Showing posts with label oh so gay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oh so gay. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Doogie Wowser, or, a two-minute hate crime

From Suri's Burn Book. (It's a kind of Bible of celebrity children.)
Early in your life as a gay man, you get the question--either from people you know or from yourself:

"If you could take a pill that would change you from gay to straight, would you take it?"

I've always said no. I can't imagine being any other way. I am who I am. I like being gay. I feel it gives me a different perspective on life, culture, and society, and I wouldn't change that for the world.

(Plus hairy men are very sexy.)

Perhaps I would have had that worldview regardless--while outwardly conventional, I'm pretty on the inside . . . pretty jaundiced, pretty mistrusting, pretty cynical, pretty questioning authority, pretty nobody's fool.

OK, maybe not all of that is on the inside. Point taken.

I can't help myself from having a strong detector of bullshit, and goodness knows there's tons and hectares and kilos and acres of b to the s in the modern world. I would hope I would be that way, regardless of my sexuality and affectional orientation, but being on the outside looking in at the snowglobe of Western life, how can you be anything else but cautious and caustic? I'm not convinced it's any better in the non-Western world--in fact, I'm fairly sure it's not--but I only know one world, and I'm more than familiar with its problems, quirks, flaws, challenges, and . . . bullshit.

Anyway . . . back to the question at hand: Would I change being gay if I could?

No . . . except when I take a look at the Burtka-Harrises, aka Doogie Wowser and Companion (Vinnie Delpenis?), aka the Omnipresence of Self-Satisfaction that is Neil Patrick Harris and clan.

Oh, I'm impressed. It can't be easy being a child star, turning out to be gay, then forging a successful career in modern America as a fly white guy, a lothario on an incredibly execrable sitcom, a manorexic metrosexual of song-and-dance, non-threatening in a way, yet still able to share pics of your happy gay family with the celebrity-slavish world in which we exist.

But enough is enough. I don't want to be this kind of gay. I couldn't if I tried. And I would prefer no one else be either.

This is . . . not normal. And it's not progress either. It's playing to our stereotypes. We're cute! We're thin! We're family-friendly (in a fashion)! We're safe! We're dress-alike clones, sexless twins rather than same-sex lovers! Please don't think about us having butt sex or sucking each other's cocks!

Yes, I am playing to another stereotype: The gay man who treats other gay men with scorn, probably out of my own fear, loathing, and discomfort of our kind. But it's a chicken-egg scenario here: In a way, isn't NPH and family creating a hostile environment with all this perfection and wealth? Aren't we--the single or those of us in less fabulous relationships, the childless and those of us with "average," less print-model-friendly children, the middle class and poor, the non-white and the white cracker, the non-famous or even just the B, C, and D Listers--being held in a kind of contempt? Aren't we considered loathsome and actively being loathed? "Aspire to us! But you'll never be good enough to aspire to us! So fuck you!"

Fuck you back, Neil and Partner and your A-Gay world.

I'm dating someone right now, and, more or less, I couldn't be happier. We are similar, outwardly conventional, inwardly not willing to accept the status quo. Who knows where it will go or for how long? But I love this man because while we are similar in some ways, we are different from each other, too, physically and culturally. And we are different from the world in which we live, outsiders to our culture, gay or otherwise.

We don't want kids. We talk about living together and even marriage (jokingly), but I don't think either of us is into the ceremony or trappings, just the love and companionship.

More power to you if you want all of that. Clearly culture is on your side at the moment. But give the rest of us some room to breathe, to be ourselves, to be different.

That's the power of gay, the power of "queer," if you will: Being different and flourishing in our difference.

I did not come this far to be like everyone else. Or worse, like some happy freakshow families stereotype of heterosexual life.

/rant off.


Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Let the civil disobedience begin

Long may it wave: Rainbow flag flapping in the wind
with blue skies and sun by Ludovic Bertron
(CC BY 2.0 [Original available here])
I'm glad at least the Canadians agree with me (one of them, at least).

