Gay Flirtation

A cousin of mine, a straight man, has worked on the railroad for decades. About ten years ago, he had to get glasses and, because of the nature of his work, had to get a glasses-necklace to make it easier to switch them off and on. When he picked out a holder, the store had a black one and a rainbow one. My cousin, bless his heart, is not the most aware guy. He thought "oh, these are snazzy" and bought the rainbow ones! He wore this rainbow glasses-necklace every day while working the railroad. He noticed, from then on, that men were honking at him and yelling "nice ass" at him much more often. Not one to turn away flattery, my cousin thought he must be lookin' pretty good! Finally, a coworker enlightened him that a rainbow is LGBTQ Pridewear - he was rather disappointed that the rainbow caught these guys' attention more than his ass.

His ass, though, had not changed. Only when he wore this rainbow glasses-necklace, not knowing what it signified, did men catcall him. The fact that he was perceived as gay brought on this attention.

There has been a theory for decades that chauvinistic straight men are homophobic because they fear that gay men will mistreat them, just like how they mistreat women. Many homophobic men will actually admit that's why they're homophobic (sometimes with pride).

Yes, there are predatory gay people and, yes, my cousin's situation is only one person's. However, his story implies that the fear of these homophobes is unfounded. Many gay men won't catcall straight men, either out of fear of retribution or because it would be pointless.

While I'd like to say that a gay man wouldn't hit on a homophobic man, the fact that women date chauvinistic men proves that such logic doesn't apply to reality.

Masculine to Masculine

When people see me with a bioguy lover, the few who say something will say one of two things:

1) that I've turned straight

2) we might be two gay guys

The main difference between those groups is that 1 sees sex and 2 sees gender expression. Group 1 perceives "opposite sexes" (and don't know that phrase makes no sense) and expects certain behaviors - like I secretly loathe my lover and just want him to buy me things. They also, usually, can't resolve my queerness with my "heterosexuality;" apparently I must choose one or the other.

What Group 1 can't see but Group 2 can is that the people to whom I'm attracted are usually masculine and that I'm rather masculine. In addition to just basic attraction, I relate more to masculine people. One thing that I've noticed recently is that most of the guys I get along with best have only brothers. Guys with sisters tend to be more protective of me rather than challenging, and I hate being protected.
Anyway, Group 2 is a bit closer to reality. They see gender expression, which is a facet of an individual. Biological sex has no inherent meaning or value, therefore judging a relationship on it ignores the true value of the people involved.

There are some queer people who are in Group 1, which is very disappointing. The queer community has been fighting for decades to be accepted for/despite "same sex" relationships. And now that I have "opposite sex" lovers, some queer people are giving me the same shit they've been given. It's frustrating! And a few can't/won't see that we're in the same predicament!

What those poor misguided queers and Group 1 see are "opposite sexes" and privilege. Yes, there are L.U.G.s (Lesbian Until Graduation) who give up their queerdom to live a "normal" life of straight privilege. That is not me! The people of Group 1 who assume my hatred of my lovers expect me to be like all the breeder women who'd rather be in a miserable relationship than contentedly single. And they do so because they get privileges by being in relationships with breeder men.
And I don't even want a relationship!

Thoughts on Sex Drive and Mono/Polyamory

I was thinking about the stereotype of gay men who have open relationships. It's a stereotype because it's usually true. There's this idea that men have a higher sex drive and a lower value on codependence, so two men together would mess around with others. This is usually the case in reality.
But what does that mean about straight men? That they're somehow supposed to rein it in because women supposedly have a lower sex drive and a higher value on codependence? That sounds like a bum deal to me.

A lot of women don't have a lower sex drive until they're on The Pill. Granted, The Pill doesn't have the same effect on all women; but you can't deny the fact that a lot of women take it IN ORDER TO lower their libido (alright you can deny this if you didn't know already). They wouldn't do that if they didn't have a high libido, right?

