The article in the Pasadena City College Courier seemed innocuous enough: Vandalism Takes on New Look. I read it at lunch yesterday with only half of my attention, until I came to the following:
Perhaps the most appalling and perverted form of vandalism was a recent report of male students drilling peepholes with electric drills into restroom partition walls. These holes, which are conducive to the insertion of the male genital anatomy, are known in the underground fetish world as "glory holes." While one male utilizes the peephole, a willing participant in the next stall performs oral favors.
Faci lities Director Richard Van Pelt said, "The situation kept repeating itself in certain stalls on campus. Apparently this is not unique to PCC; it occurs at other institutions as well." In order to protect against this destructive and perverted behavior, extremely strong and durable stainless steal partitions were installed in the problem stalls.
Far be it from me to defend those who vandalize our sacred campus property. Destructive? Of course. Appalling? A bit of a rhetorical reach, but the sort of overkill one might expect in a college paper. Perverted, used twice? Pure, undistilled, bigotry. (I could also quibble with the characterization of these glory holes as characteristic of a "fetish world" — most folks in the community use "fetish" in a different sense, but I’ll let that pass.)
I have fired off the following missive to the editor of the paper:
Dear editor:
I am writing to express my profound anger and dismay at a phrase employed by Micah Flores in his article entitled "Vandalism Takes on a New Look" in your November 12 edition.
Writing about "glory holes", Flores chose the following words:
"In order to protect against this destructive and perverted behavior, extremely strong and stainless steal (sic) partitions were installed…"
I will not defend the destruction of property. But to characterize consensual sex behavior as "perverted" is to employ the language of hate and intolerance . It has absolutely no place in a college newspaper. Flores could have condemned the damaging of bathroom partitions without condemning the motives for that damage. He chose not to, and wittingly or no, chose one of the ugliest of slurs to attack the gay and lesbian community.
Had Flores merely used the word "destructive", his point would have been made. But by using the inflammatory and hate-filled "perverted", he turned an otherwise innocuous article on vandalism into an ugly attack on our most vulnerable minority group.
I ask the Courier to issue an immediate apology to the gay and lesbian community on campus.
We’ll see what comes of it. We have a very small and relatively quiet GLBTQ student group (the "Rainbow Alliance"), and they have many battles to fight and not many weapons to fight them with. They shouldn’t have to respond to this sort of thing alone.
I don’t know if many hetero folks truly understand the power of the word "pervert". Since the early 20th-century, when it replaced "invert" as an epithet of choice for LGBTQ folk, it has taken its place alongside "faggot" as one of the ugliest of terms in the anti-gay and lesbian arsenal. Even if one were to defend the article by suggesting that only anonymous restroom sex was being labelled "perverted" (rather than all forms of male-male sex), the hate-filled history of the word makes it impossible to use in an objective context.
Note: You can submit your own comments to the Courier here.
Or have I overreacted?
No, I don’t think you overreacted. The use of the word “perverted” twice struck me badly even before I read your commentary on it. I cannot imagine how damaging it might be to a member of the GL community.
I suspect any letter I wrote to the newspaper would not have been as temperate.
How does your Christian faith inform your understanding of sexual practices? Leaving discussions of same-sex sex aside, I understand Christianity as advocating sex as a human, intimate, meaningful act intended for committed relationships. Glory hole sex is about anonymous, physical encounters in public - it is about using another person for your physical satisfaction without relationship, commitment, or even knowing the person’s name. Now, I don’t like the word ‘perverse’ and I rarely use it, but this form of sex seems, at the very least, to be less than what God intended sex to be. What do you think? (I also realize that a public newspaper at a secular school is not the place for evaluating the morality of sexual practices - I’m referring more to your commentary than to the newspaper article).
I don’t think you overreacted at all, and I agree with Anne WRT the “temperate” comment. Good job Hugo, I say.
I think you were right on point with this; it’s an easy enough job to condemn vandalism without resorting to the ‘pervert’ tag; use of that particular term just diverts attention away from the vandalism and makes the author appear as a priggish schoolmaster.
Anyway, this is the first time I’ve heard of ‘glory holes’ on school property; is this a common thing in men’s rooms? And aren’t glory holes also a way for men who identify as ’straight’ to enjoy gay sex without having to admit it?
The use of ‘perverted’ twice is what makes the article not just moralistic but homophobic-seeming. The author’s intent might not have been such, but the word is loaded.
I think you are wrong, and that kind of thing is perverted. It’s hardly a loving and committed relationship, is it? Anonymous toilet sex, no matter who does it, is sex bent out of its proper shape. Hence, it’s perverted. Would you have objected to the adjective when applied to heterosexual sex done in that manner?
Jenell, just because you don’t approve of slurs like “pervert” doesn’t mean that you incorporate glory holes into your own behavior.
