Chapter Three: Imagining what Gay could be.
Rejecting assimilationism. When are we going to be living our lives?
WHAT COULD WE BE AS GAY PEOPLE?
Imagining Gay: When are we going to start living our lives?
Currently the question as to what we could be as Gay individuals and a Gay community is answered in a negative way, that is we could exist without discrimination, and not in a positive way, as to what we might be, what actions we might take, what life trajectories we might follow. With the goal being the elimination of discrimination there are some who think there is no longer a need for a Gay movement.
Defining the Gay movement as entirely being the elimination of discrimination necessarily leads to the idea that with the elimination of discrimination, we are just members of society with no differentiating features or goals that make us different than straight people. Our difference is in the bedroom and otherwise we will be nearly indistinguishable from straights in our life trajectories and purposes and goals.
Thus, with this goal of the elimination of discrimination, that is the goal of allowing Gay people to do everything the straight people can do, becomes the goal of being able to be just like the straight people in getting married and adopting children, to be another nuclear family. A homosexual couple who are married, or wish to get married and have adopted a child or two is frequently presented in “queer” media such as shows and series. This is despite the fact that in society the rate of marriage for straight people is declining and for Gays getting married would mean outing themselves when applying for work or filling out other personnel related paperwork, can occur later in life not tied to heterosexual cycles of reproduction, and marriage is in many ways not applicable to Gay life.
There isn’t a comprehensive serious discussion of what life paths Gays might choose given that they aren’t heterosexuals and exist outside the cultural matrix of heterosexuality nor what choices and directions the Gay community might choose given that as a group of people we live outside of the cultural formations of heterosexuality. Assimilationist ideology for Gays has presumed that these paths, directions, and choices don’t exist and hence there is nothing to discuss or discover.
To avoid any deflecting arguments, if you do want to get married and adopt children that is your choice. The issue here is to make choices informed about what possible choices, alternatives, there are to choose from, and to consider that alternatives exist. The issue here is not to have a couple of choices, getting married and adopting children or not, be the two choices.
The challenge in writing this chapter is that what possible life choices Gays have, what possible directions the Gay community could go are mostly yet to be explored, discovered, imagined, determined or worked out. To discover what possible life choices Gays might have would require the thinking of hundreds of individuals and the exploratory efforts of thousands of Gays at least.
The author of this chapter exists in heterosexual society and acting as a lone individual can’t be expected to have escaped entirely heteronormative thinking, in fact it would be unreasonable to expect that he has escaped to a great degree when working alone to escape it.
Thus, this chapter is a call out to other Gays to start thinking about what Gay could be.
Given that the author has stated that he is incapable of writing a chapter on what Gay life could be and what the Gay communities could be, it might be asked then what is the purpose of this chapter?
The author of this chapter will discuss some possibilities that he and others have thought of to show some examples of the life paths and opportunities that Gays might follow to show others that there are some life paths and opportunities that exist and thus hopefully inspire others to start thinking.
This chapter is to start the process in our community to think on how we might exist.
Some possibilities are obvious, the possibilities that open up because we don’t have to raise children.
Other possibilities are not so obvious, and they are important not just in themselves, but as examples on how we don’t always immediately see the possibilities of being Gay and that they might not be obvious, even though they are important possibilities.
They show how certain things are not critically examined, and that how the fact that they are embedded in heteronormativity isn’t recognized because they are so familiar to us. I call this banal heteronormativity for the everyday things which seem so familiar to us and so they seem the result of it just being the practical way things are done such that we don’t perceive these things’ heteronormative nature and that they are actually derived from heteronormativity.
Freedom From Reproduction
The most obvious thing about Gay life and which opens up many possibilities, isn’t necessarily restricted to Gays. That is the possibilities that open up because Gays generally don’t have children and have the time and resources freed up to pursue other opportunities.
Religious orders in various religions have monks or priests or others who don’t have families so they can devote themselves to some purpose. It has been recognized that for centuries if not millennia that not having a heterosexual family is necessary to have some particular trajectories in life. For Gays, not having families is a default, surely it opens up different possibilities in life.
