WTF?

What does it mean to be straight-looking or straight-acting? If a person is romantically interested in their same gender, can they ever be straight-anything?

Some might argue that the use of such terminology suggests a desire for a more masculine male or, perhaps, a more feminine female. Granted, some homosexual people don't fall into the stereotypes of man and woman, or masculine and feminine, that the media both idealizes and spoofs.

Let's look at the evolution of the most successful, gay-oriented network television shows of all time: Will & Grace. The title cast features a gay male. At first, there was a great deal of opposition to the idea until we met Will. He wasn't effeminate. His voice was even and deep. He walked like a man. He talked like a man. Obviously, he was a man. But according to whom?

As the series progressed, his wacky friend and neighbour Jack became an audience favourite. Jack was effeminate. His voice was uneven and higher pitched. His wrist was more than a little limp. And the audience loved him. And we loved his partner-in-crime, Karen – whose alcoholism and drug use arguably mirrored another stereotype of the gay community: if it isn't a sex partner, it may as well be a chemical dependency. According to the pre-Will & Grace mainstream media, the gay community was little more than a drug-induced harem of STI-infected sexual deviancy. Queer As Folk anyone?

But I've gotten sidetracked. As the series progressed, Will became more in touch with his gay self and so, too, did his mannerisms. He drank a bottle of water with his pinky extended. He squealed when he was excited. He wore women's jeans and sought out the perfect pair of shoes to go with his attaché. Will evolved into the publicly-embraced gay caricature that was epitomized by Jack.

His voice was still reasonably masculine - until he got excited. But the network found ways to being out the Jack in Will whenever they could. I surmise that the Nielsen families liked to see the gays they recognized - the evil, twisted gays. You see there is safety in familiarity. Even when that safety comes from a perceived danger.

If you are/desire a masculine male, say that. If you are/desire a feminine female, say that. But requesting or suggesting a "straight-acting/looking" person is little more than self-loathing and internalized homophobia. Because we must ask ourselves: what is "straight-acting/looking?" I know heterosexual men who care more about their hair and clothing than some homosexuals that I know. I also know some of the most feminine lesbians I ever expected to meet. I'll be honest, I fell victim to the expectations that the media stereotypes propagate. Are those heterosexuals who fall short of the male/female idealized archetypes "gay-looking/acting?" I believe their heterosexual romantic activities would negate that suggestion. Does a desire to appear well-groomed and maintained a sign of femininity? Or is it just a superficial desire to appear well-to-do? It is the connotation that an assumption of heterosexuality is the definition of manhood or womanhood.

Yes, there is a metrosexual term that came to bear during the Queer Eye For the Straight Guy craze a decade ago. Five gay men, whose pop cultural know-how turned around the dress, decor, and grooming of the typical jock, accomplished little else but suggesting to the world that feminine men are two things: gay and fabulous. But that is connecting fashion and cleanliness with sexual proclivity. And the two are almost entirely separate. As I recall, South Park commented on a gay resistance to the metrosexual appearance because it has caused gaydar malfunctions. However, this amusing episode that mocked the metrosexual still underscored the assumption that all gays are Jack/Mr. Garrison/Carson Kressley.

I suppose that a large part of my issue came from a moment when I was called a homophobe for speaking out against the overt sexualization of the gay stereotype (I had the audacity to suggest that a Pride parade should be more than drag queens and seniors in leather chaps). I am assumed to be heterosexual because I do not personify the gay stereotype. It is ironic that some of my students assume I am homosexual because I correct them when they use phrases such as "That's so gay" in the classroom. As an educator I want my students to see gays as more than stereotypes.

I support Pride because of what it started (a Civil Rights movement) and as what many communities have allowed it to become (an expression of unity, a reminder that the fight for equality for all isn't over, and a family-friendly reminder that the LGBTQ community is more than the bedroom). There is the need to define the other if only to define ourselves by our difference from the other. But the worst part of it is when that definition diminishes ourselves by assigning more importance to the other than to one's own uniqueness.

As I have recently been reminded, education is the foundation. This is my method. What's yours?

Control is fleeting?

     I know what you're thinking...where's the video? Well, when the mood strikes I have to get my thoughts down and I don't have my camera with me. Also, it's just a little more human this way. I plan to get back to the roots of my agoraphobia but I was inspired and I tend to go where my inspiration leads me. Good or bad, you be the judge.

    Any system or method of control neglects certain factors, and gradually the pressure of what has been neglected increases sufficiently to topple the system. Only by leaving room for the unknown and for change is there a chance for success.  It was true of the Equal Rights Movement that saw women gain the right to work and vote, it was true of the Civil Rights movement that saw blacks gain the right to vote, marry, and take part in any number of social institutions that were previously denied them.  It will be true of any number of communities in the years to come.  But why does it take pressure to overcome the status quo?  How do we as a people decide who has permission to do, or think, something a certain way at a certain time?

    I guess I find myself puzzled at this because of what is going on in California.  It likely occurs to me because I live in a society today that is inherently different than the one that oppressed women, or tried to suppress blacks.  Mind you, neither of those communities is fully realized to the extent that they had hoped, and continue to hope.  Legislating "equal pay for equal work" was only passed in the United States in the last decade.  And even now, women across the continent tend to get raises less frequently than their male counterparts, and still see less frequent promotions into positions of power.  And in terms of minority communities, not only is the same true, but many find themselves resented for legislation that tries to essentially force equality.  But can equality ever be validated when it is forced by the state?

    I guess that is the larger issue for me.  When does it stop being called equality?  When does it become merely existing?  Being a queer guy is about the least interesting thing about me. It really is.  I don't run around with a sign and I don't introduce myself as "the group homo" or whatever because I deem it necessary to label myself right away.  That being said, my blog, my vlog, and my life has been largely consumed with all things gay lately.  I'm disgusted that I live at a time that sees that as necessary. I'm disgusted that I should have to feel this way - not for myself but for my queer brethren.  It is exhausting to be outraged all the time.  It really is.

   All anybody asks is to be treated with respect.  And the lack of respect is rarely an issue until it is denied verbally.  Marriage pretty much never occurred to me after I came out.  I could have a long-term, committed relationship that defied boundaries or classification.  But then someone spoke out.  Someone in the queer community wanted to get married.  I thought, "Well good for them."  It never occurred to me such an institution as marriage - largely a legal formality more than anything (the Church only got involved when they found out they could charge for such things, and made it an issue of morality to look to the King for marriage rather than God - I mean, how many people have to be ignorant of this in order to be rationally offended by the idea of gay marriage?) - could be denied.  But then it was denied.  Fundamentalists around the world cried out, "Homosexuals are an abomination (as described in the revisionist chapters of the Bible, not in the gospels)!"  Then there was the Federal Marriage Amendment in the United States that would go so far as to legally define a word to protect their faith (a faith so apparently feeble that it cannot stand if gays can legally - not religiously, it never truly was...the Church doesn't sell those licenses or insist about the notarization of the documentation - marry).  Deny a population, and they will cry out for justice.  And even if that justice is denied in the short term, activism will see that change happen in the long term.

   So I've decided to be active.  It is exhausting to be outraged all the time. It really is.  But it is better than the alternative.  As an agoraphobic, I have let fear command much of my life.  I missed out on a lot in my youth because I was afraid to face that fear - I was afraid to conquer that fear because it was all that I had known for so long.  I have chosen to be a conquerer of fear.  Not just for those who cannot fight.  Not just for those who don't know how.  Certainly for me but, just as certain, for all of us.