Jenell, I am comfortable saying that glory holes “fall short of the mark.” Is it behavior I think is ideal? Of course not. Is it some sense even “perverse”? In my opinion, yes. But indeed, such moral descriptions have no place in a college paper designed to serve a campus filled with folks who hold widely differing positions on sexual morality. Furthermore, the word “pervert” is worlds apart from “perverse”. The latter is a term for behavior, the former a term traditionally used to smear an entire class of human beings.
John, I would have objected, but not so strenuously. Heterosexuals are not a group with a long history of discrimination; pervert is not a term used to slander them. Thus its power to wound is considerably less.
There is nothing bigoted about calling a spade a spade, a fetish a fetish, or a perverted sexual practice perverted. That the word “pervert” has been used by some improperly in the past does not invalidate its correct use here. Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia.
Your statement that any moral judgements “have no place in a college paper designed to serve a campus filled with folks who hold widely differing positions on sexual morality” borders on fascism. That idea itself has no place on a college campus, which should place a high value on the free exchange of ideas, not the suppression of certain politically incorrect ones.
To Xrlq,
Of course colleges should be places of free exchange of ideas, although I’ve known folks on both sides of the spectrum who do their best to define that as narrowly as possible.
OTH, Hugo was referring to an article. I could see an Op-Ed piece using such language. But, then again, in an environment that encourages the free exchange of ideas, the writer(s) should be prepared for a lot of free expression back (I’m not referring to name calling, smear campaigns, but genuine dissent over the use of a word that has been used to legally discriminate against a particular group within our culture.)
i think the “ms. kitty gives advice” column is more disgusting. the very fact that ppl even write to him/her for advice is mind boggling. i hope at night that ms.kitty herself is actually making up the questions, because some of the questions that ppl ask are just way out there and saddening. oh and ms.kittys advices? dont even make me start on it!
I agree with Joe. A news article should steer clear of value judgments like that; that’s the place of the Op-Ed page.
“Glory hole” is also a term used in glassblowing; it’s the small furnace used to work the glass and keep it hot. Not somewhere you’d want to stick your penis.
seems to me like you throw around the word “intolerant” like others do “pervert”. Is tolerance your highest virtue? If so, what is that based on? Aren’t others entitled to their opinions without your trying to censor them? Free speech only for the tolerant. nice.
Did I miss something? Did Hugo bring down the hammer of censorship on them? Does he have that power?
Anyway, I have to admit, I agree with XRLQ now that I think about it. I toss the word “pervert” around freely on my own blog, applying it liberally to those who advocate abstinence-only education, laws against sodomy, laws banning gay marriage and all other assorted conservative positions that show way more interest in what your neighbor is doing in bed than is really proper.
Erica, “tolerance” is a much maligned virtue. Would you be “tolerant” of a newspaper article that defamed black men with racial epithets? Tolerance means adopting a language that allows all of us to feel valued and accepted.
Those who are morally opposed to homosexuality are allowed to hold on to those feelings — but the public expression of those feelings don’t belong in an article on vandalism, any more than racism belongs in an article on the all-black basketball team. Again, I’m not defending the behavior, rather condemning the language used to describe it.
Amanda, there is a difference between us!Not calling ANYONE a pervert gives me, perhaps, a little more moral legitimacy to preach against its use!
Hmmm….do I get a pass because I use the term to subvert its traditional meaning?
Well, I am happy to dispense a “pass”, Amanda. Still, I think we have to take care with how our words may be interpreted by others who are unaware of our intent to subvert.
I’m careful to say that using the word perverted in the newspaper language is “employing the language of bigotry.” I am not prepared to declare the writer to be a bigot himself.
Hugo—with respect, I think you overreacted. I personally don’t use or appreciate language like “fag†or “pervertâ€â€”I regret the fact that “Christians†have used such rhetoric to put homosexuals in their place. I also appreciate the historical context of the word “pervertâ€. But having sex (hetro or homo) in a PUBLIC space is not just “consensual sex behaviorâ€â€”it subjects other unsuspecting people to sexual behavior (either by encountering the act or the mess it may leave). What people do in private is their business but a public bathroom is not a private place. I guess we all should be more careful when using a public bathroom. Just some quick thoughts—peace.
Sure, John, but again, the use of the word “pervert” is inflammatory. The question is not whether folks should be having sex in public bathrooms — I think we are all in agreement that that is unacceptable. The question is, what words are we going to use to describe that behavior?
The problem with the word “perverted” is that no attempt is made to distinguish the public nature of the act (which is the problem) and the homosexual nature of the act (which is not). Remaining silent while that distinction is ignored is to be consent to the acceptable use of the term “pervert.”
With respect, civilized folks should no more use the word “pervert” to describe same-sex behavior than they would use the word “unnatural” to describe inter-racial dating practices.
