Friday a week ago, I’d had an unusually long day with Lain and she was unusually fussy. So when Clancy got home from work, I asked if she could take care of the little lady. She could, and I was off to the supply store just to get out of the house.
Around closing time, a conversation was struck up with one of the cashiers, who was off for the evening. She asked how my daughter was. I’d only then been able to place her as one of the counter girls who had gooed and gahed over the cute little bundle that is our daughter. I told her that Lain was good and that her mother was looking after her while I got a break. We talked a little bit about babies. She mentioned that she is still a little daddy’s girl.
This got me talking about how Clancy and I felt when we didn’t know whether Lain was going to be a boy or a girl. I’d said that though we officially had no preference but a healthy baby, I had leaned slightly towards wanting a boy while Clancy had leaned slightly in the other direction. I come from a family of boys, she comes from a family of girls, it was a matter of familiarity as much as anything else. On the whole, I explained, there were advantages either way. With a boy, there’d be someone to carry on the family name. Since I come from a family of boys, I’d have a better idea what to do with a son. Though boys and girls both play sports, one is conditioned to be more enthusiastic about sports and the other about other things.
On the other hand, I would go on, as with the counter girl herself, while a son is more likely to be a son until he marries, a daughter is more likely to be a daughter for life. Having a girl is, for me, more adventurous. Without thinking about it, I also commented that if Lain turned out to be a lesbian, it’d be easier for her to have children than for a gay son. I say “without thinking about it” because I’m in a red county of a red state. A western state, sure, but even so. Beyond that, despite the cigarette in her hand and the fact that she was 25 and unmarried, she was wearing a BYU jacket and gave off Mormon airs. I don’t typically like to so forcefully bring contentious politics into family chatter.
But… “Right on,” she replied. She grinned and added, “Plus, if she’s a lesbian, her kids might get your last name.”
Which I hadn’t even thought of!
One of the “gotchas” I’ve known critics of homosexuality to pull is “Would you want your child to be gay?” Because, after all, if there’s nothing wrong with being gay, there should be no problem there. Now, the perfectly correct answer to that is “I will love him or her no matter what she is.” But that’s sort of an evasion. As with the Boy vs. Girl, is there a preference? At all? And I could deny that there was, but historically I’ve had a little hope of straightness due to (if it’s a boy) reproduction and discrimination. Ultimately, for the same reason I hope that any son I have is over six feet tall, and any daughter I have is under six feet. I will love the child no matter what, but I do hope certain things for their sake. They’ll have a social deck stacked against them anyway by virtue of being the spawn of Clancy and myself.
One of the most amazing things over the last couple of years is how much that has changed. How much more accepted homosexuality is, and how much anti-gay sentiment is censured. I figured that this would happen, and BYU Girl didn’t surprise me as much as she might have in part because of her age and how young people see it differently. Generational waves, a compelling argument, and I did think this change would happen. But seeing it happen has made for a whole new experience. And I find, the confirmation of it makes me more genuinely less averse to the possibility that Lain, or her future younger siblings, might swing in the other direction. That the two really are tied together, and it’s not just the excuse that the asker of the question of the previous paragraph assumes it to be.
I’m not arguing that it has ceased to be an issue. Or even that it will when Lain comes of age. Being a lesbian would mean that large parts of the country would be infertile ground for her to set down roots. It’s unlikely that a lot of the religions preaching against homosexuality now will completely change their tune on the subject. But there will be a lot of places, even in the south and even in the west, where she would be able to live peaceably. Plenty of places for her own place to be.
And, if she has a son, he will be able to carry on the William Truman name.
Ten years ago I would have had more of a preference than I do now for my sons being straight. That preference doesn’t come from my having a problem with homosexuality so much as knowing that being gay means having to deal with bigotry and barriers – not something you really want for your child to have to deal with.
But I think for my kids it’s less of a problem now than 10 years ago. Their peers all seem to be OK with the whole concept of being gay, and most all of them have a family member or friend of the family that’s gay. We’ve come a hell of a lot farther in the past 10 years than I had been expecting.
This.
as long as he’s not a juggalo i don’t care what my son is.
On the one hand, I would worry terribly about the unique discrimination my potentially gay child would face.
On the other hand, at the risk of being presumptuous, I’m fairly confident that a gay child in my household is going to be more loved and better supported than a gay child being dropped randomly into any ol’ American household. So, if there is some predetermined amount of gay children that were born in 2013, I guess I’d rather Mayonnaise be one of them.
