[throwingqueers]

The Original One-Eyed (Queer) Chicklet in the (Str8-acting) Valley of the Blind

I live in Australia. Apparently, that means I’m living in the best country in the world, where people are happy, free, good-natured, warm-hearted, spirited, fun-loving, generous, smart, clever, and generally just the best people you could ever meet. It’s the “lucky country”, after all. If you listen to the average Australia speak, all these things are so.

Well, more correctly, if you are a heterosexual, white male, then this is so.

It’s never been so for me.

I was dragged up in Western Sydney in one of the most ignorant, violent, and homophobic environments anyone could possibly have wished for. Add to that the torture (or shall we say child-abuse) of the Catholic Church's education system (daily physical assaults, psychological torment, and if you were super lucky, sexual abuse) and I’d say we have the perfect mix for suicide. Fortunately for me I’ve never had suicidal tendencies (despite an occasional  depressive wish to “not be alive on this planet”) otherwise I would have gone the way of several school friends and thrown myself off the Sydney Harbour Bridge for being a “fag”.

Despite this, I had a great coming out experience. I lined up for a week to buy Madonna tickets in 1992, and of course there were no heterosexuals on that line. It took me approximately four-point-three seconds to come out, give or take a millisecond or two - pretty much to the first queer I saw (a funky chick called Tash if memory serves). Thank the heavens for Madonna and her sinewy arms. Unfortunately, I ended up on television news later that night for being one of the first to get tickets, so was kinda instantly outed at school, not that people couldn't already tell I was a "faggot".

So for much of the 90’s being gay meant just that - gay and diverse. We were a happy bunch despite not having legal equality, and despite the disaster of John Howard and his christians in Parliament (not that anything has changed 20 years later with gay-fearing Tony Abbott).

I could be as butch or femme as a liked, as mainstream or queer as I liked, and I could find solace in friends who all knew what it was like to be gay-bashed at school, and ridiculed every single day of their adolescence just for the crime of being alive.

I look back to those days, now that it’s almost 2012, and I just think, “What happened???”

Let me say something shocking. I experienced a lot of homophobia at school and home. A LOT. I thought I’d left that all behind. But now I’m experiencing more homophobia than ever before, and it’s coming from the gay community itself!

I don’t live in the outback or some suburban hell. I live in Melbourne - the self-proclaimed “cultural capital” of the country. Non-heterosexuals are everywhere! And a sizeable number of them is screaming out to the world “I’m straight-acting!”

WTF?

In the last ten years it would appear gay males have become more insecure about themselves  than ever. So frightened to be perceived as “gay”. Oh, they’re out of the closet alright - no problem there - but they appear desperate to be seen as nothing but “normal”, and by “normal” I mean “straight”.

Forget the fact they are “normal” already, because to be non-heterosexual is to be normal. Forget the fact that no matter how “straight” they think they act, they will never actually be “straight”.

This is the product of anti-gay homonegativity combined with heteronormativity from the moment we take our first breath to the day we take our last. It’s the product of living in a world where if you’re not “normal” and “with us” then you are “abnormal” and “against us” (thanks Little Bush Jnr for popularising that lovely concept). This is the product of living in a society that demands that all men fit into a narrow spectrum of “acceptable” masculine traits - the epitome of which is the ute-driving, meat-pie eating, sheila-fucking, tanned and muscular “tradie” who doesn’t have to have anything going on in his head to succeed in life because he is just a walking, massive, fat, erect dick that the rest of society will worship regardless.

And now there’s a legion of faggots all determined to be him. Except they’re gay. But not one of those pansy gays ok? We’re blokes. Trust us we’re “just like you”. Please believe us. Please!!!

This desperate insecurity about who we are as men frightens me in its unconscious hypocrisy. It astounds me to think we have come so far so quickly, achieving some semblance of recognition and respect, only to throw it away by hating ourselves.

It wouldn’t be as bad if this was the only face of the insecurity. But the other face of it is the fact that these “straight-actors” not only need to enforce upon the world their “manliness” but they do so at the expense of any quality they deem to be “unmanly”. They have such a long list of what is “acceptable male behaviour” that anyone who strays even 1% from this fabricated norm is derided and ridiculed.

Nowhere is this more prevalent that in the online environment, where so-called “straight acting”, cowardly men can hide behind a screen, with no face and just a heavily cropped headless torso to greet the world, followed by an array of hatred for anyone who does not fit their ideal of a "real" man:

NO FEMMES - STRAIGHT ONLY - MEN ONLY - REAL MAN 4 SAME - MASC4MASC - PREFER MEN WHO ACT LIKE MEN - NO GIRLIE GUYS - NO QUEENS - MAN FOR MEN - NO FAGS - NO WOMEN - I’M A MAN, YOU BE ONE TOO - IF I WANTED A WOMAN I'D BE STRAIGHT

This is not an isolated phenomena. This is happening in gay male community the world over.

The irony is that most of these self-professed masculine males are quite effeminate without realising it at all. I've lost count of the number of times an effeminate male has whined incessantly about how gay some people behave. What they also don't seem too aware of is that if a seemingly effeminate man messaged them online, its really not that hard to say “Thanks, but no thanks” or the more usual action of ignoring the message altogether (charming, right?) My point is, there’s no threat from being messaged by a guy you’re not attracted to. In fact, its kinda complimentary. Yet these “straight-actors” appear to be so frightened that they must SHOUT OUT, profile after profile, “NO FEMMES”.

What they are really saying is:

I AM STILL REALLY INSECURE ABOUT BEING GAY. GAY PEOPLE ARE RIDICULED AND TEASED. PEOPLE TREAT THEM LIKE CRAP. I’M NOT GAY LIKE THAT. I’M ONE OF THE NORMAL GAYS. I’M JUST LIKE YOU. PLEASE DON’T CONFUSE ME WITH ONE OF THOSE FLAMING QUEENS. I’M NORMAL BUT I'M SCARED TO BE SEEN AS AN EFFEMINATE MAN. I'M SCARED THAT DEEP DOWN I AM AN EFFEMINATE MAN AND DON'T REALISE IT, SO I NEED TO MAKE SURE EFFEMINATES STAY AWAY FROM ME IN CASE I BECOME GUILT BY ASSOICATION, OR IN CASE IT RUBS OFF ON ME AND I CATCH IT. PLEASE ACCEPT ME FOR WHO I AM.

I have tried many, many times to discuss this issue with the so-called “straight-acting man”. It is an uphill, rarely won battle to convince one of them that these words are harmful to others and to themselves. Over and over and over again the response is: “It’s just a preference” or “I just don’t like girlie guys.” Not one of them is willing to even conceive of the possibility that they are expressing their own insecurity about being a man.

Most responses I get are a mixture of denial, anger, and ridicule all borne from an arrogant mixture of fear and ignorance.