Hugo, I confess that, to me, your distinction between perverse and pervert seems to split hairs a bit, at least in this context. You appear slightly less uncomfortable with the former to the end that it typically describes a behavior while the latter usually serves as an offensive personal label. My confusion lies in the fact that, in the original article, the word perverted is used as a direct modifier in both instances, once actually for the word “behavior†and once for the phrase “form of vandalism.” In both cases, while the word-form contains a “-t†rather than an “-se,†it seems to be used as a descriptor for behavior (in a way that the word perverse is easily interchangeable in both sentences) rather than as a direct personal label. I don’t deny the implication that the performer of the behavior might, indeed, be considered a pervert by the writer, but you have suggested that the concept of perverse (or perverted) behavior is more palatable than the labeling of someone a pervert. It just seems like an awfully confusing distinction in light of the actual wording of the article and your response to it.
That said, I’m curious about your conviction that, while the behavior involved might indeed be perverse (not because of its homoerotic nature, but because it is at some level lewd, degrading, and, by the way, illegal), such a statement “has no place in a college paper…â€
First, let me acknowledge that the article in question falls short of the mark by almost any journalistic standard (and not just in its use of questionable verbiage). That, however, is symptomatic of a college newspaper with inexperienced and poorly trained staffers – a phenomenon on campuses across the country, as I’m sure you know. With those shortcomings noted, I’m not sure the intent of the writer can so easily be discerned as homophobic or hateful. Perhaps he’s just not a very good writer and doesn’t quite understand the distinction between opinion and news pieces. In that case, it seems a different approach and tone might be more appropriate in response.
My greater curiosity, however, is about your view of public discourse about something like gloryholes in the men’s room on a city college campus. Does the community have the right—and maybe the responsibility—to make certain distinctions about what is and what isn’t appropriate sexual behavior in public? Not only is the vandalism itself illegal, but the subsequent sexual acts are illegal, no matter the gender or orientation of the participants. A husband and wife could sneak into the men’s room for a quick thrill through the stall wall and, technically, be arrested for it (at least in every jurisdiction I’m aware of).
While I think there’s a place for a conversation about professionalism and sensitivity in the choice of language in a news story, I’m wondering if it’s really so outrageous that, at some point, we might assume (and express) as a community that vandalism for the sake of illegal, anonymous public sex acts (again, regardless of gender or orientation) is perverse without implying that homosexuals (or people who enjoy oral sex) are perverts. If it is not, what criteria do we use to determine when we may and when we may not, collectively, identify certain behavior as perverse? It does not seem like sexual tyranny to me to publicly agree that two folks performing high risk sex on one another in the stall next to where we all sit, stand, and wash our hands is, well, not okay. Is perverse (or perverted) too strong a word? Perhaps to some, but I’m not so sure it is, especially in the even that it is used to describe this sort of behavior and not to categorically condemn homosexuals as perverts. Frankly, I know homosexuals who would describe oral sex through holes in the wall in public bathrooms as utterly perverse, and who would express great anger with those who encourage and participate in such acts for propogating the public perception that the homosexual community is abnormally perverted. Surely it doesn’t make us hateful bigots to have a collective sense of what is and what is not acceptable public behavior on a college campus. (This, again, should not be read as a defense of the article in question, but rather a question precipitated by the responses here to the article.)
To be fair, I know that’s not exactly your point, but I found your comments subsequent to your original post a bit confusing to this end. I suppose your closing comment in the original post (“Even if one were to defend the article by …â€) addresses some of my argument. Even so, I would suggest that your letter to the editor clearly assumes an agenda of bigotry on the part of the writer. While your post allows for the possibility that he was simply addressing the behavior without making a judgment on sexual orientation, your public response seems to lack that grace (“He…wittingly or no, chose one of the ugliest of slurs to attack the gay and lesbian community.â€) Perhaps he didn’t choose to attack and, perhaps as you allow in your post (“I don’t know if many hetero folks truly understand the power of the word pervert), he unwittingly employed an adjective whose noun form has a deep, dark history for homosexuals (again, I’d note that the word is used to describe behavior and not to explicitly label anyone or any group a pervert or perverts).
I’m not defending Flores per se (I have no idea what his motives were), but I am wondering if it’s any more fair or reasonable to assume the worst based on selective experience than it is to assume the best based on the actual syntax of what is (and isn’t) communicated. That possibility does not delegitimize your desire to respond publicly, but it might invite a different sort of response; one that might educate and more effectively communicate with those ignorant of the repercussions of certain language for certain communities.