Even in this, the “queer” media doesn’t discuss what paths might result, it is just assumed there will be more time for recreational activities or the choices that straights might make before they are married. The full range of possibilities due the absence of child raising responsibilities isn’t explored because it isn’t a topic to start with.
With the extra time and resources, without any theoretical direction, Gays and their communities achieve objectives and manifest their unique opportunities. Many of the Gay neighborhoods started in decaying urban areas and Gays restored and improved the housing. Gays established businesses and revitalized neighborhoods which sometimes were in the process of being abandoned. In San Francisco in the 1970s and 80s when my late ex-lover and I were restoring a home, when we went to the hardware store there were so many Gays there purchasing materials there were jokes about it.
With the lack of lack of children and the time involved, the author restored two homes, was the editor of two university press books in the field of history and nationalism, was active in the Gay liberation movement, and also had a successful career in semiconductor processing reaching the position of Principal Engineer.
Gays have the time to really determinedly pursue one career or successfully have two careers. Or they can have a career and successfully complete many different projects or goals.
Without families Gays can take greater risks in choosing jobs, or joining start-ups, or undertaking a venture, the risk of failure that they might have, is perhaps having to sleep at a friend’s house until they get back on their feet. There isn’t a risk of a family being left homeless, unfed, not being able to get medical care, the risk is just the risk for oneself and not others.
Gays can choose careers that won’t support a family. They can choose to start a serious career later in life because they aren’t locked into the heterosexual cycles of reproduction and don’t need to have a career right away.
Not having family responsibilities allows greater flexibility in choosing different life paths.
There might be even greater possibilities of life careers if we weren’t locked into heterosexual housing and only had the choice of being married or single.
However, though the author chose one path, and was focused on a dual engineering and humanities career, however, this extra time and its possibilities shouldn’t be looked at exclusively in utilitarian terms.
Other Gays go to what is circuit parties and have built up a unique dance and musical culture. Being an engineer and academic I really don’t know what the cultural possibilities are. Though I think one thing that would be different is that the choice of an artistic career isn’t going to be influenced by the considerations of whether a chosen career can support a family or will it be considered desirable by women in their choosing a potential husband.
When Gays socialize at clubs there can be a wide diversity of social classes, races, and backgrounds there, surely that has an impact on a Gay artists’ work. When Gays travel, they go to Gay clubs and other venues and meet people locally. The social fluidity of Gays surely gives them opportunities for different perspectives and to learn different things.
The author has over the years met Gays who due to the fact that they are dating individuals who speak another language become very fluent in that language.
However, the author really doesn’t have the background to imagine what are uniquely Gay opportunities for people in other occupations.
Housing
Years ago, at U.C. Berkeley, it came up that the School of Architecture had a class, of which our small community of Gays heard, was a Gay studies class, but to make it not apparent, it was called non-nuclear family housing. I don’t know if this was true.
The joke was that in the class they were going to put urinals in the bathroom. Men’s bathrooms use urinals. They are quick to use and they save water. In an all-male Gay house hold they would be useful. We couldn’t really imagine what Gay housing would be so we thought of that.
The interesting thing was that in a former relationship we restored an old Victorian house in San Francisco, and moving to Dallas in the late 1980s I restored a Tudor thing. In both cases I wanted to have a urinal as a conversation piece and make my house Gayer but in both cases, there wasn’t a place to put a urinal that made sense. I was talking about this with my spouse while writing this chapter and he said he has seen in Dallas a house with a urinal. It turns out that the person, who was Gay, had designed the house himself and so a place for a urinal was part of the design before it was built. It wasn’t a modification of an existing house.
What I then realized discussing the possibility of urinals in houses, is that heterosexuality is structurally built into the houses we buy.
The urinal in a house could be in an office and have a tiny sink, exhaust, and a tight-fitting decorative door, it wouldn’t necessarily have to be in a bathroom. Its utility probably doesn’t make sense unless it is part of an integrated design of a house for Gays.
When houses are being built and for those which are already on the market, some room will be said to be good for the nursery, or the house will be good for those starting a family, or another house is good for a growing family. Rooms are sized so some are for children and others make up the master bedroom, which for the heterosexual adult couple who are the parents or will be the parents. The idea that there might be more than two adults isn’t considered. An extra adult bedroom is a “guest room.”
