"Are you gay? No? Then f*** off! This is my culture!"
This is my culture. How true do you think it is that cruising for anonymous sex in public is a part of gay male culture? I think it's bigger than the press would prefer to see. Years ago, I was amazed by how a city park in my neighborhood became a popular cruising grown for gay men seeking sexual encounters after dark. A guy I knew--young, good-looking, successful, the farthest thing from a gross troll--was one of them. He used to cruise public restrooms too, seeking anonymous sex. Had he been arrested, it would have destroyed his career, but I think the thrill of the thing drove him. When George Michael first got arrested for seeking gay sex in a public bathroom, a gay Republican male--very successful guy, well-dressed, in the public limelight, not at all a desperate troll--told me that this was a pretty normal part of gay male culture. He told me that he used to cruise public toilets looking for sex, in part because the stench of those locales smelled like "nectar."
I see that on a British gay website today, one writer is saying that this George Michael thing is no big deal:
"As gay men, there are very few of us who can deny copping off with a minger once in while. Some of us do it more than others and though it used to surprise me, seeing unbridled passion between a beauty and beast is something barely worth commenting on these days- especially when I'm one of them."Of course it is unfair and inaccurate to say that all gay men are into this, or even that most are. So don't misread me here. Still, I am curious to know to what extent George Michael's "This is my culture!" claim is true. And if it is, what are the rest of us supposed to think about gay male culture, and the degree to which it self-defines according to behavior that most people rightly find repulsive? I do believe, having seen the media's unwillingness to confront more openly the gay-culture aspect of the Catholic sex abuse scandal, it's pretty clear to me that the media, as a general rule, have a habit of sanitizing coverage that reflects badly on gay male culture. (See Get Religion's critique of a recent New York Times example of avoiding the pink elephant in the sacristy.)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
MNW-- "But it is those that profess they have the higher moral rectitude that always seem to align debauchery with being gay."
It is quite true (I gather from the brief comments here) that you and I look at the world from different perspectives, and it shouldn't be surprising that this entails also differing ways of understanding human sexuality.
From my point of view, it is not a question of my moral rectitude being higher than yours or yours than mine: for all I know, you may well live a much more moral life than I do; the question is, in this context, what we each mean by 'moral', right? and that is not going to be settled via exchanges in comboxes.
"As a gay man, the gay male culture to which I belong does not involve anything having to do with debauchery and sex. The gay culture I belong to is one of love and support...and a oneness with one another...we are family."
All I can say is it looks to me like we live in cultures that are, as it were, mirrored images of each other, there being, however, some imperfection in the glass, somehow: Catholics are meant to love and support one another, construct and experience a certain communion with each other, and consider themselves to be a family, of sorts. The Gospel requires us to to reject debauchery and to purify the marriage relationship of it.
It all returns to morality, I think, and what that is and whence we derive it: good people of good will are always going to end up disagreeing with each other if they are arguing on the basis of different definitions of what constitutes 'morality'.
Diarrhoea of the keyboard; sorry.>
Marc - It all returns to morality, I think, and what that is and whence we derive it: good people of good will are always going to end up disagreeing with each other if they are arguing on the basis of different definitions of what constitutes 'morality'.
Do you think it moral to promote and advocate for injustice? Do you think it moral to promote and advocate inequality in the application of the law? Do you think it moral to condemn others without due process of the law and without any recourse for their grievances to be heard? Do you think it moral to disregard an agreement made with another?
All of these things are diligently done by the Christianists (and that includes the Catholic church) of this country. I believe it all to be completely immoral...and quite counter to the teachings of Jesus Christ.>
"what we each mean by 'moral'"
Morality has to do with how we treat one another. After all, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is 'the sum of the laws and the prophets'.>
As it happens it is not an offence to `cruise` in the UK as long as it is seen as reasonable that no other person that would be offended would see you.
Who else but Gay men are going to Hampstead Heath at 2am in the morning?>
As a gay Christian myself, I believe in monogamy.
Cruising for sex in public toilets is not my way of life.
But human beings do have a penchant for ignoring their own inconsistent behaviors, as when bishops, monasteries and popes (in both East and West) owned slaves. For whatever reason, the devout believers of the 4th, 5th, 6th and later centuries just accepted slavery as part of their "culture".
As we learned over the centuries that slavery is a moral evil, I'd hope that gay guys into cruising would also come to the realization that random sex in public toilets doesn't come across as honoring or dignified.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.