For citations please refer to the bibliography.
Final paper: gay male and the identity crisis
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' simply mean different things. 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. 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 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.
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 possess 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 a member of the gay culture. 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' demonstrates 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. (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: 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 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.
New argument given by W4 that mentions white gay males have shaped the gay identity, thus there is a need for a new sub cultural group.
W4 argued that that there is the need of another sub cultural group sgay. Having more than one 'gay' culture could have been the solution, argued by W4, which would have clarified the differentiality amongst the words 'gay' and 'homosexual.' However, before constructing a new culture, W4 defined where gay male culture originated from: answering how 'gay' culture came to be. According to W4, It is evident that 'gay' and 'homosexual' are seen as the same, in Western culture. W4 then argued that the two words 'gay' and 'homosexual' are different and that 'gay' identity itself was created in the Western culture.
There will be evidence, offered by W4, which 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, W4 will discuss how society has contributed to the roles that are widely, seen in gay male culture, when portrayed in the media. According to W4, white gay males have helped shape the 'gay' identity (insert foot note). It is offered by W4, that 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, according to W4, the words 'homosexual' and 'gay' are seen to be the same when one view dominates the way one sees 'gay' in the Western culture.
W4, argued 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: W4, then argued 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, according to W4, 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. W4 then defined how the two terms are said to differ: W4, placed men accordingly into sgay culture or gay, homosexual, male culture. W4 argued this would 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.
W4 offered evidence that indicated that white males have perhaps misshaped gay identity in western culture. Gay male 'identity,' according to W4, 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, according to W4. "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, according to W4. Therefore it is evident and permissible to state, in reference to W4 argument, 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 W4, argued that the gay male culture needs to be re-structured, into two groups, W4 said that 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, W4 mentioned, 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, by W4 in reference too, "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, according to W4, 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, according to W4. 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, according to W4. More so "historians of gays…have not generally shown themselves particularly prone to theorizing these sorts of questions in their own work. 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, according to W4, 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.
Thus, W4 offers evidence that historians' have perhaps miss interpreted white gay males, offering biased history. According to Scott Bravmann, and W4, "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. W4 argued 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, and W4, claim "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) W4, stated, the fact that gay male culture is primarily focused on white males is a problem itself. Thus, according to W4, 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, W4 has 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, according to W4. However, according to Miller, in reference to W4's argument "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, according to W4, 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.
Further it has been argued, by W4, 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, according to W4, 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." (Dean 1997) Therefore, according to W4, 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, according to W4, by "classicist David Halperin {, who,} argues {that} contrary to Symonds and Vivien, society 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). According to W4, 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" (Bravmann 1997)It is evident that the Western culture is not a classic civilization, according to W4, for Western society has have created our own interpretations, according to W4 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; which is in reference to what W4 argues.
Thus, W4 comes 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, according to W4, 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, according to W4, the word 'gay' was born and homosexuals were not just homosexual they were 'gay.' W4 argues 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, according to W4: 'gay' identity was modeled after 'white' gay men who have then shaped and defined all of gay male culture. Therefore, according to W4, 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':
W4, offered that 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, according to W4. 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, according to W4, sgay men will be ones that closely follow the roles that are often constructed by historians of 'gay' culture. W4 argued 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.
W4, then proposed, 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', identity, culture itself is created. It was created as a means of controlling same-sex relations. As such, there are roles that, W4 proposed in sgay culture that are created by society and how they view 'gay' as an identity. Therefore W4 believed 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. W4 argued 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. W4, stated that he, W4, has 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.
W4, in conclusion, stated to 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. W4 argued that 'gay' identity was invented as a means of controlling those who have same-sex relations. According to W4 largely, the culture itself was embodied and created by white gay males. As such W4 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, according to W4, as defined in ancient Greece to solely act on the act of sex not adapting behaviors that 'gay' men possess.