For Gays a house which is built for multiple adults with shared kitchens, living rooms, and other spaces similar to a boarding house or dorm could be very desirable. Instead of five separate small houses, with kitchens and living spaces at most used by two people, a house with five adults and shared spaces could be very desirable. For starters with the cost of housing what it is, the mortgage payments could be shared among five adults as well as the taxes and maintenance costs. To really work it would have to be built from the ground up. As for the wall urinal discussed earlier, it probably is much easier to share bathrooms if wall urinals were built into the bedrooms so there won’t be as much need for the shared bathroom. A house might even have a dorm type shower.
These brief ideas about Gay housing and how it might be constructed are just what I can think of upon brief reflection. The author isn’t an architect. However, very likely if housing for Gays was designed from zero without any pre-conceptions it might look very different. We don’t know since I don’t think we have tried.
Also, if the housing in a neighborhood was built for Gays or had been reconstructed for Gays, it wouldn’t be so desirable for straight people and the phenomenon of Gay neighborhoods ceasing to be Gay neighborhoods as they become desirable and straight people move into them would be stopped or lessened.
As the situation currently is in 2022 in the United States, most Gays don’t have any chance of owning a house by themselves or as a couple and are likely not ever to do so. They will spend their lives struggling to pay rent to the day they die. However, existing forms of housing for those who have limited funds already exists, such as student dorms.
Even if a house design for multiple unrelated adults was designed, for most neighborhoods there are zoning laws prohibiting unrelated adults from living in a dwelling. Heterosexuality is built into the landscape and housing stock by law.
A very real issue of the welfare of Gays, that is housing for Gays and the existing housing stock isn’t even an issue for the current LGBTQXYZ leadership. It is just presumed that the issues for housing for Gays is the same as for straights, there isn’t even the concept of Gay housing. The negative impact to Gays, in particular working Gays and Gays not in the upper middle classes and above, of this failure to recognize there are Gay housing issues is horrendous.
Grouping: Couples, Throuples, and more.
I had heard of the idea of polyamory and I had thought to myself, “the straight people are fooling around,” and didn’t think much of it. However, I saw a trailer for the Gay movie, “Bros,” directed by Nicholas Stoller, a rom-com and in the trailer, it showed three men declaring they were in a throuple.
A throuple is three persons together romantically. In listening to the trailer my immediate reaction was to dismiss it as a possibility and I imagined it would be a folly and an unstable relationship that wouldn’t last. Then I paused, thinking that all my thoughts were just assumptions and also that I had been writing about how we are often unaware how heteronormativity pervades our thinking and constrains our thoughts on what is possible.
The initial thought is that with a throuple you have three relationships (A-B, B-C, A-C) that might break, instead of just the one (A-B) relationship in a couple. However, maybe with three people, there are stabilizing influences in having three people. When one pair of difficulties the other acts to stabilize the relationship. Also, if A and C aren’t getting along for a period of time, they are still in a relationship with B and the throuple stays together. It might be throuples do have difficulties, but they are also extra resistant to breaking up. All this is a speculation, but the point to be made is that we should just assume it is not a working relationship. There is an additional factor which will be explored after the issues of throuples and LGBTQXYZ Inc. pushing of imitating straight marriage.
Since LGBTQXYZ Inc. has had the goals of obtaining the right to marry, a type of binding which straight people have developed for themselves, and has given a direction to the Gay community to lives in imitation of straight people we don’t have many people trying to see if a throuple would work or develop ways that throuples would work. Given that Gays exist outside society and experience life very differently is could be that the ideas associated with organizing people as couples might not have as much influence in shaping the thoughts of Gays in throuples and undermining their throuples.
With three people, there would be financial benefits. Three people can afford to purchase a home easier than two people. If one person lost a job, the other two employed members of the throuple would be more able to cover expenses, than one employed member of the couple. Living expenses would be less, the apartment rent, or the house’s taxes, mortgage and maintenance could be split among three instead of two. There would be three people to think about solving problems rather than one.
