Steers and Queers: Ruminations on the Gay

Everything is gay these days, and I wish there were a more thoughtful cultural discussion about it all. Or any cultural discussion.

Of course popular media has always been morally relativistic. It was the same way in the eighties and the nineties and the aughties. The media isn't going to change anytime soon. But I feel that we, as a culture, are changing because we're more dependent upon popular media for our information than ever before. We are inundated with "news" from cable television and the internet. Lately, I've noticed more and more videos, news reports, articles and such that revolve around homosexuality. There's the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask--Don't Tell" policy, there's the movement to change the definition of marriage, there's the "It Gets Better" movement to comfort gay teens, there's the astounding popularity of Glee.

I know that in a sense, all of these things are only happening in the world of media. They don't happen in the real world, not really. If I were to disconnect from the internet my personal life wouldn't even be hearing about most of this stuff, and I would be blissfully unaware of any of these changes. Unfortunately I like Netflix instant view and Xbox Live too much to disconnect.

But I know that I'm the exception, and that's because I've been on the other side. For years growing up and in college I lived with cable television and the internet going at full force. I witness my own friends and family connected 24/7 through phones and laptops and television. I see the media shaping culture as the wave of the future, and the media's fascination with homosexuality is bound to shape the opinions of young people and probably influence a whole generation.What upsets me is how all of this is being fed to the masses without any real argument or challenge from anyone. This is a symptom of the media age, I think.

What is it that makes a man gay? What separates a gay man from a straight man? The more and more I think about it, the only answer I come up with is that gay men want to put their penises inside of other man. Straight men want to do the same thing, except to women. Because isn't that what it comes down to? Am I wrong in this? It's a purely sexual thing, is it not? It's not about love. A straight man can love another man and still be straight. It's only when he wants to do something sexual with the other man that makes him gay.

That brings up questions about the nature of love, I suppose. What is love? Is it inherently sexual? When I say the word "love" I am of course speaking of romantic love, and not love in the familial, brotherly, or platonic sense.

I'm going to jump to a conclusion here and say that yes, romantic love is inherently sexual. Perhaps I'm a pervert for thinking this, but I feel sex is (or ought to be) the ultimate expression of love, and love ultimately leads to sex. There can be sex without love, but I'm not sure there can be (reciprocated) love without sex. When a man feels an attraction to someone in the sense of romantic love, even if it be a pure and chaste attraction, is not that love ultimately expressed through sexuality? Isn't sex what two people work towards when they are in the throes of their love spell? These days it could take only days (hours, minutes!) of knowing and "loving" someone before having sex with him, but in former times wasn't this the whole point of a marriage? Isn't this implied in the word "consummate"?

In fact, I'm going to look up the word consummate right now because I find this so interesting. From the Oxford English Dictionary:

consummate (verb)
1. To bring to completion; to finish, carry out, accomplish.
2. To make a marriage complete by the act of sexual intercourse.
3. To make perfect; to perfect.
4. To attain perfection; to come to fruition or completion.

See, so I'm not a pervert after all. When you consummate your marriage you are bringing the act of marriage to completion, you are also making it perfect. That sexual act is the culmination of everything that came before it. It signals to the rest of the universe: now it is official, now it is complete.

Maybe I have a simple-minded world view, and two people really can love each other, in a romantic, boyfriend and girlfriend way, without ever desiring to express that love sexually. Do relationships like this exist amongst adult human beings? I won't say they don't, but in my experience as a human male, I've never come across one.

Romantic love is beautifully sexual. Sexuality, in its purest form, is a sublime expression of human intimacy, devotion, and love.

In fact, I believe it's a shame that sexuality is paraded so openly in our culture because it really does lose much of its mystery and beauty as it becomes more and more commonplace. What's mysterious or beautiful about two dumb people humping? See what I mean? That image is kind of disgusting/ludicrous, but it's not too hard to imagine because I've seen a lot of sex in my life. I probably saw more people having sex by the time I was eight years old than most of the men born before A.D. 1800 saw their entire lives. This is thanks to television and movies.

In our modern world, I can say things about sex freely and openly, whereas such behavior was considered less acceptable fifty, one hundred, two hundred years ago. Sure, people told dirty stories and dirty jokes, but I believe public discourse on human sexuality was much more limited. And even if you don't think it was, you have to admit it was at least less visually focused. Maybe everyone talked about sex all the time back then, but at least it was just that: talk. I don't think people were humping in the streets regularly, at least not in the western world, and there weren't images of sex to be looked at on a regular basis.

