By Pat Parker (1944-1989)
You know, some people got a lot of nerve.
Sometimes I don’t believe the things I see and hear.
Have you met the woman who’s shocked by two women kissing
and in the same breath, tells you she is pregnant?
BUT gays, shouldn’t be so blatant.
Or this straight couple sits next to you in a movie and
you can’t hear the dialogue because of the sound effects.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.
And the woman in your office spends an entire lunch hour
talking about her new bikini drawers and how much
her husband likes them.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.
Or the “hip” chick in your class rattling like a mile a minute
while you’re trying to get stoned in the john, about the
camping trip she took with her musician boyfriend.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.
You go in a public bathroom and all over the walls there’s John loves
Mary, Janice digs Richard, Pepe loves Delores, etc., etc.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.
Or your go to an amusement park and there’s a tunnel of love
and pictures of straights painted on the front and grinning
couples are coming in and out.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.
Fact is, blatant heterosexuals are all over the place.
Supermarkets, movies, on your job, in church, in books, on television every day
day and night, every place-even- in gay bars and they want gay
men and woman to go and hide in the closet.
So to you straight folks I say, “Sure, I’ll go if you go too”
BUT I’m polite so, after you.
—Pat Parker.
Right on post!!!
I told my Irish cousin I couldn’t meet with her for lunch two weeks ago as I was going to the parade. “Oh, there’s a parade today?” she asked, her voice brightening.
“Yeah,” I said. “Pride. Gay pride!”
“Oh,” she said, the life leeching out of her tone.
She said she’d call me back later that night or the next day, but I haven’t heard from her yet. And I didn’t really come out to her, just said I was going to a parade. But I guess that was just too blatant.
When was this written? The pregnant=heterosexual thing just seemed to leap out as not contemporary.
My impression is that it was written in the mid-to-late 1970s, but I could be mistaken.
Fantastic, thanks. You may also like http://incurable-hippie.blogspot.com/2005/05/heterosexuality-questionnaire.html
I’m sick of getting filthy looks when my gf and I are out. And I’m not half as ‘blatant’ as I used to be! Grrr.
He’s right. Heterosexuals shouldn’t be so blatant.
I still look at pregnancy (and wedding rings) as being blatently heterosexual. It’s context I guess. I’ve been nailed all my life for my short hair, the way I walk, holding my girlfriend’s hand. The poem above was a big part of encouraging a lot of gays and lesbians to stay strong in coming out of the closet. I remember reading it in the late 80’s.
It reminded us that we were being castigated for the most natural and intrinsic part of ourselves: just being. Anything was fair game, and in many places still is. I don’t think it hurts heterosexuals to examine how the “little” things in their lives are in reality loud proclamations of their sexual inclinations, status, and activity.
Irish gal is out of touch. A lot of straight people go to Pride parades because they are often fun, and the floats try to throw out lots of loot (beads for adults, candy for kids, water in bottles for everyone). Mardi Gras without folks pissing and puking in public.
“I don’t think it hurts heterosexuals to examine how the “little” things in their lives are in reality loud proclamations of their sexual inclinations, status, and activity.”
“in reality” should be “to those who don’t fit in with omnipresent heteronormative assumptions”. Doesn’t make sense to speak about facts being “really” this or that when you’re talking different people’s reactions to those facts.
I don’t understand what you’re saying pdf23ds.
Just a language nitpick, really. I think the phrase “in reality” just doesn’t quite work there, as it’s only true for some of the hearers of the statement. (It isn’t a proclamation, even in reality, for most heterosexual hearers.) “In reality” implies that the statement is generally true.
I find that when anyone is falling into the “too much information” department, regardless of their orientation, and I want them to stop telling me personal information about their sexual exploits, a good way to shut them up is to nod, smile, and then ask them how much money they make.
It’s amazing how, for so many people, blowjob techniques and drunked hook-ups are small talk, but money remains the Last Taboo.
My response to most of the behaviors listed in the above poem would be for the hetero’s to change their behavior. Too much information for me in most cases.
I wouldn’t take my kid to a gay “pride” parade. At least, not based on the pictures I see every year of the one in Chicago. Yes, I do realize that the bad actors with the freaky behavior are a small percentage of the total parade, but I wouldn’t want my kid exposed even to that.
Well, RonF yeah, I can see that, but it’s not as if there aren’t a lot of sexually-explicit displays put on in places like parades (ones for Carnival are probably the first that come to mind, but I’m sure we could come up with other examples) that are aimed at hetero people.
The problem is that it’s usually not seen as “bad behaviour” (except by certain religious types) when it’s done by someone straight.
Ron, verbally informing someone of your pregnancy can be refrained from, but after a while it usually begins to show. Unless you think there’s something offensive about the state and *that* should be hidden also (which as I understand it was the practice for a while), then maybe the better response is to accept that people share things in their lives that are important to them.
Tara, the pregnancy thing was why I said “most”, not “all”.
Tara, the pregnancy thing was why I said “most”, not “all”.
Also, these days anyway, the odds are low but finite that a pregnant woman isn’t necessarily heterosexual.
Also, I’ve seen my share of “Bob loves Bill” graffiti.
Crys T, the only parades I go to these days are Memorial Day; and if I do go, I don’t see the whole parade because I’m generally in it. I miss 4th of July because my Troop has an annual Pancake Breakfast that day; we cleared $1750 this year, which will buy 6 tents and 4 Dutch Ovens. And I skip the St. Patrick’s Day parade because I prefer to stay away from the amateur drinkers (which also keeps me home on New Year’s Eve).
But even at a 4th of July or St. Patrick’s Day parade, I doubt you’d see a heterosexual couple with one of them in leather and a lash leading the other in a Speedo on a dog leash, or parading around in nothing but a stuffed G-string (I don’t believe that’s all theirs on all those guys) plus body makeup, or wearing lingere, or dry humping each other, or some of the other stuff you’ll see. Now, maybe at some kind of Carnivale parade you might, but they don’t have that here in Chicago or the suburbs that I know of. It would be way off-theme on the 4th of July, and it’s too damn cold for most of that stuff on St. Patrick’s day in Chicago, anyway.
Q Grrl, it was a different story back in the ’80’s, but these days it’s not an absolute lock that a pregnant woman with a ring is heterosexual.
No shit Ron! I didn’t realize that!
If lesbians are less than 10% of the population, pregnant lesbians are even less a percentage. Pregnancy, in the majority of cases, is a blatent outcome of heterosexual practices. The piece written above is not so much about whether heterosexuals are aware of the political nature of their actions — it is much more about how homosexuals are denigrated, humiliated, and criminalized for the exact same *human* behaviors that heterosexuals engage in and like to believe are value-free and neutral.
We here in the liberal blogsphere like to think that this is a cute piece of history, that times have changed, and that gays and lesbians are free to do as they wish. I can tell you it isn’t so. I took a recent trip up from NC to Syracuse, NY — for the first time in almost 15 years I felt fear simply over being with my girlfriend in public. Maybe that kind of shit is too nuanced for heterosexuals to get though, ya’ know? They’re normal; we’re just fuckin’ freaks.
As to this tripe:
No, you’re exactly right. Not on the 4th of July or St. Patricks.
But on car ads; highway adverts for Dockside Dolls; Hooter’s restaurant’s; beer ads; GQ; Maxim; Cosmopolitan; CSI-Miami.
Well, the list is fairly endless. Blatent displays of heterosexuality, it’s practices and it’s fetishes, are everywhere. You just don’t notice it anymore because you think it is both normal and normative.
Let’s not forget every sporting event and every “normal” bar on the planet, as well.
I wonder how many of the same folks who don’t let their kids see the Gay Gardening group or PFLAG or the Lesbian Choir marching at the Pride parade– because there’s be those other scaaaaaaaaaaareyyy people in leather in chains to deal with– would avoid taking their kids to a baseball game because some hetero couple might be french-kissing each other a few rows down.
@#$%*! I know a sorry excuse when I read one, and Ron, your earlier excuse is just that. It would be more honest for you to just say that you don’t worry about covering your kid’s eyes every time some bit of hetero life is too steamy, because there’s too damn much of that out there and you’ll never succeed in covering it all. Whereas queer culture is still small enough so that you’ll have an easy enough time keeping the kid’s eyes covered, and if you cover over the entire culture in the process, so much the better.
I do wish straights wouldn’t be so blatant. It’s irritating when you’re trying to watch a music act and the couple in front of you are sucking each other’s face off. (Maybe I’m jealous).
QGrrl, the wedding ring as blatant heterosexuality would never have occurred to me. Maybe you’d argue that’s my privilege, but I have gay friends I could see getting married in a couple of years’ time, so I wouldn’t look to a ring as a clue (if I were looking for one).
I do wish straights wouldn’t be so blatant.
I tend to agree. It’s my own personal prejudice, but I like seeing couples of varying types holding hands and being kind to one another in public. Groping I can do without, though.
I’m homosexual, and for years I’ve been basing the appropriateness of my actions and PDA’s on what is normal and tasteful for a hetero couple. Holding hands-definately ok, all the time. Peck on the cheek or short closed-mouth kiss on the lips–definately ok most of the time (not in church or when others are within three feet of us.) Sitting on each other’s laps–ok. Hugging or nuzzling–also ok. Sucking face, grinding, dry humping–best done when surrounded by others doing the same, in dark alleys, bathrooms, or when noone else is around. It’s only polite that I adhere to the same standards I would ask out of another couple, be they hetero or gay.
I think the problem is that those displays say
1.Look at me
2. Look at me i’m gay
Number 2 is the double whammy because being gay is still outside which society feels is normal.
But to me, anyone acting like jackasses in public is annoying. I don’t need to know how far you can reach your tongue down each other’s throats.
The pregnancy thing is weird because it would make the assumption that pregnancy shouldn’t been seen or known or that it is in itself a behavior and not a condition
And don’t get me Wrong, but Ron has a point, there seems to be a more freedom of sexual expression in a Pride enviroment. I’ve been to a few of them and New York probably has the biggest one next to San Fran. And when you go to a parade you are there to specifically watch the parade. When your walking past a newstand to get to the theater to see Cars the MAXIM magazine just happens to be there. You may or may not see it.
Z, that means that the display of same-sex affection can be easily avoided just by choosing not to attend the parade. In contrast, advertising displaying heterosexual pairings are virtually everywhere. And although you may or may not see a particular Maxim cover, there are virtually thousands of such ads, and it would be difficult for any sighted person to avoid seeing them all.
Regarding pregnancy, the poem says:
In that context, it seems fair to assume that the woman announcing her pregnancy identifies as a heterosexual.
Finally, I don’t think Q Grrl was referring to me when she said “We here in the liberal blogsphere like to think that this is a cute piece of history….” But just in case anyone’s confused, I posted this poem because I thought it was still relevant today.
No, that was the royal “we”, myself included within.
Z: just how common do you think gay pride parades are? You make it sound like they happen all the time or are easy to get to and participate in. Trust me, they’re not.
On the contrary, even small towns in the US have prostitutes, strip clubs, and magazine stands.
