>> believe the point about image and social acceptance goes to the heart of the matter. It's about how mainstream America views us. Among ourselves, we must be willing to talk about morals, to impose them on ourselves and to do so conspicuously.>>

LOL...This presumes we don´t have morals. What you really mean is that we need to self-impose the morals of the conservative dominant culture.

>>As long as our primary image is one of gleeful promiscuity, an image promoted not only by our enemies but also reinforced by our own magazines, our own bars, and our own public behavior, we will still be ostracised by society in general. Until we start imposing honesty, fidelity and emotion on our lives, in other words, until we are willing to talk about moral standards, we will make little or no real progress in social acceptance. >>

Did you read my earlier post? This has no basis in history. All people who find themselves ostrascized by the dominant American culture are accused of being immoral or dependent. Women and blacks didn´t make their strides by trying to look nice. Indeed, it was well understood that the effort to placate by a nice image was part of the problem. You are positing something without any regard for historical context and you´re not responding to its citation.

>>I don't believe you can gain social acceptance in Middle America without facing up to the facts. Working towards that aim means bringing out the best in ourselves and offering something admirable to Middle America. >>

Really? Why? I think the idea that homosexuality, buttfucking as identity, is going to be "accepted" anytime soon is very far-fetched. Most of us would settle for equal protection under the law. I don´t understand how it is that so many conservative queers want to, on the one hand, not be identified on the basis of theire sexual behavior...but want, on the other, to be accepted on the basis of some "other" identity. Sorry, Charlie, what makes you queer is what you do with your dick. The dominant culture, at heart, doesn´t give a shit if you´re promiscuous. Its members care about the nature of your desire and they use the argument about promiscuity (contextualized with AIDS usually) as an effective straw-man argument since it doesn´t condemn sexual identity, over which people have little control, but pathologizes it by creating a false symptom.

>>I disagree with Bongo's assertion that image does not provide effective political leverage for gays. Social acceptance by Middle America is a nessasary condition for removing legal barriers. We don't enhance our image by conducting an assault on mainstream American values and institutions.>>

Honestly, that strikes me as funny. Promiscuity is hardly an attack on american values. We have the world´s largest porn industry, the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the world. I could go on. This business about promiscuity is an absurd screen. Gay men need to open their damn eyes and look at who is calling them promiscuous....and then ask themselves why we are so responsive to being called an offense to the dom culture on that basis by members of our own community.

>>If anything, such assaults isolate us from Middle America. We must show the broad middle of America that gays do not monolithically oppose them on a wide range of important economic and social issues. Winning the trust and support of Middle America is foundational to forging a coalition which will bring equality. >>

Yeah right. I think this contention is naive. It operates on the assumption that our image, not our DESIRE, is what alienates us. I´m just sure the folks who elected Dubya are gonna say: "Well, now that we understand you aren´t all into fucking in toilets, just buttfucking privately, we really want to give you a place at the table."

>>Instead, many of our organizations and leaders have repeatedly taken political stands that are calculated to offend middle America. We cannot expect to enlist their support if they see no advantage in standing up for us. Gay equality is very consistent with the traditional values and institutions of middle America. >>

Gee, I thought we ended up offending American whatever our position. Didn´t Dubya refuse to see them nice Log Cabin boys for the longest time? Yet didn´t Clinton open the doors to the White House to quite a motley assortment of queers? Where are your FACTS, man?

>>My comments on argumentum ad hominem are consistent and correct. If your first and only response is to attack the messenger, then we must infer a person has nothing of substance or relevance to rebut it.>>

Your attack on image, those whose morals oppose yours, is fundamentally an ad hominem attack, like Sun´s calling people neo-Marxists.

>>Admittedly, I am a genetic contrarian, so I will continue to say what I think without regard for whoever claims to be mildly offended. >>

And without regard to the responses you receive either, apparently.

>>No, I'm not Sun or anyone else. I did, however, chuckle to myself when Bongo (assuming he is not Jake) substituted his own odd polemic and aptly demonstrated my previous point on argumentum ad hominem. >>

Your ad hominem ad hominem is another straw man. Anytime anyone disagrees with You the Collective in any sharp way you reply with this ad hominem style of your own. It´s knifing with a smile.




[This message has been edited by musclehead2 (edited April 08, 2001).]

>>When radicals, like Sex Panic, presume to speak for the entire Gay civil rights movement, it should not surprise anyone (including radical pinko leftists) why mainstream America rejects us outright. It is also for this reason why it is important for Moderates and Independents to counter the radical image of the extreme left. >><

Oh please. Sex Panic does not presume to speak for all gay men and its receipt of attention by the media doesn´t mean they intend that. That´s like saying a story in the Times about bogus African American pinko baiters living in Florida trailer parks is an effort to represent all people who live in trailer parks.