Sexually a Gay throuple would be completely different than a straight throuple. A Gay throuple would be three men which could all have sex with each other (A-B, A-C, B-C) and even have sex with each other all together simultaneously with the basic typical Gay sex acts. They could all be fucking each other at once, one guy being fucked, one guy fucking and being fucked, and one guy fucking. If any one of them wasn’t present the other two would still could be sexually active.
With straights a throuple would be unbalanced. Two women and one man, or one woman and two men. There would only be two possibilities for sex and sex between two of the members wouldn’t be possible, and with ordinary heterosexual acts, the three wouldn’t be able to have sex simultaneously. The bipolarity of heterosexuality would be always present. With one woman and two men, or with one man and two women, one of the three would be tasked with sexually satisfying two others. Sexual activity isn’t evenly divided since one member would be twice as active as the other two. Depending as to which of the three weren’t present, the other two may or may not be sexually active heterosexually.
This comparison isn’t to rank one type of throuple over another, it is to show that a straight throuple and a Gay throuple would be two very different things, operating in very different ways. However, straight throuples might function or succeed or fail is irrelevant to Gay throuples and no comparison should be made.
Of course, there might be the bonding together of more than three people. Heterosexuals have practice polygamy for millennia. Also, in some places there is polyandry where several men are married to one woman. Perhaps there might be a Gay equivalent of several men in a group making a unit. That is something for the Gay community to explore.
It never should be assumed that in escaping one form of heteronormative thinking a person has escaped them all. Further one form of heteronormative thinking may exist inside a larger frame work of heteronormative thinking.
Modern marriage is supposed to be based on romantic love. However, this is a relatively modern thing. For most of human history, nearly all of human history, marriages were arranged with other objectives than love and not romantic love. Even today in many places in the world arranged marriages still take place, or parents are very much involved in match making with their children.
The contemporary campaign for Gay marriage is for the Gay community to adopt a particular specific type of marriage of a specific culture and short historical period, which hasn’t been practiced by most of humanity through nearly all of human history.
In needs to be asked if this particular modern Western idea of marriage works for Gay people in either couples, throuples or other binding arrangements. It is just assumed in Western society and by the assimilationist Gays that this idea of marriage is the best, the reference standard by from which all other relationships are deviant.
There might be entirely yet to be conceptualized or imagined binding relationships for Gays. Perhaps Gay relationships might be more stable when they are thought of partnerships first and romantic relationships second. The fact is the subject is entirely
I remember when I broke up with a boyfriend of seven years, but we continued to live in the same house and continued to pay for the mortgage together. A straight person asked about us continuing to live together, and we were dating and bringing others home. The person pointed out that this simply wouldn’t work for a straight married couple, and I entirely believe that. Part of our relationship was romantic, but part of it was a partnership. I did explain to the straight person that in the State of California that a mortgage contract is more binding than a marriage contract.
In what ways Gays might bind each other hasn’t been really explored, but instead the LGBTQXYZ has assumed that Gay relationships will be like straight relationships and that is a desirable. Part of the campaign for Gay marriage as earlier discussed was that marriage would change Gay behavior to be more like straight people and hence better.
Since we don’t think that Gays can be different from straights, we don’t lead different lives.
Clothing
Clothing is very much shaped by the polarity of heterosexuality. Women have a distinct set of clothes to wear including shoes. A lot of women’s clothing is said to be feminine but much of it seems to be to make a woman a presentation for men, a dessert for consumption. Women wear dresses. Men on the other hand wear very different garments than women and some of it is to make them look attractive to women, not necessarily physically, but to communicate other traits, such as financial resources, or status in society.
Straight men often think fashion is a thing for women. They sometimes fear bright colors, light colors, pastels and pink in particular, as fabrics that are shiny, silky or sparkle and often see these colors and fabric types as being for women. Velvet and velour fabrics will be not used. Children at a young age know the gender of colors and state that something is for girls based on its color or fabric. Heterosexuality has a whole set of design codes for what is for one sex or another.
I remember in the 1960s an 11th Grade male teacher for English showed up wearing a pink shirt and it was the subject of discussion and it was the new radical thing then, men could wear pink in defiance of custom. Though that era is long gone, clothes are still gendered, it is still radical when Lil Nas X wears his all-hot pink outfit, and his other brightly colored garments or garments not in accordance with gender roles, such as a white quilted garment with pearls.