What to do when I agree entirely with the underlying premise of the post, but disagree with a very specific aspect of a particular comment? oh well, I’m feeling nitpicky today…
I do think some are misrepresenting the whole “parade” thing. Setting up a straw man and all that.
Ads are not like parades. Ads are not live. Ads also exist in the context of their environment. So you will see ads in Cosmo that you will not see on billboards. And you will see ads at 10PM on a weeknight that you will not see on Saturday morning.
Parades OTOH are public functions, existing in a public street, and generally aimed at satisfying the needs of the overall public. Parades are more like a billboard (designed for public consumption) than a standard ad.
Personally, I don’t mind if my kids see someone kissing. I don’t care what sex they are. Hell, I kiss their mother all the time. My sister kiosses her wife; my other sister kisses her husband… kiss away. I do not, however, fondle my wife sexually in front of the kids, and wouldn’t hang out with a couple of ANY gender who did. I would be happier if they didn’t see that for a couple of years.
I don’t mind if my kids see someone who is dressed in a manner which is reasonably ‘standard’. In my area, women do not normally dress topless and do not typically wear bathing suits off the beach; men do not normally wear buttless chaps or bikini bottoms; and so on.
Of course, they know what men and women look like when essentially naked, from going to the beach. But they (and I, and much of society) distinguish between what heppens in certain spaces and what is OK in other spaces. You know, like the rest of life? “man in bathroom with you, touching your privates” is OK if it’s me and I’m wiping their ass, and NOT ok in pretty much all other situations.
So I DO mind if my kids see someone leading another person around on a leash while dressed in sexually suggestive clothing. I don’t care what sex they are either. It’s not any more appealing as a parent if they’re hetero, there’s just as much explaining to do.
And I mind it even more if it happens as part of an ostensibly kid-friendly event, like a daytime parade with big cartoon characters and balloons, and sych. I don’t think it’s bad to be gay. I don’t think it is bad to be exhibitionist. I just think it is rude to avoid any awareness of what others think is an appropriate time and place.
I think this is what RonF is trying to say, though I suspect he and I have quite different feelings about gay people.
Um, anybody mistaking a gay pride parade for a kid friendly event, shouldn’t have kids.
But thanks for telling us what we can do in public so as not to offend the tender sensibilities of the heterokinder.
I think that the point is that there’s no reason that a gay pride parade couldn’t be a kid-friendly event, Q Grrl. Great, you’re out and proud – and what exactly does that have to do with a guy leading another guy around on a chain, or what have you?
And how many parades feature this you dumb fucks? Do you even understand what a gay parade is? Children? Kid Friendly? Yeah, right.
“Hey honey, let’s take the kids downtown today and look at all the silly queers! Sure hope none of those Perverts are there though! Oh, and do you think little Billy is tall enough to reach my Playboy collection yet? I gotta start hiding them soon!”
Kids are exposed to more heterosexual bullshit in an hour of TV than from a gay parade that might happen in a middle to major sized city ONCE a year.
And has it not occurred to you straight men here that the gay men ARE.YANKING.YOUR.CHAINS. They’re making a very real and valid criticism of your homophobia when they strut their stuff. Looks like it works.
Funny, you thought the queers were just gathering together for each other huh? Silly straight folks.
# Q Grrl Writes:
July 12th, 2006 at 11:41 am
Um, anybody mistaking a gay pride parade for a kid friendly event, shouldn’t have kids.
I confess that I mistake most daytime parades in major areas for kid friendly events. This is clearly an error on my part dervied from the “public space = acceptable to almost all of the public” concept. I might also note that I would LIKE to take my kids to a gay pride parade (fun, politically active, and for all I know my kids are gay) but I can’t/don’t for the above described reason.
But thanks for telling us what we can do in public so as not to offend the tender sensibilities of the heterokinder.
Nice snip. Perhaps you didn’t know, you see, because I’ve heard people say things like “there’s nothing wrong with that” which makes me think they’re probably not parents yet.
I suppose you think kids would feel differently if they were homokinder? Hell, for all I know my kids ARE homokinder, assuming that means “young homosexuals” and not “children of homosexuals.” But that affects only what sex of person they fall in love with, not the age at which they should be exposed to overt sexual activity.
And now I’m curious. Do you honestly think that my reluctance to expose my young children to (for example) S&M culture is a “tender sensibility?” Or that it results from my being hetero? Can you explain that?
OH.mY> god
stop with the S&M. you obviously don’t know jack shit about gay parades.
Your tender sensibility is thinking that there is some rampant display of men’s genitalia swathed in leather thongs with attendant submissive queen’s on leashes. Get a fucking grip. Really. I mean soon.
Save the children my ass. Arrrrrgh.
Your kids will see more S&M on TV than at a gay parade. One hour of any of the CSI shows will expose them to much more shocking images than your neighborhood queer fest.
Why, here’s a nice link to Buffalo’s gay pride parade: http://www.pridebuffalo.org/gallery.html
You see more nudity on a public beach. And far less signs about getting along, churches, and community involvement.
Fuck off. Don’t want your kids to see things… put them in a closet and let them grow up there.
You know, go do a Google image search on “gay pride”.
When you’re done, let me know how many images of S&M practices you see, ‘kay?
And for a little light reading that’s right up your ally: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491
I’m confused about your position, Q Grrl. You seem to be saying that gay parades are obviously non-kid friendly and that anyone who thinks they are or would take their kid to one is an idiot. And you also seem to be saying that there’s nothing in a gay parade that a kid won’t see elsewhere and worse, and that anyone who doesn’t want their kid to see such things is an idiot.
Now, possibly, you think that everyone in the world is an idiot. Catch me in the right frame of mind, and I’ll sing the chorus while you do the verses. But your statements don’t seem to cohere.
From my POV, there are pride parades where little or nothing objectionable is happening, like the photos you linked to from Buffalo’s. Looks like a bunch of nice folks having a parade. Nothing to shield the daughter’s eyes from, anyway. I’ve also seen/attended parades with a lot of objectionable content – stuff that really ought not to be on the street, regardless of the proclivities of the people doing it.
It seems to me that public displays of sexuality are, past a certain affectational point of hand-holding and the like, largely inappropriate – whether hetero or homo. Whether its two dykes making out on a park bench or two straight kids dry humping against the side of their El Camino, it ought to be out of bounds – get a room. Some gay parades (or at least, some participants) are going to run up against that rule of thumb, and doubtless will feel oppressed. But if hetero participants in civil society are held to the same rules, I can live with it. Violating reasonable and nondiscriminatory norms concerning public sexual behavior isn’t “yanking the chains” and making us confront our homophobia; it’s being an immature jerkoff.
And I’m not straight, so you might want to make any counterargument not contingent on a dismissal of what straight guys think.
Q Grrl and ms_xeno: Actually, I’ve never seen any of the activities I described in any of the ads, etc. that you’ve described. You’ve seen a guy wearing women’s lingerie in a car ad, or someone in leather leading someone else with a dog collar and leash in a beer ad? I don’t think so. And, having gone to my share of baseball games and football games, I really haven’t seen very much kissing, etc. going on at all. I’ve never seen french-kissing, etc. at one.
Your kids will see more S&M on TV than at a gay parade.
Really? S&M? On what shows? Not anything I used to let my kids watch, in any case.
One hour of any of the CSI shows will expose them to much more shocking images than your neighborhood queer fest.
My neighborhood doesn’t have queer fests. And while I’ve seen some shocking images on CSI, they are portrayed as evil and wrong and the perpetrators are punished, not held up as examples to be proud of.
And has it not occurred to you straight men here that the gay men ARE.YANKING.YOUR.CHAINS. They’re making a very real and valid criticism of your homophobia when they strut their stuff.
Actually, no. I didn’t. I don’t think the point is to make criticism of any disapproval of homosexual behavior, nor do I think it is to criticize “homophobia”. I figured that they are celebrating that kind of behavior and presenting it as something to be proud of. After all, it’s called a “Gay Pride” parade, not a “Heterosexuality Critique” parade. The publicity of such parades that I have read says that this is the gay and lesbian communities on parade, celebrating their activities and accomplishments. And right in among the kinds of things that you’d expect to see in such a parade (youth groups, community organizations, schools, etc.) are these other folks, apparent being accepted and presented by the parade organizers and other participants as representative of the gay and lesbian community.
Understand that I’m not talking about a couple guys holding hands while walking down the street, or Q Grrl kissing her gf in the same way that I might kiss my wife while out in public. I’m responding to the comment that straight folks take their kids to Gay Pride parades to grab up some of the loot. While the vast majority of paraders might well be community groups, etc., some of the displays that are tolerated by the organizers of such parades are not something that I care to see or that I’d want my kids to see, at least not as something to be displayed in public, emulated, or to be proud of. And they’re not something that is tolerated, either on a homosexual or heterosexual basis, in other parades that one might go to in the U.S., outside of Mardi Gras in N.O. (the closest thing we’d see to Carnivale in the U.S.), and I wouldn’t take my kid to see that either.
# Q Grrl Writes:
July 12th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
OH.mY> god
stop with the S&M. you obviously don’t know jack shit about gay parades.
I was referring both to 1) the hypothetical posed upthread; and 2) your comments a couple of posts above.
read the thread, willya?
Your tender sensibility is thinking that there is some rampant display of men’s genitalia swathed in leather thongs with attendant submissive queen’s on leashes. Get a fucking grip. Really. I mean soon.
Well, what the fuck else would I be talking about? That’s what is in the thread. And that is all I would complain about. I mean, if you could take off the “heterosexual men are idiots” blinders for about one paragraph, you’d understand the discussion.
I take no personal offense at any parade though I do actually sort of hate the skinheads. You, or anyone, can” make me confront my (nonexistent) homophobia” all they want and I think it’s great. Free expression is wonderful. I am only discussing appropriate time/place/manner limitations relevant to adult displays.
Save the children my ass. Arrrrrgh.
can I confess I just thought of the “what’s a pirate’s favorite letter of the alphabet” joke?
OK, OK, don’t save the children. Aaarrrgh.
Your kids will see more S&M on TV than at a gay parade. One hour of any of the CSI shows will expose them to much more shocking images than your neighborhood queer fest.
I am 100% sure they would, if they watched TV… which they don’t. And if they did, I would no more sit them down in front of an episode of CSI than spank them. What idiot would let a young child watch CSI? Even the people who MAKE CSI don’t plug it as a kid’s show.
OK, blinders off, please, for a moment.
Are you seriously suggesting that there are no appropriate limits for children, or that existence of some inappropriate behavior is justification for other inappropriate behavior? This is not a “get a grip” question.
Why, here’s a nice link to Buffalo’s gay pride parade: http://www.pridebuffalo.org/gallery.html
Great parade! Do you understand that this is not the sort of parade I am discussing?
You see more nudity on a public beach. And far less signs about getting along, churches, and community involvement.
Ayup. Perhaps you noticed that I commented on that in my earlier post. Did you read it? I n any case, I am not sure that a public beach is a great standard. Yes: You see nudity on the public beach. But nudity is not sexual, it’s just nudity. Context matters.
Fuck off. Don’t want your kids to see things… put them in a closet and let them grow up there.
