I’m starting this thread as a result of another discussion over in GQ. The debate was about cottaging (sex in public toilets) and the question was asked whether there is such a thing as a coherent gay community that would have a consistent view, and other related questions about homosexuality having become “too mainstream” etc.
So, what do people think? I’m a gay man but I don’t really engage with the gay scene as such but have in the past a lot. My own experiences tell me that there is no coherent gay scene, and that the closest one can get to such a thing between gays are on the one hand ghettoization and on the other support networks run by gays whose founding principle is to help other gays. I appreciate that my view is not necessarily typical of the whole though, as I live in London where being part of the gay scene isn’t really necessary for acceptance as a homosexual (London being extremely cosmopolitan and liberal).
Of course there’s a cohesive gay community. Those recruitement drives don’t organize themselves.
To answer your question, sort of. Certainly there are a broad range of issues that effect homosexuals today and that serves to bind them together. For example I bet almost every homosexual out there would appreciate an ending to any discrimination they might face, particularly legal barriers. Is there some sense of shared culture? By which I mean some shared experiences, their own jargon, and even some geographical territory? Though my experiences with homosexuals is extremely limited I’d have to answer yes. There is a coherent gay community though, like every other group, that isn’t to say that they are a hive mind who are all exactly the same.
“The Gay Community” is a looser conglomeration than “The African-American Community” or the “Korean-American Community”, mostly because until very recently, there was no such thing as “being raised gay”. Every gay man has mostly come to the gay community on his own path, though those paths generally tend to be similar in their contours, the details are all different, and very few of those details before adulthood has anything to really do with the gay subculture(s) other than attraction to those of the same sex.
And while MGibson is correct that there are a broad range of issues that serve to bind the gay community together, there are also a large number of homosexuals on the other side of those issues who have no connection to the gay community whatsoever, as evinced by the recent hubbub around Ted Haggard.
In other words, the lack of a lifelong education in the traditions of the gay subculture(s) leads to a much looser confederation for the gay community than for ethnic communities.
It should also be noted that “the gay community” is almost entirely an urban creature. There is a thriving gay culture going on in the cities (even mid-size to smaller ones), but this doesn’t generally reach out past the suburbs. Rural gay men and lesbians aren’t very tightly connected to gay culture or any gay community. Sometimes they have the means to travel to a city with a gay community and enjoy the experience for a time, but it’s not a permanent situation.
I’d say big time, and add my agreement with at least the urban side of it, as I’ve seen virtually nothing of a rural “gay community”. Living in Dupont Circle during the final months of the 1992 presidential campaign, when “gays in the military” seemed like a reality, and AIDS quilts and marches were still quite novel, was ten times more evidence than I ever would have needed to convince me of just how big and cohesive it could be.
My take on this is that communities typically look more coherent to those outside them than they do to those inside. For example, jayjay describes blacks (the term preferred by most of my friends who are) as coherent. Not in my experience. Sure, they have certain commonalities - a long history of discrimination not least - but, up close and personal, the differences predominate. So, too, with the communities of Jews and gays to which I’ve been exposed. IOW, coherence to me is a myth. Or, at least, a broad generalization with only a slight grounding in fact.
I would agree with this. It is also overlooked that there is sometimes further discrimination and segregation within miniorities as well, for example the enmity that can exist between caribbean blacks and african blacks, or between orthodox (true) and less-conformist (heretic/lapsed) members of some religions - Islam, Judaism and Christianity spring to mind.
This kind of segregation and discrimination happens within the gay community as well, and a lot of it is based (certainly for gay men) on attractiveness. You can see very clearly how unattractive gay men are made to feel unwelcome and marginalised by the main forum of the so-called gay community: the gay scene (clubs, bars, gyms etc). Even in places where attractiveness is supposed to be entirely irrelevant (such as in gay support or hobby groups) there can be unpleasant undercurrents of behaviour and interaction that would appear to be based on how attractive someone is. This has all sorts of negative consequences for disabled and elderly gay men as well, meaning they’re potentially excluded from multiple settings for the same reasons (!).
