Rednecks at the Gay Bar

I was at my favorite gay local watering hole about two weeks ago, when one of the patrons told me and a couple of others in my vicinity a joke.

It was the most vile racist joke I've ever heard in my life. It was not just "politically incorrect" or good-natured racial humor that everyone, black or white, could laugh at -- it's punchline was the "n" word. It is the kind of joke that debases the one who tells it, and also debases everyone who hears it. I was disgusted.

And this was in a gay bar in Greenwich Village in the 21st century!

What's going on here?

Yes, I know there have always been racist gays and homophobic blacks and so on and so on, but on the --mercifully -- rare occasions I encounter these troglodytes I still find it a bit startling. Basically this jerk was telling a redneck joke in a gay bar. His mind-set was the same as people who tell fag jokes. I made this point but I'm sure it went in one ear and out the other.

To their credit, the other people I had been conversing with -- all white -- were also appalled by the joke. The only one who laughed was a guy sitting on the other side of the "joke" teller. The two of them bonded in their thought of me as a humorless [yeah -- right!] person who couldn't take a joke. I and my friends were the assholes -- not them. Amazing. "It's all in fun," said the joke teller.

One of my friends said "If it's all in fun, then go tell that guy at the end of the bar [who happened to be African-American]. " Of course, none of us actually wanted this turd to tell the joke to anyone, but we also knew that he never would.

What creates a gay person like this? Self-hatred, of course. A well-adjusted man has no need to hate another minority group just to feel better about himself. You learn in sociology 101 that prejudice is generally the product of an inferiority complex.

Over the years I have, sadly, met gay men who had issues with Women, Blacks, Jews, and so on, although they are in the minority, let me make that clear. Generally they are not well-adjusted people, and they have issues over their sexuality. I'm sure without a doubt that the person who told the joke is in the closet, and that deep down he's ashamed to be gay. if his parents are still alive he's never told them he's homosexual [although they probably figured it out long ago.] He could probably benefit from counseling or therapy, but he'll never go get help.

He'll just tell his jokes, hoping to encounter the occasional sad stranger who's as fucked up as he is and will also find them funny.

The thing is, he's a middle-aged man who would probably resent being called an old fart. But his jokes -- which used to proliferate thirty years ago and more -- are "old fart," even redneck jokes. They don't make him seem hip or up-to-date, youthful, but very old and out of it. He actually seemed surprised by those of us who found the joke totally offensive. I hope he tries to pick up some younger man someday, tells his little jokes, and discovers just how hopelessly out of date he is. [There was a younger man in the bar that night who also found the joke completely reprehensible.]

It's shocking, shameful, that people like this still exist, but the good news is that where once many others would have joined in with the laughter, nowadays the joke teller is more often put in his place in no uncertain terms.

Party Animals

Many years ago I went to see the film version of the rock opera Tommy.

The movie was horrible. it would have been horrible even without its most offensive scene.

After Tommy's uncle (or whoever he was) sings about "fiddling" with the boy -- in other words, molesting him -- the actor playing the part picks up a copy of Gay News [or a similar gay paper -- it's been a few years] and begins reading it. Tommy's father, played by the imposing Oliver Reed, walks in and sets fire to the newspaper, wearing a look that could kill.

So there you have it in CinemaScope and technicolor: Gay man equals child molester.

Author Robert Hofler makes no mention of this scene in his book Party Animals, which is ironic considering the subject of the book is producer Allan Carr, who helped promote and market Tommy with a world premiere party in a New York subway station [where it belonged]. More ironic is that the openly and flamboyantly gay Carr tried to bring a gay aesthetic to his projects as well as a homoerotic ambiance to his parties [and orgies]. NOTE: Other projects Carr worked on in one capacity or another were Grease with John Travolta, Can't Stop the Music, the Village People singing group, the Broadway musical La Cage aux Folles [suave, borderline swishy-if-straight star Gene Barry was afraid to share an elevator with the chorus boys because he thought he might catch AIDS], and a famously disastrous Oscar telecast.

Interestingly Hofler does make note of the sad but not uncommon phenomenon that the stereotypically gay Carr was also full of extreme self-hatred, stemming in part from his body image and hard-to-hide effeminacy. Carr was someone who decided he would make the gay thing work for him without ever fully embracing his sexuality [except, of course, during sex, often with men for hire]. Hofler writes how Carr would often go out of his way to do just about anything and everything for the heterosexual men with whom he worked, but rarely did the same for his gay male friends and acquaintances. "Allan had a way of treating fellow homosexuals like mere employees and straight male friends like the brothers he never had," writes Hofler.

