No Fats, Femmes, Asians, or Oldies

Online dating/cruising is a minefield of snap judgments and highly specific standards that the gay community knows all too well. Maybe it's because there's not too many of us to begin with (as compared to our straight pals) and we flock to the net to find each other, or because dating websites are just so damn popular now... or maybe both of these reasons, but the world of online dating/cruising is not new to LGBT people. I remember when I was first coming out, the internet was such an amazing resource for talking to individuals who actually understood the issues I was going through. I have and always will have a special place in my heart for the web, as it is both a meeting point for like-minded individuals who have not been given a voice, a resource for education, and also a tool for social justice.

So there I was, talking to another gay guy about life... when he mentioned to me that he felt so amazingly old. He confided in me that not too many gay guys talked to him anymore because of his age. He was 25. He mentioned that he wants to find a LTR (long term relationship) before he turns 30, because at that point he will be considered dead in the gay community.

I was watching Another Gay Movie with some friends (pretty funny at parts, if you can get over the crazy stereotyping... it became such a staple in my apartment that we would watch it in conjuction with Mamma Mia  almost daily while doing homework and refer to our evening plans as experiencing 'Another Gay Mamma') when I noticed a movie gag about 4 guys going into a gay bar. They're asked how old they are by some bears to which one guy sweetly replies that he's only 17. The bears scoff and say that he's already peaked within the gay community, and leaves him to find younger guys.

Of course this movie gag is completely in jest, but it brings up an interesting piece of gay male culture: the rampant ageism. The man I was talking to online was not kidding when he told me that he felt like he was going to be considered dead when he reached the age of 30. He was perhaps making an exaggeration, but was picking up on a very real truth within the gay male community: youth is worshiped. This may sound no different from straight culture (given that bieber is being fetishized by women) but ageism is even more apparent within the gay male community.

In Darker Shades of Queer, Chong-suk Han discusses his experiences as a gay man of color, and how he has noticed blatant racism within queer circles in addition to homophobia in communities of color. He brings up the critical point that oppressed groups that would benefit from being empathetic to each other's causes (people of color and non-heterosexuals) often discriminate against each other in order to cling to the small piece of privilege that hate brings with it, leaving queer people of color to live in the borderlands of these groups, not necessarily feeling welcome in either. Think about it. In Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, The L Word, and Queer as Folk (which are unfortunately seen as the tantamount of gay experience) mainly feature upper middle class white people.

Author Jason Chang really hits the nail on the head when he discusses how Asian-American men in particular are seen as feminine and as undesirable sex partners (sexism/racism/heterosexism connection). This goes in concert with Chong-suk Han's argument, who agrees and goes on to discuss how Black and Hispanic men are seen as hyper-masculine and over-sexualized to the point of people viewing them as sex objects.

I was on a cruising website (probably not the kind of cruise you're thinking of) talking to this guy, when he responded by telling me that he wasn't interested in femmes. At the time, I had no idea what he meant by 'femme' other than that I was probably being associated with a woman. I probed him for more information (as I often do with strangers) and he told me that based on how I look/presented myself, I was too feminine for him. He told me that he is only looking for straight-acting (i.e. masculine) men. I thought to myself, "Okay, that's just one person's preference" and proceeded to look for other guys with less gender-representation-specific standards. I took me all of 1 minute to find another guy with a profile that said "No femmes"... and then another and another and another. I have never seen a dating/cruising profile or even heard of a gay man who is unattracted to 'straight-acting' men. 

All of these connected stories lead to my main idea: marginalization of these groups. Unfortunately it's all too common for gay men to proclaim they deem a combination (or perhaps all) of these groups unattractive. Many claim that their attraction is based on personal preference... and indeed it is... but (if you know me) you know that I like to look at how the big-picture/society shapes our individual experiences/actions/motivations/desires. To say that our desires are only internal and biological would be false, as it pays no homage to how culture and history shape our current situations/desires (and indeed they do). Of course biology does play a role in our sexual attractions, but so do social norms and cultural expectations. What individuals in one society may collectively deem attractive may not carry over to another time period, or even another culture. To say that men are only attracted to blonde haired and blue eyed women is an amazingly white-centered, hetero-normative idea that does not hold up when looking at sexual attraction across the world, throughout time, or among same-sex couples.

 That being said, in gay male culture in United States, there are some cultural moors that dictate who is and isn't attractive. These ideals that white, trim, masculine men are the most attractive are, I believe, a potent mix of sexism, racism, and internalized hetero-sexism. Actually, it's not just here, and not just with gay men.

