Kinja reply list

Read More
Rich JuzwiakRich Juzwiak
8/20/14 3:42pm
*I know this essay is long as it is, so I didn't want to include this extended passage from Covering. I think it should clarify, though, for those who are still unclear about the concept and its detriment:

Our history of gay assimilation is now complete—we have moved from conversion, through passing, toward covering. As we shift into the covering demand, gays are nearing full equality. Yet with that movement, gays have become more ambivalent about assimilation. While most gays strenuously resist conversion and passing, many gays have embraced covering. They do not view covering—even when coerced—as a harm to personhood.
But we should not become complacent about coerced assimilation now. Why, after all, is covering required of gays? Consider the punishment of displays of same-sex affection: the kissing gay couple criticized by my college friend; Shahar fired for a same-sex wedding; parents deprived of children for affectionate same-sex behavior. What were these individuals flaunting that needed to be penalized so severely? Straights engage in this activity all the time, so the activity is not intrinsically indiscreet. I am left with no answer but that they were flaunting their belief in their own equality. They were flaunting the belief that they, and not the state or society, should determine what kinds of human bonds are worthy of expression in the public sphere.
So the demand to cover is anything but trivial. It is the symbolic heartland of inequality—what reassures one group of its superiority to another. When straights ask gays to cover, they are asking us to be small in the world, to forgo prerogatives that straights have, and therefore to forgo equality. If courts make critical entitlements—such as employment or custody—dependent on gay covering, they are legitimizing second-class citizenship for gays.
Reply
- Read More
  SissySpaceship40Rich Juzwiak
  8/21/14 2:29pm
  I agree that shame-based gay conservatism is insidious, but I'm not sure that Smith is the best example of it. I see him as a shy young guy dealing with fame and trying not to get pigeonholed into a particular musical genre, not as a critic of everybody who doesn't do sex and relationships exactly the way he does. And if some people find him to be a more palatable gay because if it, that isn't his fault. I think liberation isn't just about the right to fuck; it's about the right to ask for the sex you want without being attacked for it and, for some people, that sex is conservative and traditional.
  Reply
- Read More
  Rich JuzwiakSissySpaceship40
  8/21/14 5:21pm
  But there isn't a "just happen to find him more palatable" thing going on; he's muting himself for the sake of acceptance. He admits to as much.
  
  That's annoying and has potential for indirect consequences, but it's his grand pronouncements that bug me. I definitely don't knock him for his taste, just wish he'd do less knocking, himself. I would be a total hypocrite to argue against monogamy or chastity, even. We all have different ways of feeling satisfied and I want us all to get there without hurting anyone.
  
  Regardless, I do think that his stance is very specific. We haven't really seen a gay pop star saying the things that he does, and while I often disagree with him, a big part of my motivation for writing this was just to explore that in a "Look at who this guy is/what he represents" sort of way.
  Reply
Read More
LordBurleighRich Juzwiak
8/21/14 2:27pm
What's interesting to me about this brand of gay conservatism—which generally subtends claims for marriage equality, and which often seem to structure my (college-aged) students' views on sexuality, such that they consider the argument that sexuality is at least in part socially constructed to be homophobic—is the intensity with which it is held. I find it really difficult to relate to my friends who, when Illinois passed a same-sex marriage bill, posted on Facebook that they were crying uncontrollably at their desks, feeling so proud to be accepted by their home state.

I mean, sure, in principle I'm all for same-sex marriage. But I find it difficult to get enthusiastically worked up about it. In my opinion, the overturning of sodomy laws was a much more important milestone in gay rights than the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples (as important as that extension is).