So here we are, in a situation where a growing number of men have not really done any work on themselves in terms of accepting who they are, and are thrusting themselves back into a closet of their own making in order to feel more likely to be “accepted” by “normal” society as a “man”. And they are doing it by ridiculing and shaming their own kind, and by trying to force the rest of us back into the closet as well. Worst of all, they are completely 100% unconscious and in denial about it.

And this is why I’m left feeling like the original one-eyed queer chicklet in the straight-acting valley of the blind. We owe it to ourselves to become conscious of this self-hating phenomenon. The heterosexuals aren't going to point it out to us. They will simply continue to approve of our mad quest to join their institutions and enact their illusory concept of an innate binary gender. We queers cannot move forward and cannot achieve liberation until we become conscious of how we perpetuate our own oppression against ourselves and against those with whom we share this community.

[throwingqueers]

Horror from the Masc-o-sphere!

I’ve been thinking about all this unconsciousness going around in the gay community these days. This whole insecurity-driven obsession with being “masc” – ugh, that term is so sad! - with being some kind of “real bloke”. 

There are so many of these men around, and it's frightening to think that the more legal rights our homosexuality is awarded, the more unconscious and unevolved, as a group, non-heterosexual males have become.

I’ve been thinking about the hysterical aggression aimed at me by many of these “masc” men (or sympathisers) at the mere thought that someone could challenge their unconscious addiction to “proving their manhood” to society (a society, to be sure, that will always just think of them as being something less than a man).

What kind of pitfalls do these sorts of unconscious men pose for the rest of us out in dating land? Let's think about it for a few minutes. 

These men are trying their hardest to measure up to an ideal of masculinity. To do so, they often imitate heterosexual men (by entering into traditionally masculine trades, or engaging in aggressive sports such a rugby or mixed martial arts). There's no problem with any men engaging in these activities – but there's a problem with the motivation behind it. 

We forget that the heterosexual male is not naturally so “straight acting”. The heterosexual male is conditioned to behave in a certain manner, just like we are, throughout his boyhood and adolescence. The heterosexual male imitates his peers and elders, and works hard on deepening his voice, removing inflection from his words, becoming proficient in a masculine skill, sport, or trade, and expressing himself as a potent alpha. None of this comes naturally to him in spite of constant claims to the contrary.

So here we have this entire group of gay men who are imitating heterosexual men, claiming it's just their "natural expression" and wreaking havoc on the rest of us as a result.

Havoc????? How? 

Well, have any of you tried to have a relationship with one these people? I have (unfortunately). Luckily, thanks to my views on the subject it doesn’t take long to work out that I’m dealing with an unconscious guy who will emotionally and spiritually abuse me. For many others, though, they become intimately involved with men like this for months, even years, and the resulting head-fuck can be extremely damaging to their lives.

Having a relationship with an unconscious “straight actor” can only lead to one place – queer hell on earth. You’ll become drained as an individual, constantly under the scrutiny of your “masc” boyfriend, who is always sensitive to any expression, thought, or behaviour that isn't “straight acting” or “masc” enough for him. 

Your voice: does it sound gay? Your opinions: are they normal? The way you walk: is it the way a man should walk? What you do for a living: is it a stereotypically gay profession? Who your friends are: are they too gay? The list goes on, and on, and on.

I’ve experienced this several times and it’s not fun, and certainly not pretty. Ultimately, you will do something “too gay” that triggers your unconscious boyfriend, and he will grow instantly distant or dump you. “It’s just not working out”, or “I just don’t really feel it” or he simply stops returning your texts. 

You see, if you are real, if you are your authentic self, and true to your heart and soul, then you pose a threat to the delicate, fragile masc-o-sphere that has been carefully, painstakingly created by the unconscious “straight actor”.

His repressed issues are projected onto you. He has not learned to become comfortable with being non-heterosexual, and that will become your problem. He is so insecure about his sexuality, and that will become your problem too. He is still trying to make sure everyone in the world knows he’s not one of those types of bad faggotty gays, just a normal bloke who happens to get turned on by other normal blokes, and that will become your problem. 

Every time he detects some “gay acting” (in any form), the issue is triggered. He may not let you know he’s been triggered, but trust me, he's keeping a score of all those little queer things you do.

So: be warned! The next time the perfect man of your dreams comes along, just ask yourself, “how perfect is he, really?” You have to be careful. Is he driving that ute, working on that construction site, listening to that rock band, owning that big dog, wearing those overalls, walking, talking, and thinking like a “real bloke” because that’s who he is, or because that’s who he wishes he could be?

But how can you tell the two apart? The warning signs are clear. Does he:

complain or show disgust towards effeminate men? 

say things like “I don’t like the scene / pride marches” because of the ways “queers” shove it in everyone’s face. 

use language that would sound homophobic if it came from a heterosexual’s mouth? 

slut-shame gays and gay culture (statements like “they’re so disgusting and filthy, and give each other diseases”). 

This is not a comprehensive list, just a good place to start.

If there’s anything I have learned, it's that internalised homophobia acts like a cancer, and it’s a cancer most self-described “masc” men refuse to acknowledge, and refuse to stop clinging to. Its their security blanket in a world that proclaims “Gays are Wrong/Bad/Unnatural/Disgusting”. For that, they deserve our pity, but that doesn't mean any of us deserve the psychological torment that goes along with trying to date one of these fellas.

Save yourself the pain and effort, and keep looking for someone who isn't so addicted to their own self-hatred they project their issues onto you or the rest of the queer community.

[throwingqueers]

Homosexual Advance Defence Laws in Queensland Still Valid Despite Amendments

With all the attention on gay marriage, crystal meth, and HIV, one can be forgiven for forgetting that there are other issues actually affecting the queer community. One of those issues in Australia is the continued validity of Homosexual Advance Defence (HAD) in the northern, ultra-conservative state of Queensland.

So, what does it mean when you've been HAD? Simply put, it means a homosexual male has allegedly suggested you and he have sex, and as a result you felt provoked, so you manslaughter the fuck out of him. And in sunny Queensland, you have a very good chance of having your case heard sympathetically, thus avoiding a hefty term of life imprisonment. In many cases you would be looking at as little as about 5 years in the slammer.

In essence, the continued use of HAD as an acceptable defence to murder effectively renders homosexual violent deaths less of an issue for public concern than heterosexual violent deaths. Or to put it more bluntly: in Queensland, heterosexual lives are still considered more valuable than homosexual lives. 

Homophobic lawmakers in Queensland like to point to the amendments made in 2011 that could not be used as a defence when homosexuals only used verbal means to corrupt their poor heterosexual attackers. However, the language of these amendments leaves a lot to be desired: HAD provocation can no longer be based "on words alone, other than in circumstances of the most extreme and exceptional character." The question is, of course, what constitutes "extreme and exceptional" verbal provocation that warrants a deathly response. It would appear much relies on just how threatened our heterosexual attackers feel by homosexuality in general. Considering we live in a nation where our own Prime Minister, the illustriously loathsome Tony Abbott, is publicly on record as saying he feels threatened by gays (despite his own sister being same-sex attracted). Nevertheless, with the rest of the nation abolishing the defence altogether, most critics agree the Queensland amendments have not gone nearly far enough.