But I digress.

Some might take issue with my argument that "A straight man can love another man and still be straight. It's only when he wants to do something sexual with the other man that makes him gay." They might argue that being homosexual is about love, not sex. But my point in explaining how romantic love is inherently sexual is that in the end, there isn't a distinction. Romantic love and sex are intertwined. They're one and the same.

So lately there's been talk in the news about young men killing themselves because they were bullied by others due to their homosexuality. A campaign was started to encourage all the young gay people of America into not killing themselves because "it gets better." What I think is interesting is that the subtext of all this is sexual. We talk and talk about gay rights, gays in the military, gay boys committing suicide, and deep down it's all about putting penises in other men's anuses. That's what seems so ridiculous to me. How can we have a dignified conversation on human rights when, when it comes down to it, the right we're defending is the right to put your penis in another man's anus (and not be judged as morally wrong by anyone for it)?

These boys were ridiculed because they wanted to put their penis in other boys' anuses. Not because they loved other boys. Boys can love each other. They may not wish to talk about it or admit it, but of course boys can feel brotherly love for one another. This wasn't about love. It was about engaging in (or wanting to engage in) sexual acts with other boys.

When boys taunt each other by calling each other "gay" or "fag," the insult is the implication that they engage in sexual acts with boys. The implied insult is NOT "ha ha ha you form deep emotional/spiritual bonds with other members of the same sex," it's "ha ha ha you have sex with boys."

This is why I find the efforts to dismantle gay discrimination so strange. They do commercials where celebrities come out and tell the youth to stop using the word "gay" as derogatory to anything in any way. "You wouldn't say the n-word to your friends, would you? Then don't use the g-word." Basically, saying "this party is gay" is equal to saying "I hate niggers" because apparently both of those sentences use words that are considered taboo. But what are we defending here? Nigger is a contemptuous term for an entire ethnicity of human beings, men, women, and children, forced into slavery, raped and murdered and abused and put down through the centuries because of their skin color / national origin. The word has been used in a derogatory way towards black people for over a century.

Gay, on the other hand, is a (sometimes) derogatory term for things that are boring, bland, trite, and generally unappealing, oh and it also can refer to men who like to put their penises in other men's anuses. Oh and before it meant that, it just meant "happy." But yeah, it's on par with "nigger" nowadays.

So the whole civil rights movement in the fifties and sixties-- what was that all about? These millions of black people in America didn't have the right to vote or own property or earn a decent living wage. They were segregated from the population in public and their children were segregated in schools. How is this anything like what homosexuals go through in America? Gays are allowed to vote, own property, go to school, get jobs, even use the same public restrooms as everyone else which kind of doesn't make sense when you think about it because don't we segregate the sexes in bathrooms for vaguely sexual reasons?

In fact, is it proper for homosexuals to be using the same bathrooms as straight people? I know this probably sounds extremely stupid and bigoted, but hear me out! Why is it that, in all of the known world, public bathrooms are segregated by sex? I don't have an exact answer to that question, but I believe it has something to do with the intimate nature of a bathroom. There could be possible nudity in a bathroom, and most of the bodily functions that take place in a bathroom are considered taboo. The things we do in a bathroom are not things we want to show to the public, because they would be shameful if done in front of other people. These bodily functions can feel shameful because they involve the most intimate and private parts of our bodies, and we are extremely vulnerable while we do them. Even in the public bathroom, we strive for privacy by building individual stalls. Have you ever had to use a toilet that had no stall, or with no door on the stall? It's humiliating. It's why prison cells don't have stalls for their toilets. Ideally, we like to be completely alone when using the bathroom. Since that's hard to achieve in public, we've established a rule that only people of the same gender may share a bathroom because it reduces the strain of engaging in private, vulnerable and intimate activities by factoring out sexual tension. Sexual tension should not be a part of using a bathroom.

So if I'm sexually attracted to other men, is it right for me to walk in and use a bathroom full of men? Of course I'm not assuming that gay men enjoy the sight of other dudes defecating. Straight men don't enjoy the sight of women doing that, either. But should a homosexual man have to keep his homosexuality to himself, then, while he's in a public bathroom? Or would this be considered a repression of his right to be openly gay?