Similar to the use of this “gotcha” question, when folks argue that “reverse racism” is worth than regular racism or that white people are the real victims in our society, I’ll sometimes ask, “Would you rather be black or white right now?” Lots of hemming and hawing.
Since several people in this thread are saying that they don’t care, or would even prefer that their children be homosexual, does that mean that anti-gay discrimination is no longer a real issue?
That depends, I suppose, on what you mean by “no longer a real issue”. Does that fact that some injustice is less pervasive mean that it is somehow less unjust?
I’d also question how much the readers at this blog are representative of society at large. We are kind of a self-selected bunch here, after all.
Brandon,
Since you replied to me, I’ll elaborate…
I think it is much harder to be gay in American society than to be straight. I think that things are better now than they once were, but they are no doubt still harder. So, with that in mind, I would not wish being gay on anyone. And by that I mean I would not wish the way in which we treat gay people on anyone.
Now, if the frequency of homosexuality is relatively stable, such that X% of babies each year are born gay, I would rather a gay child end up in my household, where I know the sort of love and support it would get than get his/her spin of the wheel, where it is likely to end up in a household for less loving or supportive.
All that said, however Mayonnaise or my future children turn out, they will be loved and supported and accepted for who they are.
Unless they’re red heads… then they’re dead to me.
It doesn’t matter a bit what Lain’s preference turns out to be. What matters is that she be a moral person, one who fulfills her potential, and lives a happy life. And while we aren’t all the way there yet in terms of acceptance and won’t be for at least a generation, things are getting better so if it turns out she does like girls and not boys, that portion of “happiness” which is derived from “social acceptance” will be readily available to everyone.
I don’t think your optimism is warranted.
To say it doesn’t matter a “bit” is really oversimplifying the matter.
I sometimes say “I really hope Alice is a lesbian.” This is usually in response to someone saying about her “She’s going to be a handful when she’s a teenager.” Honestly, I don’t have a preference. I don’t even have a preference that she accept her biological gender. I just know I’ll love her the same whatever way she ends up loving other people.
I don’t know if I would be so sanguine if I hadn’t come out as gay/bi/queer 18 years ago. I’ve seen things improve sooooo much, and my older mentors have told me how my gay youth experience was that much easier than theirs. I know the world will have enough opportunities for my daughter regardless of her outward identity.
I have three daughters, and I have a very strong preference in favor of them being lesbian, because their odds of being harmed or killed by a female partner would be dramatically lower than their odds of being harmed or killed by a male partner. That’s the whole story, as far as I’m concerned.
Unfortunately, kids always disappoint their parents, and ours give every indication of being as straight as mom and dad are. Sigh.
http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml
Whatever.
Yeah, turns out people are people everywhere, warts and all.
“Whatever”
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking.
You are an ass.
You’ve been doing better lately, Mike, but cimments like this (no substance, merely insult) don’t help.
Fair enough, I withdraw. I will allow the comment by J@m3z Aitch to stand on its lack of merit.
Well, I won’t dispute being an ass, but I don’t see what’s so problematic about a father realizing that men are a source of real danger to women. Now if I’m factually wrong in thinking a lesbian partner is less likely to do serious harm to my daughter than a straight male partner, I’ll be happy to review any evidence you present.
But here’s one study that partially supports and partially undermines my claim. It reports that amother study found that while lesbians in committed relationships have rates of abuse (25%) similar to that of straight couples (27%), lesbians who are only dating had much lower rates of abuse (.05%) than heterosexual couples (19%).
Based on a review of other studies they conclude that the overall rate of violence among lesbian couples is about 11%. This seems to me lower than the rate they report for heterosexual couples, nonetheless they conclude, based, I think, on some definitional distinctions between types of abuse, that this is about the same as among straight couples. But yet they emphasize that the type of abuse is milder in same-gender couples. As a father, if my daughter is necessarily going to be at risk of abuse, I would at least like it to be a milder form.
So I’ll cop to being an ass in general, but I assume you had some substantive point that was implied by saying so. Evidence supporting your substantive point, and rebutting the article I cite, would be a welcome addition to the debate.
Thanks, Mike. While you seem to be in an agreeable mood, your pseudonym has come up in some backroom conversations. We’d like you start going by a new one.
James,
I didn’t read the report, but those rates of abuse seem very high. I’m surprised.