Frankly, as a writer, I confess that it is increasingly difficult to navigate and engage the world in written word. Words which have, for thousands of years, had reasonable meaning and power, are, with differing degrees of consensus and explanation, declared off limits. I am not unsympathetic to the persecution suffered by the homosexual community, but, like others here, I’m also inclined to resist the categorical dismissal of language based on its abuses in selected contexts. Without making judgment on any particular cause, community, or code, it is impossible to successfully communicate without occasionally and inadvertently pissing someone off (short of completely neutering one’s sense of style or purpose). That does not excuse willful ignorance or insensitivity, but I hope it might invite the same sort of grace and patience with the offenders that the offended expect for themselves.
What a thoughtful response, Thad. I admit that I posted in anger, as I could not see how the intent of Flores could be construed as anything other than outright bigotry.
College papers –including our own — have policies that require that journalists practice sensitivity towards ethnic and religious minorities. The op-ed pages are excluded from those strictures. GIven the history of the word –which a college journalist may be excused for not knowing — it is possible that no offense was meant.
I’ve appreciated the comments immensely. But since most of the commenters are not gay men, it is a bit difficult for us (self included) to assess the degree of offense caused by this piece. The two gay men I’ve talked to on campus were quietly furious, but resigned to that sort of language — I am interested to see what sort of response other GLBTQ folk might have.
Who cares what other gays think? Unless they happen to be individuals who engage in anonymous sex through glory holes, Flores wasn’t talking about them, anyway.
so hugo, are you saying the majority should conform their language to the preferred syntax of a minority/ marginalized people?
thad was generous. but, you were clearly mistaken. do you live in a glass house?
I do indeed live in a glass house, and anyone who reads my blog knows I do my utmost to refrain from throwing stones. My academic work, my faith, and my own life experience have made me especially sympathetic to the plight of marginalized groups.
XRLQ, Flores may not have been talking about all gay folks — or he may have been. The ambiguity of his sentence structure makes it impossible to tell what he meant. My objection is to EVER using the word pervert, in any context, do describe any homosexual act — not because all acts are worthy of defense, but because the word “perverse” has such an ugly history that it cannot be used without wounding folks.
Let me also say, I haven’t been so stunned by reaction to one of my posts since I posted about Amy Richards months ago.
Reading the responses here has struck me that I may be more profoundly out of touch than I had previously imagined. Frankly, it’s disheartening.
“If you lived in a “glass house” it would be very easy for other people to hurt you by throwing stones at you.”
http://www.goenglish.com
you are overly sensitive, maybe to a fault
I’m chiming in with Hugo that the use of the word “pervert”, in this case, is a homophobic slur, all my jokes aside. When considering whether or not an ambigious statement is a slur, I find it useful to imagine if it could be used in a similiar situation but applied to the dominant group. Would this writer have described the common, if rude, heterosexual act of having sex in the stacks at the library as “perverted” or “perverse”? Not likely. The homosexuality, and not the inappropriateness, of the behavior is the issue.
You see this same problem in anti-gay interpretations of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, where the “sin” of homosexuality is elevated over what seems to me to be the most horrifying aspect of the story–the demand that foreigners be turned over to an angry mob for gang rape.
Hugo, there is no ambiguity here. You have simply created one by giving the word “pervert” a meaning that it doesn’t have. It is not now, nor has it ever been, a synonym for gay. Yes, there are some people who think gayness is a form of sexual perversion. There are also people who think gayness is immoral, but that doesn’t mean that “immoral” is a derogatory term for “gay,” and it certainly doesn’t mean that a truly immoral person should be spared the word “immoral” simply because he also happens to be gay.
Boys who look up women’s skirts are perverts. Gag t-shirts read “I’m With Pervert,” and even come with paired-up T-shirts reading “Pervert” with a vertical arrow. They are universally interpreted as “my boyfriend is / I am a horny, oversexed heterosexual,” not “I think my boyfriend is gay / yup, I’m gay all right.” The worst SNL character I’ve seen in years, “Merv the Perv,” was not cast as a gay man, but as a straight male gynecologist who enjoyed his profession a little too much. And any oversexed male student who stuck his conley into a “glory hole” that led to the women’s bathroom would rightly be called a pervert as well.
I see no reason to cut gay perverts any more slack than one would/should give to their straight counterparts.
Hugo,
Sorry about the disheartening.
“Tolerance means adopting a language that allows all of us to feel valued and accepted.”
First I want to say that I think it is clear that you class “those who morally oppose homosexuality” with those who are racist. Your analogy suggests as much and is offensive without being overt. Or am I reading too much into it?
We as human beings make judgements, which is, as well, a much maligned word. Judgement is inherent to decision making. We all make decisions. It seems to me that you have decided to make tolerance the rule of your speech and, presumably, conduct. You however seem well-positioned to do so since you have no moral qualms about homosexuality. I wonder if your sensibilites would have been offended if GLBTQers sounded off, in the paper, how glad they are about a change of law that would allow them to marry? Clearly they would be showing a degree of non-acceptance of the opposing view that they not be allowed to marry. My belabored point is that tolerance is intolerant of intolerance. How can it be our guide for behavior? And, this is a sincere question. I do want to know. . .not just making a point. . .Erica
It seems to me that there are a number of questions here that are being confused.