And I might remind you that Keith, the esteemed Cruisemaster, attended the Sex Panic convention in San Diego. He is, like you, a libertarian, Sun, and hardly represents a radical threat to America.

This is a potent example of your bottomless willingness to misrepresent actuality. Unlike Jake, I find your self-representation in multiple identities reprehensible, because it is the purest example of the nature of your integrity.

>>So, what do we make of a group of radicals that is in open revolt over efforts to gain acceptance by mainstream America? >>

LOL....Wanting the freedom to do what Cruising for Sex provides people information to do is an open revolt over efforts to gain acceptance by mainstream America?? What the hell are YOU doing here, Sun?

>>It is mainstream America's attitudes, not the far right's, that we must change toward us. When radicals within the gay movement are in open revolt against mainstream America, I can guarantee you that acceptance of gays into general society will not be the choice of mainstream America. And make no mistake about it; Gays will never gain acceptance into society by revolting against and attacking mainstream America. >>>

LOL...Yeah, like your fellow black folks, right, Sun? It takes radicals and mainstreamers, a diverse coalition that waxes and wanes in its dominant character, not your de-historicized dream of homogenization.



[This message has been edited by musclehead2 (edited April 08, 2001).]

You go, Man!!!

At last, a voice of intelligence in the midst of all the game playing by Sun and his ilk!

There's a need for new scholarship into the diversity of gay experience in America. Most people are aware of people who share their values but don't know much about people who don't. I don't know any gays who are looking to joing the local Chamber of Commerce, and I assumed (incorrectly?) that there weren't many.

Similarly, I do not recognize myself in some of the accusations guys have made against me on this forum. I am not a social victim myself -- do I have to be? I believe this society has arbitrary victims, and that we don't do enough to correct things that ought to be corrected. Maybe my accusers, in stereotyping my beliefs, don't know any better.

Well sun?

Looks like you are outgunned. Not only does muscle have your number, but he is using it to make you look like an idiot. Not that it is a real challenge, but it is fun to watch.

Seasoned citizens like yourself often fall into the trap of limbaughesque rhetoric. Too bad you pine for inclusion in a community that will have nothing to do with you. I have to know, does the irony escape you, or did you remember to take your ginko today?

Anywhoo, your writing has improved. But you still lack the intelligence to pull off the multiple identity facade. Your attempts are so transparent that they would be funny were they not so desperate and sad. Here is a hint: don't claim to be a brother when your vocabulary is completely white bread. [that little episode ruined your credability but gave most of us the biggest laugh of the year 2000. I still chuckle over it!]

However, in the interest of inclusion I will congratulate you on your position as moderator. I am sure you relish it. I have stepped up my travel due to a recent promotion and haven't had time to hang around here as much. But I do notice the signifigance of the double G. Real cute.

So good luck Sun. Maybe the rest of us should hold your hand and tell you how right you are. That is what we do for most delusional old people. Why treat you any differently?

Tell us what you would like to hear. We will all repeat it back to you. right after matlock goes off and before you fall to sleep. Ha Ha HA!

Musclehead2, you are one sexy dude in how you xpress yourself. I'm sucking you off in my mind while you wax poetic and loving every minute of it... . Keep talking to me, man!

Some of these posts belong in the "cruising for a straight-acting husband in Middle America" website - there must not be one out there yet, so the posters come here, where I see so many postings for bareback sex I think this must be cruisingforHIV.com. But that's another topic... .

I'm constantly amused by references to "mainstream America," "traditional values," and "special rights for homosexuals" in what passes for political discussions distributed by our media. These are all code words in long-term use by, yes, right-wing homophobes. But no, I don't think all people who describe themselves as politically conservative are homophobic.

America is streaming alright, and that means it's constantly changing, constantly on the move. Are the Hindu Indian communities of Dallas and Silicon Valley mainstream America? Is an eighth generation New Mexican novelist and tarot card reader who can trace her history back to the Spaniards mainstream American, or is it the 19-year-old undocumented kid from across the border who delivers her pizza and loves Eminem? Is any native American anywhere mainstream American? Is a single, 60-year-old divorced accountant and wheelchair-bound Vietnam vet from Columbus OH mainstream America, or is it his circuit boy CPA son with three boyfriends and a girl friend he occasionally plays with? I'm just pulling images out of a hat at random, but it would be interesting to see how some of these posters would fill in the blanks, what I've not said about each character, based on our assumptions and experiences of what is America, or maybe what people think it SHOULD be. Why would we presume to know what ANY of these characters' politics are? And yet any one of them might describe himself or herself as "mainstream" depending on how the question is phrased.