We see fabrics that are intended for women’s clothing and fabrics for men’s clothing. The cloth is gendered even as it is woven. What male outfits will be using chiffon? Even if they do use chiffon will it not be in a reaction to gender roles, that is would chiffon be used by a Gay person other than in a drag outfit?
The sexual polarity of dress is what makes possible the existence of drag queens. Drag queens don’t exist outside the polarity of heterosexuality, they may satirize it, subvert it, but drag doesn’t exist without the polarity of heterosexuality.
Similarly, the so-called non-binary style of dressing, presumes that things are binary and is actually a reactionary concept that certain things are of one sex or another and embeds sexual stereotypes into behaviors and objects as concrete realities.
Unisex clothing is designed for both sexes consciously not to be designed along the polarity of heterosexuality, but it is designed for two sexes to wear, and hence isn’t designed for one sex, which homosexuals are.
The various reactions to the heterosexual polarity of dress, whether women’s clothing, men’s clothing, drag, non-binary, and unisex all exist in a conceptual field of either accepting, rejecting or otherwise reacting to heterosexual polarity in clothing.
Clothing for Gays could be outside these conceptual fields relating to heterosexuality.
For Gays there is the possibility that clothing is desired for Gay needs and it is designed outside of the heterosexual matrix and also not in reaction to it. A fabric or color could be used for an article of clothing because it makes for an attractive article of clothing, a function item of clothing and not because it is masculine or feminine or in rebellion to either.
Cloth that is woven for one gender or the other, doesn’t allow the design of clothes outside of the heterosexual polarity. To some extend having Gay centric clothing is going to be difficult because a lot of fabric is woven with it being intended to be in either a woman’s or man’s garment. Perhaps the problem is solved if fabrics woven for other applications, like upholstery, high tech fabrics, bed sheets, cloth bags, or other fabrics. The is the possibility that a cloth or fabric might be uniquely woven as a fabric for Gays. It may seem outlandish, but it is perhaps just because we haven’t recognized that the manufacture of fabrics is shaped by heterosexuality in many cases.
One feature of Gay life is that Gay men generally understand that they can be objects of sexual desire, not reject it, and generally want to be objects of sexual desire.
With heterosexuals, though this has changed some, the general attitude is that she is supposed to be an object of desire, and the man is to have an income. Men are supposed to pay for meals, flowers, and give gifts. As a co-worker told me bluntly in the 1970s at work, when I was exercising and dieting to look better, “She needs to look good, you just have the money.” Men drive expensive cars to impress women. There is this whole heterosexual cultural formation in which it isn’t that important for men to be objects of desire and it is somewhat stigmatized if that is their chief attribute to attract women.
In being an object of desire, Gays have already adopted or initiated some developments in clothing. Speedos were quickly adopted by many Gays for the beach. Bikini underwear was also adopted by many Gay men. Generally, men won’t wear short shorts or spandex clothing which reveals the contours of the genitals. Gay men adopted skinny jeans faster and more than straight men. For some straight guys there is the fear of being objects of desire of Gays.
One Gay clothing trend is the sale of underwear briefs for men to help men erotically display themselves or draw attention to that part of the body. There are brands of underwear that are specifically directed towards Gay men. Gay men have social events called underwear parties where they can be objects of desire.
Mesh fabrics where the shirt breaths but the body can still be seen is one case where a fabric is adopted because of its utility but also as part of Gays understanding that they can be objects of desire.
Free of the rules of heterosexuality, Gays can adopt clothing and accessories without fear of violating gender roles whether it is a fanny pack or bag, but instead whether the item serves a useful purpose. The issue whether a bag or fanny pack might be interpreted as a purse, hence a women’s accessory, isn’t a concern.
One thing that Gays can do, but straight men will generally find difficult, is to create new unique clothing and assemblages of clothing that being new, don’t have sex role assignments, and exist entirely outside heterosexual polarity. Gays have the possibility of putting together clothing and attire based on what they like and not sex role expectations. Colors, fabrics, ornaments can be incorporated into the garment without concern as to gender identity. Similarly, a Gay person can adopt something novel or new in dress that someone else has created that isn’t in the heterosexual polarity. There is an open field of exploration that is possible.
