I saw this and it reminded me of when I came out to my father, a retired Air Force Lt. Colonel with 32 years in the service going back to WWII. He told me it was OK and that he "knew guys" who did this from years back.

This was when he and his girlfriend (complicated, he and my mother never divorced for both pragmatic and personal reasons) visited me in DC. I took them to a gay bar/restaurant and to other essentially gay resturants, we went to Dignity's "Mass for the Gay and Lesbian Community," and if either was taken aback by anything they never said so to me.

To take this from the personal to possibly more universal, there are "worldly" men who know these things and accept them as part of life. A lot of military guys from my Dad's generation basically knew the score and, although conservative in the range from Barry Goldwater to Gerald Ford to George H.W. Bush (at least before Reagan and the Moral Majority, etc.), they were personally often more open-minded and sometimes advocated what are now considered liberal positions on social issues.

Thus, Houston's current lesbian Mayor Annise Parker, who came out and was a public activist from college onward, was still able to work for Republican Rob Mosbacher's energy company for 18 years. Although Parker, just as I am, is a Democrat and LGBTetc., she could be there and advance even while Mosbacher worked for Bush's campaigns and later entered his Cabinet and she contiunied local political activities and activism in Houston.

To me it's a shame the current political climate seems so divided and unforgiving, accentuated by social media, 24-hour-news, and more. I want to believe that more people are flexible and understanding when they get down to person-to-person interaction.

Perhaps that goes even more so for those who for whatever reason must live double lives. LGBTetc. people sometimes shame or pressure people to sort of "make a choice" or come out and essentially label themselves as something or other. I prefer to start with the person, whoever they are, wherever they feel comfortable, first. I want to listen rather than lecture and speak from my own experience rather than tell people what to do with theirs.

But that's just me, others can agree or disagree. I so far behind on work and site updates await.

Quote |

Yup. Older members of my family openly spoke about an uncle, and couple of family friends who were gay. They used the wording, 'They were into other men.'

The men in the family never really gave any negative comment about it, though the women openly expressed their disapproval behind their backs. But the very same women in the family also very much disapproved of divorce, until a few of them got divorced themselves, and stopped badmouthing it.

Yet, the general attitude was that sexuality was a private thing for every adult to decide about. None of my 'ole folks' ever envisioned the world in which you could live your life openly as a gay person. History proved them wrong.

Even so, I never experienced ostracism of anyone among the family or friends who was gay. In particular, successful people were openly admired regardless of their sexual orientation. A guy was either contributing to their wealth and social networking abilities or he was not. That mattered. His sexual life - not really.

KD

Quote |

I think everyone's family has a "bachelor uncle" or two...

And in some ways I think the rules of society both helped and hurt then. Although he was never able to be out or married no one ever talked about his sexuality or ostracized him for being gay.

There was no discussion at all about his sexual orientation - everyone knew it but they just went on about their lives.

Now the best will be when we finally reach the day that he can be open and married but it is again not a topic of conversation everyone just goes about with their lives.

Quote |

Sure, it is a progress to reduce/stop discrimination, and enjoy the benefits of marriage in terms of tax relief, health care, and other perks for the guys who choose to tie the knot.

But again, we are talking sexuality here, which remains a private, intimate matter, first and foremost. Very few people would go elaborating on it on a family reunion. I would not want them to, myself.

KD

Quote |

I'll add briefly before I have to move on to other work that those of us who have enjoyed a sense of "transgressive identity" as well as "transgressive sex" sometimes have mixed feelings about the sort of "normalization" of LGBTetc. people and what is for some a type of assimilation into the broader community.

I wish I had time to expand on that, but I don't right now.

Quote |

I totally hear you!

Operating in 'underground' had many of its upsides, too. The transgressive identity for one, made the bonds of friendship and mutual dependency very strong. You learnt how to depend on your buddies for more than just the actual act of sex. No one had planned that but, to some extent, our close-knit coteries of the past served as powerful personal support networks. Once you were in, you were counting on your close buddies, and they were counting on you for quite a bit more than just sexual relief.

Very few guys got rejected, and you treated your buddies and their friends with a great deal of respect, because there was no easy, safe and quick way of finding the new ones. Not everyone got whom they wanted (and there was no such expectation either), but by far, most guys got treated in a friendly and kind manner. I remember being introduced to two young country dudes who I was not really interested in. Well, I told them I was too busy but I picked up the phone, and call a couple of my buddies who thought they would be interested ... The point here being that a country dude who just made it into the big town, young and scared did not get dropped down like a used tissue but that someone put in an effort to help them connect.

The normalization and assimilation reduced discrimination, brought about societal progress, and in its wake destroyed the sense of close-knit camaraderie we felt towards each other. Suddenly, no guy was really good enough, because there were so many other guys waiting around the block. Guys started treating each other as throw away after one way use only - an unthinkable thing in the past.

Sure, cruising for sex became so much easier with all the apps, the websites, etc.. 'Getting caught' in the sense of getting outed are really no more the issues anyone is thinking about in many places around the world. I am sure that this is good in greater, societal context.

