Schizoid Gays in a Quiet Place

A Quiet Place, an opera composed by Leonard Bernstein, was recently presented at the New York City Opera [not to be confused with the Met] where it got some surprisingly good reviews. A Quiet Place, which had very few American performances during Bernstein's lifetime, began life as a tuneful 1952 one-act entitled Trouble in Tahiti. With an engaging score and a pretty good libretto by Bernstein, Trouble told the story of the dysfunctional marriage of Sam and Dinah. It was a memorable short work, the title of which referred to a piece of "technicolor twaddle" that Dinah goes to see at the movies.

But Bernstein wasn't satisfied with Trouble; it wasn't serious enough, so -- working with librettist Stephen Wadsworth (whose personal life I know nothing of, except that he has a wife) -- Bernstein expanded his little one-act into a full-length opera entitled A Quiet Place, the title taken from one of Dinah's songs in Trouble. It made its debut in Houston in 1983. All of the music from Trouble in Tahiti was used in the new work in flashback sequences.

In the new opera, Dinah has been killed in an accident, and their little boy, Junior, is a schizophrenic. His lover, Francois, is now married to Junior's sister, Dede -- talk about making someone schizophrenic!

Now at this point I must interject that Bernstein was a married homosexual who -- like many married homosexuals do -- probably preferred to think of himself as a hip bisexual. Therefore the whole idea of Francois ditching Junior to marry his boyfriend's sister, may have just seemed like some trendy bisexual chic. In reality, it's an utterly cruel and grotesque situation, which librettist Wadsworth never really explores. I mean, talk about situations that would fuck a guy up. As I wrote in my book The Opera of the Twentieth Century, it's never made clear if Francois' falling for his sister exacerbated or actually engendered Junior's instability. It is suggested that Dede and Francois married out of their mutual love for Junior, who needs looking after, but Francois sings a [second-rate] aria reaffirming his love for and commitment to Dede. Poor Junior.

Perhaps something interesting could have been made of this, but Wadsworth's libretto is pretty lousy, being more pretentious than profound, and does little to illuminate these rather screwed-up characters [I mean, a woman who would marry her brother's boyfriend, and vice versa!], although there's a fairly moving wind-up and Bernstein's relentlessly non-melodic music [aside from the excerpts from Trouble in Tahiti] doesn't help.

What's more interesting is some of the comments Christopher Alden, who directed this latest production of A Quiet Place, made to Olivia Giovetti of Time Out New York Magazine. "There's a lot of Bernstein in many of the characters. [In Francois] there's that fantasy of bisexuality or a gay man suddenly turning straight." As for Junior, Alden says, "It seems a bit of a throwback to the past where anytime gay characters were presented, they had to be shown to be problematical people." While it might have been admirable to present some sort of gay characters in an opera some years ago, it's the Same Old Story when we see a shizoid fag and a "bisexual" man who opts to marry his lover's sister. Sheesh! No thank you, Bernstein!

A Quiet Life looks at homosexuality from the confines of the closet, where Bernstein and others like him resided for most of their lives. It doesn't present a hip look at bisexuality or "sexual fluidity" so much as to all intents and purposes it simply avoids the subject of homosexuality altogether.

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.

Some People Just Don't Get It

Boston Legal craps out.

On tonight's episode of Boston Legal -- the series finale, and not a moment too soon -- two heterosexual male characters, Denny (William Shatner) and Alan (James Spada) get married.

Anybody really feel like watching this storyline considering what happened with Proposition 8 and so on?

Boston Legal has had a few pro-gay episodes in the past, but this one -- written by the producer David E. Kelley (pictured) comes off as something cobbled together by a liberal -- who like many liberals -- just doesn't get it when it comes to gays.

Frankly I'm sick of shows and movies that try to equate the platonic love between two heterosexual men with the romantic love between two gay men. [And yes, I do understand that Kelley was in part underlining the irony that the most significant relationship these two skirt-chasing heteros had was actually with each other.] I have lots of friends -- gay and straight, male and female, but for now let's stick with gay men -- whom I love and care about very much, but I would never consider marrying them. I have experienced romantic love and passion and know that it is very different from the love of platonic friendship. Non-romantic love, especially between a parent and child, can certainly run very deep, but it is a different experience altogether from romantic passion.

On the show Alan argues before a judge and snippily debates a gay activist who, rightly, finds the idea of these two straight guys getting married to be offensive, making a complete mockery of what marriage equality -- emphasis on equality -- is all about. Alan insists that having sex is not always a deciding factor in marriage, and that many people marry individuals that they do not love in the romantic sense. The judge adds that homosexuals often marry heterosexuals in passionless relationships, and sometimes gay men marry lesbians. "You wouldn't want the government telling them they couldn't do that, would you?' she asks the activist.

Of course this sentiment completely misses the point that the whole emphasis of gay liberation (including marriage equality) is to remove the stigma and shame that is still attached to being gay for those very people who wind up in those sham "mixed" marriages. Besides, even in cases such as those -- as well as cases where one person marries another for, say, financial gain -- at least one party has some romantic feelings for the other (for instance the straight wife of a husband whom she doesn't realize is secretly homosexual). In the case of Denny and Alan, neither party feels any romantic attachment to the other. But hey, they love each other, Kelley seems to say, so they're just a gay couple without the sex.

Wrong.