It also seems significant to me that people are so passionate about being accepted into heteronormative society in that the affective overflow of that passion—crying at your desk, squeeing at pictures of same-sex marriage, whatever—impedes other forms of action. Like, the psychic relief of finally feeling like the school bully will leave you alone stunts your desire to ask for more—like the right not to have to self-police constantly. That seems like a real shit deal to me.
Reply
- Read More
  PopChipsLordBurleigh
  8/21/14 2:58pm
  Most definitely the overturning of sodomy laws was incredibly important but when you're in a relationship that is best described as what we know as a "marriage" and you have children together the importance of marriage rights can not be overstated. For me I don't see it as an issue to cry uncontrollably over but I do see it as an important way to protect my family, particularly my children, from the enormous harm and disadvantage that comes when the law sees two people as legal strangers.
  Reply
- Read More
  LordBurleighPopChips
  8/21/14 3:07pm
  Yeah, I certainly wouldn't claim that marriage rights aren't important, and for the reasons you mentioned (and I wouldn't criticize any gay people who want to get married and have kids—that's just as valid a lifestyle as any other). I guess what I fundamentally mean is that I see marriage rights as tactically important, while some people—and it often seems to be younger gay people—see them as validation of their identities.
  Reply
Read More
PrayForDentonRich Juzwiak
8/21/14 2:38pm
But some gays just aren't that gay, and there is no one correct way to conduct yourself as a gay human. Yeah, it would be better if he spoke to his own experience rather than making it a universal one (and I really think he is doing the former rather than the latter, actually.)

Personally, I agree with him regarding apps. At least in my experience where I live, no one wants to date any more, just fuck, and that's ok, but it's not something I am usually interested in most of the time.

As far as gay conservatism (and I wouldn't put myself in that category personally), for some it's not about holding back who you truly are, it's more about not wanting to be a cliche. Personally, I'm not that interested in being gayer than Christmas these days, I'd rather just be myself and not judge other gays for who they want to be, unless who they want to be is completely inauthentic or stupid.
Reply
- Read More
  Rich JuzwiakPrayForDenton
  8/21/14 5:27pm
  Suppressing your full identity for mass acceptance is a pretty big cliche. Maybe the biggest amongst gay men?
  Reply
Read More
liquidassetsRich Juzwiak
8/21/14 2:56pm
I totally agree with Juzwiak's last paragraph re: Smith's discounting gay history and struggle from his position of privilege.

I do agree with Smith somewhat about the apps, though. Let's be honest, the only ones who have really benefited from the apps are those who are too shy or socially awkward to get laid or find dates or relationships without the assistance of this technology (and, as an important caveat, for those who geographically/culturally isolated). I'm glad they exist for those reasons, but for the average urban/suburban guy, the apps and social media tend to reward laziness and dullness, and are often reductive, turning sex and relationships into McSex and McRelationships to be consumed conveniently and quickly, but easily forgotten and leaving one hungry for more substance a little while later.

As a middle-aged guy, I've tried many hookups and shorter relationships with men of all ages via the internet, but my 2 LTRs since the dawn of the internet were both with guys close to my own age who I actually met out and about. I get complaints from younger guys that I discount them because of their age; this truth is that I find both sex and relationships with the younger generations unsatisfying; many of those guys haven't, for example, had to learn the intriguing art of seduction, and in general are completely unskilled in the mental aspects of sex, courtship, and relationship. Sadly, most of them have no idea what they're missing.
Reply
- Read More
  XIxoliquidassets
  8/21/14 3:24pm
  How is he discounting gay history and struggle from his position of privilege when he is gay.
  Reply
- Read More
  Rich Juzwiakliquidassets
  8/21/14 5:29pm
  For the record, almost every guy I've had a thing with—from boyfriends to guys I've dated to longstanding fuck buddies—I've met in person.
  
  I just see apps, and the sex they engender, as a different flavor of interaction, and I like a lot of flavors!
  Reply
Read More
The Ghost of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ AKA BabyStepsRich Juzwiak
8/21/14 2:46pm
"My travels have taught me that the difference between meeting a guy on Grindr and picking up a guy in person amounts to the difference between takeout and eating at a restaurant. The latter, if I have to choose, is preferable insofar as it is a richer experience, but sometimes you want a midnight snack of San Loco and it arrives and it hits the spot so hard, you can't even muster guilt about how naughty you just were for your late-night indulgence. Come be my nachos, buddy."

I got to this point and had to stop. It is like an object lesson in some of the themes that this person is haltingly and imperfectly trying to get at. I didn't read the quotes you pulled from him as trying to shut down your ability to try and have your poopoo platter delivered at any hour you want. Your response to what many people feel is a reasonable conclusion is rather disproportionate and, if I may say so, rather telling. One does not have to be a "gay conservative" to see this.
Reply