Great! You can fuck off, too!
Not because you’re gay. No, you should fuck off because you seem unable to understand that I was talking about one TINY aspect of a very LIMITED part of a post, discussing a RARE and possibly HYPOTHETICAL occurrence. I am guessing you didn’t even really read my post. Then you used that to condemn and attempt to insult me, while not actually addressing any of my arguments. Have you even a clue that you did so? Do you have any idea what I actually believe, or what my position is on gay rights, for that matter? Sigh.
Asshole.
Well, when children can vote, we’ll march in June for them too.
Kid-friendly implies taking into consideration the needs of conventional heterosexual families and their offspring. That’s on ya’ll to keep track of. IOW, not on my time. So, no I don’t expect any gay pride parade to be kid-friendly. Not any more than I expect the House or Senate to be kid friendly. Some things just happen to be geared by and for adults. To pull out some crap about how they aren’t kid friendly is a dodge so that folks don’t have to own up to their own homophobia.
Now, possibly, you think that everyone in the world is an idiot. Catch me in the right frame of mind, and I’ll sing the chorus while you do the verses.
And I’ll sing either tenor or bass, whatever you need. The founders of our current form of government arranged it as a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy in part because they had a mistrust of the reasoning ability of the general public, and I’ve seen little to make me think they were off base.
If you two can prove to me that S&M is widely displayed and practiced at gay parades, then I might listen to your weak attempts at social criticism. If not, you sound like a bunch of old men, sucking on your gums, wondering what the hell has happend to the kids these days.
RonF:
[snort] Dude, men were wearing women’s lingerie on sitcoms twenty or thirty years ago. As for the rest, go look up some “classic” photographers in the fashion industry like Helmut Newton. Or go google “Betty Page.”
As I said before, I really think your discomfort here is based on homophobia, not sexuality per se. The more elaborate your justifications, the more I’m inclined to believe it. I write this, BTW, as someone who has been to a Pride March or two and been privy to a few debates about how “family friendly” these events should be. It would also be interesting to consider this thread alongside the debate about FGS between bean and some of the folks who were there. However, the main thrust of the poem above is correct. Straight hypocrisy is alive and well. And you are, indeed, holding a subgroup of modern society to standards that you cannot or will not hold the dominant group to. In the process, you perpetuate a distorted picture of that subculture, while neatly pushing the blame on the diverse individuals within it for the distortions that are part of your own willful lack of knowledge. Perhaps that doesn’t matter to you, but it may matter to one of your kids if s/he feels attracted to the same sex.
I think back on my own childhood in the homophobic suburbs, and my incredible fear and shame when I realized that I had feelings of attraction toward the same sex. Fear and shame were neither necessary nor helpful to an already timid, secretive kid, but they were inevitable when one considers that negative, prurient images of gays and lesbians were all that we ever saw or heard about. Yep, even in the “liberal” suburbs.
Thirty-odd years later, here are folks like you, still waving the banner for the status quo and its ridiculous, mack truck-sized blind spots. Makes me sad for the kids who still have to figure out what their sexuality means and how to be truthful, happy, self-respecting people when they reach adulthood. It’s sad because sometimes I still don’t know how I managed to smuggle across a few scraps of truth, self-respect and happiness for myself. I hope my modern counterparts can make it, too. Despite this same old bullshit that never seems to go away.
Heterosexual and misogynistic sexuality on display? Did you not read Ms. Xeno’s comment (#20)? I’ll add on to that:
Television:
Beer commercials
Deoderant commercials (“how come when she sweats it’s hot? but when you sweat you just stink?” remember that one?)
Crappy generic american food chain commercials
MP3 player commercials
Victoria’s Secret commercials (and extend that to their catalogs for no other reason than I don’t want to retype their name later)
Las Vegas, Baywatch, Nip/Tuck like series
Hell, Buffy with it’s revealing outfits, excessive make up, etc. (for the many of you who have watched that series – which I adore)
Billboards & mass transit advertising galore.
Television and movies in which women are scantily clad/submissive/effectively cardboard cutouts because only women can be sexy
cheerleaders (who wear far less than the vast, vast majority of attendees and participants at a gay pride parade)
Hooters (as has been mentioned before and for which there is a massive billboard that I pass everyday on my way home)
Vogue
Do you really believe that we aren’t smothered in depictions of (heterosexual versions of) sexuality/nudity/near nudity/stuff you find perverse at gay pride events? I can’t believe that.
Well, when children can vote, we’ll march in June for them too.
I am not really sure what you mean by this.
Kid-friendly implies taking into consideration the needs of conventional heterosexual families and their offspring. That’s on ya’ll to keep track of. IOW, not on my time.
Well, really kid-friendly requires taking into account the needs of KIDS. Who are certainly not damaged by exposure to gays, or to gay culture. But who are probably better off without being exposed to certain aspects of adult culture.
Yes: Some of those kids are the children of heteros. They may even be hetero themself. Um, is there any particular reason you would tell THEM to fuck off, other than some strange possible desire to make them dislike you and thus validate your dislike of them?
If you two can prove to me that S&M is widely displayed and practiced at gay parades, then I might listen to your weak attempts at social criticism. If not, you sound like a bunch of old men, sucking on your gums, wondering what the hell has happend to the kids these days.
Huh? As usual, I didn’t say it was widely displayed. I said that when it happens it is a bad thing, IF it happens in a daytime, public, publicized, easily-accessible event.
Do you disagree with that? If so, what part and why?
Or, let me ask another question: Is it any more appropriate if it happens only in some cities?
To pull out some crap about how they aren’t kid friendly is a dodge so that folks don’t have to own up to their own homophobia.
I am teaching my kids all about logical fallacies–wonderful things–so as they grow up they won’t be convinced to drop an argument bacsue of this sort of thing.
Not a thing I have said in this thread has been homophobic–because I’m not, duh. All the specific invective has come from your side. ALL of it. Go read it, in case you forget. Are you heterophobic?
Or (perhaps a more interesting question) would you LIKE me to be homophobic, so you can avoid engaging on the argument and happily attack me instead? Sorry, I’m not. Because I can’t help but note you are pulling about everything you can out of the air on this one. I’m happy to answer questions myself. But the ad hominems won’t work on me.
Do me a favor, make me happy–just answer some of the questions I posted. Then this will be over with.
Here; I’ll collect two of them for you, since you answered NONE of them so far:
“And now I’m curious. Do you honestly think that my reluctance to expose my young children to (for example) S&M culture is a “tender sensibility?” Or that it results from my being hetero? Can you explain that?”
“Are you seriously suggesting that there are no appropriate limits for children, or that existence of some inappropriate behavior is justification for other inappropriate behavior? ”
And one random lingo question: Does “heterokinder” mean my kids irrespective of sexual orientation, or is it only referring to my kids if they’re heterosexual? If the former, what happens if they turn out to be gay; do I rename them? And if the latter, how the heck am I supposed to know, seeing as they’re both under 5? I am sure this is a friendly term and not a steretyped negative one, so I figure there must be an explanation somewhere.
I must go do some actual work.
But BTW:
“And you are, indeed, holding a subgroup of modern society to standards that you cannot or will not hold the dominant group to. ”
Just in case this was meant to apply to me: Nope. I’m egalitarian. I could really care less whether they’re gay. What, you think hetero S&M folks are any great joy to look at? I confess I probably couldn’t tell them apart other than by looking at the context of the sexes of the participants. Though I confess they don’t parade much.
So you think “you can fuck off too” and “asshole” aren’t invective? Or are you saying they are invective, but it’s okay to act like that because it wasn’t “specific” invective?
I’ve really had it with this thread. Let me make this really clear: It’s not okay how you’ve behaved. And if you’re tempted to respond “but she did it too,” let me assure you that Q Grrl’s behavior does not magically make your behavior on this thread acceptable.
Sailorman, I don’t think it’s the place of concerned heterosexual parents to tell gay rights parades what should or should not be included. It’s a safe bet that these sorts of debates are already going on among parade organizers and participants, many of whom are themselves parents. The Pride parades are what they are (and what they are varies from city to city); if your local parade has a rep for stuff you’d rather not let your children see, then the solution is for you to not bring your children there.
I think it’s good that parents have tender sensibilities about their young children. However, why have I seen the “what about the children who see this” complaint made about Pride parades dozens of times over the years, but similar complaints don’t seem to be raised about “sexy” images on magazine covers and billboards, which are far more ubiquitous?
I’d serious suggest that it’s a cause for concern when “inappropriate behavior” is far more objected to when it is overtly queer people doing the behavior. Given the long history of complaining about “obscenity” and “what about the kids” complaints as a way of justifying discrimination against sexual minorities, I think it’s appropriate to be suspicious of these complaints. In short, I don’t think it’s fair to expect queers to clean up their acts until AFTER straights have cleaned up theirs.
AMP – I know its your choice to be at a Pride Parade, but what I’m trying to say is that in general, the Parades and surrounding events I’ve been to here in New York and North Hampton, MA seem to be enviroments where sexual expression is more open. I’m not gay but it could be because being gay or transgendered in itself is an expression of sexual freedom and openess? I don’t know which parades RonF has gone to but they aren’t S&M fest although there might be some leather daddies or the occassional dog-on -leash person. However if he might be directly exposed to that aspect of a Pride Parade, which is there.
The pregnancy threw me off because I don’t take it as an indicator that your gay or straight anymore. As a straight person the poem makes sense but then it doesn’t because like I said before homosexuality is still seen as abnormal or out of what known normalcy(thats changing but slowly) hence its hard to accuse a heterosexual of being a hypocrit because heterosexuality is considered normal or default.
Q-Grrll – I have have no idea how common they are. I only know that the major cities and gay friendly towns in my geographical location tend to have one every year, Just like any other parade.
And further more I think a pride parade should be kid friendly and family friendly. The problem homosexuality has right now is that it is seen as sexual deviancy and lumped right along with overal sexual deviancy. Pride week and the parades are probably the biggest events to celebrate the GLBTcommunity. It should include families and children. Unless you make the assumption that there aren’t gay families with children or Hetero families with gay children that would like their children to be proud of who they are.
Q Grrl – You know the moderation goals here as well as anyone, you’ve been posting here for ages.
If you honestly feel that you can’t manage to post in an argument like this one without telling people to fuck off and calling them dumb fucks – which are the ONLY things you’ve said here that I disagree with at all – then what can I say? I’d rather having you posting here and implicitly saying “fuck you” to my goals for what I’d like “Alas” to be like, then having you not post here at all. But if you can find a way to post here without calling people dumb fucks, then I’d prefer that.
Z – In context, the reason for assuming that the woman in the poem announcing her pregnancy identifies as straight is pretty clear-cut. I think that’s the bottom line.
As I said to Sailerman, I don’t think it’s the place of concerned heterosexuals to tell gay rights parades what should or should not be included. It’s a safe bet that these debates are already going on among parade organizers and participants, many of whom are themselves parents.
It puts a bad taste in my mouth when heterosexuals want to register their opinions about how queer people conduct themselves at a queer event. Ask yourself “is my opinion really helpful here? Or should I assume this is a debate they can work out for themselves, within their own community, without my input?”