Where did HAD come from? HAD has its origins in the work of 1920's psychologist Edward Kempf. Initially, HAD was designed to apply to homosexuals who repressed their homosexuality and became neurotic and violent when their secret was triggered by the advances of another homosexual. In parts of the United States, this defence is still used, but is known as the Homosexual Panic Defence (HPD), and still retains its connection to the actions of a repressed homosexual. In Australia, however, HPD morphed into HAD. The suspicion is that Australia's self-perception of virile hegemonic masculinity precludes it from acknowledging just how truly queer the nation's actual masculinity is. From he earliest of colonial times, with a massively disproportionate number of males to females, right up to the current day it's such a large and open number of homosexuals, Australia's history of masculinity is a history of same-sex attraction. Even as I write this piece, I'm watching five "tradies", Australia's modern day hyper-masculine archetype, standing around in the cafe, waiting for their coffees, and checking each other's legs and butts out. They can't see each other doing this, but I can see it. We queers know cruising when we see it.

The continued use of HAD as a legitimate defence to murder in Queensland amounts to legal acceptance of homophobia. It perpetuates the heterosexist and masculinist regimes of power that continue to portray heterosexuality as the unmarked norm, and homosexuality as the stigmatised Other. HAD says it loud and clear: killing a homosexual isn't as bad as killing a heterosexual. It also says that we homosexuals "have it coming". Such a defence has no place in the Australian legal framework in 2914. As members of the so-called "clever country", we should not stand for this any longer. If you're in Queensland you should write to your politicians and demand HAD be removed permanently as a legitimate defence to murder.

I’ll end with the words of a murderer who successfully defended himself with HAD. Most queers will be struck by the intense internalised homophobia of the perpetrator, and the obvious unreliability of his version of events. They will also be struck with how disproportionate the violence is in response to the "homosexual advance":

"After a while ... Don [Gilles] entered the room I was in, slid in beside me in the bed and started talking to me about how a great person I was. Then he starred touching me. I pushed him away. He asked what was wrong. I said, 'What do you think is wrong? I'm not like this.' He started grabbing me with both hands around my lower back. I pushed him away. He started grabbing me harder, I tried and forced him to the lower side of me. He still tried to grab me. I hit him again and again on top of the bed until he didn't look like Don to me. He still tried to grope and talk to me that's when I hit him again and saw the scissors on the floor on the right side of the bed. When I saw the scissors he touched me around the waist shoulders area and said 'Why?' I said to him, 'Why I didn't ask for this.' I grabbed the scissors and hit him again. He rolled off the bed as I struck him with the scissors. By the time I stopped I realised what had happened, I just stood at the foot of the bed with Don on the floor lying face down in blood."

Further reading:

'But Words Can Never Hurt Me': Untangling and Reforming Queensland's Homosexual Advance Defence, David Mack, Sydney Law Review, Volume 35(1), (2013)

Case Notes: The homosexual advance defence: 'Yeah, I killed him, but he did worse to me' Green v R,Bronwyn Statham, University of Queensland Law Journal, Volume 20(2), (1999)

Provocation and the Homosexual Advance Defence: the deployment of culture as a defence strategy, Santo De Pasquale, Melbourne University Law Review, Volume 26(1), (2002)

[throwingqueers]

Marriage Discrimination in New Zealand, sponsored by the LGBT

(Travis McIntosh and Matt McCormick: getting their McGay Marriage on)

This week a two men in New Zealand decided to get married, but came up against a torrent of opposition. This would have been expected a couple of years ago, but considering Kiwis passed amendments to their laws on 19 August 2013, allowing two men or two women to tie the noose (er... knot) this backlash was somewhat surprising. After all, one of the main arguments pro-marriage LGBT activists raised in support of their demands was that amending marriage laws would eliminate homophobia and teach younger LGBT people that they are indeed equal, accepted, and even "normal" (whatever normal means).

In fact, in the passing of the marriage amendments in New Zealand's parliament, the LGBT were emphatically greeted by Tau Henare with the sentence: "Welcome to the mainstream". Cut straight to streamers, rainbow flags, and other scenes of cake cutting, thrown rice, kitchen appliances, groomzillas, and messy, acrimonious gay divorces ("no sorry we won't be returning any gifts").

("Welcome to the mainstream," said Tau Henare, Mauri parliamentarian on 19 August 2013)

So when these two scruffy dudes decided to get hitched, the push-back kinda came out of left field, mainly because it was the good old LGBT doing the pushing. "WHAT?" I can hear you exclaim. You heard me correctly. It wasn't the crazy-eyed christian zombies or ancient white male relics hailing back to a time when the heterosexual landed gentry reigned supreme (yes, yes! I know they still do, I'm just being poetic). It was none other than the muthertucking LGBT screaming shrilly from the grandstands.

But why? Because said dudebros were het-er-o-sex-u-als. Straight heterosexuals. Or as many in the trans communities would hiss: CISHETS!

Apparently, the fact that these two men are getting married in order to win a trip to the 2015 Rugby World Cup is some sort of slap in the face to all those poor LGBT's who fought "long and hard" for the right to marry. Apparently the irreverence of the competition and it's winners is extremely insulting to them.

However, it seems rather disingenuous that these same battle-worn LGBT's are still wheeling out statistics around queer mental health, and are also complaining that competitions like this are homophobically mocking non-heterosexuals, when the fact remains these same groups claimed gay marriage would end such things. They also seem to ignore the fact that there was nothing to stop two homosexually-inclined fellas from tying the knot in exchange for some rugby tickets. For Pete's sake, the Rugby Bingham Cup was held recently in Sydney, and I personally know a bunch of queer Kiwis who participated, so it's not like rugby is a heteros-only affair.

Joseph Habgood from LegaliseLove claims competitions like this "won't bring [the day LGBT can be free from discrimination and mockery] any closer". Well, I'm sorry Joseph, but I thought that day had already passed, a year ago, in your parliament, remember??

(Joseph Habgood from LegaliseLove seems to think some forms of love shouldn't be legalised even though "Love Is Love" ... or something)

What these LGBT seem ignorant of is how their "take no prisoners", ideologically bankrupt, and basic approach to achieving gay marriage legalisation has in fact made it very difficult to enable actual positive change for queers everywhere. If your claims revolve around gay marriage being some sort of silver bullet that will end all the problems of homophobia, and then find that it did very little except allow a small percentage of (mainly white gay and lesbian) people to marry, then the rest of the population is not going to take you very seriously the next time you complain about homophobic discrimination and poor mental health outcomes.