On a more personal level, hooking up among a dozen of your buddies actually worked better than having a choice of 800 folks around, without the time and energy to go through all the profiles, fakes, flakes & Co.

True, the pre-normalization guys focused on sex, too. But focusing on sex ALONE was not going to get you very far. You had to play by a certain rulebook, show basic manners or agree that you were not going to be benefitting from your underground network for very long.

We cannot turn the wheel of history back. And I really doubt that too many people would want us to do so, even if we could. But remembering the complexities of our past has its merit, too.

KD

Quote |

There was a degree of safety in the days when it was not as stigmatized as in the more distant past - but before it was so accepted and out in the open.

We could play around but we knew no one would tell - no one would know. We were not forced to acknowledge anything before we were ready to accept it.

Now there are Junior High Schools with "Gay - Straight Alliance Clubs" - and sure it is a great resource for those who want it - but it also is saying "you need to make a choice now".

I know growing up there were a lot of guys that played around to some degree - some were gay - some were bi - but most were just horny and needed an outlet.

When we fooled around neither of us thought of it as a relationship or even gay sex - we just wanted sex - and we wanted to make sure no one ever knew.

I think the confidence that no one would tell gave a lot of guys the courage to try it - some would try it once - other might do it for years - but they knew they could walk away at any time and not worry about being judged or stereotyped.

These days if I run into some I know at a gay bar or something I have to worry that if I run into him at work he will just talk about like it is no big deal - and as far as I am concerned it is no ones business.

I know that is just because of my generation - growing up when it was not OK to be gay or bi - but that is part of who I am.

Quote |

The fact that the play was in total underground, and that it was a transgression made it special. My buddies and I had no doubt that other dudes were doing the same. And some rumors within the close-knit circles inevitably came through but stayed well within the circle of the dudes involved.

The notion that someone would spill the beans was virtually unknown. Sure, some dudes would inevitably get at odds with each other. But no one ever outed anyone or was spreading any gossip beyond very clearly defined boundaries.

I believe that this is a sign of progress. And it is also a fact of life that won't change that easily. Yet, I still believe that some guys would intentionally choose to stay away from such alliances. For those who need support, such clubs can make a huge difference. For the others, they are of little or no importance. The counterproductive bit is that a few guys who tend towards safeguarding the privacy of their sexual lives feel compelled to stay away from the alliance dudes, simply because they do not want to be found 'guilty by association'. Some people will always tell you that it pays off to advertise. In the matters of private lives and sexual intimacy, this is a bit of dubious statement.

You really nailed it on the head here.
The attraction of the m2m sex beyond the obvious, i.e. getting your rocks off, which ALL the guys involved wanted to get, regardless of their real sexual orientation was the simple fact that no further obligations, consequences, gossip, etc. were likely to occur at any time. You connected with your buddies, fooled around, came for more or not. The sex did not carry any further consequences. We were in it for the pure fun factor.

Sure, one or the other dude fell for someone, and wanted more. Some got it, the others did not. But hardly any drama over it ever ensued. It was a NSA play, and no one doubted that.

I have run into a few co-workers, people I knew socially, etc., in the bars and other gay venues. I never failed to greet them, exchange few words, etc., but so far, no one bothered to start any gossip that I am aware of. This is probably a bit of a European cultural trait that leans heavily towards protecting privacy. Most guys go around minding their own business and though, I have little doubt that they find it interesting that they bumped into someone they know, that interest stays there.

Even guys who are totally out, and openly gay do not find it too meaningful to spread the details of their latest visits to the bars and clubs. They are happy to show up with their significant others, and project a societally conformist view of gay men who have their own families, and practically live heteronormative lives. Telling someone else that they met you, me or anyone else at one of the gay cruising venues is likely to blow that carefully constructed image that they are trying to maintain about themselves.

I always stop short of mentioning that it would be nice if they did not talk about our unintentional encounters at the gay venues. My openly gay acquaintances usually ask for this, though.

I always assure them that I go by the 'what happens in Vegas ... policy'. And you can see the big sigh of relief on their faces.

I have come to believe that many (certainly NOT all) gay men come out seeking societal approval, and are hence fearful that they may lose it if it becomes known that they are looking for sex beyond their suburban homes, and supposedly monogamous LTRs.

KD

Quote |

That was always in the back of my mind (and often still is). You know a percentage of the guys you meet are gay, a larger percentage will fool around if the situation is right and an even larger percentage have done it at some time in their past. So often I would find myself thinking "I wonder if he..." - something I tried NOT to think about back in the days of open showers!



That is one part of gay life that I think social acceptance harms - the idea of sex for sex sake. Sure there are websites and apps that still help with that - but society is pushing marriage and commitment these days.

I was trying to explain to someone the other day that I had buddies and sex was one of the things we did. There was no romance - we had sex because it felt good. We could be playing one on one basketball - sneak behind the garage and blow each other - and then get back to the game. Nothing promised - nothing said.



There were sometimes when someone would get a bit jealous but you realized there was nothing to be done. You did not have a commitment to each other - you knew it was supposed to be just for fun - but sometimes you did develop emotions. But you also realized that you just had to live with it and move on.

Quote |