Now that I've been living it up poly and seen how normal people - and some abnormal people! - can't wrap their minds around this lifestyle and I've been studying human sexuality and heard so many women bitching about their boyfriends wanting sex more than them (because they were on The Pill IN ORDER TO want less sex), I've got this idea that women are socially pressured to idealize monogamy more than men. Not a conspiracy, just that it's a cultural standard that most people don't usually question. Here are all these women who fight their own bodies in order to maintain monogamy. Economic property and jealousy are really the only things that keep us valuing monogamy, there's nothing biological to drive us to monogamy. And all these people think that I'm insane to have two lovers who know about each other, and that I keep dating others.

What really shocks people is that both of my lovers know that each other exists, that they know that I go on dates with other people as well, and that my lovers are free to date others too. The open honesty is what shocks people. We all agree that it would be cheating to keep a new sexual partner secret; open honesty makes safe sex safer. But people are shocked and confused that everybody involved knows about everybody else.
What these confused people don't realize is this: if I kept my lovers secret, people wouldn't be confused. Whether or not they approve, cheating makes sense to people. Cheating implies a value on monogamy, at least the appearance of it. My libido would be absolved (until someone recommends The Pill to lower it...) through the facade of monogamy.

I wonder how people would act were I a man, though.

A New Trend

Firstly: http://thoughtsonblank.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/i-am-trans-i-just-dont-try-very-hard/

And then my real post:

Either I've struck gold or there's a new trend - I'm choosing to believe it's a new trend - since masculine/androgynous chicks are a hot commodity.

When I was in middle school, high school and college (an all-women college!!), there were many many girls who felt like they had to choose between male attention and their own "masculine" interests. "I love math, but I want to get a boyfriend," or "I always wanted to learn woodworking, but I got married." AAAAHHH SO STUPID!!! And now, particularly when I'm at work, those kinds of women can't have simple conversations with their boyfriends/fiances/husbands.

Clearly, I didn't give up my interests in order to snag a man, even before I came out of the closet. And that makes me really attractive to a lot of straight men now, which I NEVER expected. Knowing sci-fi, carrying a pocketknife, and having welding experience are not only things I enjoy but they also are apparently pretty sexy. This means that, at least at work, I converse with straight guys while their women get very jealous of me. But because they abandoned their interests in order to get a man, all they can contribute is "look, honey, Bristol Palin is on the cover of People magazine!"

At first I thought that I'm just really lucky, but then I talked with a flaming friend who said that most straight guys, regardless of social group, are into "bi girls" now. Whether it's Jersey Shore types into girls making out with each other or nerds into masculine/androgynous women, we're where it's at now!

My point is...
fuck it
READ A BOOK, PEOPLE!!!! ....NOT ROMANCE!!

Homophobia, from Glee to Uganda

In a recent episode of Glee (if you're not a fan of the show, plow on anyway, this reference is brief), a lumbering jock bullied Kurt, the only openly gay character in the show. When Kurt confronted him in private, the bully kissed him and ran off. Chances are that the message of this episode isn't new to you: most violent homophobes are afraid of their own gayness and lash out to keep others from suspecting them. We've all seen this happen in politicians, religious leaders, and probably the homophobes in your own life.

Individual homophobes are usually pretty easy to figure out, particularly if you're of the school of thought that most people are at least a little bisexual/pansexual. And when a small group of homophobes band together, they're still rather transparent. Terrifying and even more difficult to turn over to the fabulous side, but transparent. And at least two of the people in the group probably have a steamy history anyway.

But then there are entire populations. Episcopalian bishop Gene Robinson is retiring, the stress of all the constant death threats on his and his family's lives has become unbearable. I can't blame him. A message or two is alerting but not hard to deal with, but thousands? Maybe all those individuals alone are lashing out because of what they fear in themselves, but they, together, have made a horrifying force. How can anyone tolerate that?

Uganda is among the countries that consider homosexuality a capitol offense and a Ugandan newspaper recently released information of a hundred gay people. Violent homophobia on a national scale, gay genocide. I had the misfortune to see a video of a Ugandan “professor of homosexuality” lecture. The basic anatomy, stuff that you can check on your own body, that he taught was way off. Students, journalists and reporters still ate it up. Hatred on a national level involves poverty, miseducation, fear and propaganda.