To be fair, Boston Legal is all about being irreverent, and the show has been playing up the brotherly love between the two men for quite some time now. They have had sexless sleepovers, for instance. Perhaps we're supposed to see these fellows as being so cool and secure that they can get married and have no problem with it, but it's hard to forget that Denny is a Republican who in one episode referred to a character as a "faggot, a total faggot." As is often the case with Boston Legal, the whole situation is completely contrived anyway. Denny wants the younger Alan to get his money, and could simply leave it to him in a will, but even the judge observes that a marriage will give them certain tax benefits. Chuck and Larry anyone?

So this is a mockery and nothing more. Even the supposedly more liberal Alan doesn't seem to understand what he's doing wrong. The gay activist says -- and the judge agrees (although she allows the marriage to take place) -- that this will only open the door to the kinds of excesses and stupidities predicted by the religious right. [Let me make it clear that gay marriage opponents argue that if gays can get married simply because they love each other, then why can't, say, a sister and brother, or mother and son, get married as well because, after all, they love each other too. Yes, they are that stupid.]

Gay marriage equality is being compared to the fight against interracial marriage years ago. One can't imagine Alan -- or David E. Kelley -- arguing during that period that if a white and black person could marry one another then two white male friends should be able to get married, too, because, well, love is love.

Yes, some people don't marry for love. And yes, there are sexless marriages. But I can bet that the vast majority of gay couples who line up in Massachusetts and hoped to line up in California to get married did feel romantic passion for each other and that most of them had a fulfilling sex life as well.

To say that the "love" between these two silly guys Alan and Denny (they chase after women so relentlessly and indeed pathetically at times that they come off like Don Juan homosexuals, but Kelley never had the guts to go into that) is similar to the romantic love between two gay men, two lesbians, or indeed a straight man and woman, is ludicrous. Besides, after what happened in California and elsewhere, who the hell wants to see a show where two straight guys get married when millions of gay people who truly love each other can't?

When it comes to gays, some people just don't get it and probably never will.

How sad that this sometimes applies to the purportedly gay-friendly as well as to the bigots.

The "He Was Gay" Defense

There's something disturbing (on many different levels) going on in recent high-profile murder cases.

You could call it the "he was gay" defense.

That is, the defense team for an accused murderer (or murderess) suggests that the victim was gay, a closet queen, or had homosexual impulses, and that this was what led to their death. It wasn't their client who committed the murder; It must have been the proverbial gay stranger, someone they picked up, who stabbed them or bashed them to death. Why could it not have been a stranger of the opposite sex who did the deed? The implication seems to be that people who practice gay sex are somehow weirder, edgier, nastier than heterosexual people, it's that whole sick gay lifestyle. Men who have sex with other men are strange, perverted, somehow deserving of their brutal fate. Then there's the implication that closet cases are more likely than other gays to take chances with risky people.

Then there's the other side of the coin. Naturally the loved ones of the victim, as well as reporters and others, cry foul. Why, the victim isn't around to defend himself from "charges" of being gay. I find this even more obnoxious and perhaps even more homophobic. It's like being gay is the worst possible thing you can be.

The "he was gay" defense was used in two recent murder trails: the murder of Ted Ammon (pictured) at the hands of his ex-wife's lover, Danny Pelosi. And the trial of Nancy Kissel for the murder of her investment banker husband, Rob.

You've probably heard of these two cases. Nancy Kissel was the American woman in Hong Kong who poisoned her husband (who told her he wanted a divorce, thereby ending her cushy lifestyle) with a milkshake, and then left his body to decompose in a carpet. Smart, this woman was not. Her defense team made much of the fact that, according to computer experts, Rob spent several hours looking at gay porn and gay prostitute web sites not long before he died. While this doesn't necessarily make the man a closet queen (although it's certainly compelling) the defense introduced this material to make the jury feel that he was into sick, twisted things and this may have led to his death. However, they weren't able to come up with a suspect, a gay stranger or prostitute who may have poisoned him and put him in the carpet (and would he have had somebody like that come to his home? Hardly). Curiously, the toxicology report confirmed that Rob's body was full of the same prescription drugs that Nancy had recently received from doctors, all of whom would have made him sleepy and unable to defend himself from her attack.

In the case of Ammon, Danny Pelosi's defense team brought forth a man who claimed to have had sex with Ammon on the gay beach near his estate. Ammon supposedly called his girlfriend and told her he was walking near the beach and wasn't sure if it were gay or not. People have said that it was unlikely Ammon wouldn't have known about the beach's reputation. Would Ammon have mentioned that he was on this beach to his girlfriend if he was a closeted gay/bi, or was he afraid she would somehow find out about it and wanted a ready explanation? Was he testing the waters, trying to come out to her slowly and carefully?

On an episode of Dateline this past Friday (7/18/08) that went into the case, a man who had written about the murder trial for Vanity Fair was interviewed and poo poohed the idea that Ammon could have had an interest in men. "He certainly has had a long history of enjoying the company of women," he told Dateline. Which certainly doesn't mean that he didn't also enjoy the "company" of men. I still find it amazing that in this, the 21st century, there are people who don't seem to realize or recognize that many married men with children -- be they bisexuals or married homosexuals -- are fooling around with guys as well. (What made it stranger was that the Vanity Fair reporter, whatever his sexual orientation, was kind of "queeny." Does he think that because Ammon wasn't limp-wristed this means he can't possibly be gay?)

Both Ammon and Kissel may have been closeted gay/bi men, but this doesn't mean that contributed to their deaths, unless Nancy Kissel and Danny Pelosi found out about these interests and were homophobically repulsed, or felt they were deserving of death because they slept -- or wanted to sleep -- with men.