For many straight men, the unique item, or the new and novel attire or outfit, has the problem in that existing outside sex role norms, the interpretation of the clothing by other straight men and women is going to be problematic since straights expect clothing will be for men or women and the novel clothing might be categorized for women. This is particularly more like if the item has bright colors, velour, beads, rhinestones, silks, or shiny fabrics which clothing designed for men generally avoids. When straight men want to wear bright colors, it is a clearly defined Hawaiian shirt using the color idea of non-whites being less sophisticated and having a preference for bright colors.
The author used to wear a lot of interesting shirts to work and often male co-workers would ask how did I know it wasn’t a woman’s shirt. They were struggling to figure out how to assign a gender identity to my shirt. In one case it was previous to a meeting and the several male co-workers wanted to know. I pointed out that shirts have buttons on the left or right depending whether they were for men or women. Then I stated in a mock serious voice, “Otherwise we would have gender anarchy and society would crumble.”
Clothing is used to communicate ideas to the viewer about the wearer of the clothing. Gays are going to have different things to say to other Gays then, straight men communicate to women with their clothing. This will drive the creation of clothing that is not normative in heterosexual society. Novel clothing can help initiate conversations with other Gays starting out with inquiries about the attire or praise of the creative effort that the attire represents. Gays can communicate to others that they are unique individuals and have creative abilities.
Gays have the problem of finding each other in society since they don’t necessarily have identifying features that can be recognized. To communicate to other Gays Gay identity without straights recognizing a person’s Gay identity, the Gay community has sometimes adopted certain forms of ornamentation or an accessory to do this. Men wore pinky rings. In other cases, there wasn’t the desire to be covert and by not following gender norms, such as wearing something bright, could give a hint to other Gays a person’s Gay identity. Sometimes a Gay symbol worn as an ornament can communicate identity also. This is somewhat problematic in that anti-Gay straight people can sometimes recognize what ornament or clothing is communicating and the Gay person can be subject to harassment or even violence.
Further there is the adoption of bright colors and other elements by some younger straight men such that it is no longer certain what different clothing elements might signify.
It very well might be that Gay clothing elements will be so rapidly adopted by straights that it won’t be possible to use clothing to communicate Gay identity unless specifically Gay symbols are used.
Of course, with social changes over the past decades not all straight men are necessarily so confined in the norms of heterosexuality. However, it is considered so not normative, we have to invent a category, “metrosexual,” to comprehend them as a class of individuals who aren’t normative in masculine behavior. It is sometimes used as a term of disdain.
Food: Gays can eat quiche
In the 1980s with visible Gay communities emerging and food ways changing the phrase “Real men don’t eat quiche,” appeared in media and usage and was adapted to explain what other “real” men do or don’t do. It was a title of a satirical book about gender roles. There were and are food products which incorporate gender ideas about eating such as the canned Manwich products which is basically a can of sloppy joe mix. Swanson frozen foods has “Hungry-Man” frozen dinners. I don’t think any Gay person takes these products seriously and they aren’t limiting to what Gays might be, but I point them out to show that there are gender ideas about food.
Largely with contemporary culture with people eating a wide variety of national foods people in general are much less restricted in diet and much less likely to have gender ideas about food. It has changed a lot in the last 60 or so years. The Gay community has kept very current with these food changes mostly because the centers of the Gay community are in major urban centers.
However, this revolution in food hasn’t reached all segments of society. For some Gays after coming out and being present in the Gay community there will be a big shift in the foods they eat. Being Gay will be becoming a person who eats a very much larger range of foods then their straight relatives. The author observed a person from a rural area taste test yogurt as if it was possibly poison, adopting yogurt, and later abandoning yogurt because they are basically dessert snacks and eating fruit.