Issue #1. Was the use of the word “pervert” in the article poorly chosen? Yes, because it’s ambiguous as to whether it refers to homosexual behavior in general (in which case it would be offensive) or to the act of public sex in the bathroom (in which the label could correctly apply).
Issue #2. Should we as readers of the article care about the wording used in the article? Yes, because the words used, poorly-chosen or not, do send a message. This is the first lesson that anyone who has ever written seriously knows. Because “pervert” in this case is ambiguous, I would guess that a number of people who read it applied it to the homosexual part rather than the public sex part of the connotation (as Hugo himself did). This *does* negatively and incorrectly affect what people think of homosexuals, and should not be part of a non-editorial part of a newspaper. I use “should” in a descriptive rather than normative sense here, because….
Issue #3. What is the best action to take in order to lessen the overall amount of harm? Hugo chose to write a letter to the editor, which could have a number of “good” outcomes: (a) it will alert the writer of the article and the editors of the paper of a potentially offensive, inappropriate usage; (b) it may make people more aware of the power of language, and hopefully turn them into better writers; and (c) it may cause debate of the sort we see in this comments section, which could be a good thing.
However, the negatives are strong as well, even if you agree with #1 and #2 above: (a) I’m not sure how much change could really happen; the idea of purely “objective” reporting is a myth, since we all have biases and backgrounds that we bring to every situation. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to stamp out the most egregious examples of blatant prejudice, but it might mean we need to get a thicker skin (and I say this as a gay person myself). A consequence of the desire to avoid offending anyone is writing mindless pablum or taking no stand at all, neither of which is salutory for productive civil discourse.
Also, there’s another large negative: (b) letters like Hugo’s may be easily misconstrued. Too often they are taken as requests for overt censorship rather than requests for self-censorship or more consideration (which is how I’m reading his). More importantly, they are too often used to argue either for a political-correctness-inspired curtailment of freedom of speech, or else to demonize liberals (or gays, or whatever group) by arguing that such curtailment is what that group really wants. Because of the danger of such a misconstrual, actually sending the letter could be counterproductive to the actual goals involved in writing it. How? By causing further alienation, partisan bickering, and unwillingness of reasonable people to recognize or consider legitimate views that might have been accepted if presented where the offense was more obvious.
So… I don’t know. I admire and appreciate your willingness to speak up on this, Hugo, but I don’t think I would have done the same myself.
no one asks the qay/lesbian community to “self-censor” or to be “more considerate” of those who oppose their sexuality. That would be heinous. Can you imagine? How is this different from suggesting that those who do morally oppose homosexuality to do so? Is this just asking them to internalize “overt sensorship” or face the dreaded “intolerant” label?
A hundred years ago, I was a college journalist and then a professional journalist. Looking back on my college work, I probably used a lot of sloppy language that was probably loaded. It was harder to do that on a professional paper with experienced editors. Still, “perverted” was not a word I could imagine either my student or my professional editors letting me get away with without challenging me on what I meant. It’s just so overtly opinionated a word.
The veneer of “objectivism” is just a veneer, but I can tell you, reporters at my paper had a contest to see who could get the most offensive word into the paper while still appearing objective. I thought I’d won it when I reviewed a 2 Live Crew show and phoned in a story reporting — in an attempt to convey just what was so shocking about their music — that a lot of their lyrics were about cunnilingus and fellatio. Unfortunately, the editor had rewritten my story to reflect the “family newspaper” values.
The homophobic subtext of the article comes from more than just the word “perverted”. The glory holes are at the end of a list of “yuck factor” examples - they are specifically deemed more appalling than defecating on a drinking fountain or leaving a used condom on a door handle.
“Hi, your sexual desire is more disgusting than smearing poop on a public drinking fountain!” - in what universe is this supposed to be a socially acceptable thing to say?
So no, Hugo, I don’t think you were overreacting at all.
I’m stunned. I agree with Xrlq. I think that so much can be read into words that they lose their meaning, rather than becoming more meaningful or powerful. The purpose of language is to be understood, and some things are just referred to as perverted. I happen to think this behavior is. I don’t see why it has to have any further implications.
HelLO? Hugo is totally right to react as he did . to Xriq and Michelle, you are not gay, or you would realize that “Pervert” has a long history as a synonym for “gay” and is frequently used in a hurtful, vile way. Any gay man or woman has heard the sneer, the word as a whispered hiss with the shiver of violence behind it. You can simply look at your partner with love on the street and you hear it. “Pervert!” (no doubt said by a “loving Christian”). And until you get safely home iwth the doors locked, you think of gay-bashing are afraid.
