GayProf's Limited Vote

Up until this point, I have largely avoided writing about the various presidential candidates. Acknowledging them only encourages them. Alas, tomorrow my state has its primary.

Your ol’friend GayProf feels quite frustrated by his options in the primary. You see, officials in my state moved up the date of their primary because they desired to be relevant. Silly Midwest – The rusting factories and crushing unemployment should have long ago indicated that the empire has abandoned you.

The Democratic Party responded by “punishing” my state for moving up its primary. My state's delegates will not be permitted to participate at the Democratic convention. Moreover, many of the top Democratic candidates refused to put themselves on my state's ballot.

So, I am left with the option of casting a vote, which has already been explicitly stated won’t count, for a candidate for whom I don’t want to vote. Way to empower the people, Democrats! You suck.

The Democratic Party has decided that I, as a voter, need not weigh in on the decision between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton . Nope – Obama isn’t even on the ballot (which won't be counted anyway). I can vote for Clinton, however (but it won't count).

Maybe I am just bitter because my choice for the Democratic Party was already out of the race (not that I could have voted for him anyway because, guess what?, not on the ballot in my state). Who was that? Bill Richardson. A Latino from New Mexico who, despite one or two major gaffs, has a basically good track record on gay issues? Yeah, it was a real mystery who I would have supported.

Think I might solve my voting problem by writing in my selected candidate? Nope. The rules for write-in candidates for the primary in my state are extremely narrow, meaning my vote would simply be discarded instantly (rather than later by the Democratic Party).

My state has offered that I could vote in the Republican Primary instead. Gee, thanks. I would rather eat a bowl of hot glass than vote for any of the candidates in the Republican Party – under any circumstances.

Those who think McCain is an “independent thinker” or a person of principles, let me just remind you of this:



Let's see what eight years of Republican mismanagement and greed have given us: the nation’s economy is in shambles, we are mired in an unwinnable war, the military is over extended, and our global reputation shot. As far as I am concerned, there shouldn’t even be a Republican Party. Running for President? The Republican Party doesn't deserve to field a candidate as city dog catcher.

Personally, I think that anybody who voted Republican in 2004 owes me cash money. Not only did they legitimate a coup, but they have really lowered each person's standard of living. Their greed or hatred (whichever pitiful motive they had for voting Republican) has cost this nation, and us as individuals, a great deal. Now it's time for them to pay up.

Before the Republicans took over, my U.S. dollar used to be worth €1.27. Today, one U.S. dollar is worth €0.67. By my calculations, therefore, the dumbasses who voted Republican owe me around $38,400. I would prefer, though, if they paid that to me in Euros. I am not sure those dollars are going to be around much longer.

If they aren’t willing to give me cash, they could always pay me in gasoline. In 2000, it was considered unusually high to pay $1.43/gallon. Now I am lucky if I find someplace to fill up for under $3.00. Bush’s oil cronies, on a completely unrelated matter, have been reporting record profits every year that he has been in office.

When I drive up to the local Shell station, there should be a Republican voter there in overalls waiting to fill my tank. And, just because of that whole Larry Craig nonsense, they should wash my windshield too.

We should start requiring anybody who wants to vote Republican to bring their Mastercharge card with them to the polls. You want to trash the nation because of your xenophobia? Okay – but it’s gonna cost you. You think that you have the right to prevent two men from getting married? Alright, but we are going to need a cashier’s check from your local bank. Voting for Huckabee? I hope you have a gold card.

Return of the Evil Queens

A few days ago, Torn posted a video of an old "education" film from the early sixties. Like many others that appeared at the time, it was created to warn young men about the alleged dangers of “homosexuals.” With a title like Boys Beware, you knew that it was only going to go down hill pretty fast. The film authoritatively told its audience that homosexuals spend their days lurking about in dark sunglasses, telling dirty jokes, and murdering teenagers. Why? Because homosexuals are both sick and evil!

Since the video is forty years old, it’s fairly easy to dismiss it as a bygone piece of history. After all, we no longer hear dire warnings about the threat of creepy homosexual men who hang out in restrooms looking to exploit the innocent. Well, unless you happen to reside in Fort Lauderdale where Mayor Jim Naugle wants to install $250,000 toilets because he imagines gay men are using the current ones as the new Studio 54.



But that’s just some crazy mayor who still thinks it's 1959, right? Well, maybe not. Simply watch any of the three-thousand hours of coverage on Senator Larry Craig.

I avoided mentioning the Craig story because I was suspicious that it was “uncovered” at a convenient time for Republicans. It drew media attention away from the many White House resignations, including Alberto Gonzales’. The GOP seemingly felt it was better to eat one of their own than risk actual investigation into the ineptness that has marked the Justice Department for the past six years.

While I am happy to have Craig exposed (no pun intended) as a hypocrite, the media has rarely focused on that bit of the story. Instead, tearoom scandals like Craig’s are another means through which all same-sex sex can be lumped together as sad, anonymous, and even threatening.

To be candid, I really don’t care that much about bathroom sex. It’s certainly not my scene. It also seems like most of the men involved are unable to come to terms with their sexual desires. They would probably be happier if they could find other venues for sexual exploration. All in all, though, it just isn’t that big a deal.

