Really gutsy essay about gay subculture

[The David]

Jack Malebranche is a figure who has recently caught my attention. He is a priest in the Church of Satan (like them or not, those people are bloodhounds for BS), and isn't really in the 'gay' community, so he has a really interesting (and I dare say refreshing) perspective. He wrote the book 'Androphilia' and several articles, and here is one of them.

Article by Jack Malebranche

I've been in a gay-straight alliance for months, but honestly, I think this guy has a much better vision.

[Dan.Linehan]

Nice article.

Men don't think you are witty or cute. They don't care about your great new outfit. They will expect more from you. They will test you and tease you, just to see if you can take it. They won't respect you "just because you're you." You will have to earn their respect, and they will measure you against other men.

Same things apply to gay men that Steve writes out in his How to Be a Man article.

[The David]

I've known some effeminate men who a) do not have it any easier being feminine, and b) are not trying to fit into a subculture. But people need to realize that our current understanding of male-male relationships is lightyears away from the way they have been viewed in some of the cultures that were actually more accepting of them.

I haven't read the book. I actually just stumbled across this site this past week.

[ragtag]

I read the whole article and completely disagree!

I'm a masculine gay guy, more masculine than several of my straight friends. And I've found that many straight acting gay guys agree with the viewpoints expressed in this article. They don't like the parades, the queens, drag and all the rest of it, and would rather that all gay guys acted like "real men" so that the straight world would accept them.

Firstly, I find this to quite disrespectful of the queens out there. Without them we wouldn't have a fraction of the gay rights we have today (Stonewall and all).

Secondly, if all the queens were to suddenly vanish, I don't think homophobes would view us gays much more positively. After all, we still fall in love with other guys and do things in bed they think are gross. They would just have a harder time figuring out who to target.

People are different, and there should be no reason to judge them for being who they are. So if you happen to be an extremely effeminate guy, that should be just fine and unproblematic. You shouldn't have to pretend to be some macho man just so others don't look down on you. If you really are a macho man, that of course is fine too.

It's a bit like a small weak kid at school being bullied by a bigger kid. Is the problem that the little kid is weak, or that the bigger kid doesn't respect his fellow man?

[Dharma]

The boundaries of your prison, and THE MAN holding the keys, are for the most part products of YOUR own imagination.

YOU haven't been rejected by all men. YOU opted out.

I think that sums it up and does keep with each of us creating our own experiences in life. The self-rejection comes from oneself, and is echoed, not caused by, the others around you.

I am definitely a student of: if you want to see changes externally, you've got to make changes internally.

[JaredR]

Originally Posted by ragtag

I read the whole article and completely disagree!

I read the article and disagree with Malebranche as well. Why should effeminate gay men be expected to reinvent their personalities to win the respect of their straight peers?

[The David]

Originally Posted by ragtag

Secondly, if all the queens were to suddenly vanish, I don't think homophobes would view us gays much more positively.

Queens are gay men in drag. They aren't a separate species of creatures defined by their clothing and image, they are people and should be looked at like anyone else. The image is what Malebranche is criticizing, and while I don't entirely agree with the extent to which he denounces femininity in males (nor do I entirely agree with his judging motives), he is not denouncing the 'sensitive male'. I think his willingness to see past those externals actually speaks for his sincerity.

[marklang500]

Secondly, if all the queens were to suddenly vanish, I don't think homophobes would view us gays much more positively. After all, we still fall in love with other guys and do things in bed they think are gross. They would just have a harder time figuring out who to target.

What you don't understand is that nobody is "targeting" anybody. In fact, if all the "queens were to suddenly vanish", there wouldn't be a need for any further discussions. Whether you realize it or not, your comment actually does more harm than good for the gay community because you are saying "we will always be targets even if we keep our activities to ourselves".

That's not true. If your activities were kept to yourselves, the sexuality culture war never would have started. The whole POINT of this war is for the gay community to be out in the open along with everyone else.

Secondly, if all the queens were to suddenly vanish, I don't think homophobes would view us gays much more positively.

You are absolutley wrong about that. The correct statement would be:

If all the queens were to suddenly vanish, homophobes would view us gays much more positively. Which totally defeats the purpose of wanting to be viewed more positively, because to be viewed more positively we must simply be "out of view" (vanish, as you say).

So how can you get around this oxymoronic situation? You can't. Here's why:

You can't make people accept your behavior when

1. A majority doesn't condone the behaviors associated with homosexuality.
2. A majority views homosexuality as "learned" and not "genetic".
3. A majority feels that learnable behaviours linked with sexual gratification can affect sexual fixation.
4. A majority have children that haven't yet developed thier sexuality.

