Dobson was whining about the Judicial filibuster again yesterday(*) and I’ll be honest with you, it’s beginning to exhaust me. I need something to listen to as I’m CAD’ing away at a condo tower we’re doing in Vegas so I decided to listen to archived broadcasts of NPR’s This American Life.
The topic of this particular broadcast from 1996 is “Sissies.” One of the common themes running throughout is how sissies are often far braver and confident than those who are butch or struggle to appear so. Among ex-gay ministries, opinions vary on wether or not effeminate behavior is acceptable. Some hold the view an effeminate nature has nothing to do with your inner sexual feelings, while others such as my former therapist, Joe Nicolosi view it as part of the gay “false identity.”(*)
Broadcast description / Real Audio
But back to the broadcast; I found Acts II, III, and IV the most entertaining. Act II begins at +24:15. In my opinion the highlight is Act IV (+41:00), a commentary by Dan Savage describing his high-school crush on an effeminate but confidant boy at his school. Savage goes on to examine the curious paradox of gay personal ads looking for “masc” guys which turn out to be written by guys who are fearful other people might perceive them as gay. In the end it’s the effeminate guys who are confidant, courageous and embody the genuinely masculine traits.
(Mike, Act IV is for you since you hold gay.com in such high regard.)
I heard the This American Life “Sissies” program when it was first broadcast, and have listened to it several times since. It was entertaining and, at the same time, very moving. And, yup, the program shows that “In the end it’s the effeminate guys who are confidant, courageous and embody the genuinely masculine traits.”
Do you wanna wrestle? (j/k)
I heard this broadcast many, many years ago, and it still stands as one of my favorites. And I have to agree about the effeminate part. They basically have no choice but to be courageous.
This subject hits really close to home with me.
Years ago, I remember when I was taking my first tentative steps out of the closet, I wouldn’t be caught dead going on a date or doing any public activity (movies, bowling, walking down the street) with anyone who was flamboyantly gay. I used to lie to myself that it was because I “wasn’t attracted to flaming queens.” That was total crap. I was afraid that, by extension, strangers might assume I was gay, too. I was still suffering from internalized homophobia, and effeminate men bore the brunt of that for a while.
These days, I appreciate effeminate men a great deal. I’m confident in who I am, so I don’t have to pretend to be “butch” or “masculine” or “straight-acting” (easily the most offensive description that gay men traffic in). And I have no problem going out on a date with a “nelly” guy, because it’s the heart of the person who counts. Effeminate men get a bad rap as a bunch of catty, bitcy queens–and yes, that can be true, too–but many “flamers” I’ve met have shown themselves to be the most honest, considerate, loyal, and heartfelt men I’ve ever met.
I’ll go for that in a man any day… even if that means I have to put up with a Kylie Minogue fetish. 🙂
My disdain for essentialism and reductionism extends towards Joseph Nicolosi as well. He says that being sissy, or being gay, is the “false” self. Well, what grounds does he have for positing masculinity and heterosexuality as the “True?” After all, there is considerable debate as to what constitutes masculinity and what doesn’t. What we define to be “masculine” could very well be a function of the culture of our origins.
To posit “masculinity” as some metaphysical essence that one either has or doesn’t have is clearly unwarranted.
Is there really such a one-to-one connection between being effeminate and being gay? For example, I have never had much interest in athletic activities, yet I am and have always been a “flaming” heterosexual.
Scripture commends to men what is considered by some as not masculine. The lists of qualification for elder in 1 Timothy and Titus includes being gentle and not being given to brawling as necessary characteristics. If that is what describes you, I would suggest that you are “truer” than the brawling, masculine, heterosexual.
Rich Blinne at May 12, 2005 01:44 PM
Is there really such a one-to-one connection between being effeminate and being gay?
Not that I know of. But I’ll admit, when I was a freshman in college (this was in 1967 and I was somewhat underage when I entered college), there was a very nice young man in the dorm who was somewhat effeminate. I had a horrible reaction against his effeminacy. And his roommates put me in order. I doubt very seriously that his roommates were gay. I don’t even know whether he was gay. But his roommates in the dorm put me in order.
That was a very instructive experience. And, just to let you know, there was no violence. This confrontation was from 1967, and I remember it to this day.
Oh, and, just to let you know, it was long after that, that I had my first homo-sex experience.
But the fact that the fellow’s roommates would stand up for him (the effeminate guy) was, to me, very important. interesting. um whatever. They stood up for him. That was the important thing, to me.
/rant
When I went to exgay therapy, the focus was not on attraction as much as it was outward things–mannerisms and behavior. Sure, they tried to find underlying causes (molestation, weak father–but none fo those are true for me. They would tell me I was lying, not thinking hard enough, or could not remember). However, it was all about outward appearance. We were told to play sports. The women were to do chores and cooking. The taught us how to move our hands, cross our legs, and other things. There was behvaior modification and other therapy aspects, but the focus was always on gender issues. The funny thing is that I do not really have such mannerisms, and it would frustrate them. I never think of myself in masculine or feminine terms (I am a man, but it is not a big, all encompassing deal for me), but people perceive me as masculine. I have noticed in all the exgay literature that is the focus–presenting gender in certain ways. Attraction is often neglected. I have always thought that maybe the entire gay issue and the church is about gender more than it is about anything else.
Attraction is often neglected. I have always thought that maybe the entire gay issue and the church is about gender more than it is about anything else.
