Dilalectic outline

Outline for Dialectic paper:

Opening:

            There is a problem when defining whether the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ have different meanings. W1 argues that gay male culture itself is created: therefore W1 argues that ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ have 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 is defined by an act, behaviors practiced by ‘gay’ men are created therefore making ‘gay’ men conformists to an illegitimate society.     W2 argues that ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are seen as the same. Gay male culture exists, according to W2, as anyone whether ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ is placed into a sub cultural group, which is gay male culture, as they are not of the social heterosexual norms. Further, W2 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.

Part one:

            It is important to understand how both W1 and W2 define the terms ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ and what the differences are. W1 and W2 define ‘homosexual’ and ‘gay’ differently which creates problems. 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.

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 referred to his own example. W1 was referred to as gay during his life. His piers 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. (Insert footnote, W2 agrees with W1 on gay clichés) 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.

Segue into W2

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.

Part two:

            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. 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. 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. 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. 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 gay male culture. Thus W2 further explained that ‘homosexual’ men might refer to ‘gay’ roles within the gay male culture, or vice versa. Therefore according to W2 gay male culture is one that is 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 as, they both are not distinguished as being different.  

PART 3 THE DILEMMA:

            W1 and W2 hold different views as to whether or not the words ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ are different or the same: it causes a dilemma. It raises the question whether or not gay male culture itself is it created or did the culture itself exist. 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 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 as 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 main stream ‘gay’ identity was created or existed.

Thesis for Dialectic:

            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 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. 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.

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 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 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. Largely, it has been argued that gay male culture extends from ancient Greece where “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” (CITATION) 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?

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” (CITATION) 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" (CITATION).  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 ones that wanted to study same-sex relations, who were “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...]” (CITATION)

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.” (CITATION) This statement alone reveals that ones that study gay male culture, in Western society, often only look and interpret: Rather than looking and questioning.

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” (CITATION) 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. Further it has been argued that modern gay male culture 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” (CITATION). 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" (CITATION). It is evident that the Western culture is not a classic civilization, for ‘we’ have created our own interpretations 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 because 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. 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. Therefore, because ‘gay’ was invented in part to try and discover reasons for same-sex relations it is only just to pose a solution:

            The men who claim themselves ‘gay’ shall be apart 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 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’ 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 W3 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. 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. 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 homosexuals, as defined in ancient Greece to solely act on the act of sex not adapting behaviors that ‘gay’ men possess.