Many people have wondered what Ammon's wife Amarosa (who died of cancer) saw in Danny Pelosi, who I happen to think is one of the grossest, least attractive men on the planet. I mean, the man turns my stomach! Apparently she wanted to rub Ammon's face in the fact that she was sleeping, spending Ammon's money, with someone as dead-common and disgusting as Ammon was classy, handsome and successful.

Whether these two victims, Rob and Ted -- if they were gay -- would have ever accepted themselves and come out, we'll never know.

Their murderers took away that option forever.

Of course sometimes it's the prosecutors who use the "he's gay" bit to demonize a defendant. This happened in the case of a man who was accused of murdering his wife. She had supposedly fallen down a flight of stairs while drunk. Amazingly, this also happened to another woman in the guy's life a few years earlier. The defendant had contacted a male prostitute, who smirked in the witness box as he told of how they'd exchanged emails (but never met in the flesh). I wouldn't necessarily say it was homophobic of the prosecuting team to bring in the hustler, as sometimes married homosexuals do come to hate and resent their wives, but I've no doubt they were hoping the jury would have a negative reaction to his possible interest in men.

Just as I've no doubt that -- sadly -- many of the defendant's loved ones would think the "accusation" that he was gay was just as bad if not worse than his being accused of being a murderer.

Brokeback Mountain -- The Opera

NOTES FROM AN "ART AND CULTURE" OTTER

First, let's deal with the movie. This is what I had to say about it when I first saw it:

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (2005). Director: Ang Lee.

This is based on a novella by Annie Proulx that appeared in The New Yorker in 1997. The story deals with an awkward, stumbling, but affecting love affair between two stoic cowboys, Ennis del Mar (Heath Ledger), and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal), both of whom marry women and have families while keeping the other in his heart – and having infrequent assignations -- until a tragic conclusion ends their affair forever. The story begins in 1963, when it was much less easy for gays to accept themselves and come out, but these men, especially Ennis, still seem comparatively closeted twenty years later when it was a different story. The film works on two levels: as an examination of the stifling, hypocritical, mendacious half-life inside the closet, and a sub-text of all the emotional damage that men like Ennis and Jack do to the women who innocently love them. The performances from everyone in the cast are excellent, with Ledger particular outstanding, although he doesn't register a strong enough reaction to the devastating news he gets late in the picture. In fact, the film tries a little too hard not to be overly sentimental or manipulative. The screenwriters aren't always on target. Since both del Mar and Twist are essentially homosexual, the movie doesn't have them getting jealous of their various opposite sex involvements, but two people in love would get jealous no matter what the sex of the other lover. The movie doesn't really delve that much into the ironies of the closet [when one says “I'm no queer” after their first sexual experience together, the other replies “Me, neither,” in spite of the fact that he's just taken it up the ass.] The sexual interludes are initially devoid of tenderness, kissing, but become more romantic – but never pornographic – as the film proceeds. Ang Lee proves a better director of dramas than of the action films he's done in the past. Not necessarily a masterpiece, but certainly an interesting, absorbing, and worthwhile motion picture. However, it's hard not to notice that this film doesn't exactly detail a positive, openly gay relationship between two liberated people, which Hollywood still may not be ready for. William Schoell.

The New York City Opera Company (NYCO) -- not to be confused with the more prestigious Metropolitan Opera Company (The Met) -- commissioned composer Charles Wuorinen to work on an operatic version of the original story. Proulx may or may not work on the libretto; Wourinen, who may or may not be gay, won't start work on the project until 2009. NYCO doesn't plan to premiere the work until 2013, by which time Wuorinen will be 75. But let's remember that Richard Strauss wrote some of his greatest operas when he was older than that.

Okay. A quick aside about the relationship between gay men and opera. There is none. I happen to love opera, but few of my gay friends of any age will even go with me. I know there are other gay guys who like opera, but we're not as large in number as people seem to imagine. Just another cliche about the gay community. (Although, may I say, that since opera is a pretty classy art form, if we all were opera fans, so much the better. But we're not. Trust me on this.)

This is how it came about. Tom Hanks played a gay man in the mainstream movie Philadelphia. He played a gay man who loves opera. Lots of people went to see the movie. And somehow it came into being the idea that not only are all gay men obsessed with show tunes, but with opera as well.

(I believe my love of this type of music has little to do with my sexual orientation. Rather I was raised by two parents who went to see virtually every Broadway show that opened, and my mother and grandfather were big opera fans. I was also lucky enough to have a good family friend who was very much into the art form as well.)

So what do I think about Brokeback Mountain -- The Opera? Well, I'll try to keep an open mind, but two thoughts do come to mind.

A.) Apparently Wuorinen is an very modern, atonal composer, and I happen to prefer music from the romantic period. My favorite operatic composers are Pietro Mascagni, Giacomo Puccini, Giuseppi Verdi, Richard Wagner, Richard Strauss, and Erich Wolfgang Korngold (who slummed when he wrote some excellent scores for Hollywood movies but was essentially a composer of opera). If I felt Wuorinen had the stuff of these guys, that would be one thing, but few if any modern composers do. I have a feeling if the opera works at all it will work because of the story, not the music. I fear it will be two or three hours of blathery tuneless "arias" that no one will want to hear once, let alone twice. But I could be wrong.

B.) Here we have an opera -- one that may well get a big attendance -- not about two Out and Proud gay men who happen to suffer the torments of a homophobic society, but two closet queens. Admittedly there may seem to be more drama and poignancy in this situation. Or at least straight people and married homosexuals may think there is.

Jeez. Let's see. Just what we need. An opera about married homosexuals.

Oy vey!