Woolfson 5's argument:
It has been argued by W1 that there is a need to better understand the differences between the words 'gay' and 'homosexual.' It was later disproved by W2, who argued that the words 'gay' and 'homosexual' stand as: simply meaning the same thing, thus according to W2 it does not matter what one claims to be. W3 then argued that it is essential to understand that there stands a dilemma as to whether or not the words 'gay' and 'homosexual' do hold different meanings. W4, said it was not necessary to understand whether or not the words held different meanings because, ultimately one would still be seen as gay whether they are or not. W4 offered evidence that white gay males have shaped the gay identity that is seen in the Western culture. It is important to understand that W4 mentioned that historians have falsely represented the history for gay males. W4 argued that much of the history had derived from white gay males through political movements, and various forms of literature and media. Thus, W4 offered that there be a sub cultural group sgay that would allow men who follow gay male culture to continue to follow the culture: this culture, argued by W4, is composed of white gay males. W4 argued that ones who simply have homosexual relations would no longer be seen as gay. Further, W4 argued that this would allow one to take homosexuality to the original word homophile, as defined in Ancient Greece, which means same sex relations.
I argue that having a sub cultural group will surely not solve the dilemma that W3 proposed which is the idea of the two words 'gay' and 'homosexual' not being separated. Rather, I argue white males who choose not to be a part of the sgay male culture, will still be seen as gay whether they are or not. I understand that W4 argued that historians have offered biased information, in reference to white gay males, that has possibly shaped gay male culture into what it is today: which according to W1 are conformists to an illegitimate society. Rather, I argue that W4, and the Western culture, are not giving the gay men permission to follow the gay male roles; however, this seems to be the only possible solution. It is evident that even though there has been an offered sub cultural group one will still be seen as gay. Thus, society will still view a gay male as being gay, and will not make an effort to differentiate the two words 'gay' and 'homosexual,' this then places the issue back to its original roots: which, again is the dilemma of one is not able to identify as 'gay' or 'homosexual'
I argue that one must further study how white gay males have influenced gay culture. Thus, I am arguing that it is not possible to separate the words. If one chooses to come out and express their sexuality in the Western culture, they will be seen as gay. Therefore, until gay men stop fighting the stereotypes with heterosexual women, gay men will still be seen as being effeminate: following the gay literature, which is heavily influenced by white gay males. I will offer evidence from gay literature and media that exploits my concept that gay, white, males are often fighting the stereotypes with heterosexual woman in the Western culture. Thus, I will argue that the solution that W4 offered, will not work and simply is only patching the identity crisis. Rather, I argue that one must look into the studies offered by Judith Butler who further mentions that gender identity is confused between, gay males and heterosexual woman.
I will begin to offer evidence that exploits white gay males fighting the stereotypes in modern Western media. More so according to W4, historians and those who study gay culture often miss interpret it. Thus, Sex and The City, is a prime example where heterosexual woman are fighting the stereotypes with white gay males, who are agued by W4 to have shaped gay male culture, in the Western society. However before I mention the movie and series 'Sex and the City' I want to work with how gay men are portrayed in Western media to set the foundation.
The article mentioned in Genre magazine is referring to what it means to be gay today in Western media. The article mentioned the show Will and Grace in that "Will Trumanand Jack McFarlandwere clean cut, upper class attractive white men—something the mainstream audience could swallow." (Pirolli 2007) Clearly the idea behind the gay representation is largely what historians have studied according to W4. I agree with W4 in that white males are what are represented. However, the way white males are represented brings problems. In that gay male culture is heavily based off of wealthy upper class white males, not the average white middle class working male. Thus, in the article it mentions that the show gives what the audience can swallow. That is a problem, what the audience can swallow is perhaps what the audience has made the gay male image. Further, "…while TV audiences often saw Grace getting frisky, rarely were Will and Jack affectionate with their (often non-existent) love interests." (Pirolli 2007) Thus, the show itself had not show, homosexual, relations. More so the show iterated the gay male identity ideals that W4 offered. Lastly, the article mentioned that "gay characters doing the things that we all do in real life and, add to that, things that are sexy." (Pirolli 2007) This is a true problem, networks are showing gay men in the way they see them which is most likely to be represented as Jack or will, who are upper class white males. However, what is fascinating is that it seems that some gay men are complaining that the wide stream media is only presenting what they can swallow. However, the magazine itself only ever portrays wealthy white gay males.
Therefore we can see thus far that much of what is represented in the main stream media is what they can swallow: which what they can swallow so far are elite white males who often do not show any sexual relations; rather they show the lifestyle that gay men supposedly live. However, even in gay media, the magazines often only show white males. The genre magazine itself, that this particular article came from, mentioned above exclusively only showed wealthy white males. Further, the gay male fashion that was represented in the magazine often iterated a very wealthy luxurious lifestyle. The magazine offers the luxe lifestyle tips every month. This particular month mentioned what swimwear gay males often wear, all of the gay males were white, and the swimwear offered was all over 300.00 dollars apiece. Clearly, the swimwear offered is not targeted towards the middle class men, I argue.