Whether subtle or loud, I still support showing up and settling in for a long winter's fight in Sochi.


Sunday, August 18, 2013

A Red Army of lovers cannot fail

"Moose and squirrel are making great trouble for us"
I do love how we gay folk can make a nation "afraid." Much in the way we caused the downfall of the Soviet Union way back when.

(Joking, joking . . .)

I'm actually unsure of how to feel about or proceed on the Great Soviet Boycott of 2014, aka We're Here, We're Queer, Just Not at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.

It's not that what's happening to gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered + people in Russia isn't significant or important. I think it most definitely is. It's awful enough that "homosexual propaganda"--the right to talk about one's gayness in public or do any sort of advocacy or acknowledgement of homosexuality--is now suppressed under Russian law, apparently for political reasons. As well as because of good, ol'-fashioned ignorance and hate.

But if pictures and first-person accounts are to be believed--and I see no reason not to believe them--it's more than just "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" à la russe. Much more. It's violence, it's hatred, it's killing, it's threatening by the uniformed and the uninformed. It's a serious, terrible business that should be addressed with various forms of protest and pressure. We should show our support to all of the world's oppressed, whether gay or not. And we can show that support and action in many different ways, including boycotting the Sochi Olympics--or by attending and participating and performing many, many, many acts of civil disobedience on site.

* * *

For a couple of reasons, my preferred approach is the latter. I'm all about embarrassing Vladimir Putin and his crony fascist cohorts. He does Russia its citizens no favors by controlling the country year after year. Unlike Edward Snowden and a host of other opinionated folk I know on Twitter, I don't consider the current Russian government or the current Chinese one better options for freedom and fairness than the United States.

Then again, I hardly think the U.S. is perfect or innocent. Furthermore, I'm not in the middle of the Edward Snowden maelstrom either. Nor would I want to be.

Really, I know I should give a shit more about Eddie and the issues he brought out into the light, but again, too much of the Twitterati has told me how I must feel and think. Despite my more urban American trappings, I'm a mistrusting cracker at heart. You can't make me do something or believe in someone that I don't want to, no matter how loudly you yell at me, no matter how sure of yourself you seem.

And that mistrusting crackerdom and resistance to proscribing my thoughts and feelings by the Twitterborg, that invades my thinking about the so-called "gay agenda" and the response to Sochi. Yes, I'm still bitter over the gay marriage debate in the U.S. Not that the U.S. Supreme Court decisions didn't go far enough--all in all, they were pretty impressive, if limited, actions from a fairly conservative court. No, I'm more bothered by the focus for the last several years solely on gay marriage, an important right (if we want to call it that) but one that ultimately will affect and benefit a select group of people.

I agree that having institutional respect for our relationships might go some distance in helping nurture and sustain those relationships and the freedom-fighters in our army of lovers. But! What if I never have a solid, long-term relationship?  Goodness knows, I've tried and still continue to. But what if? How do my civil rights stand outside of the framework of a relationship and marriage?

Not very tall, not very proud, I'm afraid. I'm barely tuned into the mainstream newsfeed, let alone the alternative, activist, progressive, yadda yadda yadda press, but so far, this is the only article I've seen from Big Media in which activists discuss the fact that essentially most of us LGBTQI+ peeps in the U.S.--including in Pennsylvania--have no legal standing when it comes to fair housing, employment discrimination, freedom of assembly, or a host of other civil rights that many Americans take for granted.

I do believe we have the right to bear arms, though. Just not the right to be held in a big bear's arms.

I don't know that I'm actively complaining about this situation, at least not in any sort of screechy, strident way. However, it is an unfair situation and can be a frightening one as well. Really, many of us have to depend on the kindness of strangers and friends to co-exist safely and securely in this world, whether in the shadows or out in public. 