My opinion of gay pride events – plenty of which are, in fact, family-friendly by any reasonable definition – is that straights should trust queers to have these debates among themselves and work it out among themselves. Straight time is better spent arguing against homophobes, imo.
Sailor wrote:
You’re not much of an egalitarian by my standards. Since you know that both straight and queer S&M afficianados exist, why would you argue from the false position that a queer person in S&M gear at a parade makes the existence of S&M strictly a queer practice ? I trust that were you to stand on the corner at our local Pride march while the Gay Men’s Chorus or Lesbians Enjoying The Sciences marched by in their street clothes, you wouldn’t suddenly decree vocal groups and nature walks to be strictly queer practices.
The reverse is also true. If you had a hetero friend that you’d met through a common love of vocal groups or nature walks, and at some point this person told you s/he liked S&M, I doubt that the latter information would suddenly blot out every other aspect of your friend’s personality as you knew it. (Or am I merely the most wordly, hip and urbanized soul in this thread ? If the answer is “yes,” the standards must be slipping damn rapidly. :p )
The lack of self-awareness that Parker pokes fun at is as ubiquitious in this thread as it is exasperating. How many of the “egalitarians” and nice straight folks just out to protect their children would rush to grab the newspaper away from their kid long enough to clip out the ads for bras and underwear, for instance ? How many of them would draw baggy pants on Miss Buxley before they let their kids read the funnies ? Not many, I’ll wager.
“why would you argue from the false position that a queer person in S&M gear at a parade makes the existence of S&M strictly a queer practice?”
What? Where did he argue that? How is this not a total strawman?
What? Where did he argue that? How is this not a total strawman?
I didn’t. It is.
Look, Amp…
I am a persnickety sort and a fair literalist. I work extremely hard on trying to establish GENERALLY APPLIED methods of evaluating a situation. And you know what? Whenever anyone–anyone–gets the “I don’t agree with this” aspect then they always think it’s because I’m biased towards the other side. When I apply my standards regarding default innocence to acuse drig dealers or terrorists the right wing thinks I’m a bleeding liberal. When I apply those same standards to accused abusers or rapists the left wing thinks I’m a crazed conservative who hates women.
Here, i am expressing a general position–go back and read my posts if you don’t believe me, as applied to a specific situation. That does not mean the position is situation-specific. It does not mean it is derived from the subject matter, which is what would make it both NOT generalist, and WOULD be inappropriate.
To address some of the specific claims here:
So you think “you can fuck off too” and “asshole” aren’t invective? Or are you saying they are invective, but it’s okay to act like that because it wasn’t “specific” invective?
Sorry. I was not clear: I meant invective which was specifically focused or based on my gender identity. i don’t think Q is wrong because s/he’s gay. I think Q is wrong because s/he’s wrong. The reverse does not seem to be true.
Sailorman, I don’t think it’s the place of concerned heterosexual parents to tell gay rights parades what should or should not be included. It’s a safe bet that these sorts of debates are already going on among parade organizers and participants, many of whom are themselves parents. The Pride parades are what they are (and what they are varies from city to city); if your local parade has a rep for stuff you’d rather not let your children see, then the solution is for you to not bring your children there.
Hmm. I don’t personally agree with this position, though it’s certainly valid. Are you meaning to state that generally? Which is to say: is everyone’s parade “not subject to different-orientation commentary”? i think that would be unwise as a rule.
I think it’s good that parents have tender sensibilities about their young children. However, why have I seen the “what about the children who see this” complaint made about Pride parades dozens of times over the years, but similar complaints don’t seem to be raised about “sexy” images on magazine covers and billboards, which are far more ubiquitous?
I dunno. Selective perception on your part? Wal-Mart refuses to sell plenty of magazines and CDs it doesn’t like; almost all of those are overtly hetero. Plenty of people complain about sexual behavior at–for example–spring break, which is mostly hetero. Lots of people DO bitch about everything from victoria’s secret to billboards. People shut down porn shops; try to censor TV shows; the FCC fined Janet Jackson some enormous amount for showing a tiny bit of tit at the Superbowl. Every time you see a magazine sold in a plastic and obscuring cover, it’s because someone protested about the cover art/picture/language.
Also, the truth is that magazine ads and billboards are not parades, and the subject of the magazine ads is not what I am discussing here. There are some parallels, but there are better comparisons.
I’d serious suggest that it’s a cause for concern when “inappropriate behavior” is far more objected to when it is overtly queer people doing the behavior.
I absolutely agree. That would be discriminatory.
Given the long history of complaining about “obscenity” and “what about the kids” complaints as a way of justifying discrimination against sexual minorities, I think it’s appropriate to be suspicious of these complaints. In short, I don’t think it’s fair to expect queers to clean up their acts until AFTER straights have cleaned up theirs.
Well, I don’t agree with that. Though in most cases I support selective preferences which benefit historically disadvantaged groups, I don’t think there should be AA for (as you put it above) “inappropriate behavior”. Of the various ways to use selective enforcement, this seems an uncommonly strange one.
My opinion of gay pride events – plenty of which are, in fact, family-friendly by any reasonable definition – is that straights should trust queers to have these debates among themselves and work it out among themselves. Straight time is better spent arguing against homophobes, imo.
I don’t really trust anyone to have my interests at heart. I don’t trusts straight, either (if I did I would not fight against homophobia in the majority, would I?) And given that Q, for example, seems to both distrust me specifically because of my sexual orientation and also apparently would be willing to deliberately “challenge” me to make a point, why should I trust him/her?
A parade is not a “queer event.” It is a public event. That is the only reason I feel entitled to comment on it. And apparently–no, they can’t work it out by themselves, at least not all the time given the (rare) result I am discussing.
It is entitled to no more deference because it is organized by gays than the Saint Patrick’s Day parade is a “hetero event” which requires deference from gay people. I protested against the bad behavior at the STP parade–in that case, excluding gays. If there was some skinhead march, I’d protest against that as well. And guess what? If there’s a gay pride parade I would also give my input: I’d fight for the right to have the parade go on, and I’d lobby against the inclusion of aspects which I found offensive.
I understand the “It is our culture, stay out” part just fine. But Helloo–ooo? “Stay out” and “parade down a public street” are not generally compatible things.
Look, go back and read the first sentence of my first post:
“What to do when I agree entirely with the underlying premise of the post, but disagree with a very specific aspect of a particular comment? oh well, I’m feeling nitpicky today…
Then go and find somewhere that I discuss this other than in the context of the specific and rare instance of inappropriate behavior at a parade.
Within those various posts, go find language where I make any suggestion that my definition or dislike of of such behavior depends in any way on the sex of the participants.
Then, within my responses to Q, go find language that suggests I find Q annoying because s/he’s gay, and not because s/he is constantly accusing me of being homophobic and obnoxious by misinterpreting my posts.
Good luck.
Then after you have reread things, perhaps you will admit that it is possible for me to disagree with a gay person, even on an issue primarily related to gay people, without being a homophobic heterokinder non-egalitarian straw man. Maybe I just happen to disagree. Maybe I am arguing because I get pissed when someone accuses me of something offensive. Maybe I am arguing because I am unwilling to concede what seems to be to be the truth, just because someone else disagrees with me–who doesn’t want to talk about the issue itself. Maybe… oh hell, this is getting boring.
Sigh.
Absent exhibition of actually illegal behavior, I have neither a right nor an interest in forcing a group sponsoring gay pride parades to put or not put particular groups/types of behavior in them. I do have an interest in what my kids see as the kind of behavior one should emulate and be proud of. You want me to bring my kids to see a gay pride parade so that they’ll see that gays and lesbians are just like everyone else and contribute to the community in a variety of ways? Then keep the people who set a bad example out of them.
Now, the above may not be the objective of the people organizing the parade. Or, they may have a different definition of “bad example” than I do – maybe they’re proud of male strippers and “dog walkers”. That’s fine. That’s their right. Just don’t expect to see me and my kids watching, in that case. And don’t tell me that we’re not there because of “homophobia”. I wouldn’t take my kid to a parade that had equivalent heterosexual displays in it either, even if it was only 2 out of 200 groups in the parade.
I want to know where all this talk of Gay Pride parades fits in with the original post… I may have to reread the comment thread, but it’s awfully out of topic. It seems to me (and of course, poetry is always open to interpretation) that the poem is about the fact that in general, people expect gay people to keep their sexuality private (in the closet), while heterosexual people are blatently marketing their sexuality all the time.
I think the better contemporary analogy might be Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (rather than gay pride parades). Heterosexuality is normal and normative, so in the military, if you are hetero, you can talk with your fellow troops about your girl back home, have pin-up picks in your locker, whatever, but gays shouldn’t be so blatent – they have to actively HIDE their sexuality so as not to offend the sensibilities of others. The poem is focused on illuminating the ultimate heterosexual privilege – to be yourself in public and have no one question/degrade/harm you because of it. We have blatent displays of heterosexuality in our everyday lives all the time, but, for instance, in many places, if 2 men are seen walking down the street holding hands, you might find someone muttering under his breath, “It’s a free country, they can do what they want, but do they have to flaunt their sexuality?” That same person would NEVER say that about a straight couple holding hands.
Now, to the subject of pride parades, which I am still unsure of how it fits in… I generally think of parades as a time for celebration and performance. So, if you think of other parades, like, oh, St. Patrick’s Day parades – people are dressed up in ridiculous costumes to “celebrate” be silly, let loose, etc. Sometimes parades are “family friendly” sometimes they are not. RonF, I completely agree with you that many pride parades, where people are wearing outrageous costumes and celebrating in obviously adult ways are not a place for children. I’m straight, but I consider myself highly supportive of people who love people of the same sex, both sexes, etc. I’d go to a pride parade myself – I think I’ve been to one – Minneapolis one year… but I wouldn’t bring my child with me, and that’s ok. Pride parades are not everyday, average, typical events for gay people – just as St. Patrick’s day parades and the clothes people wear and how they behave are not typical of Irish people or people who go to/participate in those parades. Thus, I don’t think you can build an argument that gay people need not be so blatent based on annual events that happen in comparably few metro areas around the country. Rather, let’s get back to the spirit of the poem which is basically – let’s make visible all the ways in which heterosexuality is blasted at as from all angles and examine why similar behaviors/signs from same sex couples make us suddenly reel back and say – go back to the closet…
Sailor, pdf, if it’s not a strawman, you tell me: Why is the possibility of seeing a queer person decked out in S&M gear such an aparently critical part of this thread ? Why would that prospect be any more “blatant,” than the straight behavior in the original piece ?
The point, Ron, which you keep dodging, is that there are comparable heterosexual displays all over the place, but this doesn’t inspire you to keep your kids locked up in the basement for fear that they’ll get “the wrong ideas” about what straight sexuality is.
Ah, forget it. I’m done here.
# ms_xeno Writes:
July 13th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Sailor, pdf, if it’s not a strawman, you tell me: Why is the possibility of seeing a queer person decked out in S&M gear such an aparently critical part of this thread ?
First of all: I have no idea what “pdf” means outside of an Adobe file, so if it’s relevant to your question then this response may not make any sense to you.