Gay Pride Doings

THE BEST LAID PLANS

Okay, these are two things I don't usually do on this blog, run sexy photos like this one of these two leather guys kissing, and talk a bit about my personal life. But what the hell?

Gay Pride weekend didn't quite go off the way I intended it would, but what can you do? I think the Gay Pride March in New York is extremely important, but I can also be a little cynical about it. I wonder how many of those marching -- or parading -- go right back in the closet as soon as they get home. Still, at least it's good that they "come out" for that one day, though preferably we'd all be out 365 days a year. How else will people learn who and what we are?

Despite this cynical feeling I was going to march but a very close elderly friend of mine asked if I would accompany him to the PRIDEfest on Hudson Street instead -- the march would be too much for him. I agreed, but on the Sunday in question he didn't want to go out in the rain. Well, when you're elderly I say you've earned the right to say, fuck it, I don't wanna go and that's that! But by the time he'd come to his decision the march was nearly over.

It's too bad the PRIDEfest --due to permit hassles and so on -- had to be held the very same day as the March. The rain came and went but it was not a terribly festive event, at least when I was there. There were the usual booths selling food and other items like are featured in every other street fair. The thing that made this one different were that now and then there'd be a booth from GMHC, the New York Blade, Human Rights Campaign, and so on, and if some people from small towns were able to gain info and insight from these booths, I guess the PRIDEFest served its purpose. I saw none of the promised street entertainers but at least we were spared mimes (sorry).

So that night I was all ready, willing and able to party. I made new friends, saw old ones, and re-connected with some people I haven't seen in a while. I had a great time all told, although there were "incidents" in every bar I went to.

Down at the Dug Out at the bottom of Christopher Street I ran into a guy that I was supposed to have a date with on Friday (we'd met some weeks earlier in a bar). Unfortunately, there was some confusion and misunderstanding and it never came off. He was not too thrilled with this development -- neither was I, of course -- and I wanted to sink into the floor with guilt and slink out the back door. Still, it was odd. He said he had the use of a friend's apartment for the night and wanted me to come up. Instead of simply giving me the address and apartment number -- which, after all, would be the usual thing to do -- he told me he'd meet me on one of the four street corners nearby, this on a busy Friday night on one of the busiest intersections in Manhattan. It just seemed weird to me, and it seemed even weirder when he later told me that he did this because "I didn't know the address."

"But you told me you were calling from this friend's apartment?" I said. How could he not know the address? And there was some other stuff relating to this, none of which made much sense.

You see, I figured either he was blowing me off ("Gee, I guess we must have missed each other in the crowd") at best or at worst something else strange was going on. Was there even an apartment? Did he have the friend's permission to use it? Was I being overly paranoid? Possibly. But I decided not to go.

"I waited for 45 minutes!" he said. "I checked out every cab! What's wrong with meeting someone on a street corner -- You could go to an apartment and get jumped by four guys!"

I apologized profusely, wishing I had handled it all better, and knowing he had instantly classified me as "asshole." I mentioned a terrible thing that happened to an acquaintance of mine a few years ago. Still, I wish he had accepted some responsibility for what happened. I asked a number of people about it and everyone told me they also thought that meeting at an intersection when there was an apartment waiting seemed a strange thing to do. I had suggested to him that we might have a drink or two at a bar beforehand, but he said if it was up to him he'd rather we just get down to business. As one guy said, "it's like he didn't want to be seen with you in any bar where people knew you."

Too bad. He's probably a perfectly nice fellow, an attractive man, but all I can say is if I was as anxious as he says he was to get my hands on somebody I would have made damn sure I knew the address and the apartment number and told my date to ring the buzzer at the prescribed hour. But maybe that's just me.

Anyhoo, the next incident was at Ty's bar. My favorite place, it's generally a no-attitude bar and that's one of the things I like about it. Tonight, a few fellows brought an Eagle/Aren't I wonderful? attitude with them, these absolutely massive men brushing past everybody without even bothering to say "excuse me" as they stepped on your feet and practically knocked the drink out of your hand, not bothering to turn sideways or something so that they could walk on by without knocking into you.

Then there was the bathroom monitor, some guy I guess they hired for the night to direct the customers into which bathroom they should go. (Don't ask me why. We've never needed a bathroom monitor before.) Talk about attitude -- this guy had not a trace of friendliness about him and this in a bar where the staff is very friendly and down to earth.

To cap it all, I was cruised (I think) by a guy with a really bad pick up line: "I love my wife."

Well, then, go home to her and leave me the fuck alone. Yes, it was my umpteenth married homosexual talking about how he loved his wife (but was probably not in love with her) but absolutely hungered for a man. Conversationally, I asked if he might be bisexual, and of course he seized upon this, but we both knew he was homo, not bi, and that whenever he has sex outside of wedlock it's with a man. (You see, it sounds much better to say you're a "hip" swingin' bisexual than a pathetic old-fashioned closet queen.)

"I love my wife," he repeated. "What do you want me to do?"

I wanted to say, just leave me alone, that's what you can do, but before I could tell him I didn't want him to do a damn thing but go, he disappeared into the crowd, which is what married homosexuals always do when they meet someone Out and Proud who are in no mood for their bullshit. He wasn't celebrating Gay pride by coming out or getting past his shame over being homosexual, he just wanted to get laid and go home and lie some more to his wife.