Whilst I accept that western and urban society is increasingly looks-oriented, this unnecessary and counter-productive form of discrimination within the gay community/scene is one of the main reasons why I choose not to be part of it as I find it shallow and reprehensible (not least because it seems to be tacitly accepted as normal or warranted by many gay men).
Physical attractiveness is certainly a big part of the gay scene here, but there are escape valves, e.g., the Bears. I assume you have the same thing. How does this factor into your analysis? Bearing in mind that straights also are pretty hung up on attractiveness.
Indeed true, and becoming truer all the time (!) but straights are the majority, they don’t have to work very hard to be amongst other straights. Gays are in a minority, even in areas where there are a lot of gays, and thus having a community that will accept you (as much as anyone will) for who you are is very important. The fact that gay culture rejects gays based on how they look is to me one of the key reasons why it’s not a community (and it’s worth asking at this point if you can think of any other culture/community that does the same - I know I can’t).
Yes the London/UK scene has the bears, chubbies, indies, punks, goths, etc etc but the point is if you as a newly out gay man rock up to a gay bar in London you will only be welcomed if you’re deemed fuckable in the conventional front-cover-of-men’s-health way. Bearing in mind a lot of gay men start out on the scene at the age of 16-18, already emotionally vulnerable and probably driven by a strong desire for a sex or a relationship, this is even more disastrous as it means that they are frequently abused by the very community they are supposed to be supported by. I speak from personal experience on this one, it wasn’t until I was 26 that I managed to finally begin to let go of all the hang ups I have relating to my looks/size/weight etc, and I’m still not clear that I’m fully rid of them in a way that allows me to have a healthy relationship following years of anonymous and destructive promiscuous sex (some of which I genuinely wanted but a lot of which was driven by a desire to feel better about myself). Way to go gay “community”.
I appreciate I’m sharing quite a lot of personal information here and hope no-one is offended by it.
Hey Illuminatiprimus. So, why don’t you start hanging out in gay bars (again) and engage the not-magazine-cover guys in conversation? Don’t take 'em home. Just conversation. Like a community. Who knows? It might catch on.
Don’t be so quick to label the Bears as “escape valves.” There’s been more and more complaining in the Bear community about the fact that physical attractiveness is a larger issue than it used to be. That might not seem obivious since Bears have a considerably different look than what society deems “attractive” in a man, but really, it’s just a different standard.
Agree and disagree. Certainly it’s a standard. And the Bear community can be just as bitchy, snide and exclusionary as any other. But, I stand by it as an escape valve. With a profusion of BSE lifestyles, and Illuminatiprimus mentioned several others, the lock of the dominant paradigm is loosened. All this is said, BTW, from the perspective of an outsider with several friends inside. I’m more relating (perhaps imperfecly) their perceptions than my own.
I’d like to bring up something, a lot of gay people talk about not being accepted and not having rights. In my opinion, gay people are the ones who single out themselves with parades, clubs, newspapers, music and TV shows, dressing flamboyantly and talking with lisps. Granted, not all of the gay population fits into this category, but a lot do.
I mean, you don’t see too many “fat people pride parades” or “cleft lip pride parades” or “fat people nightclubs”, do ya? Also, it’s not “the same rights as none gay people” that gay people want, it’s extra rights.
I think that if gay people didn’t announce it or parade it around, they would be accepted into the community a little better nowadays. I have nothing against gay people at all and thoroughly enjoyed their company when I worked around a few of them. I stated what I just said to them once and most of them actually agreed with what I had to say. They could’ve just been agreeable at the time though, but who knows.
Elaborate, please. What “extra” rights are we asking for?
And, to me, a philosophy that doles out Constitutional rights based on how well your personal characteristics conform to society’s is repugnant. We simply would not have a gay rights movement if not for the sissies, the drag queens, the flamers. They’re the ones that threw down in the first place. They’re the ones that fought back at the Stonewall. Adopting a philosophy of “if we’d all just conform things would be better” would be abandoning them. I would gladly refuse my rights were they to be offered to me on that condition. It’s all of us or none.
