levasseur@euclid.DEC (Ray EMD & S Admin 223-5027) (03/07/86)
RE: Rob Bernardo's posting, >I think there is a confusion between the concept of costume (drag) >and non-costume dress prevalent in the gay ghetto . And I suspect >what happened is this: Well the American Heritage Dictionary gives a few clinical definitions of drag: to forceibly pull, something that's boring and one states "A Homosexual of one sex who dresses in clothes of the opposite sex" This is interesting since there are an equal percentage of Heterosexual male cross dressers. I find no confusion between drag which may be worn as a goof on reality; costume and Halloween parties, Mardi Gras, etc. The other is a look which mught be more constant; the Gay urban clone. The guy may wear 3 piece suits to work but live in flannel shirts and levi 501's during the rest of his waking hours. What a person chooses to wear on his own time should not be put down provided it looks natural. Strut- ting around all the time in a leather body harnass and leather chaps may look silly on the average street; I know I'de feel self conscious walking down Main Street in Nashua dripping in leather and chains. If a guy wears chinos, docksiders and a button down shirt, he's labeled as a yuppie around here, If it looks good on him and he's comfortable, I say so what! I was into the tight jeans and tee/muscle/flannel shirt look way before I heard the term "gay clone". Friends have told me that my form of leisure dress looks natural on me. I know people wo would wash their cars while wearing a shirt and tie. I don't think they're making a statement, justing wearing what's natural for them. I also wear a punktail. Now a lot of people think I'm making a social statement. I just *like* thd look of a tail on some men with short hair. I get tired of explaining away why there's this 6" little trail down my neck. >drag. After all the person who works in the financial district puts >on a costume of a suit/tie to *show* others how he fits in and >is successful -- isn't that drag?" This is an interesting point Rob, about the suit/tie. When I dress in jacket and tie, I seem to get more respect in stores, restaurants, etc than when I wear jeans. We're conditioned to believe that jacket+tie = success or at least respectability. We equate jeans with blue collar, teens, etc. In some Near Eastern cultures a red dot on the nose or forehead acts as a caste mark The jacket, shirt and tie in business connotes; administration, management, etc. An executive who comes to the office in chinos and polo shirt might get repremanded; he's out of uniform just as a military officer who shows up for duty in civilian clothes would be told to go home and change. It's an ident- ity symbol, just as the muscle shity and tight faded 501's are to some urban gays "I'm one of you guys!" If they dress thius way in the ghetto to gain acceptance, then it's not a natural look, but a costume. My shirt and tie at work for me is more of a costume to appease the expectations of my sup- eriors. >a costume or not. *To the extent* that you put on some clothes with >the intention of them making a statement about yourself, it is a costume. Sure the shirt and tie at work make a statement that I'm some sort of admin- istrative/professional person and not an assembly line worker or janitor. A criminal or other lowlife can dress up just as easy as I can. underneath he's still a scum, but to the world he looks respectable. >When a gay man puts on a leather outfit before going cruising at a >leather bar in order to demonstrate "I am a tough MAN, and I am going >to treat you rough.", that's a costume. When a gay man puts on a Some gay men and establishments carry the 9 to 5 mentality of dressing into their leisure time. In cruising, Al Pacino was not allowed ot stay in a bar called the precinct or something like that because he was not in the proper uniform. I think (only me thinkin) that in some circles, the mode of dress goes beyond a costume and becomes a fetish. A friend of mine is somewhat effeminate but covers himself in leather and chains. he admits that it makes him feel more like a man. I think that some of these guys go everboard in "Macho" costume to cover up insecurities in their own levels of masculinity. >a business man deliberately selects a certain suit or certain >attache case because they connote success, that is a costume. It may connote success but he may not be able to compose a simple declarit- ive sentence or add a column of figures :-) >One is the difference between the intent the wearer had in putting on certain >clothes and the intent the viewer *infers* that