Up at Boots and Saddle near 7th avenue, there was a lively, affectionate crowd. It's becoming a fun place again. Then suddenly I turn my head and find myself staring into the face of The Malevolent Munchkin of Christopher Street. How ironic to find him there on Gay Pride Sunday. Apparently he was working at some place across the street and was on a break or something. The last time we faced each other he was trying -- unsuccessfully -- to throw me out of the bar (he no longer works there) because I supposedly said something he didn't like. (Imagine, bartenders who want to monitor your conversation and insist you leave because they don't like what you're saying! And no, it wasn't because I had too much to drink, because you can practically be lying on the floor at Boots and they'll serve you.)

Mercifully, the munchkin took one look at me and went outside to chat with one of his former co-workers, now the manager. I used to be fond of the munchkin, but when someone I'm nice to treats me like shit I write them off at least until they apologize.

Munchkins! Married Homosexuals! Angry Intersectionists! Big Rude Guys with Attitude "straight" from the Eagle!

You never know what or who you'll run into on Gay Pride Sunday.

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.

Cruise Mind-Control

I DON'T KNOW IF TOM CRUISE IS GAY BUT HE SURE IS NUTS!

I don't know anything about Tom Cruise's sexual orientation, and I couldn't care less. I've met more than one person who claims they saw him at the hustler bar Rounds in his pre-stardom days, but it's never been substantiated, and it could easily have been someone who only resembled Cruise. Who knows?

So along comes Andrew Morton's book Tom Cruise: The Unauthorized Biography. The first few chapters are, frankly, kind of dull. Like I say, I don't know if Cruise is gay or not, but Morton spends too many pages trying to prove he isn't. He quotes one old girlfriend saying she can't understand the rumors because, like, she and Tom screwed in his car years ago so how can he be gay, and that sort of thing. Duh!

Jeez, how many Jim McGreevey scandals will it take before people realize that sexual activity with the opposite sex -- even having a wife and children a la McGreevey -- does not preclude gayness or a bisexual lifestyle. Again, I ain't saying Cruise is gay, just that the fact that he may have screwed a few women and has at least one biological kid doesn't mean much. Last year The Advocate ran a story about a military man who was married for twenty years and had five biological children --and, yes, he was gay. Among my friends and acquaintances I number several gay (at at least homosexual) men who were either married with children in the past or still are.

Whatever his orientation, Cruise is definitely homophobic. Lots of actors have to deal with gay rumors, but most of them don't sue over it at the drop of a hat. They figure it goes with the territory, they may not be gay but being gay isn't so awful, they have gay friends or relatives and support gay rights -- it's no big deal. Cruise doesn't realize that all his law suits, instead of beating out brush fires, only inflame them. People wonder: what's all the fuss about? Talking about one suit when his adopted kids were about one or two years old, he whined to Barbara Walters (about the gay rumors) "I mean, I have children."No, he wasn't saying that that proved he was straight (or was he?), he was saying his children, one or two years old, shouldn't have to hear that being said about their old man. As if they would have given a damn at that age! Whenever Cruise sues over alleged inferences that he's gay, the press releases always include something about how "he doesn't care what lifestyle people lead" and all that shit, but I'm certain that's his lawyers trying to do damage control. Cruise does care about your "lifestyle," especially if you're not a scientologist like he is.

As for scientology, it's all well and good to say that most religions are a bit dopey, weird, and homophobic (I write this as the pope invades Manhattan), but the scientologists are even worse than the fundamentalists. In the scientology "religion," a person must cut off all ties with other family members who don't also embrace the "faith," and scientologists mercilessly hound and harass ex-members who speak out publicly against the group. Many of their activities, according to Morton, are downright criminal. Members of the cult -- and it is a cult, nothing more or less -- believe that founder L. Ron Hubbard will come back to life (and Earth) and help them take over the world. Hubbard believed homosexuality was a disease and that homosexuals should be quietly "disposed" of.

They are total nut cases. And Tom Cruise is a fervent scientologist.

Tom Cruise is a nut job.

Frankly, I hope he's not gay.

Morton's book is a good, eye-opening, even frightening read. It examines the strange relationship between Cruise and scientology head David Miscavige, another certified weirdo.

Everybody should know what scientology is up to. Because they're strange, they're homophobic, they're crazy, and they're out to control the world.

No shit.

Read this book or any other that's been written about the cult. Most journalists don't ask Cruise the tough questions about scientology and their homophobic attitudes because Cruise won't do an interview if such questions come up. It's a wall of silence. If somebody wants Cruise on their TV show or magazine cover they have to put up with these demands.

As for me, I have no great desire to see a Tom Cruise movie, but if I do I'll get it for free from the library.

Cruise and his cultists aren't going to get any moola from this gay guy!

Silent Partner

NOTES ON A DISCARDED WIFE or DINA MATOS MCGREEVEY'S SIDE OF IT

I have already recorded my (mostly negative) reactions to Jim McGreevey's book The Confession on this blog. Now I'll relate my reactions to his spouse's tome, Silent Partner, as well as the recent "news" story involving McGreevey's aide Teddy Pedersen and the alleged threesomes he had with the couple.

First of all, as I've said before, I have always been sympathetic to women who inadvertently marry homosexual men and whose lives are devastated when those men finally come out of the closet. Some of those men can't deal with being gay and get married in a more or less "honest" attempt to be straight. Others, like McGreevey, pretty much know that they're homosexual but get married because they can't give up heterosexual privileges, and feel that being perceived as straight will take them further in life -- and in politics. I agree with DMM (Dina Matos McGreevey) that her husband -- certainly with his second marriage to Dina and perhaps his first as well -- was the latter kind of homosexual male. I have zero sympathy for him. Sure, he may have had religious and family pressures, but so do other gay men who still manage to become Out and Proud. Many men who are older than McGreevey came out, paid their dues, while McGreevey blithely ignored the Gay Rights movement in the name of ambition. Women like DMM have to realize that they did not marry a gay man (not if you use the term "gay" to describe someone who's Out and Proud, as I do); she married a sneaky, self-hating, Larry Craig-style homosexual, a different animal entirely.