This is not to say that all people are racist (white people tend to freak out when I use the word 'racism', so I try to explain myself extra carefully so as to make them less defensive and more likely to listen), but it is to say that our snap judgments we make about who is and is not attractive are influenced in part from several cultural ideals that place specific individuals (who have historically held the most societal power) at the pinnacle of attraction. Is it a coincidence that gay males tend to view feminine men as less attractive, when we live in a society that grants more social, cultural, and economic power to men? I think not.

It could be said that my argument is simply me lamenting from not being labeled at the most attractive, but I ask you to do your own research. Go onto gay male dating/cruising websites and take a look. Hell, go onto craigslist. See for yourself. Tell me what you find.


P.S. The female cast of the L Word is actually made of entirely heterosexual women... because apparently straight women are better at being lesbians than... lesbians. Really makes you think about how 'gayness' marketed on TV is actually quite different from the everyday experiences of queer people.

The Straight Agenda

Consider this statement:

I hate it when straight people are all in-your-face about their sexuality.

It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Ask yourself why and you'll find the answer is because it is never stated... but it's reversal is incredibly common in mainstream [i.e. straight] speech.

Why is this? Why do you always hear corporate media discuss the ills of gays forcing their 'agenda' onto unsuspecting innocent children (who journalists often assume are all straight), but you never hear any news source discuss the ills of the 'heterosexual agenda'?

One could argue that efforts to limit the rights and legal protections of LGBT U.S.ians are part of the 'sinful' members of the heterosexual agenda. I'm not arguing that there is any heterosexual agenda, but that the very argument that creating safe spaces for LGBT individuals in the workplace is part of some vast conspiracy to limit the rights of heterosexuals is inherently flawed. Given that LGBT U.S.ians are awarded less civil liberties and protections than heterosexuals (when it is perfectly legal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation in 29 states, and/or because of their gender identity or expression in 38 states), these basic rights are not "special". Straight people are not fired from their jobs for being straight, as straight is seen as the default, or norm in this country. Many people even fail to remember that heterosexuality is itself a sexual orientation, just as so many fail to recognize Caucasian as a race (think about how white people are often baffled at the concept of white culture).

In this country (and in many other industrialized western nations) when we mention learning about race, so many of us immediately think of non-white people. When we mention learning about gender, so many of us immediately think about women. When we mention learning about sexual orientation, so many of us immediately think of gay men (lesbians, bisexuals, and other sexualities considered "deviant" are often forgotten about in addition to heterosexuals).

Heterosexual privilege #7: My sexual orientation is unconsciously and consciously considered the default sexual orientation.

As an example of not being part of the "default", let us consider the skin color phenomenon in this country, where anything "skin colored" or "nude colored" is automatically assumed to be the color of white people's skin. Anyone remember this dress that Michelle Obama wore? Fashion critics (and even the dress's designer) referred to the dress as "nude" colored... when it is obviously not the color of Michelle Obama's skin.

Here's an excellent link that points to maleness as being frequently considered the default of sex in the U.S.

And finally, the piece de resistance, Republicans (or gay oppression party, w'evs) accused Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor of being "biased" in her judicial decisions during her confirmation hearings... not realizing that they assumed white men are racially neutral in all judicial decisions. Oops!

How convenient when people who claim we live in a post-racial society (i.e. arguing "We're all color-blind") actually mean that only white people live in a post-racial society... because, you know, whiteness isn't a race, natch! (please note my excessive sarcasm).

Anywayz, back to my gay agenda. If I were an African American marching with Dr. King, would you say I had a black agenda? If I were a woman working with Elizabeth Cady Stanton fighting for Women's Suffrage, would you accuse me of having a women's agenda? If I were disabled and working with Edward Roberts to ensure that federal organizations cannot fire someone solely because of their handicap, would you say I had a disabled agenda?  If you would, then I would be proud to be part of all of these agendas (and more).

To say that Frederick Douglass wanted to limit the rights of white people or that Betty Freidan wanted to limit the rights of men (which some people still think) is absolutely false. They wanted equality for all people regardless of identity status, not just who the religious right happens to like (i.e. wealthy straight christian men... yes, the religious right hurts women).

