GAY MALE CULTURE
Homosexuality shall be defined by the act itself (i.e. the sexual intimacies occurring between two people of the same sex) rather than queer culture conceptualizations. It is arguable that some gay men who follow queer culture are heterosexual. It eludes the argument that men, who claim to be heterosexual but act on homosexual acts are true homosexuals. It defines the concept that living in a queer culture does not make one gay or commit homosexual acts. But rather a conformist to an illegitimate, created, society.
Queer culture is a phenomenon where gay, and straight, men define and construct their identities on what society constructs as being gay. Men who claim to live this lifestyle at large tend to emulate rigorous effeminate gender roles. Effeminate gender roles lead to assumptions and stereotypes that are socially constructed. Stereotypically gay men, could have knowledge of the fashion industry, art, cooking, and possibly even having the innate desire to be women.
A very common discernment within the queer culture concept is that men who dress well, cook, bake, or do not follow rigid gender roles are then homosexual. Therefore, men who may not enjoy sexual relations with men, yet dress fashionably or have effeminate tendencies, are considered homosexual. Due to the amount of demands that may be placed on the individual, it may cause them to come out of the closet, when in fact they are heterosexual. This can be very disadvantageous to the health of individual when living a life of lies and mass confusion.
The idea that gay men must adhere to socially constructed roles refers to their “social” identities as homosexuals, not the homosexual act itself. Therefore, adding socially constructed conceptualizations to the definition gay creates a culture. If homosexuality is a socially constructed form of mannerisms not necessarily having to do with the act itself, perhaps there is not a clear definition of what homosexuality is. Homosexual men that follow such concepts are characters rather than human beings with feelings.
Gay men who closely follow roles of the “queer” culture are puppets of falsely social constructed behaviors that often emulate an effeminate persona. Within this cultural phenomenon, there are trends where this form of life is largely celebrated with parades that adapt to current demands. The idea that parades and towns are needed to celebrate homosexuality further relates it to a lifestyle rather than a natural tendency. Not all men understand the same things such as art, cooking, baking amongst other “queer” culture concepts: such principles are learned and practiced making one a slave to a lifeless culture.
Once gay or straight men become part of this queer culture, it is nearly impossible to separate yourself from the stereotypes whether gay or not. The character strips the ability of being able to differentiate oneself as an individual. A homosexual should not follow the socially constructed ideals, they represent the concept of playing a character based upon societal standards of what it means to be “gay.” Rather the homosexual should be an individual that enjoys sexual intimacies with the same sex. For the act it self, man with man, is homosexuality in its purest form. By definition it is not necessary to behave upon socially constructed behaviors that are said to describe homosexuality.
Thus, in this case, it is permissible to state that “gay” men who claim they want “straight” acting men are by definition homosexuals. This concept approaches that men will combat against queer culture to simply enjoy sex as an act. This phenomenon raises the idea that queer culture was created, desired and adapted to. Having been created, there are gay men within queer culture who take the ideals to the extreme and are referred to as a gay cliché. Gay clichés are looked down upon and often disrespected within queer culture. Such affirmations are the very structures that closely resemble a formula, thus making gay men easily predictable.
In conclusion men who follow “queer” culture concepts are not necessarily homosexuals. It is evident that there is not a clear definition of homosexuality; rather, homosexuals are largely defined by a culture rather than the act itself. As such, there are fallacies within what the definition is. Due to the concept that queer lifestyle is created is in relation with the problematic issues with gay clichés. Gay clichés must then reformulate the roles of queer culture to ensure the exemption of becoming the new gay cliché. Therefore queer culture is invented, practiced, and desired as one as to reformulate oneself. If homosexuals were defined solely by the act and not a lifestyle it will lead to less men acting gay upon falsified, societal, standards. The concept that homosexuality will be looked upon as an act can lead to the revolutionary idea that a culture was created to give an excuse or a reason for homosexuality as there is no proven cause. If there is not a cause or reason it is evident that a culture would have perhaps shaped the word into a form of life itself which has transcended into gay a thing we live by not necessarily act on.
Counter Argument:
It is argued by Derrick Woolfson: that living in a queer culture does not make one gay or commit homosexual acts, but rather a conformist to an illegitimate, created, society.
My problem lies with the fact that that queer culture does make one gay whether you commit homosexual acts or not. More so that the society itself was not created rather existed.
For example:
1. Men who live in the queer culture will adapt to cultural roles, which then makes them gay. The word gay refers to a persona not the actual act of homosexuality, which by definition is the act of having sex with men.
a. The act of homosexuality refers to the sexual relations between two males.
b. The word gay refers to the lifestyle and persona that gay men often adapt too while living in the queer culture.
c. Men often come out as gay as they act on the act of homosexuality.
I believe that stating the culture, queer culture, is created is not how I see the culture evolving: rather, men who have sex with men are automatically placed into a sub cultural group. There are men within the culture that will portray certain cultural traditions, such as effeminate characteristics, which are apart of the gay/queer culture. Furthermore, I understand that not all men who live in the culture may be gay but not homosexual, or rather, the men within the culture may be homosexual and not gay.
For example:
a. There is the possibility that men who act like gay are straight and enjoy sexual relations however: because, they do not enjoy sex with men, still living within queer culture, they then may be seen as the gay cliché. This is a man who takes gay cultural roles to the extreme. Taking the roles to the extreme is merely the gay, straight, man being confused and trying to emulate only what gay men can naturally emulate.
Further:
1. I shall begin with the fact that prior to Derrick coming out of the closet his piers stated that he was gay referring as he always fit the gay lifestyle. The terms of how Derrick was claimed to have been homosexual were wrong, however, Derrick is a homosexual but not gay.
2. The piers of Derrick claimed he was gay off his actions not taking into consideration whether or not he had sexual relations with men.
Therefore being gay is not being homosexual, however still makes you apart of queer culture. There are two different words that have been evaluated: Gay, which is the idea of taking on a persona or a personality. Where as the word homosexual refers to the actual act of having sex with men. Derrick is apart of queer culture not because he is gay but because he is a homosexual. More so the word queer by definition refers to anything that is not of the ordinary. Gay and homosexual men both are placed into queer culture. As such queer culture was not created rather existed. Men then who are gay may or may not be homosexuals.
Reductio:
Woolfson1 argued that homosexuals shall be defined by the act of sex and not the behaviors that ‘gay’ men possess. It seems that Woolfson1 proposes the idea that anyone that follows gay male culture is a conformist to an illegitimate created society. I argue that Woolfson1 seems to have a problem in that the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are seen as the same: whether one claims either identity at large they are looked to be the same. I argue that Gay media and literature define the word ‘gay’ which is then used to define both the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual.’ Therefore Woolfson1s argument is not substantial enough standing alone giving the ability to separate the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual.’
I will further argue that the stereotypes portrayed in the media are largely what the ‘gay’ identities follow. Thus, I argue that ‘gay’ male culture exists because men who have sex with men are automatically placed into a sub cultural group. Roles then are what define the gay/homosexual men within the culture: whether the role is effeminate, or masculine. Many of the roles defined are, effeminate and, similar as many gay/homosexual men act alike. There are roles that are created[i], though roles that are created may have been defined by gay clichés, which will be discussed further in the paper. There is modern gay literature that helps provide the, current trends and, natural roles, ones that were not created by gay clichés, which gay and homosexual men follow. Such texts and literature express the fact that gay and homosexual men often tend to, naturally, be drama queens when defining their roles. “Drama Queen”, a well-known and respected gay male culture, and roles self help book, that reflects the fact that some of the more prevalent roles make gay men drama queens.