[Another clue: Homo men in denial generally wind up with girlfriends or wives who seem to fit a certain stereotype, a category that DMM and McGreevey's first wife do not belong to. These other women are not as attractive as their husbands, are frequently overweight, are not very sexy, and often have more money than the husband or boyfriend. I have seen this pattern so often over the years that friends and I have joked that their must be a factory that spits out Gay Guys' Girlfriends! However, as I say, neither DMM nor McGreevey's first wife, both of whom are very attractive women, fit this pattern. They are, in a sense, decorative trophy wives for the well-dressed homosexual politician/executive who needs to project a certain image. Needless to say, DMM --and undoubtedly his first wife as well -- is an intelligent women of accomplishment and deserved a lot better.)

Except for one short instance, DMM sort of ignores the whole subject of homosexuality. Like many a straight democrat (including Obama and Clinton), she supports gay domestic partnerships but thinks that "marriage is a sacrament reserved for a union between a man and a woman." (That alone may make many people lose sympathy for her and I confess that it doesn't thrill me.)

Silent Partner: A Memoir of My Marriage is compelling, readable, and well-written. Oddly, I enjoyed it more than I did McGreevey's memoir. DMM clearly and concisely explains her point of view. However much you may want to take what she says with a grain of salt -- how could she help but be embittered? -- her portrait of McGreevey is not a pleasant one. DMM only found out that McGreevey was going to come out as "a Gay American" when she was handed a copy of his speech not long before the event itself. There was no discussion beforehand and, according to her, McGreevey coldly gave her exact instructions on what to say and do during a press conference that must have been unbelievably humiliating to her. She writes that after McGreevey told her about Golan Cipel's attempted blackmail -- and even after the press conference -- he hardly dealt with her at all (and only gave her a half-hearted apology weeks later) perhaps out of embarrassment.

DMM writes that when their baby was due at any moment, McGreevey flew to Las Vegas to be with his lover Golan Cipel. "Lust," she writes, "it seemed, trumped everything else." Dina misses the point that it wasn't just lust that had McGreevey neglecting his wife to fly to his lover, it was romance. Generally, married homosexuals (who are bisexual in the technical sense but are innately homosexual) such as McGreevey, take huge risks or come out once they finally develop emotional feelings for another male. This may have helped McGreevey begin to develop some kind of gay identity; maybe not. [In any case he only "came out" -- after he and Cipel were no longer together -- due to the blackmail. Otherwise, he might still be in the closet and using DMM as a beard.]

There are always two ways of looking at situations like this. For the gay community, a person's coming out and accepting themselves is a cause for celebration. Unfortunately, for the discarded wife or husband, it's the exact opposite. Of course, many straights see a spouse's coming out as some sort of tragedy -- a sentiment I always find rather obnoxious, although I understand it -- and this attitude is certainly intensified if a person is homophobic.

While I wouldn't quite describe her as "gay-friendly" necessarily -- maybe because she simply knows so little about the subject, ironically -- DMM doesn't indulge in gay-bashing in her book. Admirably, she acknowledges her husband's contributions while rightly condemning his utter stupidity in giving his boyfriend a post -- related to national security no less -- that he was not at all qualified for and which could have had serious consequences. However much McGreevey may have wanted to come out and declare his love for Cipel deep down, he certainly went about it in the wrong way. As I've said before, McGreevey is no gay hero and should not be seen that way by anyone.

Recently one of McGreevey's former male aides, Teddy Pedersen, has claimed that he had threesomes with both Jim and his wife, and that Dina had to know all about her husband's homosexuality. However, he also states that his sexual interactions were strictly with Dina, and that at the time of these alleged incidents he didn't know if McGreevey were gay or not. So if he didn't know, why does he think that Dina did? The couple may have been swingers -- although I tend to doubt it -- but unless McGreevey had actual sex with this aide right in front of Dina, how would she know? There are straight guys who like to watch their wives have sex with other men. Somehow I can't see McGreevey bothering with this, however. [NOTE: DMM has denied the threesomes story, saying it was fabricated by McGreevey and Pedersen, who is a good friend of the former governor's. Jim McGreevey says that the stories are true. As of this posting, the McGreevey's are still locked in a bitter divorce battle and scurrilous charges will undoubtedly go back and forth. McGreevey wants people to believe DMM knew he was homo all the time; I don't think such was the case.]

Unless they marry men whom they already know have an attraction to other men, be they gay, bi, or even straight-identified, women generally don't know that their husbands are gay. In fact, I believe DMM when she writes that she actually thought her love rival was McGreevey's first wife. McGreevey even went so far as to throw a party for the woman, without inviting Dina! He told Dina that his ex-wife hadn't been in the states for a while and he wanted her old friends to have a chance to see her. Sounds somewhat reasonable, but it's also another in a long line of McGreevey's utterly thoughtless actions in regards to his second wife. Dina only found out about the party from somebody else.

According to DMM, McGreevey lied in his book when he claimed that their daughter was living with him and his partner. She writes that she found much support at the Straight Spouse Network. [I'm not at all surprised that such an organization exists, but saddened that even in the 21st century we've got this kind of shit going on.] The Straight Spouse Network is pro-gay and, unlike DMM, even supports gay marriage. The theory is that these kinds of hurtful sham marriages, such as the McGreevey's, do not help anyone, and might become a thing of the past with increased (self)acceptance of homosexuality as well as an acceptance of gay marriage equality. The SSN is also against conversion and religious "therapy" as practiced by the ex-gay movement. Good for them!