But I might also be naive. I’m not disputing the numbers. As I said, I haven’t read the report and probably wouldn’t know how to critique it if I did. But if the numbers are even close to being right, it’s a sad state of affairs.
Pierre,
Agreed. It surprised me, too.
@Will Truman
Fair enough, I will starting with the next new thread I post in. I do want to point out that this name got your seal of approval (or at least a lack of objection) at your other place.
@James Hanley
While I cannot refute the study, I do want to point out a couple of things…
1) Guys and girls don’t get matched up randomly. The more attractive the girl is, the better class of guy she is going to get. That better class of guy is less likely to abuse her. As we have discussed over at HC, a woman in an abusive relationship is often-times in the best relationship she can find, sadly. It’s either be abused or be alone. I don’t know how attractive your daughter is, but if she is, she will find a quality guy (hopefully).
2) While a male partner is generally going to overpower a woman, a woman can easily be overpowered by another woman. This is especially true is one female partner is more masculine than the other. If your daughter is more feminine than masculine, her dating a masculine woman isn’t going to help mitigate the risk of being abused. Furthermore, people of all body types can use weapons.
3) This is purely anecdotal, but women tend to be much more vicious than men. If you consider mental cruelty to be abuse, then she is better off dating boys.
I would point out that there is actually data on the relationship between attractiveness and relationship abuse, and that data makes it clear that attractiveness and abuse are uncorrelated (not positively and not negatively), but I think even a casual observer of the world would probably have already known that.
Mike, thanks. And yeah, the rules are different here than at Hit Coffee.
Plus, they’d have a much lower risk of picking up an STD or getting pregnant at an inopportune state of their lives.
Yes, this, too.
I condede that a lesbian relationship makes the pregnancy risk practically nil. However, I am going to need a cite to believe your STD claim.
I am pretty sure this is true from a logistical standpoint. For basically the same reason that, in any given encounter with someone infected, a man is less likely to contract an STD from an infected woman, I think an infected woman is also less likely to contract an STD from an infected woman. Which would put gay men at particularly high risk, but gay women at substantially lower risk.
That’s my understanding, anyway.
Here.
Mike, I have cited research articles. You have only made unsubstantiated claims. I’ll take your claims seriously when you back them up with data.
So long as they don’t grow up to be Dodger fans.
Priorities.
I live in a mixed household right now. I admit, it’s painful to see the boy in a Dodger hat.
I want my children to be happy and comfortable in their own skin so that they can strive for their dreams. And if that means they’re gay, I’m okay with that. If it means changing gender, that’s okay, too. What I don’t want is to put them in a box they feel they can’t climb out of without offending me. The only thing that would really offend me is feeling like they have to hide their true selves.
Any rational person would prefer that their children be straight rather than gay.
Gay people are subjected to discrimination that straight people aren’t, and few people try to “pass” as gay, while gay people try to pass as straight all the time.
For those who think social mores are changing vis-a-vis this issue, they are, but not quickly enough for your children to be truly equal. Also, the whole world isn’t NYC and SF; there is a whole middle of the country where all this talk sounds ridiculous. Despite living in the PRNJ, I, much like my black brothers and sisters, don’t really give a shit about gay rights.
Of course, having a gay teenager changes the whole sleep-over dynamic. Would you allow your 15 year old lesbian to have a girl spend the night? If yes, would you allow her 15 year old straight sister to have a boy spend the night?
I’m not a parent and my fiancee and I are never going to have children, so for me this is all theoretical for me.
On one level, you’re probably correct that some (many?) things would be easier if someone is straight rather than gay.
(One piece of anecdatum: I know at least one gay couple who has told me that they wouldn’t wish being gay on anyone, especially based on their experiences (they were born in the early 1960s….maybe if they had been born later they would have a different view). They don’t deny who they are, but they had a hard time for most of their childhood and early adult lives.)
However, orientation is so much a part of who one is, that to “prefer” my (hypothetical) children to be one or the other is in a sense denying who they might be.
I admit I have my moments where I wonder if sexual orientation would be as much an integral part of who we are if our society were more accepting of people with differing orientations. So perhaps orientation is not as much an integral part of who we are as it seems to me.
But of course and again, this is more a theoretical proposition for me.
Hmmm.
Fun to play one of JB’s games and replace ‘gay’ with ‘girl’ in this comment.
See? It’s a useful tool!
