Hi! I’m the author of a theory piece that a textbook company wants to publish as part of a Sociology of Sexuality reader.
QuickPoll:
The title of the article is “Same Closet, Different Door: A Heterosexual Sissy’s Coming-out Party”. Assuming you know nothing more about it than what is written above this line, does the title offend you?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Elaboration
The paper was published once before. The issue of the title came up because a reviewer said that, to him, it had overtones of “Hey, I’m in exactly the same situation as gay guys, but I’m heterosexual ‘about it’, i.e., no one has to be gay”. Thus, the alternative title of “Same Door, Different Closet” was suggested, to which I agreed, and it was by that title that it was previously published. Was the reviewer being ridiculously PC about it? Or do you think other folks would be likely to have the same reaction to the title?
Here is the paper itself. Assuming you don’t mind taking time to read through it, does the content of the paper have any impact on your reaction to the title?
I agree with the reviewer not that the title is offensive, but that it doesn’t say quite what you mean. A door is a method of leaving the closet, and “the” closet is hidden homosexuality. It doesn’t seem that you’re describing using a different method to come out about your homosexuality, but using the same method to come out about something else.
I would therefore see “different closet, same door” as a more precise title. However, your original title certainly was not offensive.
I’ll read the essay and tell you what I think. BTW, have you ever read the book Sissyphobia? It’s about prejudice from both gay and straight people against femme gay guys. check out http://www.sissyphobia.com .
Well, “Heterosexual Sissy” kind of strikes me as the point of it, but I’d agree with Matt - if you’re going to use the “closet” analogy, you’d better make sure you’re clear about it.
But offensive? No. Sounds interesting - I"ll read the article when I can.
Tried reading the article, couldn’t get through it because of the glaze that formed on my eyes. Too long a day, eyes far too tired. As far as the title, I don’t find it offensive but I agree that it’s inaccurate. I can see how some might find it offensive. Personally I wouldn’t change it out of fear of offending people but I would out of concern for accuracy. From a pragmatic standpoint, you don’t want to distract from the article because of a wonky title.
Not gay, which is why I won’t comment on the offensiveness angle but…
is inaccurate, to agree with everyone else, because the closet=homosexuality and door=outing oneself.
The title
works from that angle, with ‘different closet’=straight-but-effiminate and door=outing again, but it fails the logical metaphor test. You can’t have the same door for two different closets unless its a door between closets, which would be what, an effiminate man admitting he’s gay but not telling anyone?
It’s like saying “The ship of her eyes sailed down the highway of the newspaper;” If you try to use the imagery to, um, image anything, it doesn’t work.
Or maybe he’s taking the door from the ‘gay’ closet and using it elsewhere, but that seems to pull in the ‘ripping off the gay rights movement’ angle you’re trying to minimize.
You could say
or
but that really loses any kind of euphoniousness the words ever had.
If it were my call I’d either come up with a completely new title or stick with the one the author came up with, just on the basis that a flawed title that’s the authors is better than a flawed title that’s not.
Interesting article; upon reading it I think title metaphor is inapt, albeit inoffensive. The thing with effeminacy is that it’s generally self-evident: no closet, no door. To the extent “hidden” by effeminacy, heterosexuality might lend itself to coming out, but that isn’t the paper’s focus.
May I suggest something less comparative? Perhaps “Of Closets and Doors”?
Doesn’t “offend” me, just a play on words, ideas, and stereotypes. But I’m a little uncomfortable with the association of the word “sissy” with being gay. Not all gay men are sissies just as not all lesbians are bull-dykes. In fact most of the gay men I know are far from “sissy”! And I don’t consider myself a sissy even though my physical stature makes me appear effeminate sometimes.
But I will read the article before I make any other comments.
Man, I don’t see how you could have a more powerful title than just Sissy, in big letters, with a subtitle like “Living As an Effeminate Heterosexual in America.”
Since you’re trying to reclaim the pejorative term “sissy” and wear it as a badge of pride, get it right out there on the front. It’ll make a splashy cover when you expand it into a mass-market paperback and it gets chosen by Oprah for her book club.
Anyway, I agree with matt_mcl (hi sugar!)and Yue Han that the closet/door metaphor works only to the extent that one doesn’t think about it too much. “Same Closet, Different Door” sounds like it’s about closeted gays who come out by means other than telling people they’re gay, e.g. by being involuntarily outed, or some other way.
I also wasn’t offended by either title.
I didn’t read all the way through - are you including Dana Carvey’s SNL skits for “Lyle, the effeminate heterosexual” in your anecdotal data?
I’ve heard about the Dana Carvey skits, but never saw them (they postdate the era in which I watched TV). I should see if they have some at the Museum of Radio & TV Broadcast or whatever the heck it’s called.
RE: Museum of Radio, Television and Miscellaneous Braineroding Tripe - if you mean the one by Rockefeller Center (and not the Museum of the Moving Image [sub]I think that’s right[/sub] in Queens), be sure to call them in advance. I was there a couple of years ago, and although they keep a few hundred selected broadcasts readily available most of the collection is in off-site archives. IIRC specific episodes take about a week for them to retrieve.