When men are defined as drama queens within gay male culture it is applied to both gay and homosexual men. Whether gay men or homosexual men follow all of the gay male culture concepts, it still is widely seen as being the same. More so there are certain roles that may apply more to a homosexual however is then still applied to the gay man, as the culture itself is not divided into both gay culture and homosexual culture. This further proves the fact that the words follow closely which then blends the two words together making it very hard to distinguish the words.
Such roles include the ‘big ho’ which is the gay or homosexual man that cannot keep his pants zippered and is always on the move to catch his next man. Homosexual men are very sexual beings gay and homosexual men often want sex wherever they are at the time; it is something that queers culture is all about. The idea that gay men can and will define their gayness by the amount of sex they are getting with other men. Thus having multiple sexual relationships makes many of the gay men drama queens, as they are not considering the feelings for the men they have hurt. The ‘health food’ freak is what gay men strive to be. Gay men are all about keeping thin and looking their best as appearance defines how they fit into society, especially when it comes to mating with other men. The ‘Martha Stewart’ is perhaps one of the most glorified roles of being gay. When being compared to Martha Stewart shows, exemplifies that as a gay man, they know how to have the perfect dinner party having the ability to make things perfect. Gay men’s homes will look in place and structured as gay men understand home décor to its finest. The home is the centerfold for gay male culture for the fact that sexual relations often happen in their homes and one must have the perfect décor that attract gay (Price).
The ‘gym rat’ is another glorified role, one of the larger aspects of how gay men define themselves in gay male culture, is ensuring that one is not fat and plump. There are gay men that do not always fit such standards and are judged by the ‘back stabbing bitch,’ such a bitch is the gay man that is not able to steer free from judging others. This bitch will make sure that one knows that you are a gay man that does not define gay male culture. Lastly one of the most common roles that is defined within gay male culture is the ‘flake,’ gay men are truly to busy to have time for everyone which of course makes them seem flakey unable to make commitments. Gay men are too busy at the gym, making new outfits, and having crazy sex like hoes, therefore they are unable to make time commitments. These ideal roles are ones that make gay men unique which will pave the way of how gay men differentiate themselves amongst the world, and heterosexual culture. (Price)
The roles mentioned above are ones that are seen as naturally known roles that gay and homosexual men possess. Such roles then can and will be changed as the needs are always differing within society. Some roles however never cease to change. As gay men adapt certain roles after being placed into gay male culture it is essential that gay men take advice from men’s gay fashion magazines, even though most gay men have the natural ability to understand color, some gay men need some extra assistance. Such fashion magazines allow gay men to better understand how to be dressed and groomed as appearance defines gay men within society. Genre magazine is one that defines style as the central point of gay male culture fashion. Gay men love to dress up and look their best for their men, after all it is like a market and if one wants to sell oneself like the big ho one has to look the part. Part of gay male culture is to have the ability for gay men to express their way of fitting in with other gay men. (Hayes)
It is widely stated that the vast majority of gay men are always well dressed and the ones that are not clearly do not follow cultural guidelines. Gay men that do not define cultural standards often look to the gay literature as if they were self-help books. Such literature is found in heterosexual culture as well. Straight women are emulating and looking at the cosmopolitan magazines for fashion, health and dating advice. Because gay men are superior and already come equipped with fashion knowledge they only need guidelines of what is exactly current for them to wear, unless they are unable to understand the new fashion trends. One of the current issues this summer described that the ‘gym rat’ wants to have the perfect swimsuit that fits his but this summer. It gave all of the essential steps he needs to take to ensure that the men he surrounds himself will see his newly shaped ass. Such magazines show the true importance of maintaining your health and but size or you will be the gay man that is exiled into the misfits. Gay men can be ostracized by the ‘back stabbing bitch,’ which will be judging the amount of fat roles you possess. Because gay men have the tendency to judge others it reiterates the fact that gay men are drama queens, when defining themselves within gay male culture.
As such the roles are not simply just applied to gay men they are referring to both gay and homosexual men. The mainstream view does not allow us to dissect the words as being different. Even if the homosexual claimed that he only has sex as an act ‘x’ the act ‘x’ still relates back to gay male culture. Gay male culture is something that cannot be created if such acts are closely related to both homosexual and gay men. Rather because the act of sex is closely related to gay male culture it is all seen as the same identity.
Because gay men have the natural tendency to desire and have crazy sex, some gay men may want a sex buddy or relationships. There are gay men who use self-help books to show them what kind of drama queen they can associate with and date or just have sex with. There are certain gay men within the book that attract more men than others. These gay men are ones that define gay male culture and often resemble strength through the characteristics the book defines such as being thin, fashionable and lives drama. There are archetypes of boyfriends that reflect many of the dramatic tendencies that are defined within gay male culture.
Before gay men can have successful relationships they must go through the gay right of passage. “Boyfriend 101,” helps gay men clarify what the gay right of passage is and how one follows through this passage. As gay men live within the culture it is evident that many of the newly gay men will go through a few stages. Some of the more prevalent stages are the ‘slut’ stage: which, is the time that gay men become very excited about liking men and will have crazy sex with any gay guy they see. ‘Perfection, the yoga boy’ is another perception that gay men all follow, when looking for their new boyfriends. Gay men dream for the man that is thin chiseled and has a penis to die for. Gay men will follow such principles for their boyfriend hunting for about six months or so when they realize that it is not possible to find the boy toy they have been dying for. Once this stage is complete gay men will follow newly found fashion trends and work out until they have the ability to find the dream man. (Sullivan)
All too often though dating does not work well with gay men, yet it is seen that it applies to ‘homosexual’ men as well. Much of the literature that is out there for gay dating exploits the fact that gay or homosexual men do not have the ability to be monogamous. Because gay men cannot hold unto one sexual partner it is a challenge to hold unto to that boy toy of yours. Therefore such texts and self help books that define the roles gay men possess will shed the light on the necessary steps to exclude one from becoming the slut, or worse the back stabbing bitch within gay male culture.
It is important that gay men meet their boyfriends in socially acceptable places within gay male culture. If gay men meet their prospective boyfriends within gay social places it is more likely to work out[ii]. Some of the best places to meet new men may be the gym or perhaps stores that generally carry effeminate things, where at large gay men are attracted. Due to the fact that gay men care about appearance it is highly likely that gay men are loyal to luxury brands. When gay men approach the counter it is inevitable for the other gay men to stay at a distance; it sets the gay man up for a possible hook up or future date. (Sullivan) The perception of relationships blends both gay and homosexual men. The gay men may be the ones that want a relationship, however homosexual men may simply just want sex. Both are directly linked to one another creating them to be the same and perhaps leaving the two words closely related.