It is a loaded word, and, its use in this article is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the act of public sex, or the act of gay sex. Given the history of the word, it is clearly aimed at a distasteful act that is gay, and can be easily interpreted as including gay sex in general.
Indeed, as one commenter said, this would not have been said if this were talking about a meeting place for straight coupling, however anonymous or distasteful.
Thank you Hugo, for standing up to the dangerous power of words. Your point of view is particularly meaningful because you are a straight ally.
By the way, as for a more Christian response to homosexuality, does anyone read the Washington post?
Oops, that link didn’t come through…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48197-2004Nov13?language=printer
On the one hand, I can understand why there’s a contingent defending the word “perverted” here, because I have the same “yuck” reaction to glory holes (not to gay sex - I’m bi). Anonymity to the point of not even being able to see the stranger you’re having sex with, combined with being in public where anyone can walk in on you - what’s to like?
But, that said, I really have to agree with Hugo here. Xrlq says that Hugo’s creating ambiguity where there is none, and overlooking the fact that “pervert” gets applied to straight people, too. I say that Xrlq is overlooking a major difference in the uses of “pervert” he cites and the way it gets used with gay people. “Pervert” is applied to a sexually aggressive straight man with a wink and a smirk (and those gag T-shirts are a prime example). “Pervert” is applied to a gay man (sexually aggressive or not) with venom and disgust. And in that way it gets used all the time to single out gay misbehavior while giving similar straight misbehavior a pass. If you want to criticize public restroom sex, there are plenty of less loaded words to use, ones without that particular history.
Also, I do agree with yami that putting shit in a public drinking fountain is worse than glory holes. In the case of the shit in the drinking fountains, the offense to others is the actual goal of the act.
Finally, this article at Ex-Gay Watch may be of interest: http://www.exgaywatch.com/xgw/2003/12/collaboration_c.html (”Collaboration Cuts Park Cruising By Utah Gays & Ex-gays”).
One more point.
no one asks the qay/lesbian community to “self-censor” or to be “more considerate” of those who oppose their sexuality.
Wrong. People do ask just that, all the time. What’s more, even now, many people think, and will say, that being “more considerate” of those who oppose their sexuality means not doing the normal things, with their partners, that straight people do all the time.
yes, Lynn is right. Look at how some right wing conservative Christian complained vociferously that Mary Cheney was flaunting her homosexuality simple by standing next to her father… WITH HER PARNTER! Just by the physical act of BEING. How “offensive” is that!!
Imagine what it is like not to be able tosimply hold hands, or mention in th eworkplace that you went out this weekend (in case a gendered pronoun slips out) or to reach over and brush off a lapel … we have to self censor all the time because the price for NOT doing so can be job loss, or violence.
Try walking a mile in my moccassins.
The point about self-censoring is mine, and I achnowledge that both IT and Lynn have points concerning the reality of teh gay/lesbian experience today. Thanks. I just sense that self-censorship is problematic for both sides.
Erica, it doesn’t seem to me that most people opposed to homosexuality are “self-censoring”, at least not in most of this country.
And, being labeled as “intolerant” is a lot different as a consequence than being fired or being beaten up.
I think that keeping a negative opinion to yourself is more of a social grace. It’s like being kind enough not to tell your distant cousin whom you see once a year that you loathe her boorish husband. It doesn’t affect you, so what is to be gained by being vocal about it?
I think as a social grace, this sort of self-censorship is different in kind from being unable to mention that you are married, or have a family, or put your partner on your company’s Human Resources forms as an emergency contact.
And then there are the people at work who want to set you up with someone of the opposite sex….
I laughed out loud when I read the comment about how homosexuals “don’t have to self-censor.” My entire life is censored–my partner becomes “my roommate” (turning a loving, 10-year relationship into… nothing, really). I can’t talk about my weekends, my holidays, my joys, or my heartaches with the people I see the most. If my partner is sick, I’m expected to be at work just like every other day; if we’re fighting, I can’t explain to my family or my coworkers why I’m stressed or unhappy without risking the added stress of them blowing up or me having to find a new job. Yeah, sure, no censoring going on, because no one has any problem with gay people… as long as we act straight, and never bring up anything that makes it clear that we’re not.
To start, let me say that some of the perspectives I am vocalizing are not ones I subscribe to. I am not for social censorship. I think that it has been misconstrued that I am.
Okay, in response to some other comments: I acknowledge that, due to social pressures, people like Alsafi feel they edit all the time, and sympathize. I wouldn’t wnat to be a reason he did that.