Those points are in a specific order that flow from one to the next. They hold parents up to the challenge of raising thier children (4) to become adults that don't practice behaviors that the parents don't condone (1). (closing the loop)

Now, you can argue these points one at a time if you like, but that won't change the facts that these are the solid beliefs of the majority. It is an inescapable, closed loop of logic that ALL hetersexual parents face. They will ALWAYS fight unless they stop beleiving one of the four things above.

The parades don't help point #1. For that matter, the war itself is bad for the gay cause on point #1.

There was a big movement to dismantle point 2. It is still open debate, because anything but conclusive proof one way or the other will not be enough to change the views of the majority.

Point 3. is factually based in psycological journals of sexuality.

Point 4. is just fact, unchangable.

The only hope for TOTAL acceptance in society is to get heterosexual parents to actively condone homosexuality to thier children. But if you try, you will be met with resistance. If you pass laws that force it in the school system, you will only breed more contept. It is impossible.

Ther IS hope for PARTIAL acceptance, and that is what the article in th OP is really pointing towards. Keep the queen antics in the privacy of your own homes so hetersexual parents won't feel so threatened when raising thier kids.

This removes the threat of thier kids learning to be homosexual. Isn't that the real root of "homophobic"? Stop just telling people to be less homophobic, and just quit giving them reasons to be so homophobic.

(lunch is over...I have to go back to work...)

[sheffy4]

Originally Posted by The David

The image is what Malebranche is criticizing.

I think he's criticizing the "I'm a victim because I'm different" approach, not necessarily the effeminate behavior of some gay males, and I would agree. I think it's fine for queens to flaunt their sexuality and all that if they want to, but they need to be confident with who they are and realize that they are making an effort to stand out, and anyone who chooses to stand out invites both criticism and praise. As long as they can accept that and be happy and not expect everyone to love them, then its all good.

[The David]

I think at this point, I should clarify exactly what I'm trying to accomplish by posting this article. I'm not making a value judgment against 'queens' and other image-driven homosexuals, nor am I judging motives of effeminate males. Just in case anyone got that idea from me.

JaredR asked this question:

Why should effeminate gay men be expected to reinvent their personalities to win the respect of their straight peers?

They shouldn't. I know some 'femmes' who are good people and shouldn't have to be more masculine if it feels wrong or unnatural to them. However, it is often these effeminate males who demand respect from the other 90% of the world (a more modest estimate) while continuing their isolation techniques. Malebranche proposes the idea that the gay community is a political party in disguise (I hesitate to say 'drag').

If you want to be 'different', then by all means, be different. But don't act like you want to be treated the same as everyone else only when it serves your agenda. Have integrity in your choice to be different.

[Dan.Linehan]

The gay community needs to mindfully take a hard look at how we define our culture.

What is gay culture exactly? What is it founded on? By calling it a culture, we're saying it's about more than just sex.

When we ask for equality, in the same breath we ask to be judged equally for behaviors that might be considered negative across the board: shallowness, materialism, greed, spite, pettiness, lack of control, drug use, promiscuity, etc.

True equality is admitting that these are not universally respected qualities, regardless of whether we subscribe to a culture that glorifies them.

[The David]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

promiscuity

Another thing that Malebranche says is that the self-exile of the gay community works against gays rather than for them. This is especially true with regards to the AIDS crisis. The lack of control seen too often in gay culture has given people the idea that there is a natural correlation between homosexuality and HIV infection. Some even go as far as to say that God is punishing the gay community.

Let's say they are right, and that God is punishing the gay community. What exactly is he punishing them for? Having sex with other men, or one of the many things they are doing that is actually harmful? There would be no way of knowing at this point.

[Dan.Linehan]

Considering God is inside each of us, it's just people punishing themselves.

[Dan.Linehan]

On a side note, it entertains me to no end to substitute "I" for "God" whenever someone claims to be speaking for God.


God says homosexuality is a sin. --> I say homosexuality is a sin.

God hates fags. --> I hate fags.

God will punish you. --> I will punish you.

I'm doing this because it's what God wants me to. --> I'm doing this because it's what I want to.

God is forgiving, not vengeful. --> I am forgiving, not vengeful.

God is love. --> I am love.

[The David]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

God is love. --> I am love.

Well, there's a reason for that one. People generally aren't love.