As mentioned earlier gay or homosexual men go through a phase, ‘gay right of passage’ and once gay men have matured it is easier for them to meet men who may be more promising and not as inclined to cheat on them becoming the man hoe. More so there are also special ways that gay men communicate to gain access to other gay men they have their own body language to communicate with one another. Some of the more common body language methods used are: Wearing skintight jeans and scarves showing off your sexy body. Gay men naturally love men that are chiseled and look like a Greek God. Gay men will sit in cafes, gyms, and urban areas to gain access to fruity men that lurk the streets. Because gay men have the natural ability to dress and act effeminate it is something gay men use as a mating tactic.
To ensure though that all of these tactics work gay and homosexual men have to first understand that there is phase that they go though and once through the phase they will ultimately find a sex partner for the night or their next boyfriend. More so as gay men work through their rite of passage it is evident that gay men will be more likely to better understand their needs not looking as much into self help books to stay current. As new trends emerge gay men who have gone through the ‘right of passage’ will not necessarily associate with the new idealisms of what being ‘gay’ is[iii].
Due to the fact that the older gay men do not associate with newly defined roles it is may be sees that the newer gay men are ones that take the standards to the extreme, which causes them to be named as the gay cliché. These gay men are ones, by elder gay men’s standards, who cannot understand how to take on a role or what it means to be gay which only gives gay men. Gay clichés at large do not understand gay male culture, they try too hard to define and redefine what is natural which will make you stand out. They are pretending to be gay, therefore basing the idea that gay male culture is created stems from the perception of defining through gay clichés. The medias portrayal is mirroring the idea that gay clichés are the men who define the culture. Therefore when looking through the media it only seems if the culture was created when in fact the culture itself already existed. The cultural roots stay them same. Gay men tend to act the same within the roles they portray, however, as the world view changes some of the principles change, thus making the way, newer out of the closet, gay men communicate different.
Further, I express the fact that these stereotypes cannot be created they are natural. Gay men have the natural tendency to be dramatic. Gay men being drama queens is the main reason they are separated, again, because they define their lives on drama and sex which creates such roles which may or may not be effeminate. Effeminate men, possibly gay clichés, further their image from gay literature that is published. Therefore again this culture is not created, rather redefined and shaped as new people influence the way gay men act and behave. Ending with the idea that the words homosexual and gay are the same both relate back to the fact that gay men are homosexuals who define themselves within roles of gay male culture standards.
Therefore I come to the conclusion that ‘gay’ men define the roles that people tend to assign to both ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ men. As such it does not matter if one is ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ the men will still be seen as ‘gay.’ Much of the literature is targeted for both ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ men; however, the word homosexual is rarely used when defining ‘gay’ men. Thus, the words as argued by Woolfson1 are not able to be separated and stand to mean the same thing.
[i] Roles that are created often stem from gay men who take the roles to the extreme, when shaping their identity within gay maleculture, such roles may be discounted and will be further discussed in later work.
[ii] Gay men have special places where they gather so they cab find men that are alike themselves; these way relationships are more likely to work out.
[iii] The gay right of passage is widely discussed in gay literature. It describes the fact that gay men will identify themselves through labels to then later try and push away from such labels. Because gay men will become excited as they have entered this new found freedom they may become attached to labels that do not necessarily define who they are as people within the gay male(Hayes).
Dilemma:
There comes a problem that is evident in the thesis “living in a queer culture does not make one gay or commit homosexual acts, but rather a conformist to an illegitimate, created, society.”
Problems:
If being gay ‘x’ is created then it does make the roles of the society illegitimate, however it has to be stated whether or not the roles themselves are created if created roles ‘y’ there must be a visual pattern associated with the roles that gay men adapt themselves too.
There is the need of clarifying what the definition of the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ mean. Are the words themselves linked together?
· If the word ‘gay’ refers solely to the persona adapted in queer culture then it may seem as if the culture is created.
· If the word ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ is together then it presents the idea that the two words go hand in hand.
· There must be clear distinctions as to how the words fit together if they indeed do?
Once clarifying the definition of the words it will further the answer as to whether or not the society is created or existed and that homosexuals are gay.
Dialectic:
There is a problem when defining whether the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ have different meanings. W1[iii] argues that gay male culture itself is created: therefore W1 argues that ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ hold different meanings. According to W1 ‘gay’ refers to men who solely follow gay male culture whether they have sexual relations with men or not. ‘Homosexual’ refers to men who solely act on the act of homosexuality which is sex. W1 concludes that because sex, according to homosexuals, is defined by an act, behaviors practiced by ‘gay’ men are created therefore making ‘gay’ men conformists to an illegitimate society[iii]. W2 argues that ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are seen as the same whether one follows both roles or not. Gay male culture exists, according to W2, as one is either ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual.’ Both are placed into a sub cultural group, which is gay male culture, as they are not of the social heterosexual norms. Further, W2[iii] argues that it then does not matter whether oneself defines themselves as ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ the main stream view still places the two words together: the act is then not separated from the behaviors that ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ men practice within gay male culture. W2 then concludes that it is not permissible to state that gay male culture is created rather it existed[iii].
It is important to understand how both W1 and W2 define the terms ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ and what the differences are if any. W1 defines gay male culture as being created: therefore W1 argues: that the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ hold different meanings. W1 argues that ‘homosexual’ refers solely to the act of sex. Therefore one according to W1 who solely commits homosexual acts is ‘homosexual’ however, not ‘gay’. W1 argues that ‘gay’ refers to the roles that ‘gay’ men follow in gay male culture. The roles that ‘gay’ men follow in gay male culture according to W1 are created, as acts of sex do not cause one to follow or create behaviors.
The roles, gay men posses, are argued to have been created by W1, as Woolfson 1 constructs arguments against the actual behaviors’ ‘gay’ men possess. It is argued that what one wears, acts upon or does is not a sufficient cause to label one gay off of behaviors exhibited. W1, who claims to be ‘homosexual’ and not gay, refers to his own example. W1 was referred to as gay during his life. Peers stated that W1 was gay because of his clothing, carrying bags, and having possessed effeminate qualities. W1 argued that his peers gestured that he was ‘gay’ without having knowledge as to whether or not he had sexual relations with males. W1 argued that his peers were wrong: concluding that he, W1, was ‘homosexual’ however was not ‘gay.’ It was concluded by W1 that men who acted differently than of the social, heterosexual male, norms were considered to have been ‘gay.’ W1 deems this to be problematic: W1 mentions that there may be men who follow roles that are deemed to be ‘gay’: and under social pressure come out as gay. W1 argues that, placing social pressure on men could cause men to define themselves as being ‘gay,’ again whether or not they have sexual relations with males. W1 states there are ‘gay’ men within gay male culture who are not sexually interested in men, however are still seen as ‘gay’ men. W1 further argues that men, who are placed into gay male culture, by social pressure, become the gay clichés within gay male culture. W1 defines a gay cliché as a ‘gay’ male that takes the cultural roles to the extreme, one, gay male, which is consistently reinventing his image as new trends emerge in gay male culture. W1 comes to a conclusion that if there are men who live in the gay male culture yet are not ‘homosexual’ proves that the culture itself is created: leading to W1 stating that gay male culture is created, making ‘gay’ men who follow the culture conformists to an illegitimate society.
Thus far W1 argues that gay male culture is created and there is a difference in the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ W2 argues that ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are the same: arguing that there is not a way to separate the two words, as the culture itself existed and fosters, a home for, gay men.
