Example
I really don’t feel this helps bridge any gaps. I mean, these types of displays aren’t likely to offend those of us who are already on gay folks side. But it sure does seem likely to alienate those who might be on the fence.
Wouldn’t a more effective strategy be to showcase some straitlaced (excuse the pun) professionals and show the world that not all, or heck, not even most gays go around acting like this all the time?
Or, is it they’re already out there and I just don’t know it because the mainstream media never gives airtime to such activist?
FTR: I’m in noway agreeing with the Log Cabin Republicans in the above link. I’m just using that article as an example.
For any group of any kind, there are extremists and bad ideas. On the whole, I would say that gay activists are for the most part, highly effective. A few, not so much.
This again. Gay rights activists have made incredible progress over the last 10 or 20 years, so the answer is obviously a gigantic no. The question is ludicrous, really. And the second event isn’t even a gay rights thing; it’s intended to encourage LGBT people to sign up for health insurance. As to the broader issue, I think gay people have done a good job showing the rest of us that in the ways that count, they’re just like us. That’s one reason so many people are fine with gay people and gay marriage today. But if you’re seeking acceptance, you don’t have to hide every single aspect of yourself that could possibly offend someone. If some gay people want to have a parade and be loud and proud and provocative once in a while, so what? Anyway the dance troupe seems to have a point: if we can survive skimpy outfits on cheerleaders and female dancers, we can do the same with male dancers.
Also, the struggle for equal rights is STILL going on. It’s gotten much better, especially in the last 5 years. But as with every group that has fought and fought hard to be recognized, treated not just as equals but even as humans, there’s always the ground troups who go in first. The ones who are on the fringes. ACT-UP, Radical Faeries, and the Stonewall Drag Queens. These are the people to whom the GLBT community owe a debt of gratitude towards. These are the people who said “fuck it” and threw caution to the wind to be heard over the oppression.
You see, civil rights battles are fought on many fronts. There are those who pull the headlines down and make a show. Letting folks know that “we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it”. There are the others, like myself, who believe that covering ourselves with leaves so that someone falls into the trap works better. Folks don’t know I’m gay until I mention that part of my life. It’s a great tactic for lulling people into a false sense of supposition until they actually get to know a person on a one-on-one basis before making judgments.
Begrudging those for displaying overt sexuality where it’s not “welcome” is also not noticing how much overt sexuality there is from the straight community that is acceptible. And it’s not just the gay community that uses sex to sell things. Here’s a Breast Cancer PSA from last year that was controversial. Should said commercial stigmatize all Breast Cancer people, or all women, as being sexual? Or is it, y’know, just a commercial?
As far as the Out2Enroll group trying to get people to sign up for health insurance, think about how you would get straight males to sign up for health insurance. Which would be more effective: businesslike Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius in a pant suit droning on about the financial benefits to society, or Kaley Cuoco in a bikini winking and sighing “Health insurance is sexy…”? Turns out the same approach works on gay men. And problem straight women and lesbians. It’s just an ad marketed to a group.
Coupled with the GD thread in which someone says that we would have SSM in all 50 states if only the gays weren’t so pushy, this thread makes me wonder what some people are smoking.
Gay rights are in a really good place.
The majority of gay activists are being really successful.
The fact that gay men in SEMMES ALABAMA could prance around like that at a Christmas parade and not get LYNCHED, means that yes, progress has been made.
Gay groups no longer sanitize because studies show that it does not work. The public is no more won over by Tango Makes Three and My Two Mommies than drag queens.
Changing who we are to fit in is completely against the point of fighting for the right to be ourselves.
What’s the point of coming out, if we have to hide who and what we are? And that includes guys in full leather drag, guys in 3-piece suits, clowns, doctors, people with AIDS, cowboys, people dressed in business casual, lipstick lesbians, gay men’s choruses, fairies, dykes on bikes, fat people, old people, moms . . . and yes, people prancing around in skimpy attire. We are a huge spectrum, a cross-section of humanity. And the last thing we want is to disown any part of that spectrum. To diminish anyone is to diminish everyone.
If we have to act “respectable” in order to be accepted, we have already lost. “We are large; we are multitudes.”
Someone told me the Halloween party in the Castro has been discontinued. I don’t live there anymore, but if true that sucks cause it was always awesome
And OP, most gay people I know are white picket fence professional types…
Anyone else struck by how remarkably tame the two links in the OP are? I was expecting two hairy leather daddies pantomiming anal sex on a float. And instead, I get some twinks in shorts decorating a tree, and a holiday-themed dance recital. I honestly don’t get what the objection to either of those things could possibly be, other than, “There’s gay people in it.”
And let’s talk about that first commercial for a second. This commercial is offered as an example of “gay activists shooting themselves in the foot” by using “overt displays of sexuality in situations that clearly don’t call for it.” The OP, apparently, considers shirtless men smiling while occasionally touching each other on the arm to be an “overt display of sexuality.”
I can only imagine that this is, literally, the first commercial he’s ever seen in his life. Otherwise, he’d have routinely seen commercials like this one, in which a straight couple indulge in their cuckold fantasy with their biker friend, which was broadcast during the Superbowl. Or this one, which uses an orgy to sell beer. Or this one, part of Ax Body Spray’s continuing effort to market their product as some sort of date rape drug.
I’m also curious as to exactly why he thinks a video created by a gay organization, intended expressly for a gay audience, and originally shown in a venue that’s going to be almost exclusively attended by gay people, needs to “build a bridge” with straight bigots. Can gay people not have any of their own media, or does everything we say or do have to be carefully self-censored to avoid giving a bad impression to homophobes?
Gay people who don’t “act gay” (e.g., conform to stereotypes, or have any sort of same-sex liaison) already have equality, unless you count having to not “act gay” as a form of inequality.
Ok, my bad. When I wrote the OP, I had just off a 12hr shift. I articulated my thoughts poorly, and the examples I used were lame.
That said, I still feel the over all jist of the OP was a valid question.
I don’t know all gays everywhere, but I’m pretty damn sure the vast majority of them don’t go around in assless chaps, sashaying about in public places. The question I was trying to get out there was "Wouldn’t we be better off with a more “average gay guy” image than what is predominately being put out there now?
Thanks to stpauler’s input, I see it’s probably the other way around. I guess it takes some extreme showmanship sometimes to to even get noticed.