The Gay community will likely have differences in food ways from the straight community because the Gay community in many respects is a global and cosmopolitan society. There are different food ways regionally in the United States and among social classes and as Gays from their different areas and social classes migrate to urban centers they will be observing and sharing food ways. Boyfriends from one background might be brought to visit the family of the boyfriend who have different food ways than his parents. Eating in the Gay community occurs in an environment where there is immediate proximity to different foodways both internationally, regionally, ethnic groups, social classes, vegetarian and among religious groups that have distinctive foodways. The author ate his first bowl of menudo served to him by a Mexican American guy he was dating. The author was introduced to Dim Sum in San Francisco by some Gay Chinese and Chinese American guys he knew.
Being Gay is being presented with a very diverse array for foodways to choose from and to adapt. In foodways Gays are already being significantly different in how they can be, but perhaps only by a significant degree since general society is exploring different foods also, but in some ways not emulated by straight society since the exchange in food ways isn’t always what is presented in the food section of the local newspaper or magazine. It could be junk foods.
Cooking for Gays is going to be different since it is cooking for one or two people, and be expecting to cook or one or two people for most of their life. Young straight people might be single, but they might be eating at home whereas a Gay person might be estranged form their parents’ home. For straights cooking for one person is expected to be just a stage before they get married and have a family.
In cooking the arrangements of how Gays live and their housing arrangements, housing and living patterns designed for straight people would impact Gays in that group preparation of food is precluded. Cooking for Gay people could be adaptions to support cooking for one or two people. Cooking for Gays could be oriented to food that could be stored in freezers or refrigerators and reheated, or dishes for which the preparation of small amounts is feasible. Likely Gays instead are having to purchase the packaged meals that exist at the store and which are full of fats, salt, and sugar. Or Gays might be eating too much of something because it risks being stored too long and going bad.
The LGBTQXYX media mostly focuses of cooking for Gays for upper middle-class Gays and mostly in imitation of food and dining reporting oriented towards straight people. Healthy meals for Gays who aren’t going to Café du Swell isn’t a topic.
The really major difference in food ways is that Gays recognize that they are objects of sexual desire and often seek to be more sexually desirable. This means eating healthy and exercising. Not eating fast food so much and eating a balanced diet and being conscious of what you are eating. Further being conscious of not being overweight.
The author remembers an unintentionally hilarious San Francisco Chronicle article in the 1980s in which a reporter went to clothing stores in the Gay neighborhood and couldn’t find pants with his height and waistline and was shocked by it.
This is one of the major ways Gays are Gay in that they are less likely to be overweight and more likely to be exercising in some form and way and careful in what they eat. This isn’t always the case, but the difference is enough to be a significant contrast with comparable cohorts of straight men.
This has a big significance for Gays besides being more sexually desirable and having sex with more desirable guys, though that is a good thing, and a good motivating reward for good eating and exercising. There will likely be another factor encouraging health eating, as a social group is more oriented to healthy eating, individual members are more likely to adopt some elements of peer group eating habits.
Not being overweight, getting exercise, and eating a healthy diet contributes to being healthy and living well longer. This is a very critical and significant thing for Gays.
As a Gay person gets older, he can’t expect to have children or grandchildren taking care of him. Even as a younger person, he might have relatives that are hostile or indifferent to his well being because of homophobia. Sometimes this indifference or hostility might not become visible until the need for assistance or help is urgent. The parents might be focused on those children with grandchildren. For the older Gay person, the extended family could be hostile to him or indifferent to his situation regardless how dire.
Being able to live independently longer instead of ending up in a facility for the elderly is extra years of living without being dependent on straight people or subject to their behaviors. As a Gay couple, one of you will be able to take care of the other because you are in good health. A lowered chance of hospitalization will mean a less likelihood to have to deal with relatives and staff contesting who is allowed to visit.
Being out of hospitals, hospices, retirement facilities, means being less subject to Christian predators. The author was once given intensive testing to see if he had had a stroke, but it was just memory loss from a prescription for which the author hadn’t been given proper instruction. In the midst of a considerable stress, a Christian nurse decided that was the opportunity to try to proselytize. There might be social workers or others with Christian backgrounds wanting to push their agenda if you are hospitalized.
Even under the best of circumstances Gays in hospices and retirement facilities will find that they are in places that are not now Gay communities of individuals, but mostly composed of straight people and so will end up isolated from other Gays.