W2 defined gay male culture as being natural: it was mentioned that one who deviates from the social norms would automatically be placed into a sub cultural group. The evidence to support that gay male culture existed stemmed from: first, the fact that was mentioned above in that men who act differently than of hetero norms will be placed into a sub cultural group. Secondly W2 argues that men who live within the culture will adapt to roles that the gay male culture is influenced by. Such behaviors, mentioned by W2, refer to roles ‘gay’ men naturally follow in gay male culture. The roles, given by W2, heavily referred ‘gay’ men to being drama queens, within the gay male culture. (Price 2001) W2 reflected upon ‘Drama Queen,’ a gay male culture self help book that further emphasized how it is that ‘gay’ men act and define themselves in gay male culture. The main roles, which were stated by W2 from the self help book, are: the ‘gym rat’ the ‘gay’ male in gay male culture that is more invested in appearance then people. The ‘Martha Stewart’ which according to W2 refers to gay men in gay male culture who are naturally able to decorate and bake as if they, the ‘gay’ male were Martha Stewart herself. (Price 2001) One of the larger roles that W2 argued was the fact that ‘gay’ men tend to be dramatic ‘back stabbing bitches’, W2 argues that ‘gay’ men in gay male culture naturally posses these traits[iii]. (Price) The evidence that W2 provides delves deeper into gay male relationships, such facts derived from another self help book, this text ‘Boyfriend 101’ furthered the same images of ‘gay’ men that had been argued in ‘Drama Queen’ another self help book W2 used to express the fact that ‘gay’ men follow certain roles and traits. (Price) W2 further emphasized that the word ‘gay’ is primarily used rather than using both terms ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’; W2 argues that the words mean the same. Society in general does not place a, conscious, difference when describing the two terms. W2 further concludes that one is not able to differentiate the two words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ as both ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ men are both automatically placed into, the same, gay male culture. Thus W2 further explained that ‘homosexual’ men might then refer to ‘gay’ roles within the gay male culture, or vice versa. Therefore according to W2 gay male culture is one that is not created, rather exists, and there is not a clear difference between the two terms ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual.’ Therefore according to W2 it does not matter which term one identifies with as neither ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ is distinguished as being different.
W1 and W2 hold different views as to whether or not the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are different or the same[iii]: it causes a dilemma. It raises the question whether or not gay male culture itself is it created or did the culture itself exist[iii]. Woolfson3 finds the common problem of what the dilemma is between W1 and W2. Woolfson3 argues, based upon W1 and W2 {s} dilemma, that if being gay ‘x’ has an identity created, within gay male culture, then it still does make the roles of the gay male culture illegitimate: as W1 argued that the gay male culture was created: therefore, the roles that the ‘gay’ male follows are illegitimate, making one a conformist to a created society as W1 argued. However, Woolfson3[iii] mentioned that if W2 stands correct and the culture is not created rather existed it still does not make ‘x’ the gay male illegitimate or rather the gay male culture itself illegitimate simply because the roles themselves are created and or are adapted too. Woolfson3 further argues that both, W1 and W2 do not have substantial evidence to claim if ‘gay’ culture was created or not. Woolfson3 further argues that the dilemma is the ability of being able to clarify the two words, are they the same? , or, different? The words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ according to Woolfson3 follow closely with W2 in that society does not see a difference in the two words. It is evident according to W2 that society sees both ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ men following the same or similar roles within gay male culture. Where W1 stands firm to believing that the gay male culture is created, making the only true followers of the gay male culture ‘gay’ men. Woolfson3 argues that, W1 stands false, as W1 stated that the only followers are ‘gay’ men and not ‘homosexuals.’ W2 expresses that W1 wrong as ‘homosexual’ men are seen as the same in gay male culture: often following the same or similar roles as ‘gay’ men all within gay male culture. Therefore it must be clarified as to whether or not the mainstream ‘gay’ identity was created or existed. More so whether or not the act of sex contributes to ones behaviors within gay male culture.
I will argue that that there is the need of another sub cultural group sgay. Having more than one ‘gay’ culture could be the solution that will clarify the differentiality amongst the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual.’ However, before constructing a new culture I must define where gay male culture originated from: answering how ‘gay’ culture came to be. It is evident that ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are seen as the same, in Western culture. I will argue that the two words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are different and that ‘gay’ identity itself was created in the Western culture.
There will be evidence that explains how current gay male culture has shaped itself: further explaining the current trends seen in gay male culture. There will also be portions where I will discuss how society has contributed to the roles that are widely, seen in gay male culture, when portrayed in the media. Arguably, white gay males have helped shape the ‘gay’ identity that will be further explained. Such trends in the media seen by the hetero norm are perhaps tainted, which possibly leads to gay male culture being made a mockery of within the form of media. Thus, the words ‘homosexual’ and ‘gay’ are seen to be the same when one view dominates the way one sees ‘gay.’
I argue men within the ‘gay’ male culture who claim to be ‘homosexual’ and or ‘gay’ are still widely seen solely as being ‘gay.’ as mentioned before: society has constructed views that reflects upon how, many of the heterosexual culture, view gay male culture. If the masses see the two words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ as being the same word: then I argue that continuing to argue what the difference is between the two words will not solve the dilemma between W1 and W2. Therefore the two words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ as argued by W1, W2, and furthered studied by W3, must be further defined in terms of better understanding how they may differentiate from other one another, beyond being defined within gay male culture, as they are seen as the same, however do not, always, act the same. I will define how the two terms are said to differ and will place the men accordingly into sgay culture or gay, homosexual, male culture. This I argue will solve the dilemma: which is that both words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are the same, even though both may not act the same within gay male culture.
Gay male ‘identity’ primarily exists in the Western culture as same-sex relations are viewed differently. As same-sex relations were seen as the norm in ancient Greece. “Francophone poet Renee Vivien used the model of ancient Greece to legitimize homosexuality on the grounds that Greek thought, so central to the ethical foundations of Western culture, openly and endorsed same-sex sexuality.” (Dean 1997) The Greeks are most known for accepting same sex relations. Therefore it is evident and permissible to state that Greek culture did not separate the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ rather ‘gay’ did not exist until the Western culture examined same-sex relations and made conclusions and developed theories. Before I can argue that the gay male culture needs to be re-structured, into two groups, one must understand that there stands a dilemma. The dilemma is whether or not, Western, society has falsely constructed gay male culture, which may cause the two words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ to be seen as the same: rather was the ‘gay’ identity invented in Western culture and further developed by historians and the masses who view and reflect upon same-sex relations.