I suppose some may be surprised that I, a gay man and activist who always rejoices when someone comes out of the closet, seem to support DMM more than Jim McGreevey. I think I've explained myself, but to reiterate: McGreevey only came out because he was forced to, and he treated his wife miserably. Now that he's out of the closet he may or may not become a nicer person, but he and I are not of the same species. I paid my dues -- he was just a craven user and adulterer. I came out in my twenties, and I have never used women as beards, although I had enough of a hetero component in my make up to do so had I chosen.

Jim McGreevey has a new man in his life. Hopefully Dina will have a new man in her life, too, in the near future. Perhaps one day when she's in a happy marriage, she'll change her attitude toward marriages for well-adjusted gay people, getting past her religious intolerance and negative experiences with a self-hating closet case.

Worst GLBT Blog?

Okay, there may be worse blogs than this one I ran across today, but I haven't come across them yet. I was searching for forums strictly for gay men (or gay men and lesbians) -- as opposed to GLBT forums -- and came across something called "about.com" which had forums for gays, bi's and the like. I was curious -- "bi-curious?" -- when I saw a link about the "best bisexual blogs." Now what would this be, I wondered. [Let me make it clear that I'm gay, not bisexual; and I find the notion that every gay man who might once upon a time have had relations with the opposite sex is actually bi to be not only stupid but downright homopobic.] Jeez, if what I saw when I clicked the link were the best bi blogs, I really feel sorry for bisexuals. Generally they were about men who had been -- or still were -- married to women but also had sex with men (formerly we used to call these guys "married homosexuals"). I've seen quite a few blogs on this theme, but generally the men identify as gay, being bi only in the technical sense. This one blog -- One Life, Take Two -- concerned the life of a self-described bisexual and "pervert" (whatever that means) whose wife sent him packing. I just can't figure out why the powers-that-be at about.com (whatever that is) thought that this was one of the "top bi blogs" and would help people understand the bi lifestyle better. The blog consists of nothing but photos of sexy, scantily clad females (not a guy in sight) and the only halfway meaty post I could find had the blogger quoting a female friend about what a hot time she had when she went to bed with the guy. I mean, is this pathetic or what? I've heard of testimonials, but this is ridiculous. Is it just me or is a guy pretty much a total loser if he has to post what is probably a made-up story written from the pov of one of his female lovers just to prove how hot he is in bed? I mean, what exactly is "bisexual" about this blog -- it seems more or less straight to me, even with the alleged "bisexual" tag. It isn't well-written, doesn't illuminate the "bi lifestyle" in any manner whatsoever, and doesn't seem in the least "GLBT." So what's up?

Don't moderators, administrators, whatever you call them, even bother to read the blogs they link to?

I mean, this is a joke, right?

McGreevey's Confession

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

I finally got around to reading his book.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A homo who has sex with his wife every day -- WOW!

A PERSONAL AD TO AVOID

Okay, I saw a really funny personal ad on a gay friendship/sex site the other day.

First of all I have to say the guy who placed the ad and photos was really pissed. He was angry at some of the responses he got and had removed his profile before some people told him he should replace it and forget about the negative responders.

You see, the trouble is the guy is married. "Remember, I have sex with my wife every day!" he tells all interested parties who chance to look at his profile. He identifies as bisexual.

Gee -- just what you want to read when you're cruising a gay sex and friendship site: I have sex with my wife every day. I mean, is that a turn-on to the average gay guy (out and proud or not) or is it?

Then what the hell are you doing here? some of the other guys on the site must have wondered.

Now some bi-identified individuals will tell you that it's only a stereotype that bisexuals have
to have sex with both men and women. If that's the case, this guy is very stereotypical or else he's not "bisexual" -- but a --- say it all together, boys and girls - - married homosexual!

His wife may insist they have sex every day (especially if she's paying all the bills -- makes you wonder) but that doesn't mean he wants to have sex with his wife, or that he prefers it over having sex with men.

Maybe he's -- like -- gay (or at least -- gasp! -- homosexual).

Gay men often come out after a deep internal and personal struggle, whether that "coming out" is to family, friends, the world, or merely a private acknowledgement and acceptance of their sexual orientation. It is not a joke or something to take lightly. It is something that matters to us. Why do married homosexuals and mostly phony bisexuals not understand how offensive their attitudes and utter lack of Gay Pride can be? (I've tried to make some of them understand and believe me, it's hopeless.) Why do they not understand that most gay men do not really want to help them commit adultery or wind up becoming some closeted guy's male mistress?

This guy says his wife knows that he is bisexual and has even fooled around with him and his "date." Sure. Even if she does know, I doubt if she's all that thrilled with his homoerotic carryings-on. Sure they could be "swingers," maybe the wife has convinced herself that hubby will never leave her for a man (unless he has more money, of course), that it's all just good plain bisexual fun.

But somehow I think the wife doesn't really know the truth and that this is not going to be one of the great or long-lasting marriages.

I'd provide a link in case anybody is just dying to date a guy who has sex with his wife every day but somehow I don't think that many people would be interested.

Guys, I admire honesty and full disclosure. But if you want to get laid -- don't mention the wife!

Better yet -- come out already!