I didn’t think it was a critical part of this thread. It didn’t have to be a critical part of this thread. It was merely a side, interesting aspect of the thread, in which I noticed that a particular view was being both misrepresented and instead of saying “oops” and moving on, people were getting mulish. I don’t like the ‘pile on’.
“Comparable” as you are using it is pretty meaningless.
I mean, what are you calling “comparable?” Anything with any sexualized component, however slight? Then sure, OK, everything is comparable and there is no need to differentiate, and we’re all heteronormative prudes for ever thinking there was.
The poem made a powerful point about things which WERE comparable, and normal in everyday society–from holding hands, to kissing, to simply acting loving. It is powerful because many heterosexuals apply a “different standard” when judging comparability, where they want gays to be less sexual than they are themselves.
Someone (wasn’t me) made a point of behavior which WASN’T comparable. In particular, public S&M displays–which everyone acknowledges are part of a few daytime pride parades. (they generally aren’t part of most daytime non-pride parades.)
Is that everyday behavior? Nope. Is it generally limited to parades? Yup.
Does that make it more acceptable or more “comparable” to, for example, a Victoria’s Secret catalog or a Cosmo magazine?
No. Prevalence is not a measure of appropriateness. It’s a measure of damage, or how much difference it makes in the overall life, or a lot of other things, but prevalence := appropriateness.
You could make a rational argument that even if it is inappropriate, it is rare enough so the overall “mean” of inappropriateness is way far on the hetero side.
Nobody really did that.
You could say “yeah, that’s probably inappropriate” or “well, i don’t think it’s inappropriate, but I can see how it might offend some folks” and then go on to the rest of the discussion.
Nobody did that either.
Instead, you seem focused on saying either that 1) it never happens (this is patently false), or 2) Anyone who doesn’t like it is a heteronormative idiot (this may be true in your perspective, but is objectively and personally untrue).
What do you expect us to say?
Yeah. Send those bad homosexuals home! Only let the good, heterosexual-prude-approved homosexuals out for Pride. Hell, I know – let’s only let HRC march, that should take care of that.
You know, many queers are not assimilationist and have no interest in proving that they are “just like everyone else,” which of course translates to “just like a specific kind of heterosexual person.” I am that sort of queer. No, I am nothing like the middle-class, white, hetereosexual, monogamous model that “everyone else” is based on, and I am very happy and proud of that. What I want are my civil rights and liberties, just like everyone else, without having to demonstrate that I’m like “everyone else” to get them.
I’d also like to echo Kate L.’s comments above. It’s so easy for people to be all like, “Oh, but those queers are so crazy and debauched at Pride!” That is not what Pat Parker’s poem is about. It’s more about something like this: I often get nervous or downright scared when I kiss my girlfriend rather chastely on the lips in public. And I live in freakin’ New York City – venture away from the cities and it gets so much worse. That’s the day-to-day reality for so many queer folks. Not Pride parades, the one day of the year where we can safely flaunt our sexuality like straights do all year round.
I don’t know if you would be receptive to these ideas, Ron & Sailorman, but here’s a possibility…
You know how we speak in other threads about the ways that stereotypes are reinforced, because every time we see someone who is part of a stereotyped group indulgingi in a stereotyped behavior we think, “Aha!” So like, every time a fat person is scarfing down an entire dessert buffet including the napkins, or a black man shoots up heroine in front of a school and then sings an impromptu ditty about shooting cops, or an asian woman slams into your bumper after changing lanes withotu putting her lights on and running into a pole (and yes, I’m being flippant about these analogies), some little mean-spirited categorizing part of our brains, conscious or no, says to itself, “AHA! See? Fat people have no self control! Black men are dangerous! Asians can’t drive!”
And so, when you see a gay man dolled up in a leather harness, dragging his submissive partner by a leash, there goes that uncharitable brain bit, saying, “See? Gay people are totally into S&M / totally too sexual / way blatant / only about sex / whatever other stereotype happens to be firing the neurons.”
Another thing I’d ask you to think about as a possibility is that if you go to a heterosexual parade, and you see Madame Skank and Monsieur Skeeze bumping and grinding up against the side of a building, Mme Skank’s gold lame mini pushed over the string of her red thong, M Skeeze’s boner jutting at a 90 degree angle in his leather pants… I’m sure the tendency is to get annoyed. “God,” goes the tendency, “What horrible, inappropriate people, with no decency or regard for my children.”
But Mme Skank and Monsieur Skeeze don’t bear the responsibility for representing their entiure sexuality, because their sexuality is the default. So you don’t think, “heterosexuals are horrible, inappropriate people, with no decency or regard for my children.”
In contrast, we often view people who belong to othered groups as representing the behavior of that group. When a South Indian author writes a novel about food and sex, academic papers are likely to come out discussing the South Indian obsession with food and sex — because her work, in some way, is viewed as representative of South Indian writers in general.
Likewise, although Mme Skank and M Skeeze can be viewed as annoying individuals, our leather clad dom will be viewed – at least by a significant portion of the population – as representing gay men.
And again, a lot of this takes place subconsciously. I don’t think it’s the result of overt homophobia. But whether you think these kinds of reactions could be contributing in any way to how you think about gay pride parades, I think it’s important to acknowledge that these kinds of automatic, subconscious stereotyping DO take place in the brains of others, and that they DO unfairly place burdens on minority groups.
The point, Ron, which you keep dodging, is that there are comparable heterosexual displays all over the place…
Ms_Xeno, could you please direct me to a place where me and my toddler can see heterosexual S&M participants in full regalia, engaging in their sexual proclivity, walking down Main Street at high noon?
Thanks.
Robert, wasn’t there a woman dragging a man on a leash in the “I am Man” Burger King commecial?
Does that make it more acceptable or more “comparable” to, for example, a Victoria’s Secret catalog or a Cosmo magazine?
You know that Cosmo is half makeup pointers and half best-blowjob-ever tips, right? It’s explicit material. How is a “public S&M display” involving one man on a leash and another man holding it worse than those Axe body spray ads with the guy spraying a trail from arm to crotch with the slogan, “Show her the way”? How is a woman in a bra and panties better than a man in a leash and a g-string? How is a man on a leash worse than any of the covers of Maxim and FHM that your child can see at the grocery store? How is it worse than the Dead Stripper of the Week on Law & Order: Sexualized Victims Unit? This is a double standard: you’re bothered about this particular display not because it’s more graphic or less clothed, but because it implies a particular kind of sexual proclivity.
Ms_Xeno, could you please direct me to a place where me and my toddler can see heterosexual S&M participants in full regalia, engaging in their sexual proclivity, walking down Main Street at high noon?
Folsom Street Fair, sweetie. Straight people come out for that, too, and if one day a year is too much for us, it’s too much for them.
Why does S&M regalia make it worse, given that the people involved aren’t actually having sex in front of your kid?
Robert, wasn’t there a woman dragging a man on a leash in the “I am Man” Burger King commecial?
I don’t know; I don’t watch commercials. If so, it’s highly inappropriate.
Folsom Street Fair, sweetie.
OK, then shut that one down too. (Or at least, let’s criticize it.)
Why does S&M regalia make it worse[?]
I don’t know. It just does.
OK, then shut that one down too. (Or at least, let’s criticize it.)
You don’t get to argue that straight people just don’t do something and then change the subject when someone points out that they do. Your double standard is your blindness to comparable displays of heterosexual sexuality, not just your willingness to criticize the queers.
I don’t know. It just does.
For that matter, why is a leash “S&M regalia,” while lingerie is not “vanilla regalia?”
Piny, I’ve been opposed to excessive sexual display from time immemorial. The fact that I’m not aware of one particular element isn’t a double standard; it’s finiteness. I don’t live in San Francisco and had never heard or seen of the straight S&M parade; I have lived in other places and have seen objectionable gay parades.
I didn’t think that straight S&M had hit the streets; I was mistaken. It’s objectionable either way.
It would be fair to describe lingerie as regalia of some sort, and I would object to parades of lingerie wearers.
Piny, I’ve been opposed to excessive sexual display from time immemorial. The fact that I’m not aware of one particular element isn’t a double standard; it’s finiteness. I don’t live in San Francisco and had never heard or seen of the straight S&M parade; I have lived in other places and have seen objectionable gay parades.
Between that and the fact that you don’t see commercials, you aren’t really qualified to comment on the relative prevalence of either. You still haven’t explained why S&M makes sexual display somehow worse than a similarly explicit vanilla display.
It would be fair to describe lingerie as regalia of some sort, and I would object to parades of lingerie wearers.
And yet, you don’t. It escapes your notice and Sailorman’s. And you would not, apparently, object to lingerie advertisements that are just as explicit.
Were you aware of this parade of lingerie wearers, or do you watch too few commericials?
http://www.cbs.com/specials/victorias_secret_2005/
Thanks piny. That’s what I’ve been trying to point out. You’ve done it much better.
I’m still confused as to why leading somebody around on a leash is a sexual display, but the humongous Hooters billboard on I-5 by the Fife Curve isn’t.
Yeah, thanks, piny. And jake.
Hell, I grew up watching M*A*S*H in the 1970s. Remember that ? A hetero character (married twice in the course of the series) walked around weekly in women’s clothes in primetime, and it was all in good fun. It’s always in good fun to have a big, hairy guy wandering around in clothes that would be “sexy” on a straight woman– because the joke is that no matter what the het man wears, nobody would ever mistake him for a woman. By appearing to flout hetero mores, he was actually reinforcing them. You could apply the same criteria to a show like Monty Python, which used to be broadcast on our local PBS station in primetime, too.
But, again, the keepers of hetero mores, and the “egalitarians” don’t see this stuff because it’s everywhere. And because it’s too big a target. They prefer their targets small, because then putting them down is easier. So heteronormativity on the street, in the media, and in the language is no reason to barricade the kiddies in a bunker somewhere. A parade with a handful of queer folks in S&M gear, however, is ample reason to avoid that parade like it’s the plague.
Gack.
“pdf” is the name of the poster who sided with you earlier, Sailorman.
“Because it’s bad for the children” is a narrative we use in the United States for all kinds of things, not just to justify discrimination against sexual minorities and heterosexual displays that we think children should not be exposed to, but also to pull people’s heart strings on a variety of issues, including poverty, illegal drugs and war. At issue in this narrative is the notion that children are pure and innocent, not innocent in the sense that they have done nothing wrong, but innocent of certain kinds of knowledge that we would prefer them not to have, and one of the reasons we want them not to have it is that we are ourselves uncomfortable with that knowledge ourselves. Sex is the perfect example of it. We spend, as a culture, tremendous energy denying that children are erotic/sexual beings, and this despite the increasingly sexualized nature of certain kinds of advertising, especially for clothing, directed at children, especially young girls.
The denial and hypocrisy inherent in that contradiction, though, is not where I want to locate my comment. I would like to ask precisely, specifically, what is wrong with a child seeing in a parade people decked out in S/M clothing or someone leading someone else down the street on a leash, examples which I am using only because they have been talked about in the discussion, not because I have actually seen them in any gay pride parade. And when I ask “what is wrong?”, I am not so much interested in moral or ethical answers, because once you go there, you get into questions of personal choice and personal choice–if you don’t want your kids to see this, don’t take them to the parade–does not seem to be what’s at stake in this discussion. Rather, I am interested in whether anyone can point to the verifiable harm that seeing such a thing would do to a child.