It is stated that “gay…. identity was invented at the end of the nineteenth century…that sexual identity categories were a means of disciplining and regulating populations in new terms; and more methodologically, that sexuality was not a repressed drive but one generated in and through a series of self-generating discourses whose agents were often indecipherable.” (Bravmann 1997) meaning the ones who created and gave reason for ‘gay’ identity did not have history or facts to base arguments off of: Therefore making many of their arguments irrelevant. "Despite the ways they {historians} complicate notions of 'gay identity' and show how there is no such unitary phenomenon as 'the' homosexual, all of these studies remain deeply concerned with questions of same-sex sexuality, a concern that lends the texts themselves distinctively gay… identities.... the 'modem' category of homosexuality ... provides the thread that sutures together the diverse ... and shifting histories." (Bravmann 1997) Men who shared same-sex relations were have said to be given an identity ‘gay’ as a means to control the population of same-sex men. Because the histories of same-sex relations change and or have shifted, views as to what causes such, there then is not a clear answer as to what ‘gay’ is. More so “historians of gays…have not generally shown themselves particularly prone to theorizing these sorts of questions in their own work. {Questions referring to how ‘gay’ identity is or was constructed} Their empiricism has produced some wonderful histories, and there is no question, as George Chauncey notes in his widely touted Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, that there are tremendous methodological problems simply in identifying people who may have experienced same-sex sexuality... "Until recently," he notes, "most professional historians were told that it would be dangerous to their careers even to look for [gay men...].” (Bravmann 1997) Thus, it seems that ones who have studied ‘gay’ identity have proven themselves to be flawed: therefore, it seems that ‘gay’ identity is one that is constructed and refined as new trends in historical writing emerges.
According to Scott Bravman “historians of gay people {in gay male culture} are no exception, and tend to project their own perspectives and experience onto their own interpretations of the past while refusing to recognize how their limited or selective memories generate the very truths they purport to reveal.” (Bravmann 1997)This statement alone reveals that ones that study gay male culture, in Western society, often only look and interpret: Rather than looking and questioning. I argue then that history that has been written from a bias perspective is not substantial evidence to state how it is that ‘gay’ males should act, within the gay male identity. Further it is evident that ‘white’ gay males tend to primarily be the ones that are studied and reflected upon.
Bravmann claims, “That gay…history thus far {in Western culture} tends to focus primarily on white gay men and to represent their experience as the history of all gay… and queer people.” (Bravmann 1997) The fact that gay male culture is primarily focused on white males is a problem itself. Thus, making observations made by historians false and or bias, when studying gay male culture as a whole and define such concepts off of white gay males. White gay men have been argued to be the ones that have thus far defined ‘gay’ identity. Many of the self-help literature books that I have used previously have all used white gay males as the primary source for the ‘gay’ male identity. Both Mark Price and Jim Sullivan authors of ‘Drama Queen’ and ‘Boyfriend 101’ use white gay males as they themselves, too, are under the impression that white gay males have shaped the ‘gay’ identity[iii]. However, according to Miller “white gay men have not been studied with adequate specificity.” (Miller 2003) Miller further claims that Grundmann says that “we manage ourselves in the social also by leaving things open; by remaining vague, irrational, and illogical; by giving two contradictory responses at the same time; by reversing decisions halfway and tentatively” (48). (Miller 2003) As such white ‘gay’ male identity itself is flawed as is all ‘gay’ identity: Seeing that many claims on white gay males have been changed or viewed differently in gay male culture.
The book ‘Blowjob’ claimed by Margo Miller states that “Grundmann wants to find ways of understanding identification, desire, and performance that account for the whiteness and maleness of white gay men, as well as their homosexuality.” (Miller 2003) Grudmann uses the terms ““passing” and “posing” in his close readings of Blow Job and in his historical work on white gay male sexuality. Here, “passing” refers to white gay men’s ability to present themselves as straight white men. “Posing” indicates a set of practices gay men used to identify and eroticize each other… The position of white gay men in relation to homophobic public spaces influenced gay styles, signifying practices, sensibility, and communities.” (Miller 2003) Thus, white males who claim to be gay “pose[iii]” which is the act of adapting to practices that are widely committed by white gay males. If one refers to the film it is evident that “In this way, Blow Job becomes an idiom of passing, posing, and of gay performance generally. While watching the film, the viewer participates in the processes that produced gay male cultural modes[iii] in this period” (Miller 2003) As such it is evident that white males are the ‘posers’ for the white gay male culture. Largely then what is ‘posed’ is often stereotypical images, of which is then spread across all of ‘gay’ identity.
Further it has been argued that modern gay male culture, as a whole, was heavily influenced by “new appropriations of Greece by gay and lesbian scholars and the narration of Stonewall (the 1969 uprising in a Greenwich Village gay bar of that name) as "the" founding event of modem gay and lesbian history effectively erases people of color and women from the collective "we" such narratives seek to salvage. Moreover, Bravmann argues, this "we" is often a retrospectively imposed fiction that reflects the sociopolitical desire of the historian rather than the unified voice of a diverse community[iii].” (Dean 1997) Therefore the ones who study gay male culture are the ones who have perhaps misshaped and worse invented a new perspective of what ‘gay’ men are and should be in ‘gay’ male culture. It is argued by “classicist David Halperin {, who,} argues {that} contrary to Symonds and Vivien, we must be attentive to the difference between ancient Greece and ourselves; but, he claims, we can use that difference to understand more lucidly who "we" are (49). Bravmann argues, "integral to this particular assumption about who 'possesses' the heritage of ancient Greece is the historically recent origin of currently dominant conceptions of classical civilization[iii]" (Bravmann 1997)It is evident that the Western culture is not a classic civilization, for ‘we’ have created our own interpretations[iii] to what gay male culture is, thus further creating two terms ‘gay’ the Westernized interpretation of same-sex relations and ‘homosexual’ the original interpretation from those of the ancient Greek culture.
Thus, I come to a conclusion that ‘gay’ identity was invented as, historians and, people in society wanted to place men who shared same-sex relations into one group. Homosexual men were then given ‘identities’ as many people tried to given reason for same sex relations amongst men, primarily based on ‘white’ gay males. As such the word ‘gay’ was born and homosexuals were not just homosexual they were ‘gay.’ I argue that as men in the same-sex relations were placed into a group there then became stereotypes as people in society tried to give reason for the same-sex relations. Further: ‘gay’ identity was modeled after ‘white’ gay men who have then shaped and defined all of gay male culture. Therefore, because ‘gay’ was invented in part to try and discover reasons for same-sex relations it is only just to pose a solution that allows men to rid themselves from the word ‘gay’:
The men, who claim themselves ‘gay’, in the current culture, shall be a part of SGAY. The men who act stereotypical to the traits that were given to them by ones that have created the ‘gay’ identity can continue to live the way they do. This new label will allow the ‘gay’ men in the current gay male culture to differentiate themselves amongst the ‘homosexuals”. This allows the ‘homosexuals’ to act on the act of sex alone without having to adapt to an identity. If the mainstream culture understands that ‘gay’ was invented as stated in the evidence above, it would allow men who have same-sex relations to remain free from being claimed ‘gay.’ Further sgay men will be ones that closely follow the roles that are often constructed by historians of ‘gay’ culture. I argue that if the two terms were separated taking the ideology back to ancient Greece it poses homosexuals the way it was originally seen. This new way of constructing the culture, again taking it back to how ancient Greece defined same-sex relations, it could have the potential to define that there is a difference in the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ as such W1, will be in good standing as he himself will no longer be considered ‘gay’ and W2 may see that he is solely ‘gay’ and not homosexual. This solution will arguably change the way one constructs gay identity amongst gay males or men that are not homosexual but gay.