If you argue that a gay man should be allowed to be openly gay in a bathroom, then why shouldn't a straight man be allowed into the ladies' room? You might answer, "Because the women in the bathroom would feel very awkward and uncomfortable if a man was in there with them." True, but shouldn't they be the ones to accept him and get over their old-fashioned ideas? I mean, it's not as if the man is going to be sexually aroused by watching ladies use the bathroom, right? But still, I think most people would agree that even if a man isn't turned on by it, he should not be allowed in the ladies room. And yet people argue that a gay man in the bathroom shouldn't be a big deal because he isn't going to the bathroom to be sexually aroused. Fair enough. So I go back to my former question: Should a homosexual man keep his homosexuality to himself while he's in a public bathroom? I would say that yes, he should, for the sake of politeness. But others argue that that viewpoint is inherently judgmental and wrong. "Why should I have to hide who I am from you? You should be the one to accept me and not judge or fear me!"

It brings me the whole argument about whether or not openly gay men should be allowed in the military, and suddenly the "don't ask, don't tell" policy makes perfect sense to me. Because what is this policy trying to do? It's trying to be civil, I think. It's saying, "Yes, you are homosexual. Yes, you want to put your penis in other men's anuses. Yes, you may valiantly serve your country. But we ask that you please keep these feelings to yourself. We will tell everyone to not ask each other about their sexual feelings. Do not share your personal desire to put your penis inside of other men while you are here." The rule is not to discriminate the homosexual solider or even to pass judgment upon him; it is to protect the heterosexual soldiers from having to work in a sexualized environment. Most of us have to work in environments that are sexualized to one degree or another. I don't mean that there is porno everywhere, I just mean that there exists potential for sexual tension when men and women work together. In offices and business and schools you'll likely have to work with a member of the opposite sex. For most people this is not a very big deal because your job won't require much intimacy with your co-workers. But from what I understand about the military, it can be extremely intimate. These men do not enjoy the privacy that civilians do. For example, I am not required to eat, shower, get dressed, exercise, and sleep with my co-workers (female or male) at my school. It also doesn't matter much if I don't get along with some of the other teachers in my school because we work mostly independently. Being in the military isn't like that.

But really, the whole debate isn't over whether or not gay men can serve. It's whether or not they can serve openly. So to use the bathroom analogy, it is like letting a perfectly polite, nice man into a woman's bathroom and asking the women to go about their business like normal without worrying or thinking about him. And this is a generous example that assumes that all openly gay men in the military are not going to be interested in other men at all for the duration of their service.

But I've gotten off on a tangent again, because I got into all this by talking about black people and civil rights.  Black people, back in the day, were not even allowed to use the same bathrooms as white people! A homosexual white male was allowed to use any bathroom he wanted. Homosexuals had more rights than black people did. And I guess this leads me again to the fact that the whole homosexual crusade isn't really about being homosexual at all. It's about being openly homosexual.

Black people were discriminated against because they were visually different from white people and everyone else. Homosexuals only become distinct through their own actions. A black man cannot change the fact that he is black. Denying a man a job just because of his skin color is wrong, and something we should have laws against. But should you be allowed to deny someone a job based on his or her actions? Should a school be allowed to not hire a teacher because he liked to get drunk a lot and party? How could the school know such a thing about the prospective employee? He'd obviously have to be open about it. What if a really openly slutty young woman wanted to be a teacher at this school? Should the school be allowed to say "no"? What if you just had a teacher who was well-qualified and also enjoyed viewing pornography and masturbating on a daily basis and was open about it? Should the school be allowed to refuse him a job for that?

In each case, your answer depends upon whether or not you feel the action in question is morally wrong. It's all about the action, not the person. Sure, maybe you like to drink, maybe you're a slut, maybe you like to look at porno-- but you are expected to keep these things to yourself because of the society that you live in. If you don't tell your employer about your actions and you don't do those actions at work, then it's none of their business, is it?

So why is homosexuality an exception to the rule? Why does IT need to be openly and unquestioningly accepted?

It's because of the implication that homosexuality is morally wrong, right? That's what pisses people off. They don't like the implication that homosexuality ought to be kept a secret because that somehow implies that it's wrong. But what about those other examples I just gave? Lots of people these days don't think that "sluttiness" is morally wrong. Having many sexual partners is considered by many to be normal, even healthy. And yet I wonder: even if you do feel this way about promiscuity, do you really think you should be so open about it, even with children and the elderly? Does EVERYONE need to know about and accept your promiscuity, even if we don't feel it's morally wrong? Isn't it okay to just keep certain things private just because of civility or politeness, or is that also an outdated concept?