Yes, but think of the . . .
Oh, . . . Wait a minute . . . Already there .
Also, the whole world isn’t NYC and SF; there is a whole middle of the country where all this talk sounds ridiculous.
Well, I live in a blue collar neighborhood of a very small blue collar town in a Midwestern state where we constitutionally banned SSM, and this talk sounds less and less ridiculous as time goes by. (And I’m pretty sure the two women who live behind us are a couple, but nobody seems bothered.)
Of course, having a gay teenager changes the whole sleep-over dynamic. Would you allow your 15 year old lesbian to have a girl spend the night? If yes, would you allow her 15 year old straight sister to have a boy spend the night?
Oh, dear, the issue raises new and possibly difficult questions, so obviously any rational person prefers to just say no to the issue, rather than think through the answers to the new questions. Because rationality sure isn’t about thinking, or anything like it.
“Of course, having a gay teenager changes the whole sleep-over dynamic. Would you allow your 15 year old lesbian to have a girl spend the night? If yes, would you allow her 15 year old straight sister to have a boy spend the night?”
Eh, I doubt I’d object. I certainly wouldn’t object to my gay child sharing a locker room with same sex friends or classmates nor to my straight child sharing a locker room with gay friends or classmates. If I had reason to believe there was something more than friendship going on, I’d need to have a talk with them about my expectations. Of course, I say this as someone who did have sleepover with opposite sex friends. A few basic rules and a lot of trust go a long way.
A sleepover between two lesbian teenage girls is MUCH more intimate than a locker-room scenario. To expect them to NOT fool around is wishful thinking.
Of course, if you personally have no problem with that, that’s fine too.
Well, you didn’t say both girls were lesbians. You said one was. If both are, that might change the calculus. Might.
Do you assume that any teenage boy and any teenage girl, both heterosexual, left in a room with the door closed, will immediately tear each other’s clothes off? Because that was not my experience.
If you don’t assume that about heterosexual teens, why would you assume that about gay teens?
My teenage years would’ve been a lot more exciting if this was true.
What a coincidence. I don’t give a shit about your concern trolling.
I’ve managed to live the last decade of my life as a out gay man and had a grand total of one bad experience because of homophobia. I recognize I’m still lucky in that regard. But the days when prejudice had a significant negative impact on quality of life for gays and lesbians are mostly gone for people in my generation.
For these kids? Who are almost thirty years younger than me? Sure in some backwater town in Alabama they’d probably still have a miserable time if they were gay. But support for gay rights grows at 2% per year, and has done so reliably for a decade. If trends continue, by the time these folks are adults, that support will be effectively 100% in most of the country.
Yet for young adults, grappling with their orientation, how to deal with family is still a loaded minefield.
And vast numbers of straight parents will have to negotiate that field with (hopefully) their children; want to or not.
So I’m not certain that a post exploring the topic from a parent’s perspective rises to the level of concern trolling, and because it may be easier for children tomorrow then it was for my brothers 30 years ago does not seem reason to end such conversation.
All true. But in keeping with the OP, I’d say a a gay kid with parents who either preferred they were gay or were entirely neutral on the issue will find it a lot easier to deal with their family. 😉
Er, sorry. That was meant to be attached to Mike Rice Hunt’s comment specifically. I think as a whole this discussion is a wonderfully interesting topic. I also think MRH is using the existence of homophobia to justify his own homophobia–And that’s not cool.
Thank you Alan; I then beg your forgiveness for my response.
I am not homophobic; I just don’t buy into the gay rights agenda.
What do you mean by “agenda”? What about this “agenda” don’t you buy into?
I ask because when people use “gay rights agenda” or “gay agenda,” that’s usually, but perhaps not always or necessarily, an indication of someone who goes into histrionics just because gay people want to be treated like human beings and citizens. Your comments, and especially the tone in which they are offered (“I don’t give a sh– about gay rights”), seem to indicate that’s what you mean.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lz_granderson_the_myth_of_the_gay_agenda.html
@Pierre Corneille
I fully support the Lawrence v Texas ruling.
For those who think that isn’t much of a concession, I want to remind you that it only passed 6-3. Therefore, I am more supportive than Antonin Scalia, the late William Rehnquist, and Clarence Thomas.
I think at that point it should have all stopped. But, as they say, when you give someone 2.54 cm, they take 1.61 km.
I didn’t know what a concern troll was so as a favor to you I looked it up.