I then propose, in reference to W1 and W2, that ‘gay’ men as defined by W2 be placed into sgay culture: sgay[iii] culture is one that follows closely with W2{s} perspective on who ‘gay’ men are: ones, that according to W1, who follow created roles. In reference to W1[s] perspective I stand to argue that the ‘gay’, identity, culture itself is created. It was created as a means of controlling same-sex relations. As such, there are roles that I will propose in sgay culture that are created by society and how they view ‘gay’ as an identity. Therefore I believe that if there are two different cultures, W1, will stand as gay male culture, solely referring to sex as an act, and W2 will stand as sgay culture, where ‘gay’ men can continue to follow socially constructed roles. I argue that if there were two distinct cultures, sgay and gay male cultures, it would settle the issues in regards to what the words themselves mean. I have then settled the dilemma that W3 proposed. The dilemma, given by W3, emphasized the fact that regardless of the fact that queer culture was created or not it exists[iii]. Society deems the two words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ to be seen as equal, leaving many unable to distinguish the two words as being different, which has been mentioned argued and supported by both W2 and w3.
In conclusion I have displayed the argumentation that exists between W2 and W1, There then was the dilemma that W3 display, which is the fact that the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ often are blended together or seen as the same. I argued that ‘gay’ identity was invented as a means of controlling those who have same-sex relations. Largely, the culture itself was embodied and created by white gay males. As such I then gave a solution, which was to create a sub cultural group, sgay, where ‘gay’ men can act as they please following socially constructed roles. This then allows homophiles, as defined in ancient Greece to solely act on the act of sex not adapting behaviors that ‘gay’ men possess. [iii]
[1] Roles that are created often stem from gay men who take the roles to the extreme, when shaping their identity within gay maleculture, such roles may be discounted and will be further discussed in later work.
[1] Gay men have special places where they gather so they cab find men that are alike themselves; these way relationships are more likely to work out.
[1] The gay right of passage is widely discussed in gay literature. It describes the fact that gay men will identify themselves through labels to then later try and push away from such labels. Because gay men will become excited as they have entered this new found freedom they may become attached to labels that do not necessarily define who they are as people within the gay male(Hayes).
Dilemma:
There comes a problem that is evident in the thesis “living in a queer culture does not make one gay or commit homosexual acts, but rather a conformist to an illegitimate, created, society.”
Problems:
If being gay ‘x’ is created then it does make the roles of the society illegitimate, however it has to be stated whether or not the roles themselves are created if created roles ‘y’ there must be a visual pattern associated with the roles that gay men adapt themselves too.
There is the need of clarifying what the definition of the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ mean. Are the words themselves linked together?
· If the word ‘gay’ refers solely to the persona adapted in queer culture then it may seem as if the culture is created.
· If the word ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ is together then it presents the idea that the two words go hand in hand.
· There must be clear distinctions as to how the words fit together if they indeed do?
Once clarifying the definition of the words it will further the answer as to whether or not the society is created or existed and that homosexuals are gay.
Dialectic:
There is a problem when defining whether the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ have different meanings. W1[1] argues that gay male culture itself is created: therefore W1 argues that ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ hold different meanings. According to W1 ‘gay’ refers to men who solely follow gay male culture whether they have sexual relations with men or not. ‘Homosexual’ refers to men who solely act on the act of homosexuality which is sex. W1 concludes that because sex, according to homosexuals, is defined by an act, behaviors practiced by ‘gay’ men are created therefore making ‘gay’ men conformists to an illegitimate society[1]. W2 argues that ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are seen as the same whether one follows both roles or not. Gay male culture exists, according to W2, as one is either ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual.’ Both are placed into a sub cultural group, which is gay male culture, as they are not of the social heterosexual norms. Further, W2[1] argues that it then does not matter whether oneself defines themselves as ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ the main stream view still places the two words together: the act is then not separated from the behaviors that ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ men practice within gay male culture. W2 then concludes that it is not permissible to state that gay male culture is created rather it existed[1].
It is important to understand how both W1 and W2 define the terms ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ and what the differences are if any. W1 defines gay male culture as being created: therefore W1 argues: that the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ hold different meanings. W1 argues that ‘homosexual’ refers solely to the act of sex. Therefore one according to W1 who solely commits homosexual acts is ‘homosexual’ however, not ‘gay’. W1 argues that ‘gay’ refers to the roles that ‘gay’ men follow in gay male culture. The roles that ‘gay’ men follow in gay male culture according to W1 are created, as acts of sex do not cause one to follow or create behaviors.
The roles, gay men posses, are argued to have been created by W1, as Woolfson 1 constructs arguments against the actual behaviors’ ‘gay’ men possess. It is argued that what one wears, acts upon or does is not a sufficient cause to label one gay off of behaviors exhibited. W1, who claims to be ‘homosexual’ and not gay, refers to his own example. W1 was referred to as gay during his life. Peers stated that W1 was gay because of his clothing, carrying bags, and having possessed effeminate qualities. W1 argued that his peers gestured that he was ‘gay’ without having knowledge as to whether or not he had sexual relations with males. W1 argued that his peers were wrong: concluding that he, W1, was ‘homosexual’ however was not ‘gay.’ It was concluded by W1 that men who acted differently than of the social, heterosexual male, norms were considered to have been ‘gay.’ W1 deems this to be problematic: W1 mentions that there may be men who follow roles that are deemed to be ‘gay’: and under social pressure come out as gay. W1 argues that, placing social pressure on men could cause men to define themselves as being ‘gay,’ again whether or not they have sexual relations with males. W1 states there are ‘gay’ men within gay male culture who are not sexually interested in men, however are still seen as ‘gay’ men. W1 further argues that men, who are placed into gay male culture, by social pressure, become the gay clichés within gay male culture. W1 defines a gay cliché as a ‘gay’ male that takes the cultural roles to the extreme, one, gay male, which is consistently reinventing his image as new trends emerge in gay male culture. W1 comes to a conclusion that if there are men who live in the gay male culture yet are not ‘homosexual’ proves that the culture itself is created: leading to W1 stating that gay male culture is created, making ‘gay’ men who follow the culture conformists to an illegitimate society.
Thus far W1 argues that gay male culture is created and there is a difference in the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ W2 argues that ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are the same: arguing that there is not a way to separate the two words, as the culture itself existed and fosters, a home for, gay men.
W2 defined gay male culture as being natural: it was mentioned that one who deviates from the social norms would automatically be placed into a sub cultural group. The evidence to support that gay male culture existed stemmed from: first, the fact that was mentioned above in that men who act differently than of hetero norms will be placed into a sub cultural group. Secondly W2 argues that men who live within the culture will adapt to roles that the gay male culture is influenced by. Such behaviors, mentioned by W2, refer to roles ‘gay’ men naturally follow in gay male culture. The roles, given by W2, heavily referred ‘gay’ men to being drama queens, within the gay male culture. (Price 2001) W2 reflected upon ‘Drama Queen,’ a gay male culture self help book that further emphasized how it is that ‘gay’ men act and define themselves in gay male culture. The main roles, which were stated by W2 from the self help book, are: the ‘gym rat’ the ‘gay’ male in gay male culture that is more invested in appearance then people. The ‘Martha Stewart’ which according to W2 refers to gay men in gay male culture who are naturally able to decorate and bake as if they, the ‘gay’ male were Martha Stewart herself. (Price 2001) One of the larger roles that W2 argued was the fact that ‘gay’ men tend to be dramatic ‘back stabbing bitches’, W2 argues that ‘gay’ men in gay male culture naturally posses these traits[1]. (Price) The evidence that W2 provides delves deeper into gay male relationships, such facts derived from another self help book, this text ‘Boyfriend 101’ furthered the same images of ‘gay’ men that had been argued in ‘Drama Queen’ another self help book W2 used to express the fact that ‘gay’ men follow certain roles and traits. (Price) W2 further emphasized that the word ‘gay’ is primarily used rather than using both terms ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’; W2 argues that the words mean the same. Society in general does not place a, conscious, difference when describing the two terms. W2 further concludes that one is not able to differentiate the two words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ as both ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ men are both automatically placed into, the same, gay male culture. Thus W2 further explained that ‘homosexual’ men might then refer to ‘gay’ roles within the gay male culture, or vice versa. Therefore according to W2 gay male culture is one that is not created, rather exists, and there is not a clear difference between the two terms ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual.’ Therefore according to W2 it does not matter which term one identifies with as neither ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ is distinguished as being different.
