Are you the gay?

May 4, 2008

I should be reading Tillich and taking advantage of this time to heal; alas, I am thinking about the conversation I had with Matt, find it in episode 2 of the podcast, re: the definition of ‘gay,’ and I am thinking about Eric’s comments re: ‘coming out’ and religion {and as a reminder, if you need a healing, tell Jesus what you want…I love the Clark Brothers’ ‘This Little Light of Mine.’ I need a healing!}

I very much enjoyed Matt’s response to Long’s argument re: the word ‘gay’ = erotic receptivity to male beauty and the desire to ‘purchase,’ if you will, said beauty = homosex. Matt wondered about whether or not Long was arguing the gay must enact his strong desires for males. And this is a good question. I described Long’s language as ’soft’ (I am not sure why I used that word…that’s one of the more disconcerting aspects of podcasting…words just come out, and it’s hard to edit a podcast)…and what I meant was simply: Long seems to leave some room for celibacy, etc. in that he argues the gay will, minimally, find homosex ‘a captivating prospect.’ However, the very next thing Long says is: ‘And while there may be a few gay virgins, gay men typically seek out, enjoy, and find life affirming sex with other men.’ So it’s unclear whether or not Long would argue one, in order to ascribe to one’s self the term ‘gay,’ must give up one’s virginity or, minimally, find the thought of losing one’s virginity ‘captivating.’

Matt liked the idea of ‘erotic receptivity’: ‘Receptivity does not necessarily require enacting genital sexuality…because I know a number of gay men who are celibate…who are faggots (and I use that word in an empowering way)…I like the definition of receptivity…erotic receptivity.’ And more on this in a bit…but at this point Matt wonders whether or not ‘erotic receptivity’ is problematic: ‘If that’s your definition, then at the same time…not actually constructing a publicly gay identity…a lot of people would say their sexuality is simply based on erotic receptivity…that could become an excuse for being closeted: you’re gay just because of erotic receptivity but you don’t need to make anyone aware of it; you don’t need to enact it; you don’t need to integrate that fact into different spheres of your life.’

I attempted to connect to Matt’s comments by digging deeper into Long…but I did this rather poorly…so here is, perhaps, how Long would respond to Matt’s ‘erotic receptivity’: When men utter the word ‘gay’ they are not simply saying they find other men attractive…they are indicating a strong desire to have sex with other men. As I noted in my response to Matt, Long believes one has a ‘core self’ that one seeks to make known; one, of course, looks to the language available to bring one’s self into view. There is a sense in which, for Long?, failing to or not ‘coming out,’ that is, refusing to utter language to describe one’s ‘gay interpersonal nature,’ is not really a possibility; as I argued elsewhere, there is a certain sense in which ‘gay’ becomes compelling. However, Long goes on to note that it takes courage to ‘come out’…To come out is not to implicate one’s self in one’s one oppression, rather, it’s to fight against those forces that would seek to oppress one on the basis of one’s interpersonal orientation. One wonders, then, if there is anything courageous about saying, ‘I find other males attractive’ = erotic receptivity. Some who identify as ’straight’ might also confess they find other males attractive…It seems that society does not find males finding other males ‘attractive’ is all that problematic. I think the figure of the ’struggling homosexual’ comes into view here. So long as one simply finds other males erotically appealing…this is not an issue-even if some would say such feelings are ‘disordered.’ However, the reason uttering the word ‘gay’ takes courage is precisely because ‘gay,’ at least in Long’s view, is not simply alluding to an erotic attraction on the level of imagination, etc…one is saying, in Long’s view, I want to touch other men, taste other men, etc…one is speaking of physical expression, of physical connection with what one finds attractive. And this is what much of society finds terribly problematic…

But back to Matt’s ‘erotic receptivity’…I really do like the way his idea re: ‘erotic receptivity’ allows for a ‘gay imagination’ and for what I think is truly queer in our contemporary context: celibacy. Matt says, ‘I would be much more interested in trying to situate gay identity in terms of receptivity to…male beauty…There are, as I said, numerous examples in my life of gay men where their sexuality exists on the level of receptivity, on the level of fantasy, and imagination. And I would say there is a fidelity to the stranger in their lives.’

I am really interested in exploring ‘gay imagination.’ If I can be personal for a moment, I would say there are times in my life that the only means I have of connecting to the ‘gay world’ is via ‘gay imagination.’

I think Matt and I, in our unique ways, suggested we not confine the term ‘gay’ (and this is the inherent problem with definitions - in making room for meaning - definitions tend to exclude so many other meanings). Rather, let’s leave ‘gay’ open…and prepare or not prepare for the various meanings that can emerge as we live out our lives in our current political situation. And let’s be open to critique of that which has come to congeal around the term ‘gay’…and, perhaps, the heteros will open to critique of their heterosexism and homophobia.

On to Eric’s comments. I really appreciate Eric’s perspective, and I want to comment on a few of his thoughts. Eric writes, ‘I feel like I have to note that some of this only applies when one is struggling with the morality of taking on the gay identity.’ He is referring to this post. And I agree and disagree.

Within the Christian Community there is a big hubub over the gays. And the issue has been cast in terms of sin and righteousness…right and wrong. Many a gay is raised in the midst of a type of Christianity (and I think this is important to note…in most matters, the Church is here and there on various issues…there is no ‘unverisal Christian’…tell Dan Savage that) that believes being gay is a horrible sin and completely incompatible with belief in Jesus. For the one caught in this situation, I argue that it’s one’s need (human need) to connect with others that drives one to ‘come out,’ to find the language and tell others…and then one puts all the rest together. So, in my view, the conclusion precedes the argument. And I cannot overstate the amount of courage this takes.

However, it is also true that one not raised in this environment may find ‘coming out’ difficult, too…because in as much as some types of Christians have made gay a matter of evil…secular society, if you will, has made gay a matter of deviancy…as Matt talks about, secular society is at a loss re: rites of passages for the gay because male-female, heterosexism is the norm. So to come out in this context is equally troubling…because one may feel like he is a major disappointment - and one may feel a major sense of loss.

Lastly, I very much appreciate Eric’s pastoral feeling re: those who choose to stay ‘in the closet.’ The one question I would ask is: what constitutes remaining ‘in the closet’? If by ‘closet’ Eric means using language other than ‘gay’ (e.g., ‘I’m not gay…I just have sex with men’)…I cannot agree. As I said in the cast, ‘gay’ means more than what Long suggests and one is free to be disloyal to this term.

Posted by Tony Posted in Posts by Tony, Queer / Theology, Queer Politics