Is your promiscuity really what defines you as a person?

No?

Then why be offended if people don't want to hear about it?

The thing is that I think homosexuality really IS the defining characteristic of gay people. At least, that's the vibe I'm getting from what I hear and read in the media. Gay people are gay first, people second. This is the only reason I can understand of why they are so offended when others find their homosexuality distasteful.

If I were to go around telling people "I am sexually attracted to girls with big, round breasts and asses" I would probably be told I was being a pervert.

Okay, that's a bad example. I'll tone it down. If I were to just go around telling people, "I love women! I'm sexually attracted to women." I might be considered kind of cute and funny by some, but annoying and shallow by others. Did any of these people want to know what I find sexually attractive? No? So what should my sane response be when I get told to please be quiet? My sane response is to realize that my sexuality is a personal thing and that most people consider that a private matter. I would also realize that these people weren't annoyed with me because I am genetically predisposed to like women; they were annoyed with me because I went around telling them about it even though they didn't care to know.
 
Individuals should not necessarily be judged, but I think that actions can. You can argue that a homosexual cannot change the fact that he is a homosexual, and that means it is a part of him as an individual 

Where does the disgust for homosexuality come from? Is it purely genetic? Is it a spiritual thing? Is it learned? I was never told or taught about homosexuals when I was a child, but I recall the first time I saw two men share a passionate kiss (thanks again, television!) in some movie. I felt like I was going to vomit when I saw it, and it troubled me to the core. I can't explain exactly why. It was just really offensive to me. I didn't felt this way when I saw my first Native American or my first person with Down Syndrome or when I met my first Jehovah's Witness. The closest thing I can remember that inspired such feelings was when I learned that a close friend had lost his virginity the night before. I was young and I felt a kind of disgust and repulsion at this knowledge. Over time I got used to hearing about other people's promiscuity, so maybe that's why it no longer shocks me?

But then again, maybe you could argue that children find many things offensive that adults shouldn't. I don't know. Are children inherently racist? You could probably argue both sides of this, but I like to think that all kids aren't disgusted by those of a different skin color unless their parents have taught them to be. Like I said, I wasn't. I had friends of all races as a child: black, Asian, East Indian, Latino, etc. Maybe you could argue that my parents must have taught me that racism is wrong from infancy, but if they did I never noticed their lessons. I just accepted other children. Are children inherently bigoted towards those with disabilities? Maybe you could argue kids display behaviors around handicapped people that adults would consider "rude." I don't know. Are children inherently discriminatory against gays? I kind of think they are, although I have no proof. My students, first and second graders, were recently having a joking discussion about marrying the girls in their class. "You are gonna marry her!" one boy would say and they'd all laugh. Then one boy, playing along but not really understanding the little game, said "You are going to marry HIM!" and pointed to a boy. The other boys in the group recoiled in disgust at this little suggestion. I imagine what would happen if a girl came up and kissed one of those little boys. I think they might react a number of different ways. They might freak out and scream, they might blush and hide, they might chase the girl around and kiss her back. I then imagine if another boy came up and kissed one of those little boys. I don't imagine a lot of giggling and chasing around. I imagine fear, disgust, and shame.

Now I think this example might be unfair because children aren't sexually mature and so maybe sexuality doesn't enter into it. I doubt you'd get a lot of positive reactions from boys trying to kiss other boys in middle school, though, but that might just be because all those boys have been poisoned by society's anti-gay bigotry by age twelve.

But hey, even if you do believe children are inherently anti-gay; children do lots of things that we would find morally objectionable in adults. What I am trying to illustrate is that maybe heterosexual humans just find homosexual people inherently disgusting, and that we must work for years to suppress this disgust.

Which makes me think of how animals treat homosexual behavior. For most of my life I was under the impression that human beings were the only species that enjoyed gay sex, but in recent years I've been assured by the media that this is not so. I've read many articles by researchers seeking to illustrate that homosexuality is "normal" by explaining how other species engage in homosexual activity regularly. So if two gay chimpanzees are seen having gay sex, do the rest of the chimps not mind? Because I've heard stories about gay animals, but I've never heard stories about gay animals being killed by straight animals because of their gayness. It's something to think about. Perhaps disgust over homosexuality is a purely human trait? Perhaps animals don't have the capacity to be disgusted by gay sex because they don't comprehend romantic love? So is it romantic love, those feelings coupled with desire, that heterosexuals find so disgusting?

More on this later.