W1 and W2 hold different views as to whether or not the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are different or the same[1]: it causes a dilemma. It raises the question whether or not gay male culture itself is it created or did the culture itself exist[1]. Woolfson3 finds the common problem of what the dilemma is between W1 and W2. Woolfson3 argues, based upon W1 and W2 {s} dilemma, that if being gay ‘x’ has an identity created, within gay male culture, then it still does make the roles of the gay male culture illegitimate: as W1 argued that the gay male culture was created: therefore, the roles that the ‘gay’ male follows are illegitimate, making one a conformist to a created society as W1 argued. However, Woolfson3[1] mentioned that if W2 stands correct and the culture is not created rather existed it still does not make ‘x’ the gay male illegitimate or rather the gay male culture itself illegitimate simply because the roles themselves are created and or are adapted too. Woolfson3 further argues that both, W1 and W2 do not have substantial evidence to claim if ‘gay’ culture was created or not. Woolfson3 further argues that the dilemma is the ability of being able to clarify the two words, are they the same? , or, different? The words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ according to Woolfson3 follow closely with W2 in that society does not see a difference in the two words. It is evident according to W2 that society sees both ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ men following the same or similar roles within gay male culture. Where W1 stands firm to believing that the gay male culture is created, making the only true followers of the gay male culture ‘gay’ men. Woolfson3 argues that, W1 stands false, as W1 stated that the only followers are ‘gay’ men and not ‘homosexuals.’ W2 expresses that W1 wrong as ‘homosexual’ men are seen as the same in gay male culture: often following the same or similar roles as ‘gay’ men all within gay male culture. Therefore it must be clarified as to whether or not the mainstream ‘gay’ identity was created or existed. More so whether or not the act of sex contributes to ones behaviors within gay male culture.
I will argue that that there is the need of another sub cultural group sgay. Having more than one ‘gay’ culture could be the solution that will clarify the differentiality amongst the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual.’ However, before constructing a new culture I must define where gay male culture originated from: answering how ‘gay’ culture came to be. It is evident that ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are seen as the same, in Western culture. I will argue that the two words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are different and that ‘gay’ identity itself was created in the Western culture.
There will be evidence that explains how current gay male culture has shaped itself: further explaining the current trends seen in gay male culture. There will also be portions where I will discuss how society has contributed to the roles that are widely, seen in gay male culture, when portrayed in the media. Arguably, white gay males have helped shape the ‘gay’ identity that will be further explained. Such trends in the media seen by the hetero norm are perhaps tainted, which possibly leads to gay male culture being made a mockery of within the form of media. Thus, the words ‘homosexual’ and ‘gay’ are seen to be the same when one view dominates the way one sees ‘gay.’
I argue men within the ‘gay’ male culture who claim to be ‘homosexual’ and or ‘gay’ are still widely seen solely as being ‘gay.’ as mentioned before: society has constructed views that reflects upon how, many of the heterosexual culture, view gay male culture. If the masses see the two words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ as being the same word: then I argue that continuing to argue what the difference is between the two words will not solve the dilemma between W1 and W2. Therefore the two words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ as argued by W1, W2, and furthered studied by W3, must be further defined in terms of better understanding how they may differentiate from other one another, beyond being defined within gay male culture, as they are seen as the same, however do not, always, act the same. I will define how the two terms are said to differ and will place the men accordingly into sgay culture or gay, homosexual, male culture. This I argue will solve the dilemma: which is that both words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are the same, even though both may not act the same within gay male culture.
Gay male ‘identity’ primarily exists in the Western culture as same-sex relations are viewed differently. As same-sex relations were seen as the norm in ancient Greece. “Francophone poet Renee Vivien used the model of ancient Greece to legitimize homosexuality on the grounds that Greek thought, so central to the ethical foundations of Western culture, openly and endorsed same-sex sexuality.” (Dean 1997) The Greeks are most known for accepting same sex relations. Therefore it is evident and permissible to state that Greek culture did not separate the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ rather ‘gay’ did not exist until the Western culture examined same-sex relations and made conclusions and developed theories. Before I can argue that the gay male culture needs to be re-structured, into two groups, one must understand that there stands a dilemma. The dilemma is whether or not, Western, society has falsely constructed gay male culture, which may cause the two words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ to be seen as the same: rather was the ‘gay’ identity invented in Western culture and further developed by historians and the masses who view and reflect upon same-sex relations.
It is stated that “gay…. identity was invented at the end of the nineteenth century…that sexual identity categories were a means of disciplining and regulating populations in new terms; and more methodologically, that sexuality was not a repressed drive but one generated in and through a series of self-generating discourses whose agents were often indecipherable.” (Bravmann 1997) meaning the ones who created and gave reason for ‘gay’ identity did not have history or facts to base arguments off of: Therefore making many of their arguments irrelevant. "Despite the ways they {historians} complicate notions of 'gay identity' and show how there is no such unitary phenomenon as 'the' homosexual, all of these studies remain deeply concerned with questions of same-sex sexuality, a concern that lends the texts themselves distinctively gay… identities.... the 'modem' category of homosexuality ... provides the thread that sutures together the diverse ... and shifting histories." (Bravmann 1997) Men who shared same-sex relations were have said to be given an identity ‘gay’ as a means to control the population of same-sex men. Because the histories of same-sex relations change and or have shifted, views as to what causes such, there then is not a clear answer as to what ‘gay’ is. More so “historians of gays…have not generally shown themselves particularly prone to theorizing these sorts of questions in their own work. {Questions referring to how ‘gay’ identity is or was constructed} Their empiricism has produced some wonderful histories, and there is no question, as George Chauncey notes in his widely touted Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940, that there are tremendous methodological problems simply in identifying people who may have experienced same-sex sexuality... "Until recently," he notes, "most professional historians were told that it would be dangerous to their careers even to look for [gay men...].” (Bravmann 1997) Thus, it seems that ones who have studied ‘gay’ identity have proven themselves to be flawed: therefore, it seems that ‘gay’ identity is one that is constructed and refined as new trends in historical writing emerges.
According to Scott Bravman “historians of gay people {in gay male culture} are no exception, and tend to project their own perspectives and experience onto their own interpretations of the past while refusing to recognize how their limited or selective memories generate the very truths they purport to reveal.” (Bravmann 1997)This statement alone reveals that ones that study gay male culture, in Western society, often only look and interpret: Rather than looking and questioning. I argue then that history that has been written from a bias perspective is not substantial evidence to state how it is that ‘gay’ males should act, within the gay male identity. Further it is evident that ‘white’ gay males tend to primarily be the ones that are studied and reflected upon.
