From: vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alan Williams)
Subject: Re: Too straight looking to be gay??? (was re: UNGAY GAY)
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:11:29 GMT

In <1992Aug18.183725.13703@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>You know, lately I have discovered that several of my friends are
>witches (Wiccans).  I was impressed with how totally average they
>are:  they go to work, they have the same desires that most people do,
>they are very unassuming and pretty cool folks.  I am not a Wiccan,
>but my respect for them has shot up immensely, because they are
>nonthreatening and pretty down-to-earth.  If they had shown up
>with broomsticks, black cats, and pointed hats, I am quite sure
>they wouldn't have gotten the first word out to me.  Some people
>in the gay movement could learn a few things from them.

Now, wait a minute, please, Bob.  Isn't this simply a reflection of *your*
preferences?  There are some people who would *love* to be associated with
the broomstick-riding Wiccans.  (I'd love to learn how to fly, personally;
it'd beat rush hour traffic by a long shot!  8-)

>It is not only important to have a good message, but the messenger must
>also be good.  If either the message or the messenger are foul, then 
>people tend to throw the whole thing out as a unit.  You can have the
>best message in the world, but if you haven't bathed for two weeks,
>have green paint on your face, and drool out of the corner of your
>mouth, what good does it do to have a great message?  I am not accusing
>you (elf) of being as offensive as this, but I use the illustration
>to make the point.

The difference between a "good" and a "bad" messenger is, I think, a bit
more subjective than it seems, Bob.  Think of it this way: If it weren't
for the "outrageous" people who show pride in being comfortable with their
self-identity, I bet a lot of naturally effeminate males out there would
feel pretty uncomfortable, since it would look like all society intends to
ostracize them for a part of their personality.

Though you or I may find that kind of behavior personally distasteful, we
must all remember that without the basic message that we *all* have the
right to be ourselves, that *all kinds* of people are gay--not just "butch"
or "femme" types--or the message that gets sent is a very distorted one.

It doesn't matter if a lot of people privately agree with you, Bob, because
these are the people who won't come out.  These are the people who hide
behind what amounts to a rationalization of the bars they place around
themselves.  The question of whether effeminate gays should hide their own
behavior is moot; just as "butch" gays should come out, "femme" gays should,
too.  To expect them to deny a portion of themselves for *your* sake can
be, despite the best of intentions, misconstrued as a message alarmingly
similar to the one sent by the prejudiced in the heterosexual community.

Without accepting *all* of us, the hatred will continue.  And with this
kind of hatred pervading our minority, why should the majority accept us?

>/As
>/one of your "masculine" faggots, I have very little interest in hiding,
>/really, and your attempting to dictate my power-to-be is presumptious
>/to the point of arrogance.
>As I have repeatedly pointed out, I am not in favor of dictating policy
>to anyone.  Your insistence to the contrary is simply baiting; you are 
>looking for a fight where there is none.  Your motives are in question;
>examine them.

It isn't merely baiting, Bob; your private discussions with me have shown
that you have some sincere motivations that are, to an extent
laudable--namely the creation of role models who don't fit the traditional
stereotypes, to show the "butch" gays that they don't have to hide.

The problem, however, is that your public discussions continually have the
air of someone trying to force a particular behavior out of a group of
people to whose collective personality such behavior isn't a part.  Do you
honestly think that any of us here ascribe to the notion that all
out-of-the-closet gays must be nelly?  In truth, a great deal probably
aren't.

>>I have met many gay men, handsome, masculine, and closeted--
>(elf)                                                  
>/   Your clue word for the day.
>My clue word?  Let's use your words to explain *why* these guys are 
>closeted:
>   "Leathermen like me, Bears, Queens, Nellies, Camps, Drag Queens. . ."

That's not an explanation, Bob.  It's an *excuse*.  What's more, it's an
excuse to which *you* subscribe.  While the actions of a few may make these
people uncomfortable about coming out, the choice of some to stay in the
closet is ultimately *their* choice, not someone else's.  And I'd say it's
extremely unfair and near-sighted to think that a few minorities within the
minority really have a bearing on the ones in the closet.

What's the next excuse, Bob?  Even supposing you could somehow wipe these
"negative stereotypes" off the face of Earth, what will the next excuse be
for the closeted?  The only enemies we face are fear, prejudice, and
misunderstanding, and from what I see your comments on here feed all
three.


>What do you want, elf?  Do you want more gays to come out of the closet
>and join you, help you in the fight?  Or do you just want the bright
>spotlight for a few short hours every year, to exhibit your sexual
>fantasies?  Which is more important, exhibitionism or political
>progress?

Why is Elf's frank and honest discussion of his sexuality with others
"exhibitionism"?  And why does any one person's--or any one
group's--behavior have to be the barometer for the actions the rest of us
take?

>(elf)
>/Your
>/diviseness, in fact, you outright hatred of your fellow queers, makes
>/you the worst kind of homophobe.
>You guys all go to the same groupthink rallies, don't you?  Repeat
>after me:  
>"Anyone who disagrees with us is homophobic."
>Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, your motives are 
>correct but your fucking approach is in the sewer?

Did it ever occur to *you*, Bob, that maybe *you* might not be right?
There's an old saying: If one person tells you something's wrong, you can
blow it off.  If two people tell you, you might give it a little
consideration.  But if three people tell you, maybe you should really think
about it.

That's my advice to you.

>(elf)
>/         Elf !!!
>Why do you include the exclamation points?

Because he likes to.  Why does he have to justify himself to you?

For that matter, why do *any* of us have to justify our existence to you?
It really seems that your problem is that you can't be happy unless you're
attacking people who are different than you.  When they aren't cowed, you
respond with an answer that we're all subscribing to "groupthink."  Well, I
have news for you, Bob:  ALL OF US ARE!!!  Because we're arguing opinions
that aren't simply the product of one person: We're talking about basic
ideas shared by many of us, which in truth is a form of groupthink.  But,
of course, you indulge in the hypocrisy that your opinion is unique and
nothing but "common sense," while anyone who disagrees with you has been
blinded by dogma.

Look in the mirror, Bob.

I must admit, I respect one of your positions--that "butch" gays need a set
of role models for them as much as anyone else, to show them that it's
possible to come out without changing their basic personalities any more
than anyone else does--but I can't respect your philosophy of dictating to
everyone else in the matter of personality and personal behavior that
doesn't match yours.  As much as I respect your individuality and your
right to express your opinion, Bob, there's no way on Earth I can respect
what I see as a narrow-minded vision.

--
 ________________ Alan Williams  vanyel@camelot.bradley.edu ___________________
 \/ A hypothetical paradox: What would happen in a battle between an         \/
    _Enterprise_ security team, who always get killed soon after appearing,
    and a squad of Imperial Stormtroopers, who can't hit the broad side of
    a planet?                 	--Tom Galloway