Gays that get sick will be impaired form finding work or changing jobs, or working on their house and getting it fixed up, or achieving tasks critical to surviving, or dealing with many challenging situations in a society that has many such difficult situations.
Gay people are often on their own and having good health is a critical factor in their situation.
Also, being unhealthy and having to see the doctor, purchase medicines, and having major medical interventions is costly and takes up time, even if the outcome is that the patient is fully recovered. The time lost might be the time that would be dedicated to something important. The money lost might mean the person can’t purchase a house and have to remain a renter. Or the leave of absence from the job or loss of employment might mean the loss of a house. A lot of social services for the homeless say their prioritize families first, which means they won’t be social services for homeless Gay men. A lot of charities that help out people in need are run by anti-Gay Christian groups.
What Gay could be could be about focusing on health and activities that promote health and being concerned about good health be part of the Gay identity. Not smoking would then be part of the Gay identity and be a big advantage for the Gay community, though smoking in the United States is declining fairly fast for all demographics.
Also, supporting work to prevent STDs through vaccines, rather than the suppression of Gay sexual activity and the use of deadening condoms should be an agenda item. The LGBTQXYZ establishment seems to be embarrassed by the liberated sexuality of Gays and even more that Gays get sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and they wish that Gays would have monogamous relationships and perhaps live in a suburb.
A health agenda supporting the sexually liberated lives of Gays should be part of what Gay could be. Though there is some activity occurring around HIV vaccines and some others, there doesn’t seem to be any focus on syphilis and gonorrhea and others. Had Gay health been an agenda item, it is possible that there would be more support for finding vaccines and cures for tropical diseases which as monkeypox shows are not likely to remain tropical diseases. Do we have a vaccine for zika yet?
The current reaction of the LGBTQXYZ establishment to the developing monkeypox crisis is not to criticize the government in the United States for its slow response and lack of care, but instead focused on saying that it isn’t a Gay disease, even though over 95% of the victims are Gay and focus on repressing Gay sexual activities.
Sports
Sports offers another activity where Gays might have different possibilities. Much of sports is involved with heterosexuality. In high school female cheerleaders cheer for male athletes at sports events of teams battling against each other. Yet there are no male cheer leaders for women athletes in battling against each other. Gay sports might be more individual sports where the athlete competes against himself. Or it might be teams, but not necessarily teams battling other teams.
It might be that the sports for Gays are yet to be created or adapted from other sources. African American college students have groups which do stylized stepping. Perhaps Gays might have dance teams or something involving group gymnastics.
Much of current high school sports don’t serve adults well in life regardless of sexual orientation. Football, basketball, baseball, volleyball, and soccer are not likely to be sports followed in adult life especially as a person gets older. Also, they demand a lot of practice and skill and amateur teams will be an activity for a limited number. Gymnastics doesn’t exist as an activity for adults either. There are sports for adults such as badminton, tennis, ping pong involving individuals or pairs of athletes competing with another individual or pair. There are sports like running and swimming which are individual and not social activities.
At the present Gay sports are usually just sports where the teams are mostly Gay. Perhaps there is not essentially Gay sports, but since the question hasn’t been really explored nor effort spent in imagining uniquely Gay sports the question isn’t closed. It will take someone who is imaging what a Gay sport might be, think experimentally and doing development work on the question. That is invent a sport and see how it works for Gay people and not just a modification of existing sports, but something totally new and designed starting form nothing. Also, the reason the author can’t offer any suggestions is that he has never been that much involved with sports. In imagining how Gay people could be, no one person is going to be able to imagine all the possibilities, because no one person has experience or involvement in all human activities.
As stated in the beginning the purpose of this chapter is not to create the definitive list of what Gay might be, but suggest that we need to start thinking of what Gay might be, rather than be assimilationists thinking about how Gays might approximate straight life. The examples given might all have flaws in their conceptualization and are in no way meant to be a complete definitive list, but are given as examples to initial thinking about how Gay might be.
Only as Gays realizing their potential lives will a Gay community be built. Assimilationist ideology is oriented towards absorption into the straight community and obliteration of the potential of what Gay might be.