It’s not just that I don’t see it, the harm, and that it seems to me entirely possible to give age appropriate responses to children who do see such things and then have lots of questions (which does not mean that I am negatively judging parents–and I am one–who see this differently); it’s also that I actually think it would be a lot healthier for children to see those kinds of honest and open displays of sexuality, of all kinds of sexuality, then the exploitive and degrading and pick-your-adjective displays of sexuality that are all around us in ads and tv shows, etc.
I do not mean that I therefore think it’s okay for my son, who is seven, to watch/see anything he wants; but I do think there is a difference between keeping him from seeing images that he is not ready to deal with and trying to “protect his innocence.” Because I do not think he is innocent in that way. Case in point: When he was in first grade, last year, he was telling me about the magazine covers that he saw when he walked with his counselors from his school to his after-school program. They showed, he said, women almost completely undressed and he wanted to know how on earth a woman could allow herself to be displayed like that. (My son has a very clear sense of public and private and he has a very strong sense of personal modesty when it comes to his body and how can and cannot see him without his clothes on.) At the same time, however, he confessed to me that he liked looking at the pictures, and I wish I could recreate the tone of voice in which he said it; it was heartbreaking for me. His voice was filled with confusion, because he didn’t quite understand why he found the pictures so compelling and because he knew that, according to his understanding of public and private, etc., the women were clearly doing something wrong/inappropriate by allowing themselves to be photographed like that, and yet he enjoyed looking at them, and it sure as hell sounded to me like he was feeling something akin to guilt or shame for the pleasure he was taking in those pictures. At the very least, I could tell from his voice, he knew that he was telling me something that might not be for public consumption, meaning that it was something he felt he couldn’t share with his mother.
I will not try to recreate here the conversation we had about this, because it happened more than a year ago, but think about it, he’s seven years old and already all the elements of guilt-ridden, male dominant, patriarchal heterosexuality are right there in him. I would much rather explain to him that the man leading another man down the street on a leash are playing a game (that, by the way, is in its own way not so different from the game my son and I played when he was little and he rode me like a pony) or that the man or woman decked out in S/M garb is wearing a costume like on Halloween–and why, at seven, does he need to know anything more than that?–than to have to unravel the very damaging patriarchal heterosexual knot that has so clearly already been tied in him.
I’ve already gone on too long. Please forgive the length of this comment.
Oops! Wish I could go back and edit. Two things: My son was six when we had the conversation about the magazine covers and, also, my point about not negatively judging other parents who see things differently from me was completely garbled in a very awkward sentence.
And yet, you don’t.
And you base this on your extensive knowledge of…what you imagine my beliefs to be?
I find inappropriate public sexuality in the culture unacceptable. Period. I don’t care what shape the willies are. I don’t care which particular twist is on display. Am I aware of every deviant cyst of psychosexual pus that bursts in the culture? No, I’m not, because I try to avoid as much of that crap as I possibly can. I’m not quite sure what that demonstrates – in order to object to one particular festering sleazepit, I have to personally know all of the festering sleazepits that exist? Fine, I’ll sign up with the AFA and let them send me the memo each week.
I quite understand that there’s a rather hypocritical stance out there in the world, where two guys holding hands is a Moral Outrage To The Heavens, but hetero coupling is approved of. That’s not me. I don’t mind restrained displays of affection between anybody. I do mind overt public sexual behavior by anyone. Straight S&M parades are reprehensible. Lingerie parades are reprehensible. Paris Hilton humping a hamburger on TV is reprehensible. Gay people simulating sex on a parade float is reprehensible. Everybody’s sexuality should be expressed in the bedroom, not on the street or the airwaves. There should be no distinction made between flavors; keep all that ice cream in the freezer where it belongs.
OK?
And you base this on your extensive knowledge of…what you imagine my beliefs to be?
Based on your tendency to criticize gay people as having a greater tendency towards graphic sexual display. You’ve used special language, and you’ve argued that they’re more common than the heterosexual version. (“Ms_Xeno, could you please direct me to a place where me and my toddler can see heterosexual S&M participants in full regalia, engaging in their sexual proclivity, walking down Main Street at high noon?”) That’s not true. Feel free to be an equal-opportunity prude, but don’t call yourself one if you’re going to employ a clear double standard.
I’m not quite sure what that demonstrates – in order to object to one particular festering sleazepit, I have to personally know all of the festering sleazepits that exist?
In order to comment on their relative prevalence, your exposure to them cannot be as severely limited as you say it is. I read the San Francisco Chronicle. I do not read the Los Angeles Times. I am not qualified to comment on the relative number of articles about energy-efficient appliances in those papers, and would be even less qualified to do so if I didn’t read either newspaper. I can object in the abstract to a refusal to cover the issue, but that’s about it.
Based on your tendency to criticize gay people as having a greater tendency towards graphic sexual display.
Perhaps you could show a citation for that, other than “things pulled out of Piny’s butt”.
I haven’t made any argument concerning relative prevalence; I was ignorant of one particular pustule in the glorious liberated face of American sexual deviance.
I can object in the abstract…
Which is pretty much what I’m doing here, piny.
IN THE ABSTRACT: Sexual display in public is inappropriate and should not happen.
Yes, and heterosexuals not so much even ‘marketing’ their sexuality, just talking easily and freely about it and doing the small affectionate things like holding hands, hugging, light (not obviously sexual) kissing etc, but calling gay men and lesbians ‘blatant’ when we do the exact same things, as if we’re doing it ‘to’ offend or somehow or other ‘sensationalise’ our existence. I think the way this conversation got stuck on Gay Pride Parades (which, as Amp and Q Grrl point out is ‘our’ business, take it or leave it) is instructive. Who does the sensationalising? And why? It rings to me similarly to the way conversation among some straight people about gay men quickly turns to the unrelated topic of pedophilia. (spelling?)
The poem is about such common real life experiences as having the mother of your long-term partner quietly suggest that it would be wrong for the two of you to kiss or hold hands, or do anything of that nature in front of the gathered children on Christmas day (or, implied, in front of children at any time). In this case I replied that gay and lesbian children need role models too, and how could she possibly know there wouldn’t be any budding young gays or lesbians there? What wouldn’t I have given for some role models when I was growing up in the 60’s! I knew I was what was then called ‘queer’ when I was 11 – but couldn’t/ didn’t tell a soul until I was 18.
The pressure on gays and lesbians to be invisible isn’t as great as it once was, but it’s still there easily enough that the poem isn’t nearly as dated as it should be. For too many people any ordinary (for them) affectionate thing ‘we’ do – as’ the people and the couples we are – requires ‘special’ interpretation and comment, and yet, when we attempt to explain how this can make us feel, we’re accused of being ‘precious’, and if we talk about our everyday gay lives the way they talk about their everyday straight lives (since we’re gay 24/7, not just when we’re having sex with someone) we’re accused of making everything about being gay!!!?? It’s a no-win situation – a tip toe through the straight world I’ve been doing as an out lesbian for 34 years now because even when you’re about as out and proud as you can be (which I am), sometimes you have to ask ask yourself whether you can be bothered doing ‘homosexuality 101’ with the next new person or in the next new situation. (i.e. be ‘out’, politely challenge people about their priviledged assumptions, homophobia or whatever.) It never stops being an issue you have to deal with. You don’t just ‘come out’ once, and that’s that. You have to do it over and over and over again. That’s why gay friendships and community are so important. I swear it can feel like nothing short of breaking through gravity. Yes, and that’s where we get to talk about , even laugh about (generic) straight and homophobic you! (We know who you are, even when you don’t know who we are….)
Perhaps you could show a citation for that, other than “things pulled out of Piny’s butt”.
I haven’t made any argument concerning relative prevalence; I was ignorant of one particular pustule in the glorious liberated face of American sexual deviance.
Yeah, you have: you argued that gay people do things–like, for example, walk each other on leashes down the street at high noon–that straight people don’t. This is the comment you were replying to:
The point, Ron, which you keep dodging, is that there are comparable heterosexual displays all over the place…
You were disputing the argument that there are comparable heterosexual displays all over the place. That is an argument about relative prevalence.
That is an argument about relative prevalence.
OK. Whatever.
It occurs to me that I get to hold my position whether you like it or not, and that I don’t particularly care whether it meets with your approval or not.
Beyond elementary affection, no public displays of sexuality, please, for anyone.
It occurs to me that I get to hold my position whether you like it or not, and that I don’t particularly care whether it meets with your approval or not.
Hon, I don’t really give a fuck about approving you one way or another. I’ve been kind enough to refrain from describing your weekend plans as festering sleazepits, though. I care about you making one argument and then pretending to have made another, especially if you’re going to act like I’m criticizing your arguments unfairly.
Hmm, interesting question. Think about it before you read my real reply.
Let’s say I was already on record as having criticized the FSF (which I had never heard of). THEN would you think I was being generalist? Or homophobic?
In other words, what–at this point–would convince you that I am arguing based on a generally applied principle, and not on a homophobic standpoint?
Anything?
Let’s say I was already on record as having criticized the FSF (which I had never heard of). THEN would you think I was being generalist? Or homophobic?
In other words, what–at this point–would convince you that I am arguing based on a generally applied principle, and not on a homophobic standpoint?
If you actually had criticized, say, the Victoria’s Secret lingerie parade with the same harshness that you reserve for comparable queer displays–which, oddly enough, aren’t generally major television events–then you’d simply be anti-PDA. Since you, y’know, didn’t, we’ll keep on calling you something else.
Mandolin,
You’re essentially discussing the doctrine of selective perception. I’m both very familiar with, and receptive, to it. I am not sure if is entirely applicable here though I suspect it largely is. I am constantly attempting to be aware of my own selective perception and counter it. I am pretty damn sure that’s not what I’m feeling here–I can explain why if you want, though as a theory regading group identity and selective perception it’s not really poetic…
Oh, hell. It’s interesting. Why not. It’s not as if I have to worry someone will dislike me…
First: I think this may be media selective perception. I canot control that as a user of media. But Im willing to admit it might be the case. If there are naked sexual folks in every parade and I only am shown the ones from gay parades, I’m not in much control of that. Feel free to enlighten me.
Next: the theory. IMO the risk of selective perception is increased when a group is 1) holding itself out as representative; 2) self policing; 3) unified; and 4) relatively homogeneous, it is more rational to assign acceptance to the group if the group permits or encourages anything.
Many pride parades are held open to everyone who is gay, and essentially nobody who is not (I may be missing this and/or stating it incorrectly as I’m not on the invite list). Thus they are homogeneous and they usually claim to be fairly representative of the local members of the gay community. (#1 and #4)
As noted above, they have their own standards committee and organisers. The theme of the parade (if there is one) and/or the tenor of the parade are agreed upon in adavance and plans are made. Though there may be individuals who act alone, the grand effect of the parade is a unified theme. (#3)
Finally, theoretically the parades are self policing. This means IMO that there is a spokesperson and that large group behavior which is not deterred is therefore condoned. Some of the above posts support the self policing theory. (#2)
Given that it is actually SOMEWHAT rational to come to a PARTIAL conclusion that “gays” or at least “Gays in that area” or “gays in that parade” support the activities in the parade.
