Vocalist.org archive


From:  promero@w...
promero@w...
Date:  Tue Jun 12, 2001  7:21 am
Subject:  Re: [vocalist] 2Be out?



> but when they see couples in real situations
> acting in the same way it only reinforces the idea that the
behavior is ok.
> Sorry for the rant, but I have five kids...


I'm wondeirng if by which you would say that a gay couple is "not
ok". In this affirmation one bases oneself regularly on (socially
controlled) moralistic or religious principles (I.e puritanical and
repression of sexuality/affection/rejection of the physical nature of
the human character.), Generally I get irate when someone walks up to
me and says "you are immoral" or "you are not right" when they see me
holding hands with the person whom I LOVE--- yes, love, not lust, in
fact many of my straight friends have told me they wish they had the
relationship with their SO's that I have with my partner.

North America is the touchophobic of the world... Here is where the
greatest number of affection problems exist. An english doctor did a
study of how many times couples established physical contact in
public. He sat in a restaurant and waited, watching:
1)In South America, couples touched about a hundred times in an hour
(caress, touching hands, etc)
2)In Italy, they touched about 30 times in an hour
3)In France, the count was of about 15 average
4)In the U.S. he waited, and waited....

Just where the hell did we get the idea that public affection--- a
gentle touch, holding someone's hand, a stroke along the cheek--- is
either inherently immoral or just plaing wrong??

for the 'moral aspect of it', sexuality is proven to be a much more
complicated construct than what The Religious Right would have you
believe.

Yes, sex SEEMS to be a predominant part of gay 'culture', some say.
Seems being the key word here. Sex is a predominantt part of OUR
culture, in just as many colors and shades of grey as you find in gay
´society´, but fingers are pointed towards those who enact upon
casual sex among gay people because they are theological and
moral 'deviants',whereas it is ok for a man to have certain services
done unto him by the nice lady at the House of Negotiable Affection
on the street corner-- he's not a deviant then, just an "adulterer"
if he's married, or "horny" if he's single.

Because homosexuality challenges very predominant gender roles, it
is considered deviant. The fact that our puritanical beliefs make us
believe that sex is intrinsically dirty only makes the burden
heavier.

How should we evaluate homosexual relationships? The same way we
evaluate other relationships, they are no different.
"But gay relationships are all about sex" I hear people say. Not
true, there ARE lust-based relationships, but that happens in both
Heterosexuality and Homosexuality, but because of the focus
mainstream society takes on homosexuality, these relationships are
the ones that take the plateau in the media, this focus has no other
purpose than to make the relationships less valid or more 'sinful'. I
could easily achieve the same effect by focusing on how many
heterosexual couples marry just for sex, or the trophy wife/trophy
husband syndromes, etc.

The essence of relationships is mutual love, and our society should
not be so uptight to chastise a relationship for operating on that.
The Bard knew it quite well, and I don't think anyne else is more
suited to say it than him:

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand'ring bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me prov'd,
I never writ, nor no man ever lov'd.



  Replies Name/Email Yahoo! ID Date Size
12594 Re: 2Be out? Lisa Miller   Tue  6/12/2001   3 KB
12595 Re: 2Be out? promero@w...   Tue  6/12/2001   2 KB
12602 Re: 2Be out? Karen Mercedes   Tue  6/12/2001   2 KB
12603 Re: 2Be out? Lisa Miller   Tue  6/12/2001   3 KB
12605 Re: 2Be out? Imthurn Melinda   Tue  6/12/2001   3 KB
12606 Re: 2Be out? Imthurn Melinda   Tue  6/12/2001   2 KB

emusic.com