| NOTE: Some postings may have been deleted at the discretion of Ben
Boxer. Erotic pictures posted on the regular version of the list are automatically
deleted from the digest and are archived separately. Viewing them requires
a password available only to members. Profiles posted to the list are
also moved into a separate viewing area, but do not require a password.
Click here to browse through
them.
Silverfoxesclub-digest In this issue: -Can gays un-gay? (7) (Thread comntinued from Digest 240)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder if this "theory" still true after 1/2 of a century? The following text from Frank Kameny's Gay Is Good (1969), in the anthology We Are Everywhere: A Historical Sourcebook of Gay and Lesbian Politics. pp. 367-376 (here: pp. 367, 369, 376), takes up the subject of the supposed "heterosexualization" or "un-gaying of gays." Kameny was an early gay rights activist and one of the founders in 1961 of the Washington, D.C. chapter of the "homophile" rights organization "Mattachine Society." In that year he said: "At this point call me a living legend, or, humorously, the world's oldest living homosexual, or the grandfather or the great-grandfather of the gay movement, which is not technically correct." [Kameny was right --- Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895) is now regarded as the "Grandfather of the early Homosexual Emancipation Movement" of 1897-1933.] 'nuf said! --- on to Kameny's text!: Discussions of homosexuality tend to sink quickly into a morass of psychiatry, criminal law, moral theology, emotional disturbance, .abnormality,. .deviance,. and the like, most if not all of which is irrelevant or only peripherally relevant to the average, ordinary, guilt-free, unanguished, reasonably untroubled, basically happy homosexual, whose major problems in regard to his homosexuality are not emotional problems but much more likely to be employment problems not of his own making. . Quite aside from the factual inaccuracy of the statement [that .of course. all homosexuals would convert to heterosexuality if only they could]---surveys have shown that most homosexuals would not change---never do we see anyone coming to grips with the basic question of why the homosexual should change to heterosexuality, even if he could. Obviously, if the disadvantages, disabilities, and penalties which the homosexual faces are a result of society.s prejudices---and of course they are, in their entirety---then suggesting that the homosexual improve his lot by submission to those prejudices, at cost of his personal integrity, is fundamentally immoral. One does not propose to solve the problems of anti-Semitism by conversion of Jews to Christianity, much as that might improve the life of many individual Jews. The homosexual has a right to remain a homosexual, and in fact, a moral obligation to do so, in order to resist immoral prejudice and discrimination, no matter how possible, practical, and easy a change to heterosexuality might be. . Rarely if ever do we see homosexuals shown [in movies of the 1960s] as sensitive, admirable, affectionate, likable human beings, and homosexuality as something enjoyable, satisfying, and rewarding, and as an expression of love and affection. Homosexuals are far from perfect, and homosexuality is certainly not all sweetness, love, and light; but of course exactly the same is true, in precisely equal measure, of heterosexuals and heterosexuality. But we see all sides and aspects of heterosexuality portrayed. We see only caricatures, portraying the sordid, the sad, the unpleasant, and the ridiculous---the negative---side of homosexuality. Finally, the contempt, ridicule, derision, scorn, despisal, denigration, and belittlement of himself and of his condition, the assault upon his right to his very existence as a homosexual, which the homosexual faces at every turn, continuingly and everywhere, often vicious, totally non-supportive, totally unrelieved, except within his own community. . While any one of the items listed, taken by itself, might be considered small, trivial, and insignificant, when taken together they add up to a concentrated and rather virulent dose of psychological poison. It is certainly not unexpected, therefore, that many homosexuals suffer from damaged self-image, lack of self-confidence, diminished self-esteem, unwillingness to come forward as homosexuals. . At my suggestion the North American Conference of Homophile Organizations, in 1968, adopted substantially the following statement: The homosexual, in our pluralistic society, has the moral right to be a homosexual. Being a homosexual, he has the moral right to live his homosexuality fully, freely, and openly, and to be so and do so free of arrogant and insolent pressures to convert to the prevailing heterosexuality, and free of penalty, disability, or disadvantage of any kind, public or private, official or unofficial, for his nonconformity. By analogy and by parallel, the homosexual has the same moral right as do the Catholic and the Jew, in our pluralistic society, to be Catholics or Jews, and being so to live their Catholicism and Judaism fully, freely, and openly, and to be and to do so free of arrogant and insolent pressures to convert to the prevailing Protestant Christianity, and free of penalty, disability, or disadvantage of any kind, public or private, official or unofficial, for their nonconformity. That statement contains within itself nothing more than or different from what every minority group wants, and what every American is correctly brought up to believe is his, by right. Finally, to those of my fellow homosexuals who may read this, I say that it is time to open the closet door and let in the fresh air and the sunshine; it is time to doff and to discard the secrecy, the disguise, and the camouflage; it is time to hold up your heads and to look the world squarely in the eye as the homosexuals that you are, confident of your equality, confident in your knowledge that as objects of prejudice and victims of discrimination you are right and they are wrong, and confident of the rightness of what you are and of the goodness of what you do; it is time to live your homosexuality fully, joyously, openly, and proudly, assured that morally, socially, physically, psychologically, emotionally, and in every other way: Gay is good. It is.. Hope these words put an otherwise tiresome subject to a deserved rest.