NOTE: although it may be somewhat rational, I do not personally believe it, mostly because this is a very generalist explanation. You can support some things in a parade (e.g. ‘respect for veterans’ in a mem day or vet day parade) without supporting other things (e.g. you may want to impeach Bush, or feel that some/all war is wrong, etc.) We are all individuals, duh. Still: as minorites are constantly pointing out, allowing, condoning, or supporting behavior is pretty relevant. You don’t have to do something yourself to be associated with it.
Anyway: I refuse to accept that this is a “gay thing”. It seems to be to be more of a “politically unsavvy parade organizer” thing. Though I am, I confess, sort of surprised at some of the arguments being raised in defense.
So let’s go to those. They’re sort of fun. Perhaps I”m being too literal and legalistic though.
———————
# piny Writes:
July 13th, 2006 at 10:03 am
You know that Cosmo is half makeup pointers and half best-blowjob-ever tips, right?
Yup. It also costs money to buy. You need to read to get the blowjob stuff, too.
It’s explicit material.
Look, if I was attacking gay magazines then Cosmo would be relevant. But it’s not. Literature is different from parades. Perhaps that’s just the lawyer in me; a magazine is not a public act. I don’t care if there are twenty magazines in every supermarket, inside whose covers reside “250 ways to perform explicitly homosexual prostitute tricks!” a la Cosmo. Doesn’t bother me.
How is a “public S&M display” involving one man on a leash and another man holding it worse than those Axe body spray ads with the guy spraying a trail from arm to crotch with the slogan, “Show her the way”?
Can’t answer specifically–haven’t seen the ads. (No TV). The obvious answer though is that there is a difference between covert and overt.
Really, I do the “flip”. That same Axe ad (what the hell is Axe?) as you have described it probably wouldn’t bother me in the least if it involved gay models. I say that because I cannot easily imagine an ad which would be offensive with gays and less offensive with heteros.
I’m thinking now of the various “naked person art ads” which I see in fashion mags sometimes. You know, nakedish guy carryin maked woman over his shoulders in black and white high contrast printing. When I mentally insert a gay clone (nakedish guy carrying naked guy) it doesn’t become any “worse”. Though as a heterosexual male I mentally prefer the “nakedish woman carrying naked woman” gay clone version, it’s pretty much a wash.
I think there is still a “gray area” where if you showed a gay ad, my selective perception might pick it up more easily. This fits into Mandolin’s comment and selective perception in general. I’m thinking, for example, that while my mind is processed to see and pass over relatively naked non-pornographic images of heteros, I’d probably notice gay ads more. But that is “notice”, not “find offensive”.
S&M OTOH would be noticed no matter who was in the ad, if the context was not appropriate.
How is a woman in a bra and panties better than a man in a leash and a g-string?
It is not “better” just more normal. Note: not more HETEROnormal. Just plain old more normal. Some heteros and some gays (not many as a %age) practice S&M. All the hetero and gay folk I know usually wear underwear.
I do not define “nonvanilla” as “gay”. But–and I think this is fairly common–as my child learns about sexual activity and relationships, I would like her to learn the “standards” first. SO a gay or hetero couple kissing is a good thing (“look, they’re happy”) and underwear is standard (Look, undies!) but a love slave is a bit advanced.
Maybe you just disagree that ANYTHING is ever unacceptable. If so, then we should probably just agree to disagree.
If not, how would you define what is unacceptable and what is acceptable?
How is a man on a leash worse than any of the covers of Maxim and FHM that your child can see at the grocery store?
Actually, a lot of stores cover that up these days. But in any case: Smiling people in sexually suggestive poses and bathing suits (gay or not) := people involved in S&M. There is a BIG BIG difference between saying S&M is OK (it is) or should be accepted (is should) or not viewed as disgusting (sure) and claiming it is “standard.” Nothing’s wrong with not being standard. It’s just not, well, honest to claim you are.
How is it worse than the Dead Stripper of the Week on Law & Order: Sexualized Victims Unit?
I dunno. Maybe it’s not. Of course it’s on TV.
This is a double standard: you’re bothered about this particular display not because it’s more graphic or less clothed, but because it implies a particular kind of sexual proclivity.
No. No, no, no, and no again.
Time. Place. Manner. That’s all I’m talking about. All those “conflicting examples” people keep bringing up are different TPM, and they are, well, different.
Folsom Street Fair (what’s that?) sounds like I would also criticize it. It is similar TPM.
Many pride parades are held open to everyone who is gay, and essentially nobody who is not (I may be missing this and/or stating it incorrectly as I’m not on the invite list). Thus they are homogeneous and they usually claim to be fairly representative of the local members of the gay community. (#1 and #4)
Bwah ha ha ha ha! Oh, Jesus Christ. I gotta go call the straight organizer of the Project Open Hand Pride contingent, and tell him and his wife to stay home next year. Even if this were true, which it is not, “gay” is a pretty broad category as you use it, encompassing as it does Sarah Hoagland and Imani Henry.
Look, if I was attacking gay magazines then Cosmo would be relevant. But it’s not. Literature is different from parades. Perhaps that’s just the lawyer in me; a magazine is not a public act. I don’t care if there are twenty magazines in every supermarket, inside whose covers reside “250 ways to perform explicitly homosexual prostitute tricks!” a la Cosmo. Doesn’t bother me.
But you haven’t made any reasonable argument as to why explicit sexuality in that format is okay, but explicit sexuality in another format is not. You’re excluding these examples because you want to argue that gay people have a greater tendency towards explicit sexual display than straight people, not because there’s any relevant distinction to be drawn.
Can’t answer specifically–haven’t seen the ads. (No TV). The obvious answer though is that there is a difference between covert and overt.
That’s not what “covert” means.
I do not define “nonvanilla” as “gay”. But–and I think this is fairly common–as my child learns about sexual activity and relationships, I would like her to learn the “standards” first. SO a gay or hetero couple kissing is a good thing (”look, they’re happy”) and underwear is standard (Look, undies!) but a love slave is a bit advanced.
But you clearly define “vanilla” as less elaborate and sexualized. Lingerie is not underwear any more than a leash is jewelry.
Actually, a lot of stores cover that up these days. But in any case: Smiling people in sexually suggestive poses and bathing suits (gay or not) := people involved in S&M. There is a BIG BIG difference between saying S&M is OK (it is) or should be accepted (is should) or not viewed as disgusting (sure) and claiming it is “standard.” Nothing’s wrong with not being standard. It’s just not, well, honest to claim you are.
You have not provided any reason to see S&M as more explicit than lingerie. It’s non-standard, but that’s also true of Lydia of Purple’s underwear. That does not mean that it’s somehow worse than plain old nearly-naked people.
I dunno. Maybe it’s not. Of course it’s on TV.
…Where no child can ever come across it. This is a meaningless distinction. In practice, it unfairly slants your meter against gay people, given that gay sexuality is largely restricted from television whereas the straight version is not.
Sailorman:
I can’t speak for piny, but for me, you can’t apply a general principle to a situation that’s extraordinary and expect it to have the same meaning as it does when applied to a situation that’s common.
I would argue that it’s impossible to identify and control for every subconscious impulse of selective attention.
I don’t think it’s really meaningful whether or not you’re arguing “from a position of homophobia.” I think the discussion should be about the worthiness of your argument, not about whether or not you personally are homophobic.
# piny Writes:
July 13th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Bwah ha ha ha ha! Oh, Jesus Christ. I gotta go call the straight organizer of the Project Open Hand Pride contingent, and tell him and his wife to stay home next year. Even if this were true, which it is not, “gay” is a pretty broad category as you use it, encompassing as it does Sarah Hoagland and Imani Henry.
I stand corrected–sorry. I’ve never been in a gay pride parade, and I would have sworn that (just upthread) someone said straights should butt out. Nobody corrected them, so I assumed that was true.
But you haven’t made any reasonable argument as to why explicit sexuality in that format is okay, but explicit sexuality in another format is not.
You’re excluding these examples because you want to argue that gay people have a greater tendency towards explicit sexual display than straight people, not because there’s any relevant distinction to be drawn.
But I don’t “want to argue” that–which is why I have never said that! I’m providing you plenty things to discuss. Can you put the straw man away? Please?
As you can probably guess by now: When I “want to argue” something, i’m going to do so. I don’t think gays are more explicit than straights. If I did, I wouldn’t have said the other things I’ve said, would I–for example, supporting the poem?
That’s not what “covert” means.
Um, yes it is. “secret or hidden; not openly practiced or engaged in or shown or avowed.” So an implication of a sexual act is covert, while that same sexual act shown (instead of implied) is overt. But I’ll use another word if you want.
But you clearly define “vanilla” as less elaborate and sexualized.
Not less sexy; less normal. Do you use another definition? I’ll use a different word.
Lingerie is not underwear any more than a leash is jewelry.
Oh come on, please be serious. Are you trying to be silly here? What do you think a lot of people wear? A huge proportion of women I know wear lingerie
You have not provided any reason to see S&M as more explicit than lingerie.
Hmm. That’s a valid point. I think it is. But I’ll think on how to explain that better.
It’s non-standard, but that’s also true of Lydia of Purple’s underwear. That does not mean that it’s somehow worse than plain old nearly-naked people.
…Where no child can ever come across it.
Sarcasm, I assume? Of course kids can watch TV. But it’s not as if they put CSI on saturday morning PBS. If some 7 year old is watching it, it’s because their parents are fucked up.
This is a meaningless distinction. In practice, it unfairly slants your meter against gay people, given that gay sexuality is largely restricted from television whereas the straight version is not.
Hmm. I actually agree with you–certainly that gay sexuality is underrepresented (from y limited TV watching). But I think you’ll see I”m consistent and that the effect on my “is an S&M outfit during a daytime public parade acceptable?” meter is pretty negligible.
Where no child can ever come across it.
Sarcasm, I assume? Of course kids can watch TV. But it’s not as if they put CSI on saturday morning PBS.
No, that Sat AM PBS. But Law & Order SVU is on cable at least 5 days a week in the middle of the day when any kid can run across it. The same goes for a lot of other shows with a lot of sexuality (Married w/ Children comes immediately to mind). And that goes without mentioning all the commercials (the bodyspray ones are on ALL THE TIME and contain OVERT (hetero)sexuality).
Not less sexy; less normal. Do you use another definition? I’ll use a different word.
Normal has nothing to do with this issue.
Oh come on, please be serious. Are you trying to be silly here? What do you think a lot of people wear? A huge proportion of women I know wear lingerie
…And? This is still irrelevant. A lot of women wear lingerie; a lot of women wear clothes that display their bodies in sexual ways. If you can explain that away, you can explain away a leash. There’s no difference between the two.