If the LGBT had focused it's attention on the actual source of homophobia (namely, heterosexism and heteronormativity) instead of desperately trying to join the institutions that perpetuate them, then perhaps the mockery of homosexuals, and the mental health issues this mockery causes, would already have been greatly reduced. Instead we are condoling ourselves with slices of wedding cake and purging in the toilets ten minutes later due to the guilt associated with comfort eating.

Some other questions arise from this sorry situation. For starters, this is what the LGBT pro-marriage groups wanted: the ability for two men or two women to marry. Trying to impose normative constraints on the sexuality of people who choose to engage in this newly-revised  institution is hypocritical to say the very least.

Further, trying to restrain people from marrying if they choose after campaigning so heavily for that right is highly hypocritical from the viewpoint of personal freedom. Why can't two best mates (who have known each other since they were 6 years of age) get married? Is the LGBT seriously stating that sexual relations are a prerequisite for a relationship? In that case, each and every married couple (gay or straight) who is suffering from bed death needs to file for a divorce certificate immediately, no exceptions. The mighty LGBT has spoken!

And how about all those subversive gay weddings the queers used to celebrate before gay marriage was legal, in protest against the discriminatory marriage laws? It seems to me once more a very hypocritical thing to complain when two heterosexual males have decided subvert marriage in their own way. 

(Love is Love. *conditions apply)

We used to hear ad nauseum that "Love is Love". This slogan filled the airwaves and was imprinted on rainbow flags all over the place in the lead up to the legalisation of gay marriage in New Zealand and elsewhere. In the absence of any ideological depth to their politics, "Love is Love" served as a cute, tweet-lengthed response to all manner of bigotry and opposition the LGBT faced. As far as the LGBT were concerned, if you were against gay marriage, you were against (Capital L) Love itself. Well, let's look once again at these two fellas. They love each other. They're in what the mainstream media call a "bromance". I'm picturing these two passing out on the couch together after inhaling four large pizzas, a case of beer, and playing playstation games until 5 a.m. Or in other words, the kind of thing a lot of gay male couples do. There's no doubt these two boys are homosocial beings. The question remains why the LGBT demands they be homosexual as well.

Let’s not forget what LGBT gay marriage bill sponsor Louisa Wall said on the day the marriage laws were passed last year: “In our society, the meaning of marriage is universal - it’s a declaration of love and commitment to a special person.” Can the LGBT now honestly be arguing that this view of marriage doesn’t apply to these two heterosexual men? Seems like mainstream LGBT people are in dire need of a liberality and modern free-thinking injection if they don't.

(Louisa Wall, New Zealand parliamentarian: "The meaning of marriage is universal - it's a declaration of love and commitment to a special person.")

Let’s not forget what LGBT gay marriage bill sponsor Louisa Wall said on the day the marriage laws were passed last year: “In our society, the meaning of marriage is universal - it’s a declaration of love and commitment to a special person.” Can the LGBT now honestly be arguing that this view of marriage doesn’t apply to these two heterosexual men? Seems like mainstream LGBT people are in dire need of a liberality and modern free-thinking injection if they don't.

Thanks Marriage Equality LGBT people, but us queers will take it from here.

[throwingqueers]

Book Review: Full Catastrophe Living

Jon Kabat-Zinn, Bantam Books New York (1990, 2013)

Stress. It is everywhere around us. Even worse, it gets inside us: sapping our energy, undermining our health, and making us more vulnerable to anxiety, depression, and disease. Now, based on Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn’s renowned mindfulness-based stress reduction program, this groundbreaking book shows you how to use natural, medically proven methods to soothe and heal your body, mind, and spirit. By using the practices described within, you can learn to manage chronic pain resulting from illness and/or stress related disorders…discover the roles that anger and tension play in heart disease… reduce anxiety and feelings of panic…improve overall quality of life and relationships through mindfulness meditation and mindful yoga. More timely than ever before, Full Catastrophe Living is a book for the young and the old, the well, the ill, and anyone trying to live a healthier and saner life in today’s world.

*****************************

Available in print, eBook, or audio book, Jon Kabat-Zinn's Full Catastrophe Living is must read material for every person. Whilst the primary focus of this work is helping people deal with the psychological difficulties present during illness, its applications are far more wide-reaching than that. Written in a language any English-speaker can understand, Kabat-Zinn manages to present mindfulness - its day-to-day practice, theory, and benefits - in a truly inspiring manner.

He teaches us how to break free from the endless cycle of reacting: reacting to pain, reacting to stress, reacting to our emotions, reacting to other people. Instead, we learn how to respond to our circumstances, with the kind of moment-to-moment awareness and concentration on which Western culture general places no value.

The first three sections of the book lay the theoretical groundwork of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) - paying attention to the moment, breathing, meditation practices, reconnecting the mind with the body, holistic healing or physical and/or psychological illness, and an analysis of what stress actually is. The last two sections are devoted to the application of mindfulness theory in our everyday lives: working with symptoms, physical pain, emotional suffering, fear, panic, anxiety, time stress, sleep stress, people and role stress, and finally work, food, and world stress.

Kabat-Zinn leaves absolutely no stone unturned, no unanswered questions, and no doubt that here is an ancient technique that modern science has proven to be amazingly effective in helping modern humans to achieve happiness, equanimity, and an oftentimes elusive understanding of the self.

The techniques displayed in this volume are applicable to all people regardless of sexuality, gender, or culture, but in my opinion they are are particularly helpful to queer people everywhere, because they quickly and effectively help us to reconnect with who we are, something that is often taken away from us early as we are forced to navigate our innate selves secretly through a heterosexist world that demands compulsory heterosexuality. Mindfulness allows us to breath, to connect with ourselves on the simplest and deepest levels, to heal our psychological wounds and consequentially engage with our individual worlds with the kind of authenticity that eludes most of us for large portions of our lives.

The eBook and Audiobook can be found on iTunes.

[throwingqueers]

Panti Bliss: the most important speech you will hear this year

I've just been made aware of this incredible speech made in February 2014 by Ireland's Panti Bliss. You will have to look far and wide to find anything as eloquent, genuine, or provocative as this. Bliss effortlessly and passionately breaks down what it feels like to be oppressed as a queer person by heterosexism, heteronormativity, homophobia and the internalised homophobia it spawns. Panti Bliss is a true heroine for all non-heterosexuals everywhere. As has been the case since the beginning of queer liberation, it's gender-subversive queens like Bliss who are at the front line of every battle. Everyone should watch this video!

Panti Bliss describes herself as: 

"Pub landlady, performer, writer, speechifier, professor of Gender Discombobulation at the Marcia Blaine School For Girls, national fucking treasure." 

Follow her on Twitter: @PantiBliss or on Facebook: Panti Bliss / Pantibar

[throwingqueers]

What do gay men mean by the word "preference"?

Something about how gay men use the phrase "It's just a preference" unsettles me. I get the sense they think the phrase is self-explanatory, and excuses away any form of racism, misogyny, homophobia, or bigotry, exonerating the user from all accusations of wrong-doing.

But here's the thing: it doesn’t.

