From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Ah, Fashion.
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:07:09 GMT
Organization: (getting there)

The dialog is between Bob Donahue and Michael A. Thomas.  They are
discussing fashion and/or beauty.  At least, I think that Bob is
discussing the difference between fashion and beauty.  I understand
his viewpoint.  I'm not sure whether Michael makes the distinction
or not; in any case, Michael seems to find fashion very appealing:

Bob:
   >>> 	You don't *need* to wax to look good, sexy, interesting, etc.
   >>> You don't *need* to be thin, tan, blond, smooth, muscular, young
   >>> to have self-worth and to be found attractive by other people.
   >>> These things are *traits* not requirements or conditions.
  >>  Says who? 
>[...]
  >> In your opinion this may be true, but I don't think that
  >>the world of taste revolves around your world view. 
  >> In fact, I suspect
  >>that you are probably in the minority, but no matter. 
Apropos:
I just saw (well, heard, mostly; I'm putting books into boxes and had
the television on for company) a talk show with a subject something like
"Gay men who say that other gay men don't like them because they're fat." 
It was interesting.  There were three original "panelists," two good
sized guys (between two and three hundred pounds) and one very much 
larger-- not only heavier, but, I think, much taller.  (His physical
presence dominated the stage.)  They were joined, later, by two thinner
men (one of whom lost a bunch of weight a few years ago) who had
various things to say.

I take it as a good sign that it's not easy for me to summarize the
"sides" in this.  The host (about whom I know nothing except that his
name is Jerry Springer; he was a little tentative and rather preachy,
but not evil from what I could tell) made an issue out of not making an
issue out of the "being gay" part of their lives.  When someone raised
the question of what the bible says, the host was not going to allow
_any_ discussion of that topic (for this show, we're taking it as a
given ...), but the panelists-- all, as far as I can remember-- played
with it long enough to dismiss it themselves just by being assertive
("the bible also says not to eat shellfish;" "you're also not supposed
to judge," etc.).

He also managed to be very clear, when someone-- perhaps he
himself-- asked if the guys could have it however they wanted, would
they choose to be fat or thin, gay or straight (they basically all
said thin and gay), that he didn't mean to suggest that orientation
_was_ a matter of choice.  He wasn't very clear on the extent to
which physical type might be a matter of choice, though.

I had the feeling, though, that for most people the point-- about
whether or not the gay male community is dominated by looksism-- was
lost in a lot of other details that emerged.  For instance, since
the panelists kept talking about meeting people in bars, the
audience (and maybe the host as well) wanted to ask why bars are so
important.  Nobody said quite strongly enough to satisfy me that
it's still socially less dangerous for a man to try to hit on a
woman in almost any setting other than a gay bar than it is for him
to try to hit on another man.  

One of the panelists was a most presentable bear.  Another was a bit
clean-shaven for my taste, but I thought he might have some potential
for someone else.  The very large fellow overwhelmed me; I didn't find
him physically appealing.  The two others were a dark-haired twink and
a cowboy (well, he was wearing a cowboy hat), both very nice if you like
the clean-shaven tight-bodied type.  The cowboy was especially articulate,
I thought.  

Mara [wondering if anyone else knows this show]
-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.
Newsgroups: soc.motss