riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Jonathan) (02/29/84)
[Message forwarded for "Jonathan"]
Which gay magazines/newsletters are worth subscribing to for someone
who wants merely to be informed of major events in the gay community?
I've read "The Advocate" and "Christopher Street" but found them
somewhat alienating and not very useful.
Please post replies to net.motss.
"Jonathan"
c/o {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddledyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (03/02/84)
"Gay Community News", though it is a Boston-based weekly newspaper, covers national issues very well. It is aligned a bit towards the leftist/veggie/aging hippie crowd, but not in any way that compromises its news coverage. They actively solicit subscriptions--I will hunt down a copy and post their address, unless someone beats me to it. Whenever I have picked up a copy of "The Body Politic", a Toronto newspaper, I've been impressed by it. It is best known for the harassment it suffered at the hands of the Provincial Government of Ontario following a story on Man-Boy "love." (Will the Mounties start cutting the backbone to UofT?) It has national distribution in the US at major newsstands and gay bookstores, and I believe subscriptions are available, too. I agree with your assessment of "Christopher Street", a disagreeable magazine (undereditted, self-conscious and self-absorbed; in attempting to emulate the "New Yorker", it falls so far of its mark it's pathetic.) However, I find that the "Advocate" has a pretty good hard-news section, hidden amid the pink pages and the "Me Generation" articles. At the very least, it has no pretentions to being other than a agreeable mix of news, entertainment and personal ads. I am interested to know exactly what you mean by being "alienating." Unfortunately, even the most politically correct magazines have to break even. This often means incorporating ads which show Urban Gay Life at its worst. Too bad. I would advise you to aim for the news and ignore what you don't wish to see. I would also be interested to hear of other newspapers or magazines which people think highly of. /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer
bam@sdchema.UUCP (Bret Marquis) (05/03/85)
I would argue that the "problem" with "gay-oriented literature" is that it is inherently sexually oriented. To put it another way, the only thing that really makes gays different from straights is (as a psychologist friend of mine once put it) sucking and fucking. When I read gay magazines, I have implicitly stated that I am interested in whatever it is that separates gays from straights: sex. When straight men read Playboy they have made the same statement, and although Playboy makes a big deal of having "legitimate" articles, they still have sexually explicit centerfolds and advertisments. Of course, advertisers appealing to a gay-oriented market try to make their ads as interesting as possible to that clientele. What can you assume is appealing to the widest possible cross-section of gay men? There seem to be two problems here. First, the straight world does not assume that what they see in a "straight" magazine such as Hustler represents the entire straight world since they have a lot of contact with the straight world, but since most heterosexuals have a limited contact with the gay world, every "gay" magazine is a major data point. Second, I think that if you look around a little more you will see flagrant sexuality all around you: gym ads featuring scantily clad women; Pepsi is the new generation (of bimbos?); sexy women licking their lips in cars, on couches, while peering into refrigerators; billboards with the writing superimposed on the, ah, delicate portions of the anatomy...... need I go on? The straight world is in some sense desensitized to the straight sexuality surrounding them, but an equal level of gay sexuality seems "blatant" to them. eric -- Bret Marquis (sdcsvax,ihnp4)!bang!bam Bang World Communication Center - San Diego.
bam@sdchema.UUCP (Bret Marquis) (05/03/85)
I would argue that the "problem" with "gay-oriented literature" is that it is inherently sexually oriented. To put it another way, the only thing that really makes gays different from straights is (as a psychologist friend of mine once put it) sucking and fucking. When I read gay magazines, I have implicitly stated that I am interested in whatever it is that separates gays from straights: sex. When straight men read Playboy they have made the same statement, and although Playboy makes a big deal of having "legitimate" articles, they still have sexually explicit centerfolds and advertisments. Of course, advertisers appealing to a gay-oriented market try to make their ads as interesting as possible to that clientele. What can you assume is appealing to the widest possible cross-section of gay men? There seem to be two problems here. First, the straight world does not assume that what they see in a "straight" magazine such as Hustler represents the entire straight world since they have a lot of contact with the straight world, but since most heterosexuals have a limited contact with the gay world, every "gay" magazine is a major data point. Second, I think that if you look around a little more you will see flagrant sexuality all around you: gym ads featuring scantily clad women; Pepsi is the new generation (of bimbos?); sexy women licking their lips in cars, on couches, while peering into refrigerators; billboards with the writing superimposed on the, ah, delicate portions of the anatomy...... need I go on? The straight world is in some sense desensitized to the straight sexuality surrounding them, but an equal level of gay sexuality seems "blatant" to them. eric
sdo@brunix.UUCP (Scott Oaks) (05/06/85)
In article <383@sdchema.UUCP> bang!blia!eric (Eric Allmanam) writes: > >I would argue that the "problem" with "gay-oriented literature" is that >it is inherently sexually oriented. To put it another way, the only thing >that really makes gays different from straights is (as a psychologist >friend of mine once put it) sucking and fucking. When I read gay >magazines, I have implicitly stated that I am interested in whatever >it is that separates gays from straights: sex. When straight men read >Playboy they have made the same statement, and although Playboy makes a >big deal of having "legitimate" articles, they still have sexually >explicit centerfolds and advertisments. I can't agree with this analysis: if I had been raised in a different world, then perhaps I would differ from straight people only in the manner in which I have sex. But since I was raised here and now, I (and presumably other gay people) have certain interests which are not shared by the population at large: there are a variety of issues which affect me--coming out, job security, living a "non-traditional" lifestyle--which far extend specific sexual practices. These things also separate gays from straights, and it isn't necessary that a magazine catering to gay people focus only (or even primarily) on overt sexuality. Having said that, I must state that I don't necessarily mind the ads in Christopher Street et. al. Certainly I don't mind looking at the men :-). And Eric's later argument--that ads in straight publications are also full of sexual overtones--is one with which I agree. But the assumption that gay = sex (and only sex) is one I find troubling: it denies a wealth of other attitudes and feelings which we all experience. Scott Oaks Brown University {decvax, ihnp4, allegra}!brunix!sdo