the wearer had in putting Good point! when I wear jeans I'm not trying to make a statement. When a passerby notices the jeans, tank top and punktail, he/she may label me as gay, a punk, a rock band member, or whatever else they equate with the way I'm dressed. If I have an earring in my left ear (which I do but not at work) does that mean that I'm gay; to some folks it does which is why I don't go into meetings wearing a diamond stud. >Then it no longer becomes a costume. Many styles of dress that were originally >costumes in the gay ghetto have become commonplace modes of dress over time. Sure! look at all the young heterosexual males who wear the classic Gay clone dress now and how many have pierced ears. Rock stars in vodeos dress the same way. It is interesting how a look that's labeled as avante garde one year, becomes a norm a few years or less later. >in the case of the leather outfit worn "casually", the intent of making >the "I-am-your-sexual-fantasy" statement has merely become unconscious. He's a fantasy until he opens his mouth, "Oohhhh! Mary, that's just devine" :-) <note smiley face. I've heard gay men joke about the fantasy guy at a bar being a big lady under all the leather and chains. >common in the gay ghetto. The extent to which a gay community >becomes a ghetto and in-grown, certain behaviors that were originally >done "for effect" grow to be casual, and appear (wrongly or rightly) >to be "affected" to the person outside that community. Just like let's say a Black man who acts very nondescript outside of a black ghetto and talks jive when with his friends in a black neighborhood. I don't act campy at the office or at mom's but if my roomate and I were throw a dinner party with 12 others then we may act campy, "oh sis it's so nice to see you, give us a hug!" My camp behavior can be turned on and off at will depending on the circumstances, some who have lived in a constant state of Oh Maryism! from years in the ghetto may be percieved as strange when they leave the security of the ghetto. >suddenly make the flamers vanish. Why should they - they're probably having a >marvelous time. Would you expect all the nuances of black culture to disappear They probably *are* having marvelous time dear. I've been at parties where there were flamers adn they were quite entertaining, life of them party, but I personally would get a little irritated if I were around them 24 hours a day. I find nothing wrong with it, if it's comfortable to them. >richard johnson apple computer, inc. * Gay Stereotypes in Film * I'de like to make a point about cinema *period* I rented "A View to Kill" with Roger Moore as 007. Silicon Valley is in perilled by an ultra demented industrialist. Well enough about the movie! Geee! maybe the British Secret Service will protest the portrayal of their agents. James Bond has more lives than an animal shelter full of cats. I've known a real government agent and he told me that 90% of the time he was behind a desk. the same goes for cops. On tv they're all altru tough and look as if they all walked out of the pages of "GQ" I have 4 cousins who are police officers, one vice and they all say that tv cop shows are all doo doo. Sure they see action but not in the non stop "bang bang, shoot'm up, car chase" way Hollywood interprets them. Well! only my opinion but Welcome Home Bobby, Early Frost and Consenting Adult were all good as far as I was concerned. Yeah so they were all attractive, successful, etc. If you pay attention (outside of sitcoms) most of the leading characters are portrayed as some sort of upwardly mobile successful person. The new gay characters are just victims of *dramatization* like everybody else. The stories are fiction and in fiction there are no hard set rules regarding who can be what, etc. Just be glad that we're no longer shown as twisted little men in trenchcoats, handing poisoned candy to school children or neurotics who kill themselves by the 3rd commercial break. IN Frost and Adult the gay charact- ers were shown to be guys who stood up for what they were and in the end were (quasi) accepted. Some one complained about the character in Adult being a pre- med student and trophy winning college swimmer, are you jealous??? Isn't it nice for a change to be shown as the all American who confronts the jerks in the film with "yeah...well I'm gay toooooo!" and they back off. if you don't like it, there are two littl knobs on your tv; one marked on/off and the other tuning! As the disclaimor in the "triple dare" horror feature at the Rialto theater in Lowell used say...."it's only a movie! only a movie! only a movie!" Ray