One dictionary defines "preference" in the following way:

preference | ˈprɛf(ə)r(ə)ns | noun

a greater liking for one alternative over another or others: her preference for white wine | he chose a clock in preference to a watch.

a thing preferred: nearly 40 per cent named acid house as their musical preference.

from Latin praeferre ‘carry in front’

Based on this definition, the gay men who use this word to defend the language they use online are using it wrong! They don't seem to understand what the word actually means! 

Preference is the word one uses when one likes many different things, but likes one of those things more than the others. Take ice cream as an example. Most people like more than one flavour: chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, cookies & cream, etc. And most people, if they didn't have a choice, would be happy to eat any one of them, but if they did have a choice, they'd probably decide on their favourite (let's say chocolate). This is called having a preference for chocolate ice cream. And even if chocolate ice cream was your personal preference, you would occasionally still decide to eat something different, just for a change.

A sexual preference is no different. You might find Asian, Black and Latino guys attractive, but your preference, if given the choice, is Asian. Or you may have a preference for really butch masculine men, but also some that are not so masculine do it for you on occasion.

So to say one has a preference, in the spirit of the word, is to say one pretty much has an open mind to a variety of things. Or at least to more than one thing.

Yet, as we all know (many of us first-hand), there’s a lot of gay men out there who have absolutely no attraction to anything other than white, hypermasculinised men. They have no preferences, because what they are attracted to occupies only one single point on the entire racial and gender spectrum. So, when these guys attempt to defend themselves using the word “preference”, I don't think they're being very genuine, or that they understand what the words they use even mean.

The word they are looking for, but refuse to use, is requirement.

requirement | rɪˈkwʌɪəm(ə)nt | noun

a thing that is needed or wanted: only one type of window fits the requirements of this building. 

a thing that is compulsory; a necessary condition: applicants must satisfy the normal entry requirements.

Let me repeat this definition: A thing that is compulsory. A thing that is wanted. 

And again: COMPULSORY. WANTED.

And in context: COMPULSORY WHITENESS. COMPULSORY MASCULINITY.

So why don't gay men say “It’s just a requirement?” I suspect it's because for the everyday gay, that word doesn’t feel so easy to hide behind as preference. Preference sounds so benign, so unobtrusive, so open-minded, so nice.

"Oh no, we’re not trying to tell anyone that they are excluded, we really believe all the diverse people of the rainbow community are equal, we’re just expressing our personal preferences.”

No, I don't think you are. I think you’re demanding whiteness and straight-actingness, to hell with anyone that doesn’t fit your neat little manufactured ideal of hotness. And you’re hiding behind a word that doesn’t apply, in order to deflect the guilt one normally associates with exclusion and prejudice.

If there were more races and gender-expressions promoted as “hot” over a sustained period of time, rather than just the one version, this really wouldn’t be such an issue. But with the white masculine male promoted as the overwhelming frontrunner in the attraction stakes, these requirements masquerading as preferences have the stench of “master race” written all over them.

If you’ve been conditioned to find only one “type” of man attractive, so be it. Many people can't help being who they are, including all the aspects of ourselves that have been conditioned into us from birth. We have to find ways to love and respect ourselves, and that includes all our imperfections (even the unconscious ones). But perhaps it really is time to stop promoting that conditioned attraction as a personal “preference”, mainly because it isn’t. Not even slightly.

Every time a gay man publishes online his long list of (white, hypermasculine) sexual requirements, anyone not fitting into that narrow definition of hotness feels like rubbish. Personally, I'd love to live in a world where gay men threw a little queer into the mix and took into account how their words, and their sense of entitlement to those words, affected the rest of their community.

[throwingqueers]

Book Review: Homosexual - Liberation & Oppression

Dennis Altman, University of Queensland Press (1971, 1993, 2012)

When Homosexual: Oppression and Liberation was first published in 1971, Martin Duberman, writing in the New York Times, hailed it as 'the only work that bears comparison, in terms of sustained analysis and theoretical complexity, with the best to appear from Women's Liberation'. Time commented, 'among the whole tumble of homosexuals who have 'come out of the closet', perhaps best among these accounts is this book by Dennis Altman.'

Long out of print, Homosexual: Oppression and Liberation stands as an early work in the gay liberation movement that recognised the divisions within that movement as a form of healthy diversity, trying to explain each position and abstaining from accusations. Altman draws on the writings of the emergent movement and of such figures as James Baldwin, Allen Ginsberg, Christopher Isherwood, Herbert Marcuse, and Kate Millett. His objective is to propose ways we can create a common community out of our shared sexuality and experience of a heterosexist society. In this anniversary edition, Altman reconsiders Homosexual: Oppression and Liberation in light of the current gay rights debate, as he continues to challenge conventional notions of sexuality and gender.

***********************************

Suspecting as I do the failure of the queer liberation movement in the achievement of its aims: namely "liberation", I've turned to reading the work of liberationists who were active in the heady years of the early 70's, energised by Stonewall and sensing the chance to achieve a freedom and authenticity denied anyone trapped inside the illusion of normality. Dennis Altman was at the forefront of this movement, publishing Homosexual: Oppression & Liberation in 1971. I've heard it described by students at the time as the "gay bible", mandatory reading for anyone needing idealistic and ideological support in their personal and social quests for free, queer souls.

Of course, reading this book 43 years after publication means I was unable to absorb it without comparing Altman's theses to my own observance of modern queer life today. Nevertheless I was struck with how pertinently insightful and applicable today were his observances then. Particularly frustrating is to understand that his insights are of such value to the queer community, and yet 43 years later they are still so commonly ignored and misunderstood by a majority of queers who continue to come out blind and stay out blind.

Underlying every word of the text is the sense of pride that true liberation instills in any queer who manages to find a way to revel in his/her/their difference, who can see themselves as separate and wonderful, instead of excluded and deficient. It doesn't take much to realise that this is the sense of pride responsible for the rush of euphoric, defiant anger that ushered in gay liberation in 1969, the sense of pride that was so tangible in the early marches that bore its name. It's difficult to accept that this same prideful energy has perhaps been hijacked by an assimilative politics that deceptively calls itself "Pride", revelling as it does in the ability of queers to normalise themselves relative to heteronormative notions instead of continuing to develop structures, organisations, and even institutions that underline, support, and manifest true, alternatively queer expression. 

Altman's text is one that expresses the freedom to be, the freedom to choose, the freedom to question, more than any other thing. If you need an injection of energy and self-empowerment, then you would be well-advised to get cracking and read this book. But be warned: if modern LGBT politics is all you have ever known, you will be in for a (necessary) shock when you come to realise that one of the forefathers of modern gay liberation did not (and still doesn't) hold in much regard the values and politics we are expected to unquestionably lobby for and support today. In fact, you may find yourself confronted with the uncomfortable truth that the word "Oppression" in this text bears an uncanny resemblance to the politics of equality forward by and heralded as the most important issue currently facing the non-heterosexual community.