Beyond the Genre magazine there is another media outlet that further argues W4's argument that white gay males have shaped the gay male identity. Sex and the city, which was introduced earlier, written by two gay males. However, the series itself was not acted out by gay men, rather four women. I argue that the series used four women because the main stream audience could not perhaps swallow the content if it were four gay men. Though, the second Sex and the City movie were all about white gay men, although four women portrayed the characters. There was an exclusive article that exploited the negative content that the movie portrayed. The article portrayed the fact that the gay males that were represented were elite, wealthy, gay males. "The two main gay characters, carries chubby pal Sanford and Charlotte's sassy BFF Anthony Marantino, are tragically asexual helpmates whose main role has always been to provide relationship advice to shows straight female characters, fling bitchy quips, or let their flamboyant outfits serve as a visual punch line." (Rogers 2010) Already, it is evident that the gay men again are what the audience can swallow: which is the image that gay white males are the heterosexual women's assistant. I argue that the gay men in this show reiterate Will and Grace, Jack was mostly Karen's side kick, or as this article mentioned—an asexual helpmate. There seems to be a similarity, which is arguably that white gay males are assistants, however, wealthy elite ones.
The article in reference to Sex and the City furthers the elite white gay male concept by mentioning that "Anthony, in particular, is the worst kind of shallow, fashion grubbing gay minstrel." (Rogers 2010) Anthony, an elite white gay male, was often wearing high end fashion, thus making him the stereotypical white gay male. Thus far one can evidently see, based on the articles, that white gay males are heavily used in the media because that is what the audience, Western culture, can handle. However, I am further defining this concept where W4 left off; which is to iterate the fact that white gay men are fighting the stereotypes with heterosexual women. Further the idea that heterosexual women are seen as having a gay best friend: "If I had a dollar every time I met a woman who said 'oh, you're gay? You should meet my gay friend" (Rogers 2010) As one can see, heterosexual, women are seen as having the gay male best friend, of which the gay male best friends often are elite wealthy gay men as represented in the movie and Will and Grace, the series mentioned earlierHowever, with the concept of the gay best friend, it was mentioned that Sex and the City portrayed things a bit differently than Will and Grace the T.V. series. "Characterslike Will and Jack on NBC's Will and Grace had to be sexless and under developed to make them palatable to nervous American audiencesstill getting used to the idea of two homos smack dab in the middle of must-see TV. Both these men existed primarily in the context of their female relationships, and, act like Stanford and Anthony, had little to no romantic life, instead spending most of their screen time helping woman untangle theirs." (Rogers 2010)
As one can see the gay men that are portrayed in the media are not only wealthy elite gay males, they are also often meant to serve the heterosexual females, as their personal assistants. Further, again I mention the fact that the gay, white, men often did not have sex lives in the movies or T.V. series. Thus, the only thing the American audience took away, I argue, is the idea that gay, white, males are often wealthy, and the heterosexuals' females assistant. Sadly it was mentioned in the article that "even today, Carrie Miranda, Samantha, and Charlotte make far more convincing gay men than Stanford and Anthony ever have. When Michael King joined the franchise, he, along with a staff of largely female writers', took care to make those four protagonists convincing visions of modern womanhood rather than mere cartoons—but ironically, that character shading was never afforded to the token gayswho buzzed around the side lines." (Rogers 2010) Thus, it is evident that the woman in Sex and the City hold the same stereotypes as gay males, as they are also white.
I argue then that W4's solution of having a sub cultural group sgay will not stand to be good enough. Clearly, gay men are still seen as white males who live an elite style. From the evidence that I offered it also shows that the, Western, media often does not depict sexual relations with gay males. Thus, fashion and elite lifestyle are often what many people tend to think gay men live, as well as them being white. More so that white, gay, males are often heterosexual, white, women's personal assistants. To ensure that this representation stands correct, I, myself, studied a group of messages in reference to the word 'gay' via Twitter. The general consensus for the tweets was that gay males are white, effeminate, and were the heterosexual woman's assistant. I argue the, western, media is in part responsible for what was tweeted, and largely what the audience depicts gay men as: which seems to be that they are white, wealthy, and are made to be the heterosexual woman's assistant.