I don’t think so. At its base the church’s problem with the gay issue is because the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior. That being said, there are other things that are prohibited that do not generate such a visceral reaction. The intensity of the reaction is caused by two things:
1. The ew factor.
2. The attraction is relatively rare.
Since it is easy to avoid homosexual attraction for most people, it seems obvious that those that have such an attraction should easily change. When the change becomes difficult, alternative theories need to be advanced to explain the difficulty. Thus, the vain attempts at behavior modification. For example, with weight control the desire for food is not addressed but behavior modification is.
This behavior modification net sweeps up not only people who are GLBT but also those who have similar outward behavior and yet still be straight. I suspect that this obsession with such behavior also may contribute to people’s confusion with respect to their own (or their children’s) sexual orientation.
I agree with you about the Bible’s prohibition about homosexual behavior as the Church’s base. However, I do not think that bothers them as much as the gender bending aspects. Saying it is only the sex element is too simplistic (and we know that the church has issues with gender roles). Watch any church program on homosexuality like Gay Rights, Special Rights or 700 Club. Almost always men in dresses or acting effeminate are prominant–less than sexual behavior. Also, when Dobson or Robertson talk about homosexuality, they almost always mention effeminate characteristics, overly caring mothers, and lack of masculine role models and activities. “Feminized” males are ridiculed in our culture constantly, and with homosexuality, many people think that one or both males in a relationship have taken on a female role. How many times have we heard, “So who’s the female?” I have never had anyone ask me about sex–just gender. When discussing gay marriage in college classes, almost always the question about children deals with gender, not sex.
Also, to demonstrate how much I think this is gender based, let me point out that many people will respect a more masculine female but despise an effeminate male. I have heard many people say that they do not have a problem with women marrying but males shouldn’t. Even Stephen Bennett mentions in interview after interview (such as 700 Club) that he is sometimes looked down upon because he is perceived as effeminate in the church. Some people have not believed he is exgay because he is not masculine enough.
Also, if it was primarily Biblical based, other sins (I do not think it is a sin)would be held as equal, but they are not. In my church, I was told that homosexuality was equal to murder in severity. Premarital sex is seen as wrong, but not as bad as homosexuality. It is funny that there are more scriptures opposing fornication than homosexuality. However, homosexuality is seen as worse in most churches. If the issue was primarily Biblical, it would be treated as presented in the scriptures only, but it is not.
I think Aaron is right about the gender issue, but we also must remember that actual same-sex contact among men is probably the most feminine thing a man can do – I also think that’s why the fundies also seem so focused on one specific act of male-male sex – one man is always the “female” in that act according to them.
I think you missed my point. I was trying to get from point A to point B. Point A is the Biblical prohibition. Point B is the visceral reaction. Or, to put it another way how do go from Biblical to unBiblical? Homosexuality is such a “convenient” sin. Unlike almost any other temptation that I can think of, a significant majority do not feel its force at all. This lack of common ground produces two effects:
1. You can be against this sin and not have to be concerned about your own violation. Many Christians fall into the temptation to inflate this to unBiblical proportions because it makes them feel good. No one likes to feel guilty. This helps us feel good on the cheap. The solution to this problem is for us to be more concerned about our own sin first before worrying about the sins of others. Pastors need when they preach against sin to preach against those sins in which we are all guilty. Otherwise, they are tempting their congregations to be hypocrites.
2. The second problem is more intractable. Because we cannot relate to the temptation we grasp at straws for the “why” question. While Scripture guides us to not be judgmental and to be more worried about our beam in the eye rather than your speck, it is more or less silent on this issue. We correlate (wrongly IMHO) effeminate behavior with a gay sexual orientation. Combine 1 with 2 and that’s why you see what you do on so-called Christian television.
The only answer to the second problem is to ask the experts. Here I don’t mean those who produce psuedo-studies but rather those who are or were attracted to the same sex. And that’s why I hang out here.
While I am on the subject of finding common ground, I found the following Christianity Today article interesting:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/005/32.61.html
Is Chad Thompson’s advise to us (straight Evangelicals) sound? Why or why not?
Come, come, let’s get something straight. The anti-homo-sex provisions in the Bible, to the extent to which they have anything to do with reality, are merely an expression of sexism. The text of the Bible clearly supports a male-dominated society. From discussions with more than a few conservative christians over a number of years, it became clear to me that what they were opposed to was a male allowing himself to be mounted by another male. In other words, a male who was taking the role of a female. In many of the discussions, the males who were doing the mounting weren’t even considered homosexual.
It’s sexism, pure and simple.
Raj, I agree. There are entire societies (Mexico, Greece, Syria) that are so male dominant that a male top (even though they may only have sex with other males) is not considered homosexual. Only the bottom is and is ridiculed for it.
Aaron at May 15, 2005 08:24 PM
Actually, it’s far more complicated than that.
In ancient times, if a male mounted his male slave, that was not a problem. For either of them. Recall Hadrian and Andronicus?
In modern times, in more than a few societies, if an adult male mounts a post-pubescent male (mid-teens), there is no moral sanction against that. (We could go round and round about whether there should be, but that discussion is irrelevant. I’m talking about what is, not what ought to be.) This became clear to me from several articles a number of years ago from Afghanistan. The post-pubescent male is not considered an adult until he reaches a certain age, so if he is mounted above the “pubescnet” age but below the age of adulthoodby someone who is an adult, there was no sanction against him. Indeed, according to the articles that I read, the young men were often married into the family when they achieved adulthood. A poster might complain about the distinctions. but, as we know, that’s the way it is.