On the other hand:

I suppose maybe this guy should be given credit for at least being honest about his sexual status and marital situation, especially when he knows he might get a lot of flack for it. I'm sure that he is not the only married bi/homosexual who puts his profile on gay sex/date web sites -- and most if not all of them calculatedly neglect to mention it [admittedly some totally gay guys may neglect to mention boyfriends]. I've no doubt that on most of these sites there will probably be many guys who have wives or girlfriends or who are bi or closeted or whatever and who could never be (for a variety of reasons) a serious candidate for a long-term loving same-sex relationship. Of course this may not matter to some guys who are just looking for sex, but other guys would like to know.

Married Homosexuals

I was at a friend's birthday party a couple of weeks ago and one of his old college roommates was there. He talked not so much about his wife -- who was not present -- but a lot about his daughters, whom he seemed genuinely proud of. He seemed to be a nice, rather attractive fellow in his fifties -- and as gay as a goose.

Yes, I know, if gay guys can be very masculine, straight guys can be kind of "girly," I suppose. Still, something told me that this guy was essentially -- well I really can't say "gay" because he's not exactly out and proud -- but I can say homosexual. Since he has children which I assume are his own one could get technical and call him "bisexual," but I don't think that was the case. I felt sorry for him, depressed by him, and irritated by him all at the same time.

I have met a lot of married homosexuals (as opposed to married gays or gay couples who are married). I would say that one in four men that I meet and have met in gay bars have either a wife, girlfriend, or fiancee. I'm not talking about so-called "straight" guys but guys who are actively cruising for sex partners.

Now the politically correct view of bisexuality says that bi's do not need to have sex with both sexes, only that they can have sex or fall in love with either a man or a woman. Which is -- if we accept this -- why I see these guys with wifes and kids who cruise gay bars as being married homos and not bi's. Presumably a bisexual man who's fallen in love with a woman can be satisfied by her alone (unless monogamy is simply not natural for him, which is true of some gays, straights, and bi's), but if he is driven to have sex with men, then it's probably because his homosexual impulses are stronger than any attraction he has for his wife. He is not "bi" -- he is gay (or would be if he ever came out).

Cornell University did a study of married homosexual men (there are married lesbians as well, of course) and found that they all had serious self-esteem issues stemming from childhood which made it impossible for them to "take on" society, as it were, by being openly gay and equally impossible for them to fully accept their sexual orientation. Sad.

Yes, this is still going on all these years after Stonewall.

In my twenties and later I would occasionally wind up with a man who turned out to be married. There would be this picture of the wife and kids in the bedroom, and the guy was almost always a bit arrogant, conspiratorial almost, about who he really was and what he really wanted. ["Yeah I'm gay, too." Well ... ] Gay Pride did not enter into these guys' way of thinking. They were either suffering so much internalized homophobia that only the sex urge got them out into the gay bar -- where they'd look right or left before exiting or entering -- or else they felt the wife and kids routine would get them farther in their chosen career. They weren't "conflicted;" they knew they were homo -- they just didn't care about using a woman as a beard. A typical example of this kind of person is Jim McGreevey. [Let me make it clear that I've never slept with Jim McGreevey!]

I don't recall if I'd give them my Gay Lib rap. Probably not. It seemed too hopeless and they wouldn't listen. I did not like helping someone commit adultery, although I could have argued that if it wasn't me it would have been someone else. Then there was the night I slept with a guy who in the middle of sex shouted out "Yes! Yes! It's men! Men! Yes, yes, yes! Men!" I thought to myself, "yes, men are great --I'm pretty great (my egotistical twenties)-- but what's up with this guy?" What was up is that I later found out that he was just about to get married. [Don't know if that wedding ever took place or not. It probably did. Maybe I wasn't that great.]

I don't feel sorry for former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey. He came out of the closet because of circumstances, not because he'd suddenly developed a conscience and a sense of gay pride. He treated his wife like crap, and I'm of two minds about whether or not she knew he was homo (let's not call him gay at that point). Some women do feel a man can "change," especially if she sees him as being bisexual. But it's just as likely that, like many other wives, Mrs. McGreevey hadn't an inkling. Understandably hurt and bitter, she's bound to get tacky and homophobic in her tell-all book, so what exactly has Mcgreevey done for us all? Nothing but started a round of stupid, stereotyping jokes. Yes, there he is -- smug jackass Jay Leno, who hasn't got a clue about any of this, laughing at the very notion of any woman not knowing that her husband was gay.

Yet many of them don't.

I have met other, more positive "married homosexuals" but this was after a sense of pride [or at least a deperate need to be true to themselves] brought them out of the closet. They were no longer married homosexuals, but gay men. Some remained friendly with their ex-wives; some did not. Some wives came to accept and understand --- bless 'em -- some did not. Most of these guys were genuinely conflicted; they did not neccesarily view their wives as beards. Some of them may have been bisexuals who ultimately realized that they leaned strongly in the gay direction. Whatever the case, whatever the initial pain and disillusionment for their families, they were all the better for it.

So there I was at this party, and the activist in me wanted so badly to say something to this poor married homosexual, but the only time I got him alone we talked about Edgar Allan Poe.
(Wouldn't it have been funny if instead of Poe we had talked about Oscar Wilde?! Talk about openings!)

I settled for giving the fellow a big wink as I walked out the door. I'm convinced I'm going to run into him at the Eagle some night. [Okay, maybe not the Eagle. Maybe Marie's Crisis -- if I ever went there. Besides, nowadays he'd probably be there with his wife!]

Things seem to go in cycles. I'm running into a lot of "married homosexuals" in gay bars these days as I did years ago. Gay pride has never taken such a beating. So many guys want to have sex with other men -- they just don't want to be "gay." Occasionally I get cruised by one of these guys.

Curiously, they're almost always bottoms.