[throwingqueers]

The WHITE=HOT Mythology

How often have you come across a blog named something like HOTGUYZZZ69 that claims to bring you "only the hottest men from around the world"? (Before you "tut tut tut", just remember I'm human! I have needs! I've looked at images of naked men on the internet! Don't judge me!!!) How often have you clicked on such a blog only to see image after image of white, muscular, masculine men? Now, if you're thinking this will just be another generic anti-white rant, bear with me a few moments. 

I know many people think blogs like I've described are harmless, and I'm sure on some basic level they are. After all, what's wrong with celebrating those lucky enough to fit our society's idea of "hotness"? 

But... here's where some queer needs to be thrown:

Every race is hot. Every gender expression is hot. We are all beautiful. But in most western cultures, there's a sizeable percentage of the gay population that simply does not fit this normative ideal of white beauty. Perhaps it’s time all of us made a conscious decision to stop the conditioning of our society and make active steps towards positive change in this area?

As most of us know, we live in a culture that places young, muscular, white, masculine-performing men on a pinnacle, absolute and untouchable above all other ethnicities and gender performances. This is very difficult to deny, because examples of it are literally everywhere.

A terrible side-effect of this phenomenon is that so many people of colour and people with feminine (or less masculine) gender performance have been conditioned to find this white model of beauty attractive as well. There’s no other explanation for the sheer volume of non-white non-masc people chasing this so-called ideal.

I’m not calling for people to find a magic switch that makes them suddenly attracted to all different colours and types - not at all! I struggle with this conditioning myself, I know how hard it is to change something that’s been built into you all your life. So that's not what I'm arguing for, and those who email me claiming I'm trying to make people feel bad about themselves because of who they are attracted to are missing my point completely.

What I’m asking is for all of us, white and people of colour, feminine and masculine, to make a serious decision to become mindful of this brainwashing wherever we see it. To stop running blogs that only post hot white guy after hot white guy. To openly criticise magazines and websites that constantly promote this idea of white hotness to the exclusion of the other types.  To stop writing "NO THIS NO THAT" on our profiles. To wake up to the fact that when we exclude on our profiles and elsewhere, we are having a negative impact on people who do not fit into our sexual requirements. To call out profiles that do this by asking them to stop. To educate our queer brothers and sisters who don't realise these things and help to explain to the them that these are the main reasons that can make modern gay life so miserable for many queers.

I’m not saying you need to change what you find attractive, but some kind of change is needed, if not for us then for the next group of younger queers coming up, so they aren't as conditioned as we have been. This white = the only hot mythology is a cancer for our whole community: it is divisive and shameful, and it works against all of us, including those who perpetuate it.

White is actually very hot. Masculine performance is very hot also. I would be crazy and hypocritical if I did not admit to this. The problem is that white and masculine isn’t any hotter than non-white and feminine, or anything else on the entire spectrum of the faggotry. But white masculinity is getting almost all of the airplay, and we need to even up the playing field (a lot).

If we all started to call it out, the message would sink in eventually. We will be able to make it  change.

We need our gay clubs, magazines, news media, online sites, and dating apps to always show a range of masculine and feminine, white, black, Asian, Latino (and all the rest), skinny, fat, muscular, short, and tall, pretty and rough-as-guts men all of the time. All of us need to be represented by those in the community who have the means of producing our media, and who are often irresponsibly pumping out the white/masc=hot mythology all day long. And in case you haven't noticed this thing called the internet, that means you and me, because we all have the means to produce media now.

Remember: this is your queer space, your queer community. It doesn't belong to just a small minority who happen to fit the dominant group's idea of attractiveness. We all require representation so we can all share in the recognition we all deserve.

[throwingqueers]

Pfft! How can I be a homophobe ... I'M GAY!

“How can a gay man be homophobic? That doesn’t make any sense!”

On the surface, it does seem counter-intuitive to claim gay men could be homophobic. But when you take into account the effects our society has on gay men, particularly during adolescence, such a claim starts to make sense.

The majority of us are raised in a society that is heavily masculinised. Femininity is relegated to second place, and masculinity is put on a pedestal. Men who do not live up to this idealised version of what a “real man” should be are ridiculed. Effeminate men are at best laughed at, and at worst harassed, victimised, and assaulted. Given this environment, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that a lot of young, closeted gay men, in an effort to be accepted by the group, often lead the charge when it comes to this sort of victimisation. 

This is internalised homophobia.

The problem is, for many gay men, this behaviour continues in one form or another after they come out. It doesn’t just magically disappear once they speak the words “I’m gay.” They finally admit to themselves and the world that they’re queer, but immediately follow up with statements like, “Yes I’m gay, but not one of those sissy, queeny, girlie gays that prance down the street half naked. I’m not one of those gays.” There is a residual need, usually unconscious, to continue to prove some idea of masculinity, to continue to emphasise to the group that they are “real men”.

This phenomenon is holding back the entire community, particularly because it appears to be spreading and gaining momentum alongside the rise in location-based smart-phone apps and the deterritorialisation of the traditional gay ghettos that has accompanied their use.

Over the coming months at throwingqueers.com you can expect many reflections on this phenomenon from many different angles, and analyses of what academics make of our compulsion to continue to hate ourselves for what we are. Coupled with these will be constant reminders of the power that mindfulness has to reinvent us, to introduce us to ourselves, and to help all of us overcome this need to hold on to the negative stereotypes and lies our heterosexist culture teaches us as children.

[throwingqueers]

If you only know how to sail with the wind at your back, you will only ever go where the wind blows you.

[throwingqueers]

I've just watched Head On for the first time in 15 years. This film was too confronting for the 24 year old, unconsciously self-loathing Anglo Arab Australian I was then, particularly since it is set in Melbourne and released only a year after I moved here. This is one intense film - even now I'm left reeling from it!

For the entire two hours, self-loathing constantly patrols the border that stands between love and hate. Every character is dealing on some level with the same issue: reconciling themselves with who they think they should be, who they want to be, who they think the world wants them to be, who they want those they encounter to be, and who they actually are. Love is relentlessly and violently punished, either by the self, or by a projection of the self onto others. Self-destruction is never far away.

Not a single character sits comfortably within society's normative constraints. The only difference is some of them are conscious of the illusion of how a life is "meant" to be lived, and others remain tormented by their inability to convincingly live the normality lie.