I am not a concern troll. Just because I am a Democrat doesn’t mean I have to buy into the entire DNC platform. Remember, we are the big tent party, and as I mentioned before, there is a large block of Democrats who don’t give a fig about gay rights.
Also, your understanding of statistics is laughable.
there is a large block of Democrats who don’t give a fig about gay rights.
That there is a large block of Democrats who don’t give a fig about equality is something for the party to be ashamed about. That you don’t give a fig about equal rights for all is not to your credit.
I’m not ashamed one bit. Remember, we are the big tent party; they aren’t going to revoke my membership anytime soon.
Also, to keep gay people under our tent, all we have to do is be a hunt-hair more amenable to the gay rights agenda than the GOP is. And I would say that I am much more in favor of the gay rights agenda than the GOP is.
This was a really nice, thoughtful post.
My response is to say that I would not be the same person in fundamental ways if I were straight. True, there may have been less adversity, but I also would have missed out on the subtler benefits of seeing the world from an “outsider” perspective.
Alan and Zane, thanks! I was actually a little trepidatious bringing all of this up.
There was a 2005 film called The Family Stone.
In it, Sarah Jessica Parker plays an uptight character, dating a member of the Stone family, who are much more liberal.
One of the Stone siblings is gay, and his mother (Diane Keaton) says that she wishes all of her sons had turned out to be gay. SJP asks Keaton if she is serious, and the conversation goes downhill from there. Because of the Pink Mafia, of course SJP is presented as the bad guy in the scene.
What a tiresome person you are.
Not to step on Burt’s and Will’s toes here, but this comment is more insult than substance.
You know I love you, Doc – and I can understand frustration – but we should attack the ideas, not the person.
Yeah, we probably should avoid such comments (which I gave Mr. Rice a hard time about yesterday).
No, you’re right and your criticisms are fair. It was too personal and I should have thought better than posting so quickly in anger. It was ill-c0nsidered and not in keeping with the standards of the community.
So, Mike, I owe you an apology. Whatever my qualms with your comment, I should have dealt with them and not made a personal remark. I regret the error in judgment.
What a bizarre thread this is.
I dunno, “Because of the Pink Mafia, of course SJP is presented as the bad guy in the scene.” is pretty tiresome.
MHR had a comment worthy of response in there… but then he had to go and crap on it, and make it far less worthy of response.
Per Jonathan’s well-taken suggestion (well-taken because although he wasn’t addressing me, I nodded in approval when I read Russell’s comment), here is my answer to Mr. Rice’s idea and argument, as far as I can most charitably discern and represent it, and keeping in mind that Mr. Rice has occasionally strayed in this thread from attacking others’ ideas (e.g., above with “your understanding of statistics is laughable” with no explanation of why that understanding was laughable and with his “gay rights agenda” and “I don’t give a sh– about gay rights”).
In order to do so–again, charitably, and in order to extend a courtesy he does not seem to extend to others–I’ll have to replace “[b]ecause of the Pink Mafia” with “intolerant liberal political correctness” or “patronizing, self-righteous bigotry in the name of some ideal.” Also, in order to be charitable, he might have a point: I’ve met a lot of people who held the (to me) “correct” view about certain social justice matters, that is, they knew the “right answer” and were quite priggish about it. Heck, I’ve been one of those persons myself.
I do think the scene he refers to might be read the way he does. However, if one looks at the scene in its fuller context–when the gay brother’s mom reassures him that she and her husband love him and accept him–I think it’s easy to realize that this scene was not purely about self-righteous priggishness. It’s about Parker’s character saying something insensitive and immediately hurtful to someone who is in the room at that moment and being criticized about it.
I agree that Parker’s character is presented as the bad guy, but there’s a story arc to the movie that in my view is much more nuanced and less judgmental than “she’s a bad person, exhibit 1,257 is this scene where she insults the gay family member.” (In fact, when I saw the commercials for the movie, I assumed it would be a simplistic “family friendly treacle but hopefully with some brief nudity” movie and I was pleasantly surprised to find that it had a real and in my opinion well-textured story.)