IT’s comment that self-censoring about homosexuality, should one be opposed to it, is equal to a social grace, because “it doesn’t affect you”, seems as out of touch with the feelings of those who oppose homosexuality as my comment was about gays not being self-censored. Society is a space we all inhabit, and those oppose homosexuality do so, overwhelmingly, precisely because they feel it does affect them, and their families. I would also like to point out that what is a social grace at the office or family function does not necessarily translate as such to a school newspaper, etc. Where one chooses to hold one’s tongue is still an exercised freedom. Hugo called for an apology for an 0pinion (he interpreted) felt was inappropriately shared. Unless he would have called for the same thing had the oppposite opinion been shared, I still see a quandry.
Though the consequence of being labeled “intolerant” may not be equal in severity to losing one’s job or being beaten up, it aims stifle through social pressure the opposing position and is therefore somewhat hypocritical in sentiment and function to the essence of tolerance.
Peace,
Erica
Man, the poor homophobic Christians sure are picked on by gays, aren’t they? How do they manage?
XRLQ, “pervert” may not by synonymous with “gay”, but for people who “oppose”, i.e. are frightened of, homosexuality, “gay” is synonymous with “pervert”. I could draw a Venn diagram if you’d like.
As for the anonymous bathroom sex, I think a little context is necessary here. There would not be such a problem with anonymous bathroom sex between men if being gay were accepted and celebrated like being straight is. The obvious advantage of not seeing your partner is that your partner can’t out you after the fact if they don’t know who you are.
Erica wrote:
Society is a space we all inhabit, and those oppose homosexuality do so, overwhelmingly, precisely because they feel it does affect them, and their families.
I’m sorry, but I really have a hard time understanding how my same-sex family, (my tax-paying, PTA-member, soccer-moms, church-attending family that lacks the 1049 rights and protections associated with civil marriage) has ANY effect on your family.
Any more than your attendance of a Church of your choice (however misguided I may personally view its theology), or a cousin’s choice to marry a boor (to go back to a previous example) has any effect on mine.
As long as you don’t interfere with my family and its rights, I won’t interfere with yours.
But in a pluralist, tolerant, and secular society, which is what America is, you don’t get to sentence me to the closet becuase you don’t like the mere idea of me being gay, any more than I get to sentence you to change denominations to because I don’t like certain forms of right wing Christianity.
This is not a Taliban theocracy (at least, not yet). We have to get along, with mutual respect, and humanity.
And for the record, given where this trhead started, I don’t approve of anonymous sex whether straight or gay. I don’t blame the article for reporting concern. The point is whether the article was outraged about glory holes becuase of the GAY aspect, or about sex in general. The use of the word “pervert” suggests the former. It strikes me that most of those opposed to homosexuality think that anonymous glory holes define homosexual relationships. That’s like saying that Desperate Housewives defines marriage.
That’s why it’s important for us to be out, so they can see that we are just the same, want the same things for our kids, and are no threat at all.
I’m thinking it would be better for me to drop this thread, not because I amoffended, but because it seems that, in stating my concerns about equal speech and expression for both homosexuals and those who oppose, it is being construed that I am one who “fears” homosexuality, wants people “sentenced to a closet” and may be one of those “homophobic” Christians. I am not any of those things. i am senstive to labels be they “pervert” or “intolerant” or any of their cohorts, and I don’t want anybody forcibly silenced.
Erica
Erica, I think you’ve done a fine job of explaining your position. I don’t agree, mind you — but I don’t see that you’ve taken the stance of an intolerant bigot, either.
I was once a “First Amendment Zealot”; I’ve become less fiery over the years. I do think that calling someone “intolerant” is different than calling someone a “pervert” — while the former seems based on a moral stance, the latter is based upon someone’s behavior that derives from their very identity. Gay men have yet to be seen swinging baseball bats at the heads of conservative Christians, yelling “Intolerant Homophobe”; gay men have been bashed by those who have yelled “pervert”. The difference is substantial, and affects how we must respond to uses of these words in public.
IT–don’t be so quick to make assumptions. I’m bi, if one has to put a label on it, and I have heard the word “pervert” in the context that you mention. Shoot, I’m from East Texas, where the nearest gay bar was blown up, literally. Glad I wasn’t in it at the time.
I’ve been in heterosexual relationships for years, but I know during the years when I was with other women, if someone used the word “pervert”, I pretty much had the attitude of “fuck ‘em, they are so ignorant.” Yeah, it happens.
In my mind, there is a difference between name-calling and labeling a behavior. Many behaviors, both gay and straight, are perverted. Who has not heard of this word to refer to prostitution, for example? ie: “Only pervs visit prostitutes.” It’s around in the straight community too. Believe me, if someone could invent a way for guys and girls to do that same anonymous activity in public bathrooms (yeah, yukky), they would be called perverts. The girls more so than the guys of course, so I will allow that the word can be loaded.