Hugs, I had written a piece about being gay that I hope you won't mind me sharing with you guys again, because I am convinced it proves the point that we are not gay by choice. I can't stress too strongly that I have never seen anything, not even light or dark, and the fact that I am gay, and love the touch and smell of a guy, (especially with wine on his breath) proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I never had pictures to look at. I never had a lot of contact with either guys or women. But I was wired to respond to guys. I wish I could write better, but this does come from my experiences.
Hugs, It has really shocked me to learn that there are programs out there which purport to change gay people into straight people. Most of these programs have a religious basis, as they start from the premise that being gay is sinful, and that it is a conscious choice. All the gay person has to do is want to change, and immediately, he can become straight, respectable, and perhaps even earn his way into heaven when he passes away. I am probably in a very unique position to discuss whether being gay is a choice or a characteristic. Do we choose to be gay, or are we basically made that way? Before I attempt to answer this question, I would like to state that it should not really matter. I dream of a day when being gay will be accepted as readily as having red hair. However, we are light years away from ever seeing this wish fulfilled. Our society, in general, has difficulty with accepting differences. People who are gay but extremely overweight are often not well accepted by the very gay people who will complain about discrimination. And, imagine being overweight, and having a major disability. This is my case: I am a big guy, and I am totally blind. Acceptance has been difficult. But, I digress. Let us go back to the original question: is being gay a choice, or is it rather something we must be, like it or not? I submit that being gay is not a choice. We are born gay, and we must either accept ourselves as gay, or lead a very unhappy life. Why am I so sure of this? Well, I am totally blind from birth. I have never seen light or dark. I have never seen a man or a woman: a boy or a girl. When I was about 7 or 8 years old, I enjoyed hugging men and women. I was especially interested in touching people's arms, as I was guided by holding a person's arms, so this part of the body became special to me. I enjoyed touching men's arms, and I enjoyed touching women's arms, although they were less hairy. When I was ten years old, I began to notice a significant change in my reaction to people. I found that I was drawn to men: I wanted to be held by them, picked up, played with, and would often touch a man's arm until he told me to stop. My interest in being hugged by women began to wane. I found I enjoyed it less, and did not feel the same closeness or desire to be with a woman. Soon, to my dismay, I began to realize that men would cause me to have an erection. Just the smell of a man, or his touch would send my cock into spasms. Women, although I would kiss them, and be held by them, did not affect me in this way. I think this is significant, and is a definite proof that being gay is genetic, or chemical, or inborn. There is no way I could know about being gay. I never had access to any books on sex. I never even felt a man's body, and did not know about vaginas. But, despite my lack of sight, and my incredible ignorance about sexual matters, I was, despite myself, attracted only to men. I know that there are gay men who have had sex with women. They are perhaps more attracted to men, but can function to some degree with a woman. This is impossible for me. I love women, but am absolutely not attracted to them. I had an interesting experience when I met a woman who had become a man. She had taken hormones, and was preparing to have the surgery. Her voice had deepened, and her arms were hairier than a woman's would ordinarily be. We hugged, but she did not cause me to react as I do when with a man. To me, and my senses, she was still a woman. Not all men turn me on. I have a friend who hugs me a great deal, and often touches me, but I do not react to him at all. I cannot say why this is. However, many men do turn me on, and no woman has ever been able to cause me the slightest pleasurable sensation. Now, let's get back to our Christian brothers who want to change us into straight men. I firmly believe that this is not only impossible, but very wrong. We must rejoice in what we are, and I for one am glad that I can appreciate the touch of a man. Touch is a beautiful thing, and when a good friend of the same sex touches me in a meaningful way, there is nothing like it. A touch on the shoulder, or the hand, or a hug can be very meaningful.
