For The Straight Folks Who Don’t Mind Gays But Wish They Weren’t So Blatant
| July 9th, 2006By 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
July 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
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.
This comment was written by brynn.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
When was this written? The pregnant=heterosexual thing just seemed to leap out as not contemporary.
This comment was written by nik.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
My impression is that it was written in the mid-to-late 1970s, but I could be mistaken.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
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.
This comment was written by hippie.Report this comment to the moderators
July 9th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
He’s right. Heterosexuals shouldn’t be so blatant.
This comment was written by steven.h.Report this comment to the moderators
July 10th, 2006 at 7:33 am
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.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 10th, 2006 at 7:45 am
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.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
July 10th, 2006 at 9:33 am
“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.
This comment was written by pdf23ds.Report this comment to the moderators
July 10th, 2006 at 9:44 am
I don’t understand what you’re saying pdf23ds.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 10th, 2006 at 10:29 am
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.
This comment was written by pdf23ds.Report this comment to the moderators
July 10th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
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.
This comment was written by Richard Bellamy.Report this comment to the moderators
July 10th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
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.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 10th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
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.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
July 11th, 2006 at 8:25 am
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.
This comment was written by Tara.Report this comment to the moderators
July 11th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Tara, the pregnancy thing was why I said “most”, not “all”.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 11th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
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.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 11th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
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.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 11th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
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.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 11th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
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.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 11th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
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.
This comment was written by ms_xeno.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 12:35 am
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).
This comment was written by Andrew.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 12:42 am
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.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 7:43 am
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.
This comment was written by Mela Atreides.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 10:08 am
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.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 10:17 am
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.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 10:45 am
No, that was the royal “we”, myself included within.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 10:48 am
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.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 10:54 am
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.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 11:41 am
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.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 11:48 am
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?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
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.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
# 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?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
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.
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.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
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
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
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.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
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.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
# 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.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
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.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
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.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
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.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
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.
This comment was written by ms_xeno.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
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.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
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.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
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.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
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.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
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.
This comment was written by Z.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
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.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
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.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 12th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
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.
This comment was written by ms_xeno.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2006 at 5:11 am
“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?
This comment was written by pdf23ds.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2006 at 7:14 am
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.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2006 at 7:31 am
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.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2006 at 9:08 am
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…
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
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 ? 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.
This comment was written by ms_xeno.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2006 at 9:48 am
# 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?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2006 at 9:57 am
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.
This comment was written by jack.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2006 at 9:57 am
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.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2006 at 9:59 am
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.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Robert, wasn’t there a woman dragging a man on a leash in the “I am Man” Burger King commecial?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2006 at 10:03 am
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.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2006 at 10:06 am
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?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2006 at 10:36 am
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.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 13th, 2006 at 10:50 am
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?”
This comment was written by piny.