This film brilliantly exposes the gay male condition: living between two worlds, rarely capable of fitting into either, and too often failing to successfully rise to the challenge, no matter how strong a performance of masculinity is given. Ironically, it is Johnny/Toula, Ari's transgender friend who manages to face up to both the psychological and physical violence of heteronormativity without compromising his/her authenticity. Although even here, drugs are required to provide the buffer necessary to achieve this. Nevertheless, despite being induced chemically, her insight provides the most positive message of the film:

(ARI & TOULA ARGUING AFTER BEING ASSAULTED BY THE POLICE)

"Haven't we always said that what we hate about the wogs is that they're gutless? Kneel. Get down! Every time you keep your mouth shut, every time you keep quiet, that's where you'll stay.  You have to stand up against all the shit and all the hypocrisy - it's the only way to make a difference." - Johnny/Toula

Ultimately, Ari decides he will not speak up, he will not make a difference. He will live in the gutter, and become the insults of his father. This is the price he has to pay to conform outwardly to the expectations of his parents and society. It's the price so many queer men have had to pay in the past, and so many continue to pay today.

[throwingqueers]

Stigma and Social Identity

Erving Goffman, from Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity  (1963)

Erving Goffman (1922-1982), the highly influential Canadian Sociologist, categorises stigma as a sort of stain or mark upon which "the normals" (a term he uses cynically) project their fear of difference and tendency towards marginalisation and oppression. 

He offers fascinating insight into the ways a stigmatised person or group handles their stigma, offering three possible choices:

1. Minstrelisation: where the marginalised person or group, usually one that has (or thinks it has) very little power or influence over others, over-conforms to the stereotypes more dominant groups have about them. 

2. Normification: where the marginalised who have a little power tries to minimise the differences by which the dominant groups marginalise them, by focusing on perceived or actual similarities they might have with those who oppress and dominate them. 

3. Militant Chauvinism: where the marginalised who have significantly more numbers and power might decide to actually maximise the differences between themselves and the dominant/oppressive groups. Militant Chauvinists don't just celebrate and revel in their differences, they also tend to proclaim they are in fact better than the dominant groups.

Examples of all three of these approaches to stigmatised difference are easily found in the non-heterosexual world. When gay men "camp it up" in front of heterosexuals, they are in fact minstrelising. It can be seen as a form of self-preservation, as a way of turning potentially hostile situations into locations of comic-relief, where the dominant heterosexual group is affirmed in their dominance and their stereotypical assumptions about homosexual men to be correct and justified. A minstrelising gay male might joke in private that the heterosexuals think he is really like that, but in effect he is practice sing a form of self-effacement constituted by his insecurities and feelings of powerlessness.

Johnny Weir, denigrated for being a 'minstrel' during the 2014 Socchi Winter Olympics

By far the most common modern-day reaction to non-heterosexual stigmatisation is normalisation. Normalisation is the key element to LGBT pushes for gay marriage, open military service, and acceptance into all social and cultural institutions. By exaggerating the similarities non-heterosexuals share with heterosexuals, and by downplaying or even outright suppressing points of difference, the LGBT hopes to enter institutions formerly denied to them.

Normalisation: does it subvert or merely condone stigmatised marginalisation?

More common in the early 70's (but still alive today) immediately after Stonewall and the first wave of gay liberation, was militant chauvinism. These non-heterosexuals are more easily identified as queer and tend to reject notions of conformity and normalisation in favour of the development of unique non-heterosexual culture. There is a focus on rejecting social institutions such as marriage altogether, rejection of military service and imperialistic wars of aggression, and the development of alternative relationship and social frameworks.

Aunt Ida, Queer Militant Chauvinist in Female Trouble by John Waters (1974) 

The only significant difference between minstrelisation and militant chauvinism is the size and power of the group. Otherwise, they are both resisting the oppression of the dominant group by rejecting the standards and principles by which they are marginalised (by either making fun of it or aggressively challenging it). It is surprising that the 1970's saw a strong push towards militant chauvisism as numbers in the liberation movement swelled, whereas today minstrelisation is once again being denigrated (as in the case of Johnny Weir) from within the community by normalising forces in the LGBT. Surely this highlights an ongoing trend away from feeling pride in their difference, towards an acceptance of the shame those who seek to stigmatise the non-heterosexual community hope they experience?

By contrast, those dealing with their non-heterosexual stigma via a process of normalisation are in fact accepting the criteria the dominant group uses to oppress them: they simply want to be accepted into the group too.

This is where the mainstream LGBT political agenda is least able to justify itself: by demanding inclusion into the social fabric of the dominant group and by not challenging its inherent oppressive function and tendency towards the marginalisation of difference, it condones and justifies it. It's like saying "We don't care what you do to other people, just as long as you don't do it to us."

Minstrelisers and militant chauvinists question and reject the very fabric of a society that would marginalise difference. Normalisers accept the processes by which stigma is assigned and maintained, and seek to enter into and be recognised by the institutions responsible for the oppression of the marginalised.

It would be timely to consider why a majority of non-heterosexuals today support the normalising trajectory of mainstream LGBT politics. It would be also very timely for non-heterosexuals to look at the limited successes of feminism and the civil rights movement in order to gain insight into how radical movements are absorbed into the mainstream, rendering them impotent and powerless. 

Five decades after second wave feminism and the civil rights movement, women are not equal. In fact, many women reject the idea of feminism altogether, erroneously convinced that feminism means growing armpit hair, hating men, and being a lesbian. Women still earn less than men, are still discriminated against and exploited, despite all the normalising laws that have been passed to ensure their "equality". Woman are still at high risk of domestic and/or sexual violence.  

So too with the civil rights movement. Despite normalising laws, people of colour are still unequal in payment, education, and access to privileges. Whilst there is less overt racism today, systemic, institutionalised racism couples deployed alongside unconscious, invisible white privilegd ensures the stigmatised difference of people of colour is maintained.  

Given these examples, it is difficult to see how the mainstream LGBT politcal agenda of "equality" will be any more successful in 50 years' time. Absorption into the mainstream is certainly no guarantee of equality, with the feminist and civil rights movements providing ample evidence of this. 

Minstrelisation and militant chauvinism offer the potential to reimagine social hierarchies and develop new ways of being where difference rather than sameness becomes foundational to human interactions. Despite regular attacks from LGBT normalisers who may feel threatened by the prospect that their heteronormative affectations could be undermined by the overturning of the oppressive function of mainstream society, radical and subversive tendencies will continue to remain a more valid and liberating method to reduce and eliminate stigmatised marginalisation.

[throwingqueers]

These guys have a great podcast. Follow them!

[throwingqueers]

Book Review: The Velvet Rage

Today's gay man enjoys unprecedented, hard-won social acceptance. Despite this victory, however, serious problems still exist. Substance abuse, depression, suicide, and sex addiction among gay men are at an all-time high, causing many to ask, "Are we really better off?" Drawing on contemporary research, psychologist Alan Downs's own struggle with shame and anger, and stories from his patients, The Velvet Ragepassionately describes the stages of a gay man's journey out of shame and offers practical and inspired strategies to stop the cycle of avoidance and self-defeating behavior. Updated to reflect the effects of the many recent social, cultural, and political changes, The Velvet Rage is an empowering book that has already changed the public discourse on gay culture and helped shape the identity of an entire generation of gay men.