But there are many other people in America that must feel the same--women, African Americans, Latinos, persons in wheelchairs, those suffering from mental illnesses or intellectual challenges, the working class, the middle class, Muslims, Jews, Mormons . . . the list goes on. Heck, there are even a number of upper class whites that feel disenfranchised in this land of opportunity. Obviously. They've been highly vocal about this since November 2008.

I think I'm more irritated (rightly or wrongly) about how gay civil rights have been totally co-opted by pro-gay marriage supporters. It's as if the other rights aren't significant. It's as if everyone can feel good about themselves by saying they are pro-gay marriage without thinking about or supporting any of the other issues that confront us. It's as if everyone can wrap their heads around a bourgeois concept like marriage and family but still demonize single people, solitude, a less tidy approach to sexuality, not being parents, and apartment dwellers. To name but a few.

Why is this? Was there a concerted effort by activists to appeal to people's emotions and experiences with the focus on a shared commonality of marriage and children? Was the goal to turn off the harsh spotlight on gay men's "unsavory" sexual behavior that had shown too brightly during the 1980s and '90s? Is it that so many of those "unsavory" men died during the '80s and '90s and aren't around to see their issues brought to the forefront? Instead, our marriage-loving, child-rearing queer folk are the bearer of our standards? Is the right to marriage somehow not a "special" right compared with the right to fair housing and a ban on employment discrimination?

It just galls me that after all this time, some activists are waking up to the idea (or finally acknowledging in public) that we have not overcome. Rather we've just gained the ability to marry in a select group of states--or perhaps, better stated, the right to have the state's right to grant Adam and Steve/Mandy and Sandy a marriage license not left to be undone by the federal government.

Seems like a narrow victory at best.

* * *

So, to the point, this is why I can't get behind the big call-out for a boycott of the Sochi Winter Olympics by huge swaths of the Twitterverse and Stephen Fry. (And while I'm at it, can I just say I find I am increasingly at odds with what appears to interest said universe? Including cat pics, bad gifs, Neil Gaiman, Star Trek references, Star Wars references, Firefly, "cis" versus "trans," and various strident forms of opinion and activism I am becoming too afraid to address in writing for fear of being boycotted myself?)

I do enjoy the Olympics, mind you, and I know the athletes and planners have worked diligently to make the games a successful event. However, I also don't think the need to snowboard or ice dance overrules the right to walk down the street near a person of the same sex and not get bashed in the head for it.

Nonetheless, I'm not convinced a boycott is the best approach for any of the parties involved, not for the athletes or the Olympics or Russia or LGBTQI+ individuals in Russia. Will gay people be scapegoated even more if no one shows up to the big event? Will they be punished for the civil disobedience of others? And what about other dissidents in Russia and the world over? If we couldn't boycott Berlin in 1936 or Beijing in 2008 (or Atlanta in 1996--the lack of gun control, our prison system, our economic and social disparity, our penchant for the death penalty are all human rights issues, are they not? All worthy of boycotting it would seem), how can we or why should we boycott Sochi in 2014?

I feel liked we're being pushed toward something in a you're-either-for-us-or-against-us way by an protected class of activists who know no fear nor any consequences. Russia is not the UK. Uganda is not the U.S. I can't help but mistrust the judgment of the pushers, however well-meaning, however passionate they may be.

Personally, I prefer civil disobedience. Maybe it's the softer approach, but it would draw attention and hopefully the right kind of attention. I love the idea, as expressed by my Twitter friend Pam, of rainbow-colored bobsleds zooming toward the finish line. I imagine pink-beclad speed-skaters and envision cross-country skier/sharpshooters aiming for triangle targets instead of regulation round ones. Let a few sports figures take a stand and get arrested for the freedom to play, rather than our leading the charge to do nothing, to be unseen, to sit this one out. It will be great winter sport to watch the opponents of freedom and human rights on display to the entire world, shields and swords in hand. But then again, I always did prefer the San Francisco marriage-ins of a few years ago, when happy gay couples decided to marry en masse as a way to make their wishes and their civil disobedience known.

