rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/07/84)
<where Pesmard talks about beauty and the jerks, bigotry, macho assholes,
joining groups, making choices, and comparing being "happy as a homosexual"
with being "unhappy as a stereotypical macho asshole">
Between the back and forth banter about who's a bigot and who's not, and
the discussions on jerks versus nice guys, and the other assorted flambazes,
I've been relatively quiet. But I see a lot in common in all of these
somewhat disjoint discussions.
First off, I got some flack when I said a few weeks ago that sexuality was a
matter of personal choice. George Labelle and Alan Wexelblat pounced on me
for that, saying 1) that they could never see themselves simply "choosing"
some alternate sexuality [LABELLE], and 2) that there are people who have
homosexual desires who feel evil/sinful for having them, though they cannot
rid themselves of such desires [WEXELBLAT]. Alan's point, apparently, was
that such people do not make a choice, that they are trapped by inborn/internal
feelings. Yet they clearly ARE making a choice! They are saying: "I don't
like having homosexual feelings. I don't want to be a homosexual. I want to
be a heterosexual." If such a choice is made in a positive way ("I want to
be sexually attracted to MOTOSs, but I cannot."), then one can only hope that
some psychological assistance may someday get them what they want. But (and
this seems more likely), if the choice is made in a negative way ("I don't
want to be a homosexual because being homosexual is wrong and I would be a
lesser person for being one."), then that would be truly sad. Sad because
things like low self-esteem (even self-hatred) and feelings of guilt are seen
as reasons to WANT not to be what they are. Which gets us back to the original
offering from Jeff Sargent that started this whole discussion. Do these
people "not want to be" as they are because they have chosen to want to be
something else, or is the self-hatred and/or guilt manifesting itself to the
point where it is themselves that they want to be "rid of", and not the
elements of their psychological make-up?
Which brings me to the content of a series of conversations I have had via mail
with Steve Dyer. I put forth the point that there are some people who make the
choice to be gay, not because they are sexually attracted to MOTSSs, but rather
because they feel things in common with the gay community: having mannerisms
and behaviors *associated* by the non-tolerant general public with being gay
(often stronger and more malicious epithets are used), not fitting with the
stereotypical straight behavior patterns, not engaging in activities
"appropriate" to your "assigned" gender roles (or engaging in inappropriate
ones). Joining the gay or lesbian community seems an appropriate choice for
such people precisely because of the commonality that they share with members
of the chosen community, but it does not seem to be a rational reason for
choosing homosexuality as a sexual lifestyle, unless indeed one is sexually
attracted to MOTSSs.
Around this time, Trish Millines fired the shot heard 'round the net, with the
echoes still reverberating. For those of you who have forgotten what Trish
said after all the back-and-forth between 'rainbow' (Robert ? -- sorry) and
Alan Driscoll that followed... well, I've forgotten a lot of it, too. But the
crux of the discussion that followed revolved around her statement that she
was a lesbian BECAUSE she thought the men she had come in contact with were
generally ("generally" is probably not strong enough a word) assholes. Well,
Alan thought that was a prime example of bigotry, and that bigotry from a
member of an oppressed group towards an oppressor (lesbians cf. men) was
bigotry just the same. From there it was a series of volleys that led into
mass disorder. But among the things that did come out were these: 1) Yes,
Trish's choice appears to be a "negative" choice, somewhat like the ones I
describe above (in that she said she chose to be a lesbian based not on being
attracted to women, but rather on being repulsed by men), 2) Compare it to
eating vegetables. When I was a kid, I had a violent reaction to eating
eggplant; several times (I threw up). What would you say was the likelihood
of such a kid wanting to eat eggplant thereafter? I'd venture to say that
Trish's experiences with men is roughly analogous to my experiences as a child
with eggplant. (Aha!! A new slogan!! A woman without a man is like Rich Rosen
without eggplant. :-) For me there were lots of other foods I could still
choose from (like chocolate :-))))))). For Trish, if she wanted to have sexual
relationships, there was only one other sex to choose from. Of course, I could
have tried to (and eventually I did) eat eggplant once again later on in life.
I could just as easily have chosen not to. I don't think I would have if, after
trying it again, I had the same reaction. Infer from this what you like...
Which, in turn, leads me to the other point I wanted to make. A lot of people,
males, Alan Driscoll and Greg Woods among them, took umbrage at Trish's
generalizations about men. But how unjustified was that generalization?
Behavior like that which Trish described seems to be the status quo and not
the exception among so-called modern American males. Pick the statement apart,
and you'll find that what it really meant (though Trish did not say this
outright) was that 99% of the men she has met BEHAVED like macho assholes!!
Yup, you've got guys out there who put on that whole act (yeah, for some it's
no act, it comes naturally!) just because they want to impress their friends,
or because they think they have to, or because they don't know any other
behavior. (Like Sharon Badian said in her article on how behaviors propagate
from parent to child: if a boy sees that kind of behavior in his father, he's
likely to grow up to be the same way; and, apropos to the "woman who marry/date
jerks" discussion, if a girl sees her mother accepting that sort of behavior
from her father as the status quo, she's likely to grow up expecting that in
a boyfriend/husband/other SO MOTOS type.)
Roughly, that's the inverse of the behavior I described earlier. In that,
some people "become" gay/lesbian because they feel a commonality with gays/
lesbians based on other factors than sexuality. (As Sophie Quigley mentioned,
some people make such decisions as a sort of sociopolitical statement rather
than a statement of sexual preference.) On the other hand, other
people fulfill stereotypical heterosexual sex roles (like macho provider male
and obedient sex-object female) because they think they're supposed to or
because they don't know anything else. Basically, I think it's pure
unadulterated bullshit for someone to feel they have to join a particular
group (e.g., homosexuals) because they have things in common with its members,
only to be forced to "adhere" to other "requirements" for being in that group
unrelated to one's own individuality. And it's just as much bullshit to be
required to fit into the stereotypical roles defined for groups that you are a
member of (e.g., heterosexuals). Actually, I could have just as easily
interchanged the positions of my "e.g."'s, there. Or I could have given
numerous other examples of groups (religions, nationalities) that would fit the
bill just as well.
I don't pretend to know where Trish Millines fits in to all of this. And, with
that in mind, I'm unfit to make speculations about why she made the choice she
did and about the relative merits of that choice. And, in all likelihood, so
are the rest of us. Trish excepted.
I *can* speak for me; and I, for one, don't appreciate stereotypical sex roles,
or being expected by other people to adhere *to* them. Being called an
"asshole" by someone who expects me to behave a certain way because I'm male
repulses me just as much as being called a "queer" by someone who finds I don't
behave that same certain way. I generally wouldn't appreciate other people
telling me what group I should belong to, would you? (Especially when those
people don't even like the groups they put you in.)
[SORRY IF I'VE MISREPRESENTED OR MISQUOTED ANYONE. I DID TRY TO CREDIT THE
ORIGINATOR OF WHATEVER MATERIAL I REFERRED TO, AND TO REPRESENT IT AS
ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE, THROUGHOUT THE ARTICLE.]
"You wanna make love?"
"It could cost you your life."
"I'll risk it."
--
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr