RoR: Forum

Stellar, Jason!

Linz

Post 1

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 3:48am

Good article Jason.

To thine own self be true.

Post 2

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 5:40am

Yes yes yes Jason!

Excellent. I am glad you are on this forum. Your articles have inspired me, your writing itself has delighted me, your sense of life is simply amazing.

John

Post 3

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 7:12am

Jason, your sense of life is magnificent. Too many people live in a blackout when it comes to self-examination and expression.

xoxo

Post 4

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 3:18pm

Wonderful article, Jason.

I have an adjective for both you and your writing here that I don't think you've heard too often, but one that strikes me as spot on:

Solid.

Michael

Post 5

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 5:14pm

I hope many gays (and straights) in this and coming generations approach life with your honesty and joie de vivre, Jason.

Then we'll have lots more friends!

:-)

P.S. Probably wouldn't hurt to have a few filthy harlots, too.

Post 6

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 6:08pm

Thanks to everyone who commented (and those silent ones who sanctioned the article, too). All of your comments warm me.

And D. Elmore, I'll happily continue to fill both roles :-)

Jason

Post 7

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 7:49pm

I enjoyed the sense of life of your article, Jason. I tend to forgive adopted mannerisms, especially when I encounter them in people just finding themselves. We all do it. They can be silly, but ultimately, I think, are a part of a process of finding a true identity, much like shopping til you find your preferred brand of jeans. You really seem like a wonderful fellow.

Post 8

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 7:50pm

And I second David Elmore's apt and poignant "filthy harlot" thought as well.

Post 9

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 8:34pm

Wonderful article, Jason. Do you have any thoughts on what led to the creation of so many "types" in the gay world?

Barbara

Post 10

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 8:53pm

A wonderful article Jason - I've haven't felt this way about a gay article in ages. Certainly one of the best I've seen in the last five years.

Post 11

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 9:07pm

Superb, Jason -- I would say "fabulous" but that just isn't me!

I envy your coming out experience. Mine was not like that -- I never felt that kind of rush. This is perhaps because I didn't come out all of a sudden. It was more of a gradual process that took quite a long time. I also had some pretty disappointing first experiences with gay people (and I'm not necessarily talking about sex here). Surprisingly perhaps, I now wish I'd been a bit older and more mature when I first came out.

That effeminate "type" is the one that is most "acceptable" on the gay scene where I am. My country, New Zealand, is not as amazingly varied as the United States, so there just isn't the variety. I've always felt uncomfortable with it.

I was reading some gay magazine recently where someone was complaining about the amount of guys these days who describe themselves as "straight acting". They were immediately condemned as suffering from internalised homophobia. I thought: this is the new marginalisation. "Straight acting" is far from a perfect term as it implies one is simply putting on an unreal act. But for many guys, it's the only term they know that gets close to expressing the fact that for them being gay doesn't mean they like doing drag or at least behaving effeminately. I was shocked by the hostility with which the author of the article targeted these people.

Your article was great.

Post 12

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 12:07am

Jason:

Enjoyed your piece immensely. I decided to post with one thing in mind to ask, but Barbara B beat me to it. Her question about types or personas was exactly what I was wondering.

But another question occurs to me, something I have been wondering for some time but have not asked anyone.

Heterosexual men, obviously, are attracted to women, usually those who behave femininely.

Homosexual men, obviously, are attracted to men, but often to those who behave femininely.

The irony, if we can call it that, is obvious, and also often true in its own way for lesbians.

Put into a question, I suppose it would be: Why are some men attracted to the "feminine" but not to females?

I wonder if you're ever encountered any thinking on this subject? I'm not sure it's any more answerable than 'Why am I attracted to feminine females?'

Nathan Hawking

Post 13

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 4:05am

What a wonderful article, Jason. I think you should send it forthwith to the politically correct gay publication that Cam mentioned above! And I salute your sense of life, too; you have an unmistakable effervescence that graces everything you write.

Of course, the gay man who feels compelled to put on effeminate airs to fit in is every bit as much the social metaphysician as the straight man who tries to act macho around his mates. Both aspire to membership of a tribe.

Post 14

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 5:51pm

This is beautiful and moving -->

"...any moment when you reclaimed your identity from the clutches of someone who wanted to smother it — whether it was a lover who wanted you to change to suit her, a parent who wanted you to pursue a career you had no interest in, or a business partner who wanted you to be dishonest in order to make a deal. Imagine nervousness, excitement, and a sense of integrity combined to form an ecstatic rush that pervades your entire life. That comes close to the feeling one feels on truly coming out. And that is the feeling that made me want to scream from the roof tops who I was, and to truly be seen."

Personal, authentic, deeply felt as the best writing so often is.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 6/02, 8:47pm)

Post 15

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 6:06pm

Jason, with every contact I have with you- with everything I read of yours- I become more impressed. This is thoughtful, thought-provoking, and very human, whether that be gay or straight.
It has taken me a long time to truly appreciate the gay community. There are many things I don't care for about it and many things with which I don't identify personally, but all in all, it is one hell of an exciting place to be. Everything about it is new, and yet everything about it is the same in the sense that gay people aren't nicer or nastier, smarter or slower. We really are just people, but people who, in conflict with traditional society are forced to examine everything about are lives more intensely than others. I have been slow to recognize the contribution of many gay leaders and groups. I certainly don't condone many of the tactics they use, but I have been becoming more aware of late that in many ways I failed to have their raw courage.
Coming out is just as you describe it, although I did it a bit backhandedly. Sometime in the 70's, I made the decision that everyone I would meet from that point on would know I was gay. It saved me the pain of confrontation with many important people in my life, but it was so liberating in my day-to-day life that I soon addressed the issue with everyone who was important to me. Everyone, that is, but my father. It was known but never discussed. If I could, I would go back and tell him. He loved me, and he deserved to know this central fact of who I am. I was afraid to tell him. It was my failure of courage, He, I am sure, would have handled it just fine.
It will take a long time to sort out the good from the bad in the gay world, but the world has changed forever with the gay movement, and I think it has changed for the better.