Updated to reflect the effects of the many recent social, cultural, and political changes, The Velvet Rage is an empowering book that has already changed the public discourse on gay culture and helped shape the identity of an entire generation of gay men. Now it also features three new chapters, including one devoted to developing practical skills to live your best, healthiest, and most rewarding life.

*************************

Recommended to me by a follower of one of my older blog, this book definitely attempts to provide an important message to gay men, but I question it's claim to have "changed the public discourse on gay culture".  This book merely reaffirms the current pro-assimilationist discourse of the LGBT, rather than introducing anything new to the discussion. I also question whether it's message really applies to anyone other than the mainstream, stereotypically LGBT-oriented homosexual American gay male who wants to be seen, above all, as a "normal dude". As a queer Australian male, working-to-lower-middle class, I felt this book missed its mark, despite it's implied universal applicability to the life narrative of Western gay men.

This edition also claimed to have been revised to reflect recent changes in gay culture, society, and politics, but lacked any real treatment of the effects of the online environment on homosexual life. Also absent was any discussion of gender itself, despite the hugely important and relevant developments in this area of the last two decades. 

I found I was often put off by the "self help" language employed by Downs throughout the entire book. He wrote in a very universalising manner, which I found especially off-putting. He seemed unaware of his own particular cultural, economic, political, and religious positioning, and too often spoke in a familiar second-person tone ("If you're 'out', you no longer harbor that 'dirty little secret' about yourself" or "We decorate our bodies. And we do it all in an effort to hide our real selves from the world.") I found myself occasionally agreeing with his statements, but more often offended that he seemed to think himself so familiar with "all" gay men. I do not believe he is.

For example, Downs writes: 

"The book is arranged into a simple three-stage model that describes the journey of virtually all gay men with whom I have worked. I suspect that this model, or some modified version of it, is likely to be universal to all gay men in the western world and perhaps across the globe." (p.3)

The urge to apply universality to our insights into life is understandable, but the moment we do we are in immediate danger of losing sight of the society, culture, period of history, and dominant discourses that mould and produce us. In this instance, by claiming a universalised knowledge of the "gay" experience, Downs exposes an Americo-centric hubris that denies the homosexual experience of other places and times and assumes his experience is also everyone else's. It should not be forgotten that Downs is relying heavily on the experiences presented to him by middle-class, mostly white gays. He appears to move within circles of A-list homosexuals, with beautiful houses and successful careers. I became quickly suspicious that Downs had little in the way of insight or advice to those queers who fall outside these cliques. 

Downs' premise is that gay men, growing up as they do in a heterosexual man's world, develop a chronic validation deficiency. This leads them to live inauthentic lives, desperate for validation that does not satisfy or compensate. The rage he so commonly sees exhibited by his gay male clients is a direct result of growing up in a world that does not validate the gay male experience. Gay men in such a position need to learn how to validate themselves in meaningful ways, by slowly overcoming the trauma of our childhoods, adolescence, and early adulthood. He splits the stages of a gay man's life into three: overwhelmed by shame; compensating for shame; and cultivating authenticity. The books ends with what is claimed to be practical tips for gay men to cultivate said authenticity via the development of skills they can employ in the every day.

Missing from his analysis of gay male rage is another explanation for where it comes from: the denial of male privilege. Denial of male privilege is also a denial of the ability to sit at the top of the heap and receive unearned benefits that women are excluded from. The transmisogyny so common in gay male communication ("no fems" / "real men only") offers an insight into what these men might be like if their privileges as "real men" were restored (or had never been taken away).

As is so common in most ideas that resonate with the mainstream LGBT, Downs is preoccupied with restoring gay males to their "rightful" place in society: a place where their self-esteem is renewed, where they can inhabit viable, successful spaces as fully-functioning and proud productive members of capitalist society. He does not question why so many feel the need to be accepted by and assimilated into a social fabric that would enact such psychological violence on its non-heterosexual members in the first place.

The Velvet Rage is a blueprint for creating stable, compliant gay citizens. It completely neglects any discussion of gender, and as such I believe it fails every gay man. Downs makes a big deal about gay men achieving what he calls "Stage 3", where they commit to living an authentic life free from the desperate need for unsatisfying validation experiences. I agree it is ideal to seek self-validation above any other form of validation but I don't agree homosexual males (or homosexual people in general) can truly do so without understanding how utterly constructed gender and sex categories via the dominant discourses of our society and culture. Without an understanding of gender/sex construction, and the performative nature by which these categories constitute themselves in our lives, gay men will always suffer from the gender schizophrenia that the heterosexist, masculinist world imbues them with.

It is unhelpful to advise gay males to focus on planning their next party or holiday as a means of focusing on their inner development, and yet this is exactly the kind of wholesome advice Downs employs throughout his book. His WASP-y, homonormative, strictly monogamous, thinly veiled religiosity (complete with praise for the Alcoholics Anonymous model and even a couple of old christian prayers thrown in) indicates that his book really is meant to serve as a road-map away from the liberationist ideals that formed the basis of so much queer achievement since 1969. Downs' makes certain his reader knows that they cannot hope to achieve Stage 3 Authenticity if they subscribe to, amongst other things: polyamory or communal living (he criticises groups like the Radical Faeries, and chastises patients who maintain open relationships, often connecting their personal psychological issues and discontentment with their choice of relationship model); choose to meet their potential gay friends and lovers online (perhaps Downs doesn't understand that most gay men don't have extensive networks of comfortably well-off gay men with whom to socialise); choose alternative value systems or moralities instead of the white-bread American judeo-christian tradition; or choose to inhabit the gay ghettos and facilitate their personal experience through the lens of hyper-queer  cultural affiliations.

I can see why his book resonates with the mainstream LGBT. It literally screams: LET ME SHOW YOU THE WAY TO MIDDLE AMERICAN NORMALITY. I think such books are dangerous because they hide a self-denying, queer-invalidating, assimilationist ideology behind claims of healing, unity, self-esteem, and self-love. I do not doubt Downs' intention was to help other people, but I certainly question just how well Downs' knows himself, or knows how pride-less his message to the community really is.

In my view, Downs has not managed to tap into the inner yearnings of Joe Gay to achieve an authentic life. Instead, he has tapped into Joe's self-loathing that sits on his shoulder and whispers into his ear that "It Gets Better" if he can somehow find a way to fit into the normative model our heterosexist, misogynistic culture deems a necessary and acceptable to achieve true, acknowledged personhood.

[throwingqueers]

Is it bad that because of the "no asians, no blacks, no fatties, no femme" requirements. I have steered clear of white gays and assume that they will automatically reject me?

I don't know if it's a bad thing or not, but I do know many people are wary of interacting with white gay men. I rarely have a positive experience with them, and often find they can only be agreeable company if you join them in ignoring the realities of what the community is really like. But everything is a generalisation. They're not all terrible!

[throwingqueers]

Masculinity is an act. A thoroughly unconvincing act. There's not a single authentically masculine male on the planet. #sorryaboutit