From: robertl@luciano.Stanford.EDU (Robert Lodenkamper)
Subject: Re: Too straight looking to be gay??? (was re: UNGAY GAY)
Organization: Stanford University
	<1992Aug26.115829.3789@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
	<1992Aug24.044354.1301@reed.edu> <1992Aug24.052459.17731@macc.wisc.edu>
	<1992Aug23.042028.14018@amhux2.amherst.edu>
	<1992Aug24.005105.19272@microsoft.com>
	,<1992Aug24.191923.6957@microsoft.com>
	<1992Aug28.040208.28559@microsoft.com>
Date: 28 Aug 92 00:43:09

In article <1992Aug28.040208.28559@microsoft.com>
bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes: 

[actually, I spliced together comments from two articles by Bob Sarver
in this thread, to make a point.  Bob L.]

    They [the Shakers] are not ashamed of their religion, but they do
    not exhibit it for public viewing, either.  In an effort to keep
    their religion's name above ridicule, they
    _voluntarily_use_discretion_in_the_display_of_their_practice.
    They also consider their religious faith to be a cherished and
    personal thing; not something for tourists (or TV audiences) to
    gawk at.

Well, there are a few differences between our position in society and
the position of the Shakers.  There are no Shakerbashers.  Shakers
have undoubtedly been persecuted for their beliefs, but in no way can
that persecution compare with ours, past or present.  This is not an
attempt to whine "I'm oppressed more than anyone else, so give me
everything I ask for." It is simply a statement of fact.  Given that
difference --- namely that Shakers do not face the same level of
hostility from mainstream society that we do, I can't see that what
works for them has any real relevance for us.  They have civil and
human rights.  We often do not.

    This is the model that I am asking we follow.  If we consider our
    sexuality to be a private matter, then the various things we do
    related to it should be private also (private==not up for public
    consumption or gawking at on TV).

Well, sexuality in this society simply is not completely private.
Every picture of an opposite gender SO in an office, every motos
couple holding hands, embracing or kissing in public, every
conversation about the husband (or wife) and kids, etc., etc., is an
assertion of heterosexuality.  Comparable assertions of homosexuality
or bisexuality are disproportionately rare, and often provoke
homophobic intolerance.  Now either you ban all expressions of
heterosexuality, or allow other sexualities to be expressed to an
equal extent.  The latter is preferable, and clearly requires public
action designed to change mainstream society.

Also, as exemplified below, mainstream society is sufficiently
anti-GLBO that if the media cannot find something to titillate and
horrify the yahoos, they will find (or invent) something suitably
shocking, and it will be believed by their devoted customers, the
unwashed.

Your model would only work, I think, in an ideal society in which
there weren't any past and present oppression.  My sexual orientation
should not matter to anyone except myself, friends, intimates, and
maybe some relatives.  But it does.  They (the enemy) have made it
matter.  It is too often a matter of life and death.

Given this state of affairs, every nonstraight person has to make a
personal choice about how much they dare to express themselves in the
face of often murderous hostility.  I am still working on this choice,
and I suspect many others are as well.  Certainly I would not lightly
presume to judge others for being "not out enough" or "too out".  I
think it is inappropriate for anyone to make simplistic claims such as
"everyone should immediately and completely come out" or "people who
are too outrageous impair our chances of being accepted and should
consider moderating their behavior for the good of the cause."

The first position trivializes the difficulties of coming out, and the
second confuses "acceptance on the enemy's terms" with real
acceptance.  I should add that the phrase "too outrageous" is
meaningless. 

    When a local TV station airs a gay parade, and the leather / drag
    contingent is spotlighted, that gets beamed into thousands of
    homes.  Now, imagine: we only have perhaps 30 seconds to make a
    statement to thousands of Americans.  A precious resource.  It
    seems like squandering the resource to
    _play_into_the_hands_of_the_bigots by giving them the circus they
    want to see.

    Here in Seattle, the parade lasted (I think) about two hours.
    Lots of normal people, lots of average folks, organizations and
    clubs, etc.  A whole spectrum of things.  But when the local TV
    stations decided to air segments of the parade, guess which
    segments they chose?  Right; the circus.  It's good for ratings.

Who is the villain here?  The media, or those they choose to portray?
Of course, if the media hadn't found anything shocking to report,
there would have been *no fucking coverage at all*.  Blaming the
leather/drag contingent for the pea-brained small-mindedness of the
masses the media caters to is preposterous.

If you really think the people with the courage to be themselves in
the face of monumental opposition are to be blamed instead of praised;
if you really think the institutions of mainstream society, corrupted
as they are with racism, sexism and homophobia, are to be kowtowed to
rather than changed or destroyed; and/or if you really think
conditional acceptance is worth a pig's fart, you're hopeless, despite
the increased civility and rationality of some of your recent posts.

- Bob