"Traditional values" always means "I hate gays," in my mind, when I hear a person say it. "Mainstream America" might mean "anywhere you find large concentrations of overweight, Baptist heterosexuals who watch a lot of tv, don't earn a lot of money, and resent it," I suppose. "Special rights for homosexuals" ALWAYS means "equal rights for homosexuals" when I hear someone refer to it, because the speaker invariably is NOT in favor of equal rights for gays. So the right wing coined this term, "special rights," because it so neatly plays to the resentment and discontent of the dispossessed, disenfranchised and economically disadvantaged str8 white men who might be a part of that "mainstream America" referred to here. Many of these people and their forebears fought against CIVIL rights for African-Americans for the same reason, because at least being white, like being straight, conferred (and still does in many parts) SPECIAL rights for so long, at least in comparison to whomever could be kept lower on the totem pole.

All I can say is, thank god I live in New York, where there are tons of happy homos of all shapes and sizes, lots of willing dicks to suck, where ultra-capitalists and old-timey labor organizers co-exist (though never in the same co-op), where nelly drag queens (like our Mayor - ugh) rule, where theatre is everywhere, where you can get a great meal at almost any hour, and where Republicans, though rare, are also very nice and tolerant and mostly concerned with lowering taxes, protecting the environment and keeping government small, efficient and out of their lives. The latter, among those I know, are definitely not homophobes. Many are homos!

I have another question, the answers for which might reveal a great deal about our political views as gay, bi and cock-sucking "straight" men (LOL): who would you rather have dinner with, a conservative, str8-acting closet queen with a buff bod and a daring subscription to Out Magazine, or a 60-year-old pot-smoking, out-of-shape Radical Faerie, and WHERE (name a restaurant)?

[This message has been edited by Lex (edited April 08, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Lex (edited April 08, 2001).]

HornDogg (the moderator of "SEXUAL POLITICS") and SunDogg are the SAME person???

Say it isn't true! THE HORROR! THE HORROR! LOL!

If it is true, that certainly might explain the moderator's tendency to constantly get on bongo's back while looking the other way when Sun consistently instigates and provokes flaming (AND admits he enjoys "baiting" others). What silly game-playing.

At this point, it should be clear to everyone that Sun is a jackass. He shuld not be taken for anything but the instigator he takes such pride in boasting that he is in his own posts.

[This message has been edited by Jake2001 (edited April 09, 2001).]

Dear Abby (read: Guyncol and his Gang of One):

If I believed that I was 'outgunned' by a majority of 'one', I would not be posting here on the Sexual Politics Forum.

Before this forum was created, most political discussions were found on the Sex Advice Forum. That forum contained some lively discussions on politics too --- until one of the Cruisers decided he needed to take 'control' of those discussions. Once that Cruiser became the Moderator for that forum, his intent to dominate the political discussions became clear. It became clear to everyone ultruism and objectivity were not the reasons he wanted to control that forum.

Establishing this new Sexual Politics forum, to separate it from the Sexual Advice Forum (read: Dear Abby), was a good move on Keith's part. Keith took our "suggestions" to heart and established a separate forum. That is perhaps the best reason why Guyncol is better suited to moderate his Dear Abby Column in the Sex Advice Forum. Whether it is giving advice on Dress Codes for Cruising or educating straight brother-in-laws on gay cruising techniques at local city parks, you can be sure Guyncol will rise to the occasion.

You can now return to moderate your Dear Abby Column Guyncol. This 'dog' like 'other dogs' doesn't bury his bones in other people's yards.

As for Jake2001/Bongo/Swallowme/Musclehead/Lex/(fill in the blank...Guyncol) it really does take one 'dog' to know another 'dog'.

Here Dwight...fetch!

The Whitehouse announced today that Scott Evertz, an 'openly' gay Log Cabin Republican (so sorry ...Gay Stonewall Demos), has been nominated to head the newly reorganized Whitehouse AIDS Office. He will also become a member of the Whitehouse Domestic Policy Council.

See Dwight run. Run, Dwight, run. Fetch!

Whoosh! The sound made by knee-jerk reactionary Neo-Marxists on the Extreme Left when deprived of O2.

Let's see the usual knee-jerk convulsions from the revolutionary council of queer theorists--as expected and predicted.


nullLet's see the usual knee-jerk convulsions from the revolutionary council of queer theorists--as expected and predicted.

[ April 14, 2001: Message edited by: IGF Mbr2000469 ]

[ April 14, 2001: Message edited by: IGF Mbr2000469 ]

Ugh. I used my sex-cruising handle, musclehead2, erroneoulsy in this forum. Just want to be clear about that. I don´t want to give the impression, like some people, that I am trying to create a consensus through multiple screen names.

Sundog, are you or not the moderator of this forum? I think we have a right to know.

[This message has been edited by bongo (edited April 09, 2001).]