Okay, time for me to go spread the gay gospel by converting innocent straight children into devious little gays who support heavily taxing the wealthy with my homo-socialist-witchcraft-powers. Muahahahahahahaha.

p.s. Albus Dumbledore was gay, and no one ever complained about him implementing the gay agenda!! Or maybe that's why Hufflepuff was formed... to act as a gay and lesbian task force at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry... This is obviously the most critical piece to my argument.

-Harvey Milk Jr.

Dudebros gone wild.

So there was this guy... let's call him privileged-Ivy-League-dudebro... or frat boy for short. He approached me at a bar and chatted me up. There was some definite flirtation going on, and we seemed to hit it off pretty well. He leaned in and cooly whispered that he wanted my number, and I gave it to him. By the end of the night, he was even buddy-buddy with my platonic male heterosexual lifepartners who came with me to the bar and he bought them drinks! All was well.

To make a short story longer, he suddenly dropped the bomb on me: he was straight. "Oh, that's okay", I thought to myself. "We could still make it work." Then it suddenly hit me how difficult it would be to have a romantic or sexual encounter with someone who is not attracted to those of my sex.

"I'm interested in your friend, though" he casually mentioned, nodding over to my female companion who had also come with me.

I think my reaction was something eloquent, well-thought-out, and political, like "huh?"

He explained to me that he likes to flirt with and get to know gay men in order to have "access to" their attractive straight female friends. "Gay guys always know hot girls to bring to frat parties." Yes. He said this.

Pause.

Before I continue, let us first consider the implications of the various degrees of exploitation that are eminating from this Ivy-league-wonder.

1. I will exploit this dashing gay man by using my charm to woo him and use him as an all-access pass to pussy land.
2. I will exploit young women by stroking the ego of this young gay man with flirtation, in hopes that he will barter with me and prostitute his hot female friends to me and my fraternity brothers.
3. I will welcome these young women into my frat house in hopes that they will have awkward drunk sex with my fraternity brothers, thus solidifying my social status within my fraternity as the guy who brought humans with vaginas into the frat house.

Before I go on, we must also consider the ultimate dehumanization of women the privileged-Ivy-League-dudebro is insinuating, as he didn't even want to talk to women, but wanted to have sex with women. He wanted to level with another man about the business transaction of sex that was occurring. He wanted to 'get with' my female friend and perhaps more of my female friends, but to do this he was going only approach another man (me) who he somehow assumed was gatekeeper of the sexuality of other women. What a clever boy... treating women like cattle... he did go to Cornell, after all!

Let's put aside for a second how humiliating it was for me to realize that he had no interest in me (which is not easy to do). He did not ask what my friend's name is. He did not ask me what her favorite color is, or if she has any hobbies. I could imagine a situation in which he was shy with talking to women, and wanted me to introduce him to her... but there was no point in the entire evening in which he viewed my friend (or women, for that matter) as distinct human beings with names, personalities, ambitions, lives, and their own sexual desires. Nope. He was just really preoccupied with:

A. His social status within his small world of rich boys with extremely misplaced priorities.
B. Getting the sex so he could raise his social status.

The identity of your female friend? I could care less. Your feelings? Pffffffft, feelings are so gay.

I ended up telling him that he's disgusting. Whoops.

It's really entirely possible that he was making some weird elaborate cover story in his own mind to convince himself that he's not attracted to men (I like to tell myself this), but either way it's not exactly a feel-good story.

Heterosexual privilege #6: It is not necessary for me to consider the feelings of those with a different sexuality than mine in order to get along/ahead in the world.

I would consider this situation to be unique to an oppressor-oppressed phenomenon... meaning: The oppressor does not need to consider the feelings/insights/perspectives of the oppressed in order to live/work/breathe... but the oppressed sure as hell needs to learn the oppressor front-wards and backwards in order to get along in the world.

LGBT individuals essentially need to treat straight people with respect simply to exist in this world, as straight people by and large rule this world and define its rules... but hets don't need to treats non-heterosexuals with respect in order to live/breathe/work peacefully. In fact, many heterosexuals seem to make a living by capitalizing off the hatred of the uneducated masses.

So many straight people want to continue this legacy of keeping non-hets on the bottom of the social/economic ladder... because equality would mean less privilege for them to enjoy. There are even many heterosexual individuals who fully admit that inequalities exist within our society, but are not willing to give up their social and/or economic privileges because they feel like they somehow earned it by having genetics/social conditions that pushed them into a heterosexual self-identification.

Oh, and yes. My friend does have a name, but I won't be posting it unless she wants me to.