Also, I believe one can be gay without taking a victim stance. We all have our crosses to carry. Fight for what you believe, but why choose an oppressed affect?
Dear Hugo,
I am both appalled and saddened by your reaction and response to the Courier. I am a student at PCC and a Past Prez of the United Rainbow Allince and I would like to know what gives you the right to speak for me? I was NOT offended by Micah’s use of the word perveted as he never states in his story that it is used for a male to male relashionship.
My dear Hugo have you never seen the movie “Porky’s”? They have a glory hole which is used for male perversion against FEMALES. So where did you read that it is a “gay” thing? Perhapes you read way to deep into a simple article condemning vandalism on PCC’s campus.
And P.S. Ask Miss Kitty Kicks ASS!
Jaynita, what part of this wasn’t clear in Flores’ commentary:
“While one male utilizes the peephole, a willing participant in the next stall performs oral favors”
Explain, please, how the use of the phrase “one male” could allow for the possibility that the willing participant in the next stall is female? The “one” is a dead give-away.
I confess it has been years since I’ve seen Porky’s, so I happily defer to your expertise in 80s teen-exploitation features.
Also, my copy of the Courier indicates that a Jaynita Carney is the web editor for the paper. I question your decision to leave that salient fact out of your comment, my dear.
My dear Hugo have you never seen the movie “Porky’s”? They have a glory hole which is used for male perversion against FEMALES.
That was a peephole, not a glory hole. And the idea in Porky’s was that the boys used that hole to observe the girls without their consent. The idea of a glory hole is that two strangers perform a consensual act through it. One could certainly make the argument that the nonconsensual act was more perverted than the consensual act. But historically, that would not be — and is not — the case. Hey, the peephole is a celebrated part of straight male culture, while the glory hole is vilified.
Strain for moral equivalence all you want, but the article was bad journalism and the use of the particular, loaded adjective in a news article should be challenged.
Dear Hugo,
The articule does state “One MALE” why do you assume the partner is male? It say willing participant… That does not mean a Male. I myself have been guilty of entering a Men Locker room when I was younger.
And yes Hugo I am the WEB EDITOR which means i DO not have an active roll in the Printed Issue… Which is why I DO NOT WRITE ARTICLES! So what does this have to do with my opinion?
ZuZu… Pehapes you should make tonight a Blockbuster night? You would see when the Gym teach grabs a poor boy and holds his male genitla through the wall…
Jaynita, I am simply suggesting that you have a loyalty to the paper for which you work. A reasonable person might suspect that that loyalty had some bearing on your response to a criticism of an article published within it. I honor you for your commitment to defending your colleagues. In your position, I would do the same — perhaps regardless of the offense they had given.
Folks, continue on as you please — but I’m done with this thread. My letter to the Courier stands. My anger at the use of the word “pervert” stands. My willingness to see that reasonable folks can disagree also stands.
Erica, certainly I don’t mean to run you off with my nasty sense of humor. But I am serious–Christians who cry “intolerance” the second that someone criticizes them for, yes, intolerance, are usually being disingenous. They want a part of the immunity from criticism that they think gays and lesbians somehow enjoy. No one is immune from criticism–calling someone a pervert isn’t criticism, it’s labeling. And it’s mean-spirited and intolerant. And it’s not intolerant to point that out.
Criticism is not infringing on freedom. Making laws against things–like sodomy or gay marriage–that’s infringing on freedom.
If the behavior described had been drilling between the men’s and women’s changing rooms so that men could observe the women naked, does anyone think the author would have described that behavior as “perverted”? I doubt it–reprehensible, yes, but nobody thinks it perverted or unnatural that men enjoy looking at women with their clothes off.
Jaynita, perhaps you might want to pick up a copy of the AP Style Book as part of your “roll” at the paper.
Spelling, capitalization and punctuation rules are all good things for a WEB EDITOR to know.
ZuZu, Perhaps you need to look up what a WEB Editor’s job is? I do Not write, WHY because I can not spell! AND this effects you how? ALSO maybe you ask sholud a newspaper staff wht they a a COPY EDITOR? If you wanna be a smart ass about it I bet you a $100 bucks I could put your knowledge of HTML to shame…
Who’s Sholud?
Sholud was a 9th century B.C. Assyrian king. Alternatively, Sholud is the third cousin (on her mother’s side) of Shelob, the awful arachnid in the Lord of the Rings. The bits of common knowledge people live without…
Oh ya right like you have never made a typo? it was “should”.
Offtopic-
Sorry Hugo but a can’t email things from this stupid computer… I just wanted to say that you did a good job at the Quiz bowl today! And I know I may not always agree with your opinion, but I would love to take one of your classes, you really seem passionate about what you teach…
Thank you, Jaynita. I look forward to meeting you as a student.