Gay Culture 101

[JarethDrakul]

Not to be insulting, but I was wondering this...

What is it with gay men and Madonna, Cher, Bette Midler, and Liza Minelli? A classmate/friend of mine is gay, and he ADORES these three women (not to mention Julia Roberts and Marilyn Monroe). Can anyone explain these "gay icons"?

I've always found it weird that Cher and Bette Midler (never paid much attention to Madonna or Liza Minelli) are gay icons as I've liked them since I was very young (the first CD I ever bought was Cher's Greatest hits 1965-1992 and I got that in 1993 when I was like 2 (I was a baby with class ).

The apparently like the music style of Chanson is considered a "gay thing" in Japan

 

[ConcKahuna]

Speaking of Bette, I've always loved this song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhP-oA-IktY

 

[Travito]

It is sooo ironic that I stumbled upon this thread.

I've been a lurker for some time now..with the occasional post here and there. Well lately, I've been thinking of writing a book--a "Big Gay Handbook", so to speak...with various sections that include gay history, icons and why they are, "classifications" of gays/lesbians, issues of gay rights, etc.

But whats so ironic about this thread, is that I stumbled upon it moments after thinking "I should start outlining what I want to include in this book", but then decided to surf Disboards instead (ADD, much?).

But I mention this because I'm curious to hear if anyone would be interested in seeing such a book, if there are already some that exist (we don't have much gay-related literature/media in eastern kentucky), and what you would like to see included!!!

 

[rpmdfw]

Well, it's been out forever, and it's a "humor" book, but I think this one is a great start to the kind of thing you're talking about. http://www.amazon.com/Unofficial-Ga...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243389353&sr=8-1

Plus there's this one: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Growing-up-Gay/Funny-Gay-Males/e/9780786880560

I like these books because they poke fun at the stereotypes. But let's face it, stereotypes become stereotypes because they're very common. So, I think they're an amusing look at "gay culture".

Plus there are a LOT of "the history of the gay rights movement" books out there.

 

[Travito]

Well, it's been out forever, and it's a "humor" book, but I think this one is a great start to the kind of thing you're talking about. http://www.amazon.com/Unofficial-Ga...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243389353&sr=8-1

Plus there's this one: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Growing-up-Gay/Funny-Gay-Males/e/9780786880560

I like these books because they poke fun at the stereotypes. But let's face it, stereotypes become stereotypes because they're very common. So, I think they're an amusing look at "gay culture".

Plus there are a LOT of "the history of the gay rights movement" books out there.

Thanks for showing those ... Its nice to know what I need to steer clear of copying. It's going to be "humorous" at points (i.e. the classifications of gay men/lesbians). But not all of it is going to be (the history, science, etc.).

And the history part of it is only going to be, just that...a part. I'm not going to into great lengths and try and cover ever detail. Just bits and pieces of important moments (ancient Greece... Stonewall riots...Prop 8).

And I think I'm also going to include a "Science of homosexuality" section... mentioning research that's been done to prove homosexuality is genetic, as well as the occurrence of homosexuality/bisexuality in animals.

But can you think of anything that would be good for the book that you've not seen in any other book?

 

[OrlandoMike]

Dude..

If you can just clear up what the difference is between a Bear, a Wolf, and an Otter is for me..... I would be happy!

 

[Travito]

Dude..

If you can just clear up what the difference is between a Bear, a Wolf, and an Otter is for me..... I would be happy!

Bear -- Gay male generally with lots of facial botter hair.
Otter -- A "bear" that is skinny/lean.
Wolf -- An aggressive otter.

It kind of saddens me that I know that. LOL

 

[NHdisneylover]

So this seems to be the place to ask: what is the deal with techno? Seriously, people ask where the best gay night spots are now taht PI closed down and the discussions seems to go something like "well XYZ plays techno on Tuesdays and ABC plays techno on Fridays" etc. When did techno start to equal gay club and why? Ya'll usually have much better taste than that

 

[wallyb]

Speaking of Bette, I've always loved this song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhP-oA-IktY

Gay Trifecta!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YnlFp4CtvI&feature=related

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Personally, I think it would be nice to move away from labels, sub labels, and sub-sub labels. Being lesbian is enough thanks. I would hope being gay is enough too. "Naming" those minute differences between the community of gay folk seems to be a negative to me. Just be gay. It really is that easy.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

WOW! Hey Wally! NICE one!! Made the morning a bit brighter seeing Bette in that dress!