Parker is having trouble managing the priorities in her life and strongly dislikes herself as a person, even if she doesn’t quite realize she dislikes herself (at least that’s how I read her character). When she visits her fiance’s family, which is an environment she is not used to (and to be fair, one that has certain norms that she can’t quite grok easily or right away), she’s forced to confront the ways in which she is a bad person, or at least a person who sometimes does hurtful things, and then to learn the ways in which she’s actually a better person than she thought, in part by learning that even though she hurts people with her abrupt mannerisms and cluelessness about how her abruptness can be hurtful to people in this new environment (e.g., the scene Mr. Rice is talking about), she is a person as deserving of love as the next.
That’s my gloss on the movie. I saw it only once and perhaps I’m missing something or misremembering a lot of it. I don’t insist that mine is the only way to interpret the film, but I think I’m on pretty solid ground in suggesting that the scene Mr. Rice mentions actually advances the arc of the story and is not simply a way to demonize people who “speak the truth” about how bad it is to be gay or to demonstrate the “pink mafia’s” scoring of another victim.
Here’s my none-too-generous take. If I wrote comments talking about the black mafia and not giving a fig about the African-American agenda, I think I’d probably kick up a shitstorm. I don’t find writing about pink and gay in those terms is any better.
A little Martin Niemoller would go a long way here.
It would be improper for you to talk of the black mafia because it has a proper name: Rainbow/PUSH.
With you referencing Niemöller, I hereby invoke Godwin’s Law. You lose.
Meant to comment on this when it was posted, then got distracted by something or another.
Anyhow, I will admit outright that until the events of the past few years, I would probably have wanted my kids to be straight, just because life would be easier in a lot of different ways for them. But seeing how things really have changed (certain commenters on this thread notwithstanding), I really have far less worry about it.
As for me, I’m with Zane. I wouldn’t not be gay, even if I could have changed. It’s given me a perspective on life I wouldn’t be without, and has also made it so easy to have close friendships with lots and lots of women without the faintest difficulty knowing the terms of the relationship.
Goodgood. Like I said, I was a little worried about writing this post because I didn’t want to speak for gay folks about how much better things have gotten over the last year, and didn’t want to minimize what y’all are still up against.
I also get what you and Zane are saying about the whole thing playing a role in who you are and not wanting to give that up even if you could. That makes a lot of sense.
(Though, your last sentence actually has me wondering… have you – or Zane, Alan, North, or anyone else – ever had an issue with a woman who wanted to “change” you? Don’t answer if that’s too personal a question, but it is kind of something I’m curious about and obviously wouldn’t see for myself.)
Not really.
I’ve been propositioned by women twice. Both of them were quite beautiful, and both were friends. Neither wanted to “change” me, and one was pretty bombed when she came on to me so I think it was more the hooch than anything else. The other just thought it would be fun to have sex.
I turned them both down.
I came into my full sexual maturity in Minnesota. This means that people are a bit… mmm… gun shy about expressing interest. In Minnesota you pretty much have to be married before you’re comfortable standing on the same throw rug together. So while some of my girl acquaintances have occasionally given the vibe that they thought it was a shame that I (or especially my Husband) were gay they never overtly expressed interest.
You make Minnesota sound delightful to my repressed little heart.
*snickers* I know a guy who a good deal of folks said “If you’re not gay now, you will be…”
Yeah, he’s still into girls.
…have you – or Zane, Alan, North, or anyone else – ever had an issue with a woman who wanted to “change” you?
Twice when I was an undergraduate, female friends had crushes on me. One was pretty quiet about it but finally asked “if maybe there was a chance…?” It broke my heart to tell her there was no chance. Another time, a different woman was much more forceful. She got drunk and kissed me at a party. It was awkward and embarrassing, and when she sobered up we never spoke of it.
I had crushes on straight guys, so there was plenty of angst all around. The difference was that it never would have occurred to me to ask a straight guy if there was a chance, much less kiss someone I knew to be straight. The possible consequences were too dire to consider. (This was late 1980s Oklahoma.)
As mentioned below, I had a couple incidents that could be described as “come ons” from gay or bisexual kids (one I think was gay, the other I think claimed bisexuality, though it always seemed to be guys he was with). But I think it’s mostly taken for granted that straight is straight (despite the ‘everybody is bi’ meme of the 90’s). I was wondering if you guys got the next thing, which is that “gay isn’t necessarily totally gay” due to heteronormivity (is that the word)?
Sounds like the ladies were generally respectful.
The woman who kissed me at the party said something like “you’ll never know unless you try it.” I think it was what you describe–when people veer from heterosexuality, it’s because they haven’t really given it a chance. That sort of thinking was much more common then.