CNN disagreed. Along with other networks, they spent entire segments obsessing about gay toilet sex. They brought in psychological experts to help explain why men (sick, sick men!) would do such a (sick, sick!) thing. In one memorable segment, sex-advice columnist Dan Savage valiantly tried to point out the role that the closet and homophobia plays in many tearoom participants’ lives. For them, sexual release can only be obtained in restrooms because they have internalized so much of society’s hatred of gays.

The interviewer, though, was not really interested in that type of assessment. Instead, he asked, “Aren’t these guys... just plain wrong and it has nothing to do with the culture leading them to do this stuff? I mean, after all, going into a bathroom to have anonymous sex with somebody you don’t even know is just . . . creepy.”

That is the bit where I start to get leery. One wonders what type of circumstances would the media endorse as “not creepy” for same-sex sex? Is it the anonymous bit that made Craig creepy? So, a couple who had one dinner together is not creepy? Is it the bathroom bit? No to toilets, but yes to pool tables?



I suspect it is really the gay bit. The focus on tearoom sex reenforces presumptions that all same-sex sex is ruthless, anonymous, and self-centered. David recently pointed out that the New York Post attempted to coin a new epithet by referring to all gay men as “toe tappers.” The leap from creepy Larry Craig tapping his foot to have sex in a restroom to naming all gay men as “creepy anonymous toilet-sex junkies” was an easy one for the paper to make.

There is a serious double standard when it comes to presenting same-sex sex and opposite-sex sex in the media. It is doubtful to me that a heterosexual couple who met randomly at a public rest stop, for instance, would have been construed as “creepy.” Granted, they might be considered “lusty, slutty, impulsive,” and maybe even “sinful.” I just don’t think, though, that the media would call it “creepy.”

Certainly, the media would never consider it “creepy” if a heterosexual couple hooked up at a local bar without even knowing each other’s names. That’s just “Friday night.”

Along the same lines, heterosexuals who have sex in public are often (not always, but often) construed as “adventurous” and sexual risk takers. In many instances, heterosexual couples who sneak in a bit of sex in a public place are imagined as more in touch with their erotic sensibilities. They are just being delightfully naughty and enjoying a provocative thrill! Gay men who have sex in public need medical treatment.



Some might suggest that the distaste had to do with the location of a bathroom. Once again, I am not as convinced. After all, I have heard many people tell stories of heterosexuals sneaking (or trying to sneak) into airplane lavatories to earn their mile-high wings. These stories, even when told by a third-party observer, are often presented with a wink and nod.

The media, of course, doesn’t need a sex scandal to present gay men as psychologically unstable. On the heels of the Craig affair, comedians and even major news outlets seized on an obscure “internet personality's” YouTube video. I won’t delve into the revolting level of hatred that bubbled up around the clearly distressed young person's pleas for the press to “leave Brittany alone.” Kenneth Hill already has an excellent piece on homophobia and the ridicule that follows men who refuse to conform to gender expectations (even within the gay community). It is enough to point out one of the most disturbing responses to the video which appeared on the Jimmy Kimmel show. In it, the supposed father of the young man cried about his son not being manly enough. He ended with a chilling proclamation of “He’s not a human being. He’s not a human being.”


That, I think, is the media’s real conclusion about Craig, Crocker, and all gay men. We are still not considered fully human. Instead, we are all walking on the edge of showing ourselves to be creepy, crazy, or evil monsters.

Even allegedly “positive” images of gay men prop up these stereotypes in fictional programing. Queer people are grossly under-represented in prime time. The most visible and consisten gay figures to circulate right now appear on Ugly Betty. Yet, I am left wondering about both Marc and Justin.

Marc is the traditional “evil queen” that has been recycled just too many times by television and films. He mostly follows the orders of a conveying African-American jezebel (a stereotype in the show that also desperately needs to be unpacked). That, though, is for another day). In every way, Marc is shown to be both shallow and vindictive. He tortures and humiliates the central character all for his good fun.

To redeem the show, many queer folk therefore point to Justin, Betty's adolescent nephew. On the good side, it is great to see a young person presented on television who resists gender conventions (Justin’s actual sexuality has never been discussed on the show – It is only through that gender nonconformity that he can be read by many as “gay”). I am not entirely sure that the presentation of Justin really makes him into a hero. Much of his behavior is shown as part of the show’s humor. We are intended to laugh at the awkward discomfort that Justin creates among those who surround him.

Justin also exists to reveal the hidden magnanimity of the other characters who tolerate and defend him. He doesn't really fight for himself. Instead, he has most often been defended by straight men. Those scenes have been less about Justin and more about showing the "good heart" and redemption of heterosexuals.

More importantly, the show has frequently suggested that Justin has a questionable sense of morality. Like Marc, he often denigrates others with “bitchy” comments about their clothes. At the end of the last season, it was further suggested that Justin intentionally poisoned one of his fellow students to get the lead role in a musical (!). Even the baby queers, it seems, are willing to murder to get what they want.

I don’t dispute that things have improved for gays since Boys Beware appeared forty years ago. Look! I am not in jail! Still, it is too soon to claim that the media no longer construes of queers as sick and maybe a bit evil. It has just become more subtle in its approach. If Ugly Betty allegedly represents the best portrayals of gay men in the mainstream media and Larry Craig the worst, we are still in a bad place.