Post 16

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 7:25pm

Thanks to everyone who commented after my initial 'thank you.' I must admit to having been a little nervous about baring such a part of myself, but the reactions are warming. Sincerity works.

Regarding Barbara's questions on the source of the variety, that's quite a tough one. I don't have a definitive answer, certainly, but as you just asked for my thoughts I'll give them.

There are a few factors. Certainly the 60's Sexual Revolution has much to do with it. The open-ness and comfort with sexuality that resulted from that time period must have surely allowed all people - including gay people - to tap into, explore, and entertain their sexual tastes and preferences. A second factor is the Stonewall Riots in 1969 which kicked off the Gay Rights Movement. Far from being the bastion of left-wing bias it's become, in its beginning the Movement was a demand by gay people for the humanity and equality that should be recognized in all individuals. After all, the riots began when a "raid" happened on the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York, for the umpteenth time. These raids were routine in a place where free association had to be bought by bar owners with kick-backs to the police. Those in the bar had had enough. The drag queens kicked it off by fighting back. The police were pushed back into the street, into which everyone poured and a march began. (And as a sidenote, my own experiences with drag queens has only deepened my respect for them, which began when I learned of this fact. To borrow a phrase, what bollocks!)

A third factor that combined with this new spirit of "sex is ok" would be that men are more promiscuous than women. So, men would be more likely to pursue different sexual experiences more often, because they would be pursuing men who are just as promiscuous as they. Rampant sex was certainly the M.O. of the gay culture before the age of AIDS, and anytime you have a culture where men have a large amount of willing partners, you're going to have promiscuity. That is not to say it's a necessity for or a characteristic of all gay men, of course.

So, all of this combines to form a subculture in which people are both willing to take their sexual likes and dislikes seriously and to seek out others who share them. All of the "types" I can think of revolve around what a person finds sexually attractive. Often when you get multiple types together, you'll have people who find they share personality traits as well. And so a subculture within the subculture arises.

Jason

Post 17

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 8:03pm

The previous post ran a bit longer than I intended, so rather than clutter it up with multiple points I'm starting a fresh post.

Cameron, I completely sympathize with your experience in NZ. I've also read things criticizing the term "straight-acting" and reached the same conclusion as you - it certainly ain't perfect, but it's needed. The whole thing about 'internalized homophobia' seems to be a defensive reaction to the fact that the author is a big ol' girl and feels slightly guilty about it. What happened to the Doctrine of Tolerance, that alter at which our judgement must apparently be sacrificed? Ugh. I do wonder, though, if you considered submitting a letter to the editor or some such objection to the article. Please don't be silent and leave such an attack unanswered. (If you'd rather, feel free to send me by private mail the name of that publication and if they have a website.)

Derek, you're exactly right re the tribal mentality.

James, regarding, "We really are just people, but people who, in conflict with traditional society are forced to examine everything about are lives more intensely than others." That's a point that I started examination of in my "Tool For Living" article and plan to write more on in the future. Rand certainly gave us the tools with which to examine our lives, didn't she?

Ah, Nathan, you raise a subject that's both confounding and fascinating to me. You wrote,

Heterosexual men, obviously, are attracted to women, usually those who behave femininely.

Homosexual men, obviously, are attracted to men, but often to those who behave femininely.
...
Put into a question, I suppose it would be: Why are some men attracted to the "feminine" but not to females?

This is confounding because, although I am not feminine and am attracted to "butch" guys, I also am attracted to certain types of effeminate guys as well. (Some of my friends on this site have their own ideas on why - eh, S.O.S.?) Yet I've found that I act differently in relationships with guys who are butch, guys who are femme, and guys who are like me and pretty much in the middle. In the first type, I tend to be a little more passive (and I don't mean sexually here). Even something as simple as hugging shows it - if sitting on the couch, I'll lean into the guy and let him put his arm around me, so that it's as if I'm being cradled. Whereas with a more feminine guy, I'll be the one to pull him to me, and put my arm around him. With a butch guy I feel protected; with a femme guy I'm the protector. With a middle-of-the-road guy, it's sort of neither or both, depending on the mood of either of us. The butch/femme dynamic reflects the typical dynamic of a heterosexual relationship. I'd like to stress, however, that not all guys (either butch or femme or middle-of-the-way) fall into these relationship roles and they have nothing to do with a preferred sexual position.

But the real answer to your question is that femininity and masculinity are not the same as the genders female and male. And the way that you experience your sexuality with another man has little to do with whether that man is feminine or masculine. Even feminine men look like men, are shaped like men, have the bodies of men. Whatever causes homosexuality, whether it be psychological, physiological, genetic, or combinations of these, the human animal can recognize the male and the female of the species. Visceral sexual attraction will be based on that first. I venture to say that within that basic attraction, the wide variety of attraction to different types of men is primarily psychological (and that includes potential experiences which have an effecct on a person's psychology).

Jason

(NB - the link goes to a broader discussion of this on the SOLO Homo Forum.)

Post 18

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 10:28pm

It's wonderful when personal writing can transcend simple introspection and illuminate upon a topic as brilliantly as your article does.

Post 19

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 1:41am