Hmm. I actually agree with you–certainly that gay sexuality is underrepresented (from y limited TV watching). But I think you’ll see I”m consistent and that the effect on my “is an S&M outfit during a daytime public parade acceptable?” meter is pretty negligible.
And I hope you understand why I say that all those qualifiers are self-serving and illogical.
Piny
The I believe the reasoning is that certain types of lingerie are deemed sexual explicit and some just fancy underclothing or “Classy”. A better example would be to compare an man in black leather pants and a leather jacket to a man(or woman) in black leather chaps with a leather thong on being lead around on a leash attached to a studded collar and brings to mind certain images (Bondage(sex), Masochism(Accepting violence), Sadism(violence), etc) . This more than the man wearing leather pants and a leather jacke(maybe just a tough guy?). Or maybe a hooker dressed in neon green stripper’s string suit and clear platform heels standing on the corner of HuntsPoint avenue to a Lingerie model wearing La Perla and a pair of Jimmy Choo slides on a Times SQ billboard. One bring images of pornography(sex), pimps, maybe even drugs and violence, and the other high fashion.
And one of the things I think that is being missed is that heterosexuals constantly have been fighting against so called ‘Indencency’. The Victoria Secrets fashion show caused a big stink. They pushed back the time, ABC was flooded with letters about it. Billboards have been pulled, stations fined, things boycotted, and some have even served jailtime. Janet Jackson staged nipple shot was a good example. Look at the outcry that cause. No heterosexual sexual displays are not accepted. They are rather dealt with and subsequently ignored because we are bombarded with these images and can’t seem to escape them or get rid of them. And until homosexuality is the majority and not the minority that is how it will be.
If the AXE man was spraying his tightly speedo-ed crotch directly…
What Robert and the others are saying seem very clear to me.
Where I’m from, homosexuality tends to not get much of a second thought except ffrom tourist. There is nothing abnormal about seeing two men walking down the street holding hands or two women kissing while pushing their child’s stroller.
However, we still get shocked when we see above HuntsPoint(Well now it seems they moved near a school in Hells Kitchen) hooker walking around in broad daylight with no clothes on or above guy on the leash with his butt hanging out of a pair of leather chaps.
The poem addresses the first and not the latter. I believe the way this discussion has gone is that an extreme was presented and put in context of this poem. It cannot be. The poem is more a comment on what is considered normal heterosexual behavior but when homosexuals commit the same acts its being seen as being blantat or forcing in their homosexuality. The hypocrasy seems to not bein the fact that heterosexuals express their heterosexuality (marriage, pregnancy) in nonchalance, but when heterosexuals say they accept homosexuals(either by same nonchalance or being resolved to it) but in the same breath want them to not display anything indicating homosexuality aka “Well atleast pretend that your normal like the rest of us, don’t make it so known” aka stay closeted.
Z wrote:
From your references to Hunts Point and Hell’s Kitchen, I assume you live in NYC. And as a queer living in NYC, let me disabuse you of the notion that it’s all happy dandy for all queers, genderqueers and trans folks in NYC. It’s really not, and I hate when people who don’t even have to live with it pronounce that it’s not so bad for queers. And it’s most certainly not only “tourists” giving relatively harmless second glances. People often get harrassed and even beaten in this city because of their sexuality and gender presentation. And the more one deviates from being “straight-looking” and “gender-appropriate,” the worse it often gets. I’ve been yelled at in Chelsea (a very “gay” neighborhood) for kissing my girlfriend, and that’s only one among many other incidents of harassment that I’ve experienced since moving to the city four years ago.
Z:
But they don’t stop consuming mass media. They don’t stop looking for positive images of straight sexuality, or romance, or existence in general. They find them, too, because straightness dominates and they have a buffet of choices.
What I’ve been trying to point out is that a Pride parade is, in a sense, a tiny version of mass media for a GLBT community. It brings together all sorts of people and gives them a chance to express emotions that they feel constrained from expressing when they are isolated in smaller numbers. So the straight folks here who insist that somehow a single group of marchers is just so scandalous and discomforting that they completely color/define the rest of the march, and thus a straight parent must keep their child from seeing any of this parade, is advocating a doulbe standard.
To feed one’s kids either a distorted image of a community or no image at all when there are other options available is to foster ignorance. And it perpetuates the crap that people like Jack and her partner go through, every day, even in supposedly forward-thinking regions/cities.
Qgrrl will probably show up and let me have it for implying that Pride exists so that straight folks can learn about queer folks. Honestly, though, I know that’s not the main reason it exists. So if I created that impression, I apologize to the queer folks on Alas.
Well again, thats not my perception. But again, I’m not gay, I’m surrounded by gay people (family and friends), so of course my outside perception is not g oing to be your insiders view.
People in New York are beaten up, harassed for being black or even for being white anything else. This is not because people have not seen a black person or a white person before (they aren’t shocked by the sight of them)but, because they harbor hate, fear, and irrationality in their hearts and minds. Nothing will prevent that. Those people exist, they have existed since man first began “othering” and I doubt there will be a utopia anywhere that they won’t exist. I get harassed because I’m black and have a mohawk (I guess thats not allowed)After all this is New York and there are millions of people from all different walks of life and mindsets (ignorant or otherwise) crammed one space. But its also one of the most tolerant places i’ve lived in in my life.
:)
Amp, sorry I was out sick yesterday, no computer access.
You are correct and I apologize to you and to Sailorman, RonF and Robert for using the language I did. The emotions behind it still stand however.
But you’re straight, right? This is what straight people want for gays and lesbians. I’ve said it before in regards to SSM, and I’ll say it now: it won’t be long before the only good queer is a married queer, preferably now with children in tow.
Assimilation, folks, is assimilation, no matter how often it gets covered up as “kid-friendly” or “well, some queers do it too”.
Gay pride is there for the straight folks, but not as a form of entertainment or reassurance. We’re not around to coddle your insecurities. In most cases, pride parades are meant to highlight your fears, your homophobia, and your sense of personal normalcy — and then shake them all up together. Why should a pride parade conform to *your* needs?
The early parades I went to in the late ’80’s were a celebration of our BRAVERY for stepping outside the closet and insisting that straight folk recognize us and get over themselves and their homophobia. It was a way of highlighting our challenges and the depth of our personal convictions and courage in light of straight folks who were/are willing to assualt us, kill us, and criminalize our basic humanity.
Now you want us to think about your children. What an insult. Your children are not mine to raise: EVER. And don’t try to guilt me by saying “but my kid might be gay for all I know.” Well let me tell you — they are going to be far more harmed by your homophobia than by my not catering to their needs at a once a year parade.
Z also writes:
I would suggest then that you do some research on gay parades. How many per state? How many per capita? Also, look for who is defining gay-friendly and whether or not that term comes from inside the community or from the straight folks looking on. The high visibility of queers does not always mean that a town or area is gay-friendly. In fact, the visibility might be a backlash against homophobia and active homophobic practices.
In NC, there might only be three parades in the entire state (Durham, Wilmington, Charlotte). Per capita, that’s not a lot of parades. And it means that for queers outside of these areas that 1) it probably isn’t safe to be out and on parade [think Fayetteville, the US Army and Marines] and 2) a great deal of personal planning, risk, and travel is invovled in attending a parade. Why, again, should any gay person take your child into account? Or the needs of the straight audience?
Then there’s the fear over whether you were seen at the parade; if you were caught on tape; if protestors from your town are there. Will your boss find out? Your landlord?
And yet ya’ll want us to worry about your kids.
And this was written with no sense of irony, eh? I suggest, Sailorman, that you read the poem at the beginning of this thread.
It would have been easier for you to say: “I don’t mind queers, as long as they act straight!”
Sailorman writes:
Because there is nothing “general” or “principled” about your standpoint. You have suggested many times that S&M (or overt sexuality) takes place at gay parades. Then you suggest your’s is a hypothetical argument. Then you go back to using outrageous claims that this is a frequent and common practice.
Prove it. Prove that, on principle, given a gay parade, S&M is going to be widely displayed in public. Prove that “in general” gay parades are a frequent occurrence. Prove that kids are routinely exposed to gay parades.
Your stance is homophobic becuase you fail to regard any of the possible discourse that could be happening over the opening poem and you choose, instead, to pose a “hypothetical” that you soon get so lost in that it becomes less and less hypothetical with each subsequent post of yours until, well, it *becomes* your stance. You are now insisting on something that you originally brought onboard as hypothetical. So either you lost yourself, or your latent homophobia won out. Occam’s Razor and all that, I’ll put my money on the homophobia.
Ok, ok, so I know I’m posting a lot in sequence here, but I just stumbled across Sailorman’s admission:
Because Amp has asked my to refrain from certain linguistic tactics, I am asking all of you to join me in a moment of silence.
‘kay?
We back on track together? Blood pressure lowered? Mine is; a little.
Sailorman: I’ll buy you a clue. Your participation in this thread is homophobic for the specific reason you stated above.
You have not been to a gay parade.
You don’t know what happens at gay parades.
You are willing to set up a hypothetical which makes certain aspects of gay parades immoral.
You are willing to forget that your hypothetical is, well, hypothetical and you get upset when we don’t dance to your general and principled “reasoning.”
You insist you are right.
Yet you have not been to a gay parade.
You insist you are right again and that we are dishonest because we don’t answer your questions.
You ask about the children. Teh Children! My gods!
You insinuate that rampant S&M deviance is marching down Main Street at high noon on a balmy Father’s Day. … you do know that most gay parades happen on Father’s day don’t you? How’s that for family-oriented, my friend?
Eh, the list is endless.
You know, I’m wrote a well thought out response to answer your post. But I deleted it
And how dare, dare, you call me or even suggest I’m homophobic. not knowing me from shyt, nothing I’ve said would indicate any, ANY fear or hatred of homosexuals. I just have a different opinion and an outsiders opinion. You seem to be Heterophobic or even Heterosexist.
so whatever, its pointless. Like Amp said, I’m should keep my heterosexual ass out of this conversation.
Q…
if ya wanna talk I’ll talk. But you have to be willing to 1) read what I say, and 2) quote/summarize me accurately, or what’s the point? You’re not conversing with me, you’re not arguing with me.
You’re arguing with a straw man.
I suppose I could explain things to you, and you’d misquote them again, and I could explain them again, and you’d misquote them, and so on.
This is beginiing to seem like a waste of time.
Can I just ask:
What exactly is it that’s supposed to happen to someone if they catch a glimpse of (person on leash, nekkid men kissing, topless dykes on bikes, drag queens, whatever)? No, seriously, what’s the problem? I see all kinds of shit I find not to my personal liking every damn day, never even mind het PDA’s. Obnoxious beer ads. Ads in general. Plug-ugly buildings. Terrible hairdos. What is it that’s so much worse about sexualized queer folks?
And can I just say how sick I am of everything being about “the children?” Okay, I get you’re a protective parent. My question: why are queer folks and our sexuality the thing you’re *so* concerned about protecting them from–I mean just *seeing* it, knowing it exists–out of everything in this universe that you might want to be protecting them from?
and, too: y’know, queer folks once were kids, too; and some of us would’ve been thrilled to know that, oh, hey, these people exist and seem to be happy; maybe someday…