I am still pretty new to the lifestyle, so perhaps I'm discredited from the start from such a conversation. Or, perhaps there is some advantage to not having been immersed in queer analysis of everything. When I read such analysis my eyes usually gloss over and my mind wanders. Gross generalizations such as "straight men are unhappy but just hide it better" make my whole being cringe. On what basis can such a claim be made? On what authority? If there were repeated studies to such claims, I would sit up and take notes, otherwise it just sounds like projection which is hopeless as a source for truth.
The social sciences fair much better and yet their notorious failures should stand as reminders that they are not free from politics, personal bias or the temptation to overstate their effectiveness. One such grand failure was the common claim in the 1970's1980's that pedophilia could be treated and that various clients had been rehabilitated, resulting in numerous catastrophes. Catholic bishops aren't the only ones to blame (though that is the politically preferable conclusion in many settings). In my opinion, there are some therapists that belong in jail.
The gay community is notorious for morphing it's self definition to suit its political aims or worse, fashion. In the 1970's, the common wisdom was that gay men and women shouldn't have to think in terms of marriage which was for straight people. Having multiple partners in various constellations of relationships without guilt was what "liberation" was all about, at least sexually. We all know that promiscuity (a very dirty word) became frowned upon in the wake of AIDS. Suddenly, the ideal of marriage became the new orthodoxy, if not in practice then in the community's projected image to the straight world. (Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the political debate, this false projection can only come back to haunt a community as perceptions of gay sexuality catch up with reality.) By now many of you will be angry or tuning me out as a self-loather. Before you do so, give me one more chance...
If sexual attration (distinct from identity) falls on a continuum, then with the pronouncements of various ideologies and orthodoxies convenient for the activist, all bets are off. The impulse toward some grand theory of sexuality is understandable and seemingly natural to the human mind which instinctively simplifies reality to reduce effort. The simplification often takes the form of rejecting data that doesn't fit rather than attempting to account for all data. Attempts to account for all data nullify most orthodoxies.
One of the gay community's latter orthodoxies upon which it bases most of its politics is the genetic explanation of orientation. Politically this theory has the advantage of portraying homosexuality as something utterly beyond ones control. This would have been news to those earlier queers of the 1970's who proclaimed the lifestyle as a "choice" and the orientation as a "sexual preference." As many as a third of American males have had sex with other men. Only a small fraction of those are exlusively gay. It appears from the numbers that "choice" and "preference" are more accurate descriptors for those who practice gay sex. Shockingly, gays are the small minority among those who have gay sex. While same-sex attraction is beyond one's conscious choice for some, the genetic explanation cannot account for those who at one stage in their lives are more attracted to one sex and at other times are more attracted to the other. It certainly doesn't account for the hippie boy who is committed to his undefined status and glad to sleep with whomever strikes him as attractive and available at the moment. Another gay orthodoxy is in jeopardy.
Being Post-Gay then, is a brave new world. It doesn't rely on comfortable ideological tenets, dispenses with unsubstantiated generalities and insists on the singular observation that people are people. Dividing the world between breeders and "us" is just cattyness. As people like other people we are happiest with being ourselves and loving others for themselves and not resorting to the inevitable falsities that arise from crude labels.
I would be very pleased to see all the energy that presently goes into pseudo social analysis in the gay community shifted to sharing best practices on being a happy in life and bringing happiness to others. As elusive as happiness is, this pursuit has some advantages. All human beings participate. It is what we all have in common. And, because happiness and its path is relative, we will not be so tempted to construct grand theories of happiness attainment. We also might listen and speak with personal not merely political interest.
It's time we take the sexual continuum seriously and realize that with convenient orthodoxies and generalities, all bets are off !
Joe
Graduate Student, ND, Ind.
The social sciences fair much better and yet their notorious failures should stand as reminders that they are not free from politics, personal bias or the temptation to overstate their effectiveness. One such grand failure was the common claim in the 1970's1980's that pedophilia could be treated and that various clients had been rehabilitated, resulting in numerous catastrophes. Catholic bishops aren't the only ones to blame (though that is the politically preferable conclusion in many settings). In my opinion, there are some therapists that belong in jail.
The gay community is notorious for morphing it's self definition to suit its political aims or worse, fashion. In the 1970's, the common wisdom was that gay men and women shouldn't have to think in terms of marriage which was for straight people. Having multiple partners in various constellations of relationships without guilt was what "liberation" was all about, at least sexually. We all know that promiscuity (a very dirty word) became frowned upon in the wake of AIDS. Suddenly, the ideal of marriage became the new orthodoxy, if not in practice then in the community's projected image to the straight world. (Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the political debate, this false projection can only come back to haunt a community as perceptions of gay sexuality catch up with reality.) By now many of you will be angry or tuning me out as a self-loather. Before you do so, give me one more chance...
If sexual attration (distinct from identity) falls on a continuum, then with the pronouncements of various ideologies and orthodoxies convenient for the activist, all bets are off. The impulse toward some grand theory of sexuality is understandable and seemingly natural to the human mind which instinctively simplifies reality to reduce effort. The simplification often takes the form of rejecting data that doesn't fit rather than attempting to account for all data. Attempts to account for all data nullify most orthodoxies.
One of the gay community's latter orthodoxies upon which it bases most of its politics is the genetic explanation of orientation. Politically this theory has the advantage of portraying homosexuality as something utterly beyond ones control. This would have been news to those earlier queers of the 1970's who proclaimed the lifestyle as a "choice" and the orientation as a "sexual preference." As many as a third of American males have had sex with other men. Only a small fraction of those are exlusively gay. It appears from the numbers that "choice" and "preference" are more accurate descriptors for those who practice gay sex. Shockingly, gays are the small minority among those who have gay sex. While same-sex attraction is beyond one's conscious choice for some, the genetic explanation cannot account for those who at one stage in their lives are more attracted to one sex and at other times are more attracted to the other. It certainly doesn't account for the hippie boy who is committed to his undefined status and glad to sleep with whomever strikes him as attractive and available at the moment. Another gay orthodoxy is in jeopardy.
Being Post-Gay then, is a brave new world. It doesn't rely on comfortable ideological tenets, dispenses with unsubstantiated generalities and insists on the singular observation that people are people. Dividing the world between breeders and "us" is just cattyness. As people like other people we are happiest with being ourselves and loving others for themselves and not resorting to the inevitable falsities that arise from crude labels.
I would be very pleased to see all the energy that presently goes into pseudo social analysis in the gay community shifted to sharing best practices on being a happy in life and bringing happiness to others. As elusive as happiness is, this pursuit has some advantages. All human beings participate. It is what we all have in common. And, because happiness and its path is relative, we will not be so tempted to construct grand theories of happiness attainment. We also might listen and speak with personal not merely political interest.
It's time we take the sexual continuum seriously and realize that with convenient orthodoxies and generalities, all bets are off !
Joe
Graduate Student, ND, Ind.
posted by:
|
Indiana
|
-
Re: Post-Gay: A Brave New World
Fri, November 24, 2006 - 9:15 AM"While same-sex attraction is beyond one's conscious choice for some, the genetic explanation cannot account for those who at one stage in their lives are more attracted to one sex and at other times are more attracted to the other. It certainly doesn't account for the hippie boy who is committed to his undefined status and glad to sleep with whomever strikes him as attractive and available at the moment. Another gay orthodoxy is in jeopardy."
That's not necessarily true. Some people have jet black hair, some people have blond hair, most people are somewhere in between.Yet hair color is genetic. Same sex vs. opposite sex attraction could be similarly varied over a spectrum.