Which, of course, is why Carr probably wouldn't have given a shit about that scene in Tommy.

Hofler's book is quite interesting, even if the star of the book himself may not interest you all that much. Some of the negative attitudes expressed about Carr by people may have had to do with their homophobia but just as often with his glittering, often tacky, lack of substance. I never met Carr but I've met people like him. They can be fun -- until they think you've somehow crossed them, or their extreme self-hatred beneath the callow, "fabulous" exterior begins to come out through the cracks and then explodes.

Not a bad book of a certain time and place in Hollywood and New York, with a back drop of emerging gay rights and gay consciousness, as well as the terrible rise of AIDS.

And Hofler made me laugh out loud with the line: "In time matching John Travolta with a mate of the opposite sex turned into a cottage industry."

Let's Not "Thank" Rick Warren

I had very mixed emotions a while back when I read that some gay/LGBT organizations were offering praise to homophobic pastor Rick Warren.

Some months ago, in an interview on ABC, Warren [pictured] -- claiming he had gay friends [no self-respecting gay person would want Warren for a friend] -- basically confirmed that he thought homosexuality was immoral and that "decent" homosexuals should abstain from any gay relations or relationships. He said that even though he was attracted to other women at times, he "abstained" from affairs out of decency. Similarly -- to his way of thinking -- a "decent" gay person should abstain his or her entire life from having homosexual relationships! "It's all about character," he said.

In other words, it was better to be a closet case, an "ex-gay," or be in a sham relationship with a member of the opposite sex than to be Out and Proud and in a happy relationship with a member of your own sex! Those of us who are not ashamed or guilt-wracked over being gay are of low character.

Okay, I get why some LGBT activists recently applauded Warren when he spoke out against a anti-homosexual Ugandan hate bill, saying it was "extreme, unjust and unchristian toward homosexuals." I get that some gay activists feel that the more "Christians" who speak out against hate bills, the better it will be for the gay community in the long run.

But at the same time -- just look at who they're praising!!!

True, Rick Warren may not want gay people to be put to death, but he wants us to lead lives of self-denial and self-hatred -- which is more or less the same.

So he spoke out against the Ugandan hate bill on youtube. Good for him -- and big deal! It's essentially attitudes like Warren's that lead directly to the extreme measures taken against gays in other nations, and the prejudice and hatred that still exists in the good ol' USA.

So, we can say that Warren may be doing the right thing here, but praising him, acting like he's an ally?

That is just ridiculous!

This illustrates my problem with the comparative weak-tea approach of gay activism today. Can you imagine New York's militant Gay Activists Alliance praising Rick Warren? We may have said he was doing the right thing for a change, but we would never have let it pass that he himself was a homophobe of the first rank, negatively influencing millions of Americans about gay men and lesbians. It's his attitude that keeps many gay people in the closet, creates self-hatred in innumerable gay men and lesbians, and leads to suicides among gay teens, especially in the bible belt.

Praise?

Indeed!

Of Priests and Pedophiles

I confess I'm getting awfully tired of child abuse among the Catholic clergy being blamed on homosexual priests and on celibacy. Homophobic Catholics want to blame all the "fags" who somehow managed to get into the priesthood, and -- to my surprise -- there are gay activists who claim the celibacy rule is responsible for the abuse. Say what?

By this thinking, the vow of celibacy is responsible for priests molesting little boys [and on occasion little girls]. But think about it: if a priest is going to break his vow of celibacy anyway, why do it with a child? There have been plenty of cases of priests having affairs with women and other adult males -- I remember one news program did a report on a priest who'd fathered about a dozen children! -- which seems to prove that even priests will go with their instincts. A hetero priest [all two or three of them] wants sex with women; a gay priest wants sex with men ...

And a pedophile priest wants sex with children.

Because, apparently, there have been more cases of abuse among boys than girls, the gay priests have been blamed for the epidemic of abuse. But any sensible person knows that there is a big difference between a homosexual and a pedophile, and that supposedly homosexually-inclined individuals are no more likely to molest a child than their heterosexual equivalents. There have even been cases where some men have had sex with boys but have no interest in having sex with adult males. And cases where men are attracted to both boys and girls, the youth being of more importance than the gender.