So, it would take a lot to convince me that we choose to be gay.
In fact, I know it is not true, just as I know that I was born
blind, and also that I was born gay. (Thomas H) wrote: "I wonder if this "theory" is still true after 1/2 of a century" It wasn't true when it was written. Pure garbage based upon the author's cultural and personal biases. If Otto had been properly fucked by some skillful list member, he would have had a whole different set of theories to expound.
George of Boston (Boston Bill)
George: Of course, there are a few "purest of the pure" who still hold the gays can be "converted", eg, Charles Socarides, but they are definitely in a minority and discredited except among the rr who must maintain "choice" as a working category. Otherwise, their formulations and vitriolic, viseral hatred of gays would have to be directed against themselves...There is no more international Communist conspiracy to kick around anymore...:>) Don't you think Fenichel's idea is just a wee bit over the top? It may also say more about his imagination than about "being gay". One of my analytic supervisors (who is str8) believed that a number of the early Freudian writers and analysts were gay or at least bi-sexual... For many of the younger gays, of course, the question of "being gay" and who approves, etc is irrelevant. "Being gay" is how one finds oneself. It is important to take this "whatness" and to live in such a way that it becomes my "whoness"... Boy, you didn't think I go on this way...:>) Neither did I....
Eric
wyrdwulf@catskill.net wrote: George replies: Charles Socarides is an evil man, in my view. He emotionally abandoned his own son for being gay. He knows the contrary views of his profession. He continues to carry on his vendetta. My guess is that it is for the money (this is his livelihood, after all) and because he is so frightened about his own sexuality. The lady simply protests too much. >Don't you think Fenichel's idea is just a wee bit over the top? It >may also say more about his imagination than about "being gay". George replies: Absolutely I agree with that. It is really wild. His imagination and his biases, etc. We gays do scare the self-styled-hetroid control types very seriously, you know. Let's keep on scaring them.
George of Boston (Boston Bill)
From: George of Boston bostbill@ix.netcom.com Robert Feinstein wrote: Let us go back to the original question: is being gay a choice, or is it rather something we must be, like it or not? I submit that being gay is not a choice. We are born gay, and we must either accept ourselves as gay, or lead a very unhappy life. I absolutely agree with Robert on this point. My personal experience and my observation of many others concur that we do not choose our sexual orientation. If some of my lighthearted (or smartass) responses to messages confused anyone, let me say it again: We can choose whom we do sex with. We can choose not to do sex at all. We do not choose whom we are attracted to.
George of Boston (Boston Bill) There are three engineers in a car; an electrical engineer, a chemical engineer and a Microsoft engineer. Suddenly the car just stops by the side of the road, and the three engineers look at each other wondering what could be wrong. The electrical engineer suggests stripping down the electronics of the car and trying to trace where a fault might have occurred. The chemical engineer, not knowing much about cars, suggests that maybe the fuel is becoming emulsified and getting blocked somewhere.
Then, the Microsoft engineer, not knowing much about
anything,
comes up with a suggestion: "If we close all the windows,
get out,
get back in, then open the windows again, maybe it'll
work!?"
End of silverfoxesclub-digest V1 #241
|