However, to each his or her own. And that may be my ultimate concern: I don't want the world to be told how to feel about this, how to behave and react, especially by a group of activists who have poorly managed the attainment of gay rights in our own countries. Maybe there's a long goal that I'm missing--circuses today, bread tomorrow--but I've seen no evidence otherwise, just a steely resilience in the face of ignorance and obstinacy with an aim to achieve something that is ultimately rather middle-class, narrowly focused, and, above all, self-serving to the elites. Please. Even the Cheneys support marriage rights for that sleeping-with-the-enemy daughter of theirs.

Again, cracker, curmudgeon, whatevs. I'm not that radical, I'll admit. Just tired and perturbed. The older I get, the more I embrace the crank role oftener than not. Hopefully these days I see through the bullshit spewed forth from all sides. Including my own.

There are a lot of emperors out there and a lot of them have the worst fashion sense imaginable. I'm on my way to being the Suri's Burn Book of LGBTQI+ rights.

And more power to me.

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Irreversible, actually

Spotted by my friend the Music Lover at Macy's Waterfront over the holiday weekend.

Despite the some marketeer's best efforts, you can't undo the gay.

Just ask Robert L. Spitzer.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Wide open

Can I just say that I do not understand why there is such a huge deal over the fact that Tim Tebow drops to one knee and prays after every maneuver on the football field . . . ?

Lawsy, like this is some significant accomplishment or remarkable occurrence.

Gay men and straight women have been dropping to *both* knees, praise, since time began--to worship true idols, to pray for divine inspiration, to partake of the blood (or whatever) and the body, to bow down before him, kneel, and submit--and no one devotes every other second of broadcast time to this fact of life.

Say amen, somebody.

Monday, October 03, 2011

Signs that you may not be like other boys

A scene from the movie Different from the Others (Germany 1919)
#1

It's lunchtime at the office. You order pizza with some of the other guys. All in IT. You're the sole humanities-based lifeform.

You stress the need to come up with a healthy option, light on the onions, peppers, and pepperoni.

They offer to buy a pizza primavera with broccoli, fresh tomatoes, and some other stuff. You're happy, although you're pretty much the only one who ate from that pie.

#2

Over lunch, the guys pull up on the computer (legally or illegally, who can say?) the second (or fifth) Star Wars movie, The Empire Strikes Back. They begin to discuss how much they love this movie, how they've seen it over and over, how as children (children?! This movie came out when you were in college!) they were fascinated by the world in which Luke, Hans, Leia, and the others inhabit. They know not only the plot points and the dialog but details about the filming, errors and continuity fails, commentary from the writer and director, the personality of various non-human entities, et al.

You remark that isn't it amazing how Carrie Fisher now makes commercials for Jenny Craig and that somehow Jenny Craig has not only fixed her weight problem but has given her a facelift and Botox injections as well?

It's not that amazing. In fact, no one else had noticed.

#3

You're reading your Twitter feed, because, well, it's there. Suddenly a news organization posts the following:

"Shields, Brooks on #Alwaki's death."

And in all seriousness you think to yourself, what in the world could Brooke Shields have to contribute to a discussion on international terrorism?

#4

A friend responds to your speculation with a snarky "Have you looked in the mirror lately?" And you reply with a bitchy "Pretty funny for a guy who named his dog after a character from Gone with the Wind!"

And, no, it wasn't Scarlet.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

You can stop the music if you really try

Ripped from the headlines! The Village People to headline concert at Carnegie Music Hall in Munhall!

Where they will no doubt debut their new single release, "A.A.R.P." Sung to the tune of "Y.M.C.A.," natch.

Hard to believe that this is same venue at which I saw Patti Smith perform in 2007.

Hard to believe that this same group had its first hit thirty years before that.