No, I am the mod. of this forum, I am Horndogg. If anyone would take the time to look at my profile, I'm from Salisbury, NC. I am from Charlotte,lived in New Orleans for several years. I'm 33 single, 5,11 180lbs work in the construction industry. Hiv+ for over 10years and don't want any pity, As I have said before I'm new at this and I am trying to keep a even and upper hand at the silly name calling and bitchy snipps from several of you. Gabe and Keith were babysitting last week because I was at a trade show in south beach and I cannot do this on the road, so please leave me out of the name calling and wondering if I'm several people or posting under several names. Thanks.

Sundogg-g-g-g-g...

while i appreciate being placed in the esteemed company you mentioned, i have only one "handle" on CFS. i guess it makes it easier for you to be smug in your beliefs if you think you are only arguing with one person, that way you don't look so out of it.

as for the Uncle Tom, er, Log Cabin Republicans' appointment to the White House "AIDS office"..last thing I heard/read about it was that the contact phone number for the office was simply an aswering machine in an empty office...appropriate symbology for an empty gesture from the Chief Homophobe.

Why not ask the Moderator himself? Duh?

Oh yes, I forgot. You have accused the Moderator of being unfair, biased, and in collusion with others -- conspiring to silence all the voices in your head.

Why would you ask the Immoderator anything after burning your own bridges? Since you obviously believe he and I are the same person, why bother?

I will say this much. Unlike Guyncol, the other phantom moderator from the Dear Abby column of Sex Advice, he hasn't censured our postings. Given that fact alone, one might infer reasonably and objectively, the moderator and I are not the same person.

The reason why we have a Sexual Politics Forum is because we no longer need to post in the Sex Advice Forum. The moderator of this forum, unlike the moderator for the 'other' forum, does not censure our postings to silence unpopular disent and disagreement with 'his' point of view. The moderator of this forum has been very fair and has not attempted to silence us.

Maybe you should try to be just a bit more charitable in your criticism while casually overlooking the obvious.

Nuff said?

Yeah, Swallowme, if you say so.

But...You still have to deal with your 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' sellout by the Clinton Administration. No matter how you spin it, you can't distance yourself from it. Sellouts in the name of political expediency are very painful reminders that some wounds never heal. And you thought Bill Clinton was your good buddy. Let us know when you finally leave Clinton's liberal plantation. Playing the willing role of a Liberal Plantation houseboy is so ungay.
=============================================
Horndog ~

I will apolgise for the fact that Jake2001 and others have suggested you and I are the same person. Owing to the fact that Bongo has admitted he posts as others, I would not expect anything to the contrary. You've been very tolerant, unbiased, and neutral in this forum. My thanks to you.

[This message has been edited by SunDogg (edited April 09, 2001).]

No alter ego or alternative handle here, Sundogg, just another individual with an opinion. I'm glad Bush named a gay man to head the national AIDS office and that the responsibilities of the position are increased, too. I hope they found someone who is up to the challenge.

The one article I read is not promising: Evertz himself implies that kissing Bush's ass when he visited candidate Bush with other LG Repubs in Texas last year might have made all the difference in getting the job ("my partner's daughter campaigned for you in the WI primary!"). But I suppose an ass-kissing middle American publicly gay man in the administration is better than none at all. I don't know Evertz's qualifications beyond his immediately past jobs as a fundraiser for AIDS nonprofits in WI. I know that he went to Marquette and has worked with Catholic nonprofits and gay Catholic groups in the past. This, too, does not make me very comfortable, though I admire and respect many Catholic clergy and lay people (I was raised Catholic). The problem is that the Catholic Church hierarchy in the USA and overseas has had an official policy of prohibiting, opposing and/or discouraging promotion of safe sex and condom use as cornerstones of sound public health policy. These policies are exactly those that have helped gay white men in this country arrest the spread of HIV in their subgroup. The Church's active opposition to this cornerstone of public health policy in the age of AIDS has not made fighting the spread of HIV and easier and arguably has cost more than a few lives.

I hope Evertz has been able to negotiate that obvious tension between Catholic authority and public health mandates with skill and confidence in his previous jobs without compromising his integrity. Let's see how he does in this job, which is a massively greater and more complex responsibility.

I think Colin Powell's personal interest in addressing Africa's epidemic of the disease may have helped preserve this office generally, because apparently the new administration previously had thought to eliminate it.

This administration is only a couple of months old. I've expressed my deep concern about its tax cut proposal and environmental positions in other posts, without suggesting that anyone who disagrees with me leave the Republican party or betray their personal political beliefs, in fact without calling into question anyone's politics but the President's. I'd just like to hear rational arguments in favor of the administration's actions, including more information about why this particular gay man is the best choice for this job. So far I've heard very few arguments in support of Bush's specific policies and proposals, just a lot of name-calling, mud-slinging and personal invective against some of us who've argued against some of the Republican party's positions.