I firmly believe that most of the priests doing the abuse are pedophiles first and priests second. They are attracted to the priesthood the way other child molesters are attracted to other vocations because they know they will have access to young people and will also be in a position of trust. Child molesters are sexual predators, and we all know -- or should know -- the lengths to which sexual predators will go to claim a victim. On the surface it may seem absurd that a man would become a priest just to have access to children, but sexual predators are consumed with thoughts of their prey and how they can get their hands on them. Many of them seek jobs which would place them in close proximity to the very ones they want to victimize.

In any case, these priests are not gay men [hardly Out and Proud gay men in any case]. They are pedophiles. And even if they were allowed to marry or didn't have to take a vow of celibacy, they would still spend most of their waking hours scheming how to get their hands on their victims. Even the ones who honestly -- if that's the word for it -- felt the "calling" to the priesthood did so because they knew their sexual desires were verboten and placed them outside the norm. They had no problem taking a vow of celibacy because they had no real desire either for men or women. And they probably fool themselves into thinking that their actions with children don't constitute true "sex" -- in that they're right, as molestation/rape etc are not healthy sexual acts -- so they haven't broken their vows.

Moving from pedophile priests to homosexual ones, these are men who are so full of self-hatred, so ashamed of their natural desires, that they'd rather have no sex for the rest of their lives than have sex with another man. They not only have no problem taking a vow of celibacy, but indeed hope that it will help keep them "pure" for the rest of their lives -- while they go about like capons making sympathetic noises to troubled members of the parish and doing whatever it is priests do. Including denouncing the gay lifestyle and spreading homophobia.

But when they do break their vows and have sex, it isn't with children -- it's with grown-up guys.

Labels and Identities

Some people in our community have problems with those of us who have "gay identities."

There are many, many things that make up me -- make up all of us -- as an individual, and being gay is only one of those things, but it's important to me. I don't define myself by my sexuality, but I don't pretend it doesn't exist or has absolutely no importance. Yet you can tell from the title of my blog that I have many identities and all of them are important to me. [It's amazing how some people focus in on the "Jewish" or the "Gay" and ignore everything else. Perhaps my most imporant identity is "Author."]

You often come across people who say "I don't like labels." If they're celebrities, it generally means that they're gay but don't want to say so publicly, no matter how often they've been spotted making out with a guy by Perez Hilton or his spies. It's rather comical at times. You feel like saying, "sure you don't like labels, but you do like guys, don't you?"

Non-celebrities who hate labels -- or at least the "gay" label -- often are dealing with perhaps unacknowledged issues of shame. They're gay -- they just don't want to call themselves that, or have anyone else calling them that.

Recently, on a gay message board, I came across two opposing posts on the issue. The first ended with: "Labels are dangerous. They cause us to question ourselves by forcing us to conform to perceived niches of difference, rather than an ever-changing spectrum of existence."

But the very next person posted: "Labels are only as bad as we allow them to be. We label to help us make sense of our world and our place in it.

I've never understood this terrified run from simple identification. I suspect more often than not, it has more to do with abject terror of what accepting a particular label (in particular gay or bi) means for a person's feelings of self-worth. So I can stuff my face with cock but as long as I say I'm straight I'm still normal and ok and acceptable? There's a river in Egypt full of these people. Me personally, I'd rather follow the dictum, 'Know thyself.'

And frankly, the only way labels for sexuality would not be necessary is if every single person were bisexual and even then everyone would have to be equally bisexual in the same way. I dare you to find a room full of bisexuals and get them to do that. HAhahaha!"

I which I could give this person credit for his wise remarks, but he's, unfortunately, anonymous. I love his statement: "I've never understood this terrified run from simple identification." It's called "internalized homophobia." And may I add that labeling yourself -- gay or anything else -- does not mean that you're forcing yourself to "conform to perceived niches of difference." That's just a lot of double-talk. You can be gay all your life and go through a lot of changes and broadening experiences on many levels. as it isn't all about sex.

For minority groups like ours, having a Gay [or Black or Jewish etc.] identity is generally an expression of pride, the opposite of the shame that inflicts some members of our and other communities. There are African-Americans who bleach their skin, straighten their hair, and date only white people, and others who are intensely proud of their blackness and -- while they may date or marry a non-black -- do not do so because they think non-blacks are superior. There are Jews in this country who changed their names to one less obviously Jewish [such as the filmmakers even in the days before the holocaust], which was the Jewish equivalent of going into the closet.

What's wrong with being proud of who you are?

What's wrong with having a gay identity and labeling yourself as gay?

As this is Valentine's Day, let me add that there's nothing wrong in loving [that is, not hating] yourself.

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.

Larry Craig in the Men's Room

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gay/Bisexual Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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