Anywayz, I'm off to go barter with the big boys over the sexualities of my straight female friends... maybe my feudal serfdom lord can help with that.

-Harvs

Today in Hate Yourself Media.

There are so many many forms of rampant discrimination ingrained in modern society: racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, and sizeism to name just a few.

This article points out that "obese" women are much less likely to have sexual partners than "obese" men. I'm really not at all surprised about this finding, given that there is a severe double-standard as to what constitutes "attractive" for men and women. Women are unfortunately held to higher standards of "beauty" than men, and expected to police themselves and other women regarding their appearance. Think about as many popular sitcoms as you can that feature couples that consist of a young, thin, beautiful women and an 'overweight', moderate-looking man.

.... are you doing it? I'm serious! Get out a pen and pencil and make a list.

Okay. Now, try to do the reverse: list as many popular sitcom couples as you can that feature a young, gorgeous, in-shape man and an 'overweight', moderate-looking woman.

It's a bit more difficult to do the latter, isn't it?

Again, this study's findings are not super surprising. Also not surprising was the finding that "obese" women may feel stigmatized in medical settings, and thus not seek needed care.

What did strike me was the response of some of the "experts" who were asked to comment on the results.

Dr. Sandy Goldbeck-Wood, a specialist in psychosexual medicine at a London sexual health clinic, said physicians must talk to obese women about birth control.

"Doctors need to get over their own embarrassment and ask the difficult questions," she said. Goldbeck-Wood was not linked to the study but wrote an accompanying editorial in the BMJ.

Um... Ya think? I would hope that doctors already give the same amount of effort when helping thin patients as they would with 'overweight' patients, but apparently this is not the case. Oh boo hoo. The doctors now have to ask bigger women about sex. These doctors have it rough. *warranted eye roll*

"This is not a heart attack or a stroke...but it's an important quality of life factor and a public health problem," said Dr. Andrew McCullough, an associate professor of clinical urology at New York University of Medicine and director of male sexual health at NYU's Langone Medical Center.

He said the study's findings should provide another reason for people to trim their waistlines.

"It seems like a no-brainer," he said. "If you lose weight, you will feel more attractive and that could improve your sex life."

Oh... okay. "Obese" people are discriminated against... so they should lose weight to make the discrimination go away... right. Or we could examine our own prejudices and acts of discrimination against bigger people. Oh, right. That would actually require effort and understanding on our part... which is just too much work.

Far too often, "overweight" people are assumed to be lazy (without any consideration for other factors in their life that may influence their body shape). I think the real culprit of laziness in this situation are those who are unwilling to reflect upon their own internalized hatred of groups of people.

Does this all sound familiar? It should. So many anti-gay groups use the same kind of "logic" to cure the social ill of discrimination. "They can change! These therapies work! Why would you want to live that unhealthy lifestyle where people will discriminate against you? You could simply be straight and have it much easier!"

While the idea of enjoying heterosexual privilege is tempting, "changing" the individual does nothing to address the larger social issue of hatred and discrimination. Focusing on the individual person and how they can "fix" him or herself is an incredibly lazy solution to a pervasive social problem that does not affect individual people, but actually affect and limit us all.

Fat people and gay men are paid less in the work place, so they should change the way they are to suit our needs. Right... because that makes sense. Fat people and gay people are at risk for developing certain illnesses... so we should recommend that they change their lifestyles to fit the "norm". How compassionate...

In the United States, we tend to have an obsessively individualistic view of the world. If a person if poor, fat, gay, a sex worker, it is "their fault". By keeping the issues of inequalities at the individual level, we prevent real social change from occurring that could not only end discrimination, but could restructure society to end the inequalities themselves. By shaming and guilting people into changing who they are, we can capitalize on this need for services and products that assist in these quick-fixes of "normalization" (that don't actually work). It's the American way, right? We can create conversion therapies, pills, and potions that can make you the way you "should" be, and then charge exorbitant fees along the way. These industries have a vested financial interest in perpetuating the notion that these identities are "undesirable". When the media brings to light a blatant inequality experienced by these groups of people, "experts" jump at the chance to convince vulnerable people who experience inequalities that they can change... for a price.

Oh, and I looked up some info about Dr. Andrew McCullough. He was one of the individual clinical investigators for Viagra. Why am I not surprised? Yet another industry that financially depends on making you feel inadequate. Awesome.

-Harvs