From an individual to an entire nation, homophobia is still strong. Many people have claimed that, due to the recent increase in violence (or it's just getting reported more), homophobia is in its death throes. There is little comfort in that thought when a bishop must wear a bulletproof best beneath his consecration vestments. I wish I could come up with some kind of solution to homophobia, on any scale, but it's beyond me. We must, above all, though, accept our differences and work together.

I'm too busy being FABULOUS!!

What's that? You disagree with my "lifestyle choice"? Oh and you voted for candidates who want to restrict gay and transgender rights? ...No, I won't respect your opinion!

See, queerdom doesn't actually hurt anyone. It doesn't cause harm, it doesn't restrict anyone's freedoms, and it makes the world a more fabulous place. The root of my "same-sex attraction" (which is all sorts of wrong) is none of your business, but I wouldn't change it if I had the opportunity.

Your "opinion" disrespects people who have done no ill. Oh, yeah, it's so great that you haven't ACTUALLY bullied anyone...you enable it. Anti-bullying legislation, employment and housing laws don't block your freedom to your opinion, they protect people from the destruction you allow. When you vote for candidates who want to remove that protections, you bring about more pain than anyone has just by being queer.

No, this isn't political and this isn't religious. This is cruelty.

Gay Identity

I've been thinking a lot lately about gay/bi identity. In growing circles, especially upper-middle, post-mainline-Protestant/liberal-Catholic, semi-liberal ones, there is no gay identity. There's no need to come out, you can bring home anyone (provided they're in somewhat the same parameters as you) and there won't be an issue. In these safe, white-bread circles, there's no need for queer activism because homophobia is not known...except for the state/federal level.

The safety and acceptance is wonderful, but there is no gay/bi identity. I've known a small handful of people in situations like these - one of them took me a few months to wrap my mind around - and they have a really ard time relating to the queer community because they lack or even decline the identity. The thing with these social groups is that everyone is so "straight-acting"; gender variance is Other.

These groups are a lot like the HRC: the safety and acceptance are exclusive no matter how much they pretty it up. They don't see homosexuality and bisexuality as gender-related issues (Riki Wilchins says the exact opposite. I think it depends on the situation) so, if you step outside the liberal-by-comparison gender roles, that welcome is withdrawn. Queerness is held at arm's length or further, nonconfrontational gayness and bi-ness are fine. This is where the gay and bi identities wear away to no identity and leave gender-variant people out in the cold.

The thing is, the government, powerful religious groups, renters, employers, schools, etc. and violent people in general equate all non-breeders with each other no matter how "straight-acting you are." They care about the doing, not the being. The less gender-variant you are, granted, the less likely you'll experience discrimination and harassment. On a government level, though, we're all fucked.

Unfortunately, for a lot ofp eople and institutions, gay/bi identity exists because we are oppressed. Without oppression, our actions and behavior would be considered "normal" so the safety, symbols, empowerment, etc. would not be considered necessary. I honestly don't believe that I would have Pride or even the identity had I come into an accepting environment - it just wouldn't occur to me. I do love my Pride and queer identity!! Not because I'm oppressed but because I love the community, culture, freedom, etc.

Take away the oppression, discrimination, harassment, raised eyebrows, closet, etc. and gayness/bi-ness becomes normal. When it's normal, there's no identity. This is a long loooonnnng way away...but it may happen. I hope that Pride won't wear away with it.

"A House Homo"

Before I post about Florida...

Yesterday, Ricky Martin came out. DUH! Some argue that this isn't a "brave" move for him since he's no longer relevant and it's somewhat safer for celebrities (particularly pop starts) to come out now. I see where they're coming from and the queer community ten years ago sure could have used him. But I'm not him, I don't know his situation and, obviously, I'm not Latino - I can't fully relate. This situation reminds me of Lance Bass' outing and led me to wonder...in future books that mention N SYNC, Ricky Martin and other late 90's pop music, will they mention that/when they came out? There are some queers who argue that it would be irrelevant and gayness should be taken as normal and, thus shouldn't be mentioned and then there are some queers who think that it shouldn't be "covered up" and should be boasted with Pride. I think that it depends on the book, frankly.

