Letters to the Editor
thatboy
Published Letters: 242 Editor's Choice: 14
-
A Different Gay Male Perspective
[Read the article: I'm cheating on my husband and loving it. Is that a problem?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cuff Links says:
"But I'm a gay male and (like many gay males in relationships) I have been unfaithful to various boyfriends over the years..."
Then Jan VanDenBerg says:
"Just look at "typical" gay behavior before AIDS for some idea of what sex would be like if men had their way."
And only one other poster here calls bullshit?
Cuff Links, don't justify your inability to maintain monogamy by falsely claiming "many" gay men behave likewise. Maybe it's just the type of gay men you hang out with. Most of my gay friends are in committed relationships of anywhere from 5-20 years where cheating would be an absolute deal breaker. Four gay relationships I've known ended because of cheating. None survived it. Gay men may not be less inclined to cheat than our straight counterparts, but we certainly aren't more inclined to do so or more tolerant of it.
So you went out to cheat, found your boyfriend cheating, and the two of you are just swell with it. Fine. What about those other "various boyfriends" you were unfaithful to? Did they know you were cheating? You want an open relationship, state the terms up front and fuck around to your heart's content. Don't lie to someone who expects you to be monogamous. And don't rationalize your behavior by perpetuating gay stereotypes.
Jan, the infamous gay promiscuity you're referring to usually wasn't cheating because there weren't many gay "couples." Before gay visibility and rights took hold, it was nearly unthinkable for two men past a certain age to live together and very few places for gay men to meet. Hence, many gay hook ups took place anonymously in bathrooms, truck stops, parks, etc. The '70's was a sort of adolescence for the gay community and many took advantage of newfound freedoms to fuck whenever and wherever they could. Additionally, with no societal recognition of gay relationships, those that existed had a very tough go of it.
Yes, the advent of AIDS helped to usher in a greater commitment to monogamy, but other major factors were greater recognition by the straight community of the validity of gay relationships and a maturing of the gay community. I assure you, gay men are just as capable of monogamy as anyone else.
Your assertion also seems to be that men in general aren't capable of monogamy. That is just as false as Cuff Links' assertion, and also perpetuated by the same type of person: An individual who is incapable of monogamy, but would like to believe they are in the majority as a means of justifying their behavior.
-
Random thoughts...
[Read the article: Why the T in LGBT is here to stay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]-- Lesbians, generally, are more accepted by society than gay males. If a version of ENDA was proposed that included lesbians but excluded gay males, and it had a 'better' chance of passing than one that included gay males, how many gay males would be arguing for the 'wisdom' of 'incremental rights?
-- Similarly, all the gay males arguing for incremental rights seem to say, "First G, then L, then B, then T..." Why does G come first?
-- I'm not buying the argument that passing a GLB ENDA will make it easier and quicker to include T. If GLB rights are so inevitable, it seems to me that demanding T's be included would be the speediest way to legislation that is all inclusive. And, like it or not, it is the right thing to do. My guess is that if GLB ENDA is passed, arguments for disowning T's will only become stronger for fear of losing the 'respectability' we've gained.
-- T's belong with our community because, at the core, the struggle for GLB rights is entirely about gender identity. The prejudice against same-sex relations stems from hatred of not following assigned gender roles. If you claim to not see this you are either being obstinate or dishonest.
-- This entire argument seems to stem from the same mindset that would see fit to eliminate fems, drag queens, leather boys, etc. from Pride events. "But I'm normal! Straight society would love me if it wasn't for them! Bullshit. They hate you because you fuck people of the same sex and therefore fall outside their gender definitions. Wearing a polo shirt instead of a feather boa doesn't change the equation, and neither will throwing some members of the queer community to the wolves. People in our community all deserve full equality, no matter how they represent themselves in day-to-day life.
-- I hate the whole GLBT thing. Why must everyone be listed separately? Why can't we chose one name for our community and show true unity? I get that 'gay' has somehow morphed to be male. I had great hope for 'queer' being all inclusive in the 90's, but that didn't stick. Non-straight, perhaps? And fuck this rainbow shit! Could we please go back to the pink triangle? Simple, hip, retro, fun!
-
And another thing...
[Read the article: Why the T in LGBT is here to stay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This whole argument against 'adding' transgendered persons to the mix is a deceptive fallacy.
Transgendered persons, as has been extensively noted, have always been a part of the gay community. They've fought side-by-side with us for years, often early on while you oh-so-important straight-passing gays refused to get your hands dirty for fear of losing your valued social status.
What some gays who consider themselves 'normal' are actually arguing for is to kick the 'freaks' out of the clubhouse. Fine. You can make that argument, but at least do it honestly without spouting this "We'll come back for you later" crap.
-
The Draft and War Tax
[Read the article: Must be more "phony soldiers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Since we can be fairly certain no republican would vote for either of these, that would leave it up to the democrats to bring back the draft and/or impose a war tax. Do you really believe this would wake people up to the true cost of war? Or would they simply turn against the democrats?