“I’ve been propositioned by women twice. Both of them were quite beautiful… I turned them both down.”
What’re you… gay?
Deeply.
*casually buffs ‘Perfect Six!’ medal from the Kinsey Institute*
*leaves out the ‘Gold-Star Gay’ certificate where others might see it*
“Oh… this old thing?”
Will, I just thought of an issue that still affects many gay and lesbian kids. No matter how supportive the schools, community, and parents, there’s still a great numerical disparity between gay and lesbian kids and their straight counterparts. As kids come out in high school and junior high, they typically have few or no other lesbian or gay peers.
This wasn’t as much an issue when I was a high schooler, I never even thought I’d be out until college. But as things have gotten better, people come out younger and want to have the same experiences their straight friends do. But the potential dating pool is much smaller. I wonder if gay and lesbian kids still don’t get the typical developmental experiences just due to scarcity.
(I’ve actually intentionally left bi and trans out of this comment. I’m guessing the experiences aren’t precisely the same, but I can’t really speak to it.)
Zane,
As a teacher, I’ve often thought about this when people look at the frequency of suicide, mental illnesses, (supposed) sexual proclivity, and other indices of (supposed) atypical development in gay teens and young adults. Besides the discrimination they face, I can see how having limited options to date and otherwise explore relationships and sexuality can be stunting or otherwise traumatic. I know if you told me that I couldn’t date until I was in college or beyond, that would have had some profound impact. I offer it as a counter to folks who point to the struggles that gay young people face as indicative of some inherent flaw in their being.
Of course, this isn’t unique to gay young people, as many who grow up in fundamentalist and other conservative households often have similar restrictions placed on their socializing, albeit via different mechanisms.
Besides the discrimination they face, I can see how having limited options to date and otherwise explore relationships and sexuality can be stunting or otherwise traumatic. I know if you told me that I couldn’t date until I was in college or beyond, that would have had some profound impact.
I think what you say is true, but many people can’t/don’t date until college. High school can be a bad bad time regardless of one’s sexual orientation.
I recognize that my experiences become less useful as a measure for others as I get older, but what made life so very difficult for me was the profound sense of loneliness I felt. Not only was dating off the table in high school, but so was any sense of connection or authenticity. I didn’t think I could be out to my family or peers (and I still believe my assessment was right at that time). I told no one about a pretty fundamental part of myself. As far as I knew, I’d never actually met another gay person. Homosexuality was so hush-hush, I thought I’d have to move to New York or San Fransisco to find anyone. It never occurred to me that there were many gay folks in Oklahoma.
When I was a senior in high school, I worked up the courage to call the Gay Helpline in Oklahoma City. The guy was empathetic, but essentially told me to just “hold on” until I was 18 and could move away. I didn’t have a terrible family, I wasn’t singled out for bullying. I was lucky that I “passed” easily, but I felt pretty alone in the world for a long time. Adolescence can be a rough time anyway, but feeling like there is truly no one to share your burdens with makes it worse.
I can’t tell you how glad I am that the world is different now. There is still homophobia, but at least people know there are others out there.
I may have gotten a little sidetracked on my own experiences there. Sorry about that.
I appreciate you bringing this up. I hope to respond soon.
I may have gotten a little sidetracked on my own experiences there. Sorry about that.
I’m glad you did. This is an issue I care passionately about, but one I can never have personal experience with. So my best chance for real understanding comes from hearing real people share their real experiences and perceptions. And just walking up to people and asking is a bit rude. So I appreciate the volunteered recounting of your experiences.
I can appreciate the problem. But I’m not sure that the solution is anything other than creating an environment where people can openly be as they are inwardly — a social forum in which people can be out with no fear or shame.
From there, it has to be up to individuals. The whole point of a romantic relationship is that it’s mutually voluntary. And you’re right that numerically, most kids are going to be straight and will tend to pair up into heterosexual couples.
But maybe there’s cause for hope.
Race was beginning to recede as an issue, but still a bigger deal when I was a kid than it is to kids now — it was thought of as unusual for a white kid to be dating a Latino kid. A white kid dating a black kid was just not a possibility, although no one ever said so out loud. There were two black kids in my high school, a guy and a girl. They dated off and on the whole time. It seemed like they had little choice but to do that. I know from being casual friends with the guy (we were friends on campus, but didn’t hang out socially outside of school), that he had an appreciation for white girls and Latina girls too. But so far as I know he never dated any of them. I don’t think he felt he had a choice to do more than look.