Bravmann claims, “That gay…history thus far {in Western culture} tends to focus primarily on white gay men and to represent their experience as the history of all gay… and queer people.” (Bravmann 1997) The fact that gay male culture is primarily focused on white males is a problem itself. Thus, making observations made by historians false and or bias, when studying gay male culture as a whole and define such concepts off of white gay males. White gay men have been argued to be the ones that have thus far defined ‘gay’ identity. Many of the self-help literature books that I have used previously have all used white gay males as the primary source for the ‘gay’ male identity. Both Mark Price and Jim Sullivan authors of ‘Drama Queen’ and ‘Boyfriend 101’ use white gay males as they themselves, too, are under the impression that white gay males have shaped the ‘gay’ identity[1]. However, according to Miller “white gay men have not been studied with adequate specificity.” (Miller 2003) Miller further claims that Grundmann says that “we manage ourselves in the social also by leaving things open; by remaining vague, irrational, and illogical; by giving two contradictory responses at the same time; by reversing decisions halfway and tentatively” (48). (Miller 2003) As such white ‘gay’ male identity itself is flawed as is all ‘gay’ identity: Seeing that many claims on white gay males have been changed or viewed differently in gay male culture.
The book ‘Blowjob’ claimed by Margo Miller states that “Grundmann wants to find ways of understanding identification, desire, and performance that account for the whiteness and maleness of white gay men, as well as their homosexuality.” (Miller 2003) Grudmann uses the terms ““passing” and “posing” in his close readings of Blow Job and in his historical work on white gay male sexuality. Here, “passing” refers to white gay men’s ability to present themselves as straight white men. “Posing” indicates a set of practices gay men used to identify and eroticize each other… The position of white gay men in relation to homophobic public spaces influenced gay styles, signifying practices, sensibility, and communities.” (Miller 2003) Thus, white males who claim to be gay “pose[1]” which is the act of adapting to practices that are widely committed by white gay males. If one refers to the film it is evident that “In this way, Blow Job becomes an idiom of passing, posing, and of gay performance generally. While watching the film, the viewer participates in the processes that produced gay male cultural modes[1] in this period” (Miller 2003) As such it is evident that white males are the ‘posers’ for the white gay male culture. Largely then what is ‘posed’ is often stereotypical images, of which is then spread across all of ‘gay’ identity.
Further it has been argued that modern gay male culture, as a whole, was heavily influenced by “new appropriations of Greece by gay and lesbian scholars and the narration of Stonewall (the 1969 uprising in a Greenwich Village gay bar of that name) as "the" founding event of modem gay and lesbian history effectively erases people of color and women from the collective "we" such narratives seek to salvage. Moreover, Bravmann argues, this "we" is often a retrospectively imposed fiction that reflects the sociopolitical desire of the historian rather than the unified voice of a diverse community[1].” (Dean 1997) Therefore the ones who study gay male culture are the ones who have perhaps misshaped and worse invented a new perspective of what ‘gay’ men are and should be in ‘gay’ male culture. It is argued by “classicist David Halperin {, who,} argues {that} contrary to Symonds and Vivien, we must be attentive to the difference between ancient Greece and ourselves; but, he claims, we can use that difference to understand more lucidly who "we" are (49). Bravmann argues, "integral to this particular assumption about who 'possesses' the heritage of ancient Greece is the historically recent origin of currently dominant conceptions of classical civilization[1]" (Bravmann 1997)It is evident that the Western culture is not a classic civilization, for ‘we’ have created our own interpretations[1] to what gay male culture is, thus further creating two terms ‘gay’ the Westernized interpretation of same-sex relations and ‘homosexual’ the original interpretation from those of the ancient Greek culture.
Thus, I come to a conclusion that ‘gay’ identity was invented as, historians and, people in society wanted to place men who shared same-sex relations into one group. Homosexual men were then given ‘identities’ as many people tried to given reason for same sex relations amongst men, primarily based on ‘white’ gay males. As such the word ‘gay’ was born and homosexuals were not just homosexual they were ‘gay.’ I argue that as men in the same-sex relations were placed into a group there then became stereotypes as people in society tried to give reason for the same-sex relations. Further: ‘gay’ identity was modeled after ‘white’ gay men who have then shaped and defined all of gay male culture. Therefore, because ‘gay’ was invented in part to try and discover reasons for same-sex relations it is only just to pose a solution that allows men to rid themselves from the word ‘gay’:
The men, who claim themselves ‘gay’, in the current culture, shall be a part of SGAY. The men who act stereotypical to the traits that were given to them by ones that have created the ‘gay’ identity can continue to live the way they do. This new label will allow the ‘gay’ men in the current gay male culture to differentiate themselves amongst the ‘homosexuals”. This allows the ‘homosexuals’ to act on the act of sex alone without having to adapt to an identity. If the mainstream culture understands that ‘gay’ was invented as stated in the evidence above, it would allow men who have same-sex relations to remain free from being claimed ‘gay.’ Further sgay men will be ones that closely follow the roles that are often constructed by historians of ‘gay’ culture. I argue that if the two terms were separated taking the ideology back to ancient Greece it poses homosexuals the way it was originally seen. This new way of constructing the culture, again taking it back to how ancient Greece defined same-sex relations, it could have the potential to define that there is a difference in the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ as such W1, will be in good standing as he himself will no longer be considered ‘gay’ and W2 may see that he is solely ‘gay’ and not homosexual. This solution will arguably change the way one constructs gay identity amongst gay males or men that are not homosexual but gay.
I then propose, in reference to W1 and W2, that ‘gay’ men as defined by W2 be placed into sgay culture: sgay[1] culture is one that follows closely with W2{s} perspective on who ‘gay’ men are: ones, that according to W1, who follow created roles. In reference to W1[s] perspective I stand to argue that the ‘gay’, identity, culture itself is created. It was created as a means of controlling same-sex relations. As such, there are roles that I will propose in sgay culture that are created by society and how they view ‘gay’ as an identity. Therefore I believe that if there are two different cultures, W1, will stand as gay male culture, solely referring to sex as an act, and W2 will stand as sgay culture, where ‘gay’ men can continue to follow socially constructed roles. I argue that if there were two distinct cultures, sgay and gay male cultures, it would settle the issues in regards to what the words themselves mean. I have then settled the dilemma that W3 proposed. The dilemma, given by W3, emphasized the fact that regardless of the fact that queer culture was created or not it exists[1]. Society deems the two words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ to be seen as equal, leaving many unable to distinguish the two words as being different, which has been mentioned argued and supported by both W2 and w3.
In conclusion I have displayed the argumentation that exists between W2 and W1, There then was the dilemma that W3 display, which is the fact that the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ often are blended together or seen as the same. I argued that ‘gay’ identity was invented as a means of controlling those who have same-sex relations. Largely, the culture itself was embodied and created by white gay males. As such I then gave a solution, which was to create a sub cultural group, sgay, where ‘gay’ men can act as they please following socially constructed roles. This then allows homophiles, as defined in ancient Greece to solely act on the act of sex not adapting behaviors that ‘gay’ men possess. [1]
No comments:
Post a Comment