As Don't Ask Don't Tell grows as a social/political hot topic, the rift between [HRC + Barney Frank] and [everyone else] expands. HRC, particularly President Joe Solmonese, is separating itself from Lt. Dan Choi...a.k.a. Captain Planet Gay (wow, redundant). A lot of people said that the March on Washington this past fall, hosted by Cleve Jones, split the gay activist community. DADT definitely is proof of that and splits it even more. Equality IL co-founder Rick Garcia, recently, called HRC "a house homo" (if you don't get it, it's a play on "a house slave" or "a house n*gger") in reference to how it panders to Obama's administration. ........REALLY?? Did he REALLY just go there? It's not an inaccurate metaphor, but there must be a less INSANE way of phrasing that. That just doesn't help anyone.

This inter-community fighting is a waste of time, resources, and...everything.

Identity Continuum

0, 7, 12...the last one baffles me. I like androgynous/masculine females/intersexed/transpeople.

Take Control!

Today, the federal court begins going over Prop 8. New Jersey and NY voted down gay marriage, New South Wales in Australia refused to pass gay adoption, and a guy on the train just a few blocks away from me was recently beaten while being called gay and a slew of other slurs. Obama kept one promise by passing the Matthew Shephard Act and one of my coworkers has admitted that he is "extremely homophobic, but only about men" with no reason (but we all know what the reason really is, it's not difficult to figure out).

Apparently, though, saying "that's gay" is more likely to get you called out on and it's cool to have a gay relative/friend/etc. Individual acceptance of individual gay people is on the uprise . . . but it's still a long way up from in the negatives.

As a group, we are still not respected as complete humans. What defines us as a community is what makes us second-class. For the past 6+ years, that has been our strength as well in keeping us together. Those of us in the community can see how diverse we all are, but outsiders, those who don't want us as equals, either can't/won't see that or will use that to divide us.

It's difficult to see where to go from here. Eugene Debs, socialist extraordinaire, said “I cannot do it for you, and I want to be frank enough to say that I would not if I could. For if I could do it for you, somebody else could undo it for you.” We must take our rights, we must take control.

The 00's: a big step, but miles to go

In '99, gay rights were not big news. Middle schoolers and high schoolers were saying "that's gay" to refer to something stupid; GSAs were few and far between. Transgender awareness was unheard of.



Over the past decade, gay marriage has become a regular headline, The L Word and The Logo Network came into being, transgender awareness has begun budding, GSAs are everywhere, celebrities have been coming out left and right, The Matthew Shepherd Act has finally passed, and churches have divided over gay rights (apparently Jesus wanted people to discriminate). Advances have been made . . . and taken away. Promises have been made . . . and broken. The queer movement has gotten so big that it's actually begun dividing. Many queer people, especially younger generations, are not going to sit down and politely ask for teeny tiny rights anymore: the time has come to demand full equality.



Illinois, thank goodness, has made it illegal to discriminate in employment on sexual orientation and gender identity. And, come on, it's CHICAGO. Unfortunately, some of my coworkers - who are generally friendly and sociable with me and who are my age - say "that's gay" both at work and online. Online, I've spoken up and my statement has been deleted. And here I thought that being adults in one of the biggest and most diverse cities meant that this part of me wouldn't be an analogy for stupidity anymore.



Obviously, there is a long way to go before full equality and respect. I don't care what political parties and churches people attend, but I can't tolerate being treated as a second-class citizen.



May the 2010's be a decade of FULL EQUALITY AND RESPECT

"That's Gay"

Tonight, my significant other and I went to a pool hall. We were the only flaming people, the only visible females, and the only white people playing. The table beside ours was played by three guys who joked around with us a little. All of us mutually shared the space with comofort.

They were loudly laughing and sharing stories with each other. Some words we overheard were, "gay," "fag," and "cunt." My s.o. and I hold hands and exchange pecks in public, so these guys knew that we're dykes. None of them snuck looks at us to judge our reactions or said anything like, "Hey man, that's not cool." I concluded that these were just some cool guys who don't know any better. It mattered more that they were respectful of us as neighbors than that they monitor their word choices, although it's still disappointing that such terms are used in such ways. It's no different than racist or anti-Semitic slurs.

Were we in a situation that would involve more regular contact and actual introductions, I would have talked to them about it. Just a simple, non-threatening, "Hey man, that's not cool." Chances are that nobody had said anything to them about it before!