 

[SeattleRedBear]

Gay Trifecta!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YnlFp4CtvI&feature=related

OMG!!! Flip Wilson!!

But I couldn't tear my eyes away from this
this

Just wrong on so many levels! Kate's doing a Dame Edna.

Can't...tear...my...eyes...away....

 

[wallyb]

Bear -- Gay male generally with lots of facial botter hair.
Otter -- A "bear" that is skinny/lean.
Wolf -- An aggressive otter.

It kind of saddens me that I know that. LOL

So now we have to pick a woodland animal we identify with.

 

[rpmdfw]

So now we have to pick a woodland animal we identify with.

I don't remember THAT from Auntie Mame or The Women or The Boys in the Band . . . .

 

[wallyb]

Okay -If I have to pick I'm going with
Snagglepuss!

Heavens to Murgatroid!

 

[rpmdfw]

Okay -If I have to pick I'm going with
Snagglepuss!

Heavens to Murgatroid!

 

[TuckandStuiesMom]

But can you think of anything that would be good for the book that you've not seen in any other book?

History -- I thought it was sad when Mr. Conck posted that somebody he knew didn't know about Stonewall.

Another section that I think might be interesting/useful would be a section on legal precedents. Last summer, I had reason to do some research on women's employment law and it was fascinating. "Disparate impact" is a particular interesting topic.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

SeattleRedBear, the best thing about that video was the rainbow! Was kind of fun to watch though!

 

[kaffinito]

Well, I don't know about all ya'lls but I'm of the opinion that all the gay people here are "super gay people!"

In so much as "feeling other" that can apply to anyone in almost any setting in which they are supposed to fit or interact and don't. Adoptive parents, stay at home Dads, etc.

However, I would argue (and yep, that means there will be differing points of view ) that being gay is a comprehensive "other" that is not by choice (as is adoption, staying at home to raise children, etc.) rather by existence.

It's not to claim a "greater" sense of disenfranchisement rather to acknowledge that I have a personal dislike for the tendency to to diminish the realities of being gay within a het society. When the topic is brought up, far too many times some non-gay folk will rush to point out how "they feel the same way for different reasons." Ummmm...nope. Those perceptions may provide empathy, but are not the same any more than my being of European descent and a lesbian gives me "the same" sense of being as a woman of color who is hetersexual. We may have empathy for one another's recognition of being "other" but we do not have the same "feelings" or responses to the "condition" of being other.

Which is true, but the feelings of being an "other" still persist, whether or not the person who is feeling that "otherness" is coming from exactly the same perspective that you are. We can all relate to one another on a larger level, without getting to the point of having our individual feelings held to an exactness.

And yes, you are correct that we don't have the same feelings and responses to the condition of otherness, but then how could we? Unless we all live in the same environment, and have had exactly the same experiences, we can't have exactly the same responses to otherness. You won't have the same responses to otherness that I have, because you are accepted by the community you identify with, whereas I have none. KWIM?

I never make the assumption that my level of otherness will match anyone elses, or that my empathy will be perfect, but I do treasure that empathy and that connection that our feelings of disenfranchisement gives us. Sometimes it's a meeting of "likes" and other times it's a meeting of "I can relate" but in each case I know how you feel, even if I don't have exactly the same set of feelings that you do.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

As I said, "there will be differing points of view."

I do not accept the "I know how you feel" unless you come from the same reference point.

"I understand that what you are feeling is painful, distressing, ect. because I can relate to it given my separate but related experience..." yes, that I agree with.

But someone telling me "I know how you feel" when they are not in the same situation as I (whether it be lesbian, or grieving the loss of a loved one, or someone who has wiped out on a motorcycle, ect.) is in my opinion patronizing.

Even within a same reference point (loss of a beloved person in one's life, for example) I never say "I know how you feel" because I don't. I know how I FELT when I suffered a loss, and that allows me to be compassionate and understand that you are facing aching loneliness and pain, but to absolutely know how someone feels? Nope. It's more than semantics for me you see. It's that psycholinguistic major thing. The words we use do matter, they do order our society, and they do set the tone and create the atmosphere for social exchange.

As I said, "there will be differing points of view." Your position is as valid for you, and mine is for me. Nothing to change on either front.