-friendly closet cases, men (and undoubtedly women) who work almost exclusively among gays but who insist that they are straight, often despite evidence to the contrary. Or any half-intelligent gay person’s "gaydar."

Gay Activist Wayne Besen, author of Anything But Straight, once told me [via email]: "I think every town has at least one closeted bartender or stripper that slinks around the gay bar, but just can't quite come out. It is very sad." Watching a "straight" bartender one Saturday night at a hot leather/denim bar in Chelsea intermingling with sweaty gay guys and half-naked go go boys when he could easily be waiting on "hot babes" in a second avenue singles bar makes me wonder if he actually expects anyone to think he’s totally hetero. I have seen other "straight" bar backs and bouncers coming on to men under the influence of alcohol on their nights off, as if they can’t give in to their homosexual impulses unless they’re inebriated. This is not what we meant by Gay Power. [In a 2006 study by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 9.4% of men who identified as "straight" said they had sex with men; of those 70% were married.]

Why would a straight person want to work in a gay environment? Some will drag out that ancient canard about gays being better tippers (as if there’s been some kind of scientific survey) or that they simply "like" gay people (Which kind? Drag queens? Leather Kings? Bears?) Often gullible gays accept these people as 100% straight because they figure anyone who hated being perceived as homosexual would hardly work in a gay bar or in gay porn. But the very homoeroticism of the atmosphere is what often attracts them. Their internalized homophobia, a desperate need to be seen as "macho," somehow above and superior to the crowd, is what keeps them in the closet. It’s as if they’re saying, "hey, it’s okay if you’re gay – but me? I’m not gay!" If you kindly, ever-so-gently suggest they may have at least some gay or bi leanings they react as if you’re suggesting they’re terrorists.

Let me say that when I heard the Stonewall Inn was reopening I was very excited and made sure I was there for a drink on opening day. (Yes, I was alive during the Stonewall Rebellion, but I was much too young to go to bars, thank you very much, although I have great respect for those who were there, many of whom are thankfully still with us.) I mean, the Stonewall Inn was where it all began. Yes, there was a Gay Movement even before Stonewall, with such groups as The Mattachine Society, but the movement was much more low-profile before 1969. So perhaps one can imagine how I, a man who has had a lot of Gay Pride for many decades, felt when a bartender in The Stonewall Inn virtually whispered to me that he "fooled around" with guys as if it were something to be ashamed of. The man is as clueless as his alleged girlfriend (and you can imagine how clueless I think she is. But then I think women who date bartenders in gay bars -- or gay/bi men in general -- are about on the same level of reality as women who get engaged to lifers in prison.)

The whole point of the post-Stonewall Gay Rights movement was for gays and lesbians (and genuine bisexuals) to accept their homosexual feelings with pride, to seek out same-sex relationships that would be honest and fulfilling, not to hide behind the fake girlfriend or wife-as-beard. Even today, there are countless married homosexuals cruising bars for one night quickies.

But perhaps we should interpret it as a positive sign that we now have a better class of closet queen? Instead of telling fag jokes at the coffee machine (we hope), they’re serving us drinks and introducing us to their girlfriends!

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.