Therefore I argue, again, that the solution that W4 gave is not permissible, on the grounds that I have found evidence that further developed the issue of white gay males and the fight with heterosexual women. Thus, I have to disagree. Rather, it is then important that I look into the issue of heterosexual women fighting the stereotypes with gay men so that it is better understood. Upon such, I will argue a new solution. More I will answer the question, and give evidence, looking to see if gay men are seen as the same as heterosexual women in regards to stereotypes.
Interestingly, in the mainstream Western, culture it is argued that gay men have similar brains as heterosexual women. Thus, if they have the same brain, they may act the same; therefore they would share the same stereotypes. The study went on to mention "…the brains of straight men and of gay woman tend to be the same." (Gardener 2008) I use this quote only because it indicates that perhaps gay men are the same as women thus it gives an excuse as to why they may fight the same stereotypes. Further, gay men are often seen as being the heterosexual woman's best friend. In the study Straight Woman vs. Gay men it mentioned "Move over Manolo, the trendiest ladies fashion accessory is no longer sexy heels, not even the it clutch bag anymore…those of you who are still feeling perky and fabulous, state your style bolder than ever with the latest must—have social item for all-seasons, a gff—gay friend forever!" (Jakarta 2009).
The quote mentioned above idealizes gay men as an accessory for the heterosexual female. Thus, I argued earlier the media gives the public what they can swallow. What the media can swallow are asexual gay males that are the heterosexual women's assistants. Thus, I argue that the study that mentioned that the gay males brain size is the same as a heterosexual woman is a sham Rather, the only reason, I argue, the brains are the seen as the same is because gay men are said to be like females. Which in theory I argue is why they then fight the same stereotypes. The issue lies with the fact that gay men are portrayed inaccurately via historians, which is what W4, argued. However, W4 only argued that white gay males shaped gay identity. I argue that he should have delved further into what the white gay males have created, which I argue is a massive gender identity crisis. It is evident that many of the articles, that depict gay man, are arguing gay men are the same as heterosexual woman.
This concept that gay men are the same as woman I argue stems again from what the audience can swallow: what the audience can swallow are the stereotypes that heterosexual woman fight with gay males. "…woman fall in love with gay men who…tend to be more feminine in the sense that they are more likely to express their emotions." (Jakarta 2009) it is clearly evident that the, Western, media is portraying gay men as being effeminate, as if they themselves were heterosexual women.
Therefore I argue that the issue goes beyond what W4 argued, in that the Western media, amongst historians have miss represented gay males. Rather, gay men are seen as being the same as heterosexual women, thus they fight the same stereotypes. Thus, I argue and propose a new concept. I argue that is does not matter, currently, whether one separates the words or not. Gay men will continue to be seen as gay, so long the Western media portrays them, the gay males, falsely. Further, gay men will be seen as the same as heterosexual women who fight the same stereotypes.
As such I believe that gay male culture needs to be studied globally, clearly the Western media portrays gay males as being the females assistant, primarily white gay males. If gay men are studied globally, perhaps one can further disprove what W1 is arguing, which was; gay men are conformists to a created society. Which W3, argued that yes word gay refers to the identity that is largely seen in the Western culture. Thus, W3 argued that there needs to be a sub cultural group that removes the concept from gay males not wanting to follow the gay identity, which was argued to derive from white gay males. W4, then argued that the sub cultural group would not work as gay men will still be seen as the same, however, W4, did not mention that gay males are often seen as being effeminate because they follow the same stereotypes as the heterosexual woman. I argue that the concept of gay is heavily influence by Western media giving what the audience can swallow which was mentioned earlier.
Therefore because historians have failed to portray gay men accurately, I propose that the word 'gay' be taken back to its original meaning and be studied globally. If data is collected around the globe as to what gay is, I argue: it will show the differences amongst the cultures, as to what gay is. For example: in the Western culture gay men are seen as the white woman's assistant, often sharing the same stereotypes. Thus, consequently if one wants to identify as homosexual they are still seen as gay. I argue that once data is collected it will iterate that there stands a worldwide dilemma in that every country defines 'gay' differently, thus I conclude gay needs to be taken back to Ancient Greece, it may be the only source that is accurately portrayed by historians, giving a solid foundation to work with.