Now, when I visit a high school campus, I see kids paired up in every combination of the rainbow. They seem to think nothing of dating someone whose skin color and ancestry are different from theirs. I think back to my friend from high school and I think that he must be a little bit jealous of these kids because they aren’t as socially limited as we were back at that age.
Maybe by the 2040’s, it’ll be like that for gay and bi kids too.
Zane (& Kazzy et al),
I had actually thought of that. From a numbers standpoint, it would be a concern. Now, I’m a guy that didn’t really date until my senior year in high school. I did have a few intimate experiences prior to that. Which isn’t the worst track record, in the grand scheme of things. But I owe what success I had primarily to the BBSing world of the day. Had that not happened, it’s only a “maybe” for ever having dated in high school. Things had started to turn around for me by my senior year, so I can’t say it wouldn’t have happened. But I did leave high school never having dated (or anything) a student there.
And the BBS experience that helped me along would have helped gay kids, too. Gays and bisexuals were relatively common in the BBS world. Particularly the latter (more below). As a straight guy, I garnered at least vague interest from a gay guy and a bisexual guy – both of whom wanted to know how sure I was that I was straight.
Now, it was the 90’s and bisexuality was kind of a big thing in some circles (so quothe a female friend of mine, “I’m totally bi, but there’s something wrong with me because I’m not really interested in girls.”). So it wasn’t 1980’s Oklahoma (it was the South, but the suburban South). I don’t know how much of that has persevered (I don’t hear people talking about how “everybody’s really bi anymore”). So it’s a different environment. (A lot of the people who were “bi” were probably actually mostly or entirely gay, others were like my friend and straight but just felt odd about that.)
Even so, though, in addition to cultural changes over the years, the Internet has to be of big help. If you’re in anything like a city, I’d think that there would be ways to get “plugged in” to the local gay community, or communities like the BBS where such things are not uncommon. So it would become immensely harder to date people at your school, but I think you can cast a wider net than back in your day (or mine).
Of course, I’d rather not my son and daughter end up online, long-distance dating someone in Phoenix (assuming we’re not in Arizona). Well, I guess it wouldn’t be the worst thing, and perhaps better than nothing, but that vaporware wouldn’t bolster the experience I’d prefer they have going into college (limited experience! I do have some reserved views on sex, gay or straight).
Of course, all of this assumes that we’re not living in a place like we are now, where there is only one school, another school an hour away, another couple a couple hours away, and where it’s really hard to bypass the local school that way. Honestly, a child turning out to be gay could be an impetus to move. Even though the community here isn’t all that bad (my next door neighbor was gay, the rightwinger who lived in the opposite side of him didn’t care), kids are cruel and and the community may not be good enough even leaving aside the lack of options for gaining social-romantic experience.
These are my impressions, anyway. That while your concerns are quite valid because it’s so often a numbers game and the numbers are against you, that it would probably be remarkably different now than it was then, even if you leave aside the waning of homophobia.
Just my thought.
Compare:
A) “I’m totally bi, but there’s something wrong with me because I’m not really interested in girls.”
with
B) “I’m definitely a very spiritual person. I mean, I don’t go to church or really believe in anything, but … totally spiritual.”
You made me laugh out loud, Burt!
I think you’re right, Will. Part of what has made things better is that ability to find people like oneself despite geography. This is true for all kinds of people who may feel marginalized or part of a very small group.
(Though you might be dating yourself a bit when you talk about “BBS”!)
This thread proves the old adage: A liberal is someone who brags about how open, tolerant, and accepting they are, except when it comes to the opinions of those who disagree. A liberal also cannot recognize the irony of such a situation.
This comment proves the adage that people think tolerance means never disagreeing with someone. Well that isn’t an old adage yet. How about: tolerance means people can think and say what they want and i will defend your right to think and say that stuff even when you are being a dufus. And i’ll use my freedom of speech to call out dufuses when i see them. Damn i’m not good at adages. But i do know that virtually 100% of people who criticize the idea of tolerance don’t seem to udnerstand what the word means.
PS i do note the irony of someone complaining about not being tolerated when he is announcing his oppression in the place where he doesn’t think he is being tolerated. Because by saying how there is no tolerance here you are sort of you know being tolerated.
What’s next, liberals are the real racists? Come on.
I am going to go ahead and close this thread. I think it has passed productive discussion.