Three questions about rural homosexual men
Richard Bryan
Out of ignorance, a man asks questions; one hopes for good sense rather
than histrionics or pretentious fulminations from idealogues. In any
case, I would be keen to hear dialog among rural men who happen to be
drawn toward each other.
Country living imposes its ways on how one lives. Closer to Nature, we
live more naturally, even when our daily labor does take us into forest
or field. While most modern conveniences are as available here as in the
cities, our place on the land makes our lives different.
There are of course homosexual men in the country; we are and have always
been here. Some make a good argument that cities are more ‘tolerant’ of
men who desire other men than small towns, so that country men are more
‘closeted’ and suffer more the hatred of some straight people.
Question: How do rural men find companionship and love with their
fellows?
What I will call the ‘gay’ identity is an urban creation; certain history
books demonstrate that adequately. Those borrowed clothes do not then fit
a rural man very well. He may refuse the ‘gay’ label entirely, or he puts
on those clothes as a costume worn only for certain holidays, or he may
accept the identity entirely, embracing its notions on how a man should
live his life even while living in ‘the sticks’.
Question: Are these men as ready to call themselves ‘gay’ as urban
homosexual men?
In all three cases he yet lives a country life, and so goes about his
business among the people where he lives as do most homosexual men, city
or country.
Urban men who live the ‘gay’ life do not understand much about their
country cousins (although that is true of city folk in general). I will
always have the happy memories of the bewildered faces on some urban gay
men on learning that I was working to get away from the city: “But
there’s nothing to DO there! You’d better not go.”
Question: Do country men live differently from their urban counterparts
as homosexual men?
rlb
PS. This question is primarily directed to homosexual country men; for
others who may take offense, my formal apologies, but no excuse is made.
Derek R. Larson
In article <MPG.d0a755b9...@news.snowcrest.net>,
Richard Bryan <rbr...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>Out of ignorance, a man asks questions; one hopes for good sense rather
>than histrionics or pretentious fulminations from idealogues. In any
Here's wishing you luck. I fear this will draw out the cranks though...
>Question: How do rural men find companionship and love with their
>fellows?
I can't speak from direct experience, but I would expect that finding
appropraite companionship in rural (i.e. low population) areas is almost
as hard for straight men as gay men. Granted there are probably not
church socials to attend, and there is likely some additional risk
involved in being openly gay in such a setting, but low population often
means limited interaction on a social level, and certainly limits the
number of "available" prospects of any orientation. I'd also wager that
gay men are disproportionately drawn to urban living because of the
potential to "hide in the crowd" and the variety of services a larger
community offers.
That said, gay friends of mine living in rural (or semi-rual) areas
have told me that they either travel to find dates, meet folks on the net,
or read the personal ads in magazines and newspapers. Things like Bear
magazine must serve a fairly rural clientle I'd figure.
>Question: Are these men as ready to call themselves ‘gay’ as urban
>homosexual men?
Speculating again, I'd guess not publically, at least not in their rural
settings. Folks are folks, but if you live in a very small community the
chances of avoiding someone that's hostile to you are slim-- best not to
chance it.
>Question: Do country men live differently from their urban counterparts
>as homosexual men?
They obviously live differently a *rural* men, as you ahve pointed out.
The stereotypical urban gay male is probably best identified by the word
urban in this case, in terms of differentiation. Of course they are
different, but are they different because of the setting, of because they
choose to live there?
This is an interesting set of questions and I hope you get some more
useful responses than this.
regards-
--
________________________________________________________________________
Derek R. Larson Indiana University Department of History
"Eastward I go by force, but Westward I go free!" -H. D. Thoreau
-----------http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~drlarson/home.html------------
Greg Parkinson
In article <MPG.d0a755b9...@news.snowcrest.net>,
rbr...@snowcrest.net (Richard Bryan) wrote:
[.....]
> What I will call the ‘gay’ identity is an urban creation; certain history
> books demonstrate that adequately. Those borrowed clothes do not then fit
> a rural man very well. He may refuse the ‘gay’ label entirely, or he puts
> on those clothes as a costume worn only for certain holidays, or he may
> accept the identity entirely, embracing its notions on how a man should
> live his life even while living in ‘the sticks’.
Even though it baffles me, this confounding of:
- having an self-defined identity which includes, accepts, and promotes
one's sexuality; and
- wearing certain clothes, going to certain clubs, having certain haircuts,
liking certain music, because that's what other gay people do
is very common and often is stated by gay/homosexual men who have spent
very little time around other gay people, or around groups of gay
people.
One of the best things about having the experience of living in
(usually urban) areas where there are enough gay people that it
is in general safe to just be your gay self, whatever form that
takes, is that you learn the ability to not be aware of being
a minority. It's incredibly freeing to just be yourself without
thinking about who knows, who doesn't, what if someone finds out,
how different you are, etc. etc. It's something that most straight
people just take for granted. It's very close to the fallacy that
many non-out gay people work with, that their sexuality is nobody's
business and they don't "parade it around" or "stick it in people's faces"
and it's "only a small part of who I am". For being such a small
part of who they are, they seem to spend a lot more mental time
and energy on it than most out gay people do.
So when I see statements about "gay identity" which characterize it
as something urban - as though appearances and activities which can
be fully described in a gay bar rag were the whole of it - it makes
me wonder how much unexamined anti-gay attitude there is involved in
it. No small amount, I think.
> Question: Are these men as ready to call themselves ‘gay’ as urban
> homosexual men?
Probably not, and I think the foundation of why that is has little
to do with a preference for urban or rural settings.
I don't remember the source of it but years ago I read an article
which talked about something they called "metrosexual". Their
contention was that there was an urban sexuality (or lifestyle
involving sexuality) which was common to some people who lived
in large cities and expressed itself in very similar ways for
both gay and straight people.
Since a "gay lifestyle" is any way that gay people live, I wonder
if the real issues here are rural vs urban, in general, and
the lack of opportunities that rural gay men have to really examine
and deal with by-default anti-gay attitudes.
-----------------------------------------------------
Greg Parkinson
g...@cinenet.net
-----------------------------------------------------
boy brent
:always have the happy memories of the bewildered faces on some urban gay
:men on learning that I was working to get away from the city: “But
:there’s nothing to DO there! You’d better not go.”
This seems to be a consistent fallacy on the part of rural lesbians and gays
that i've spoken to, they think all of us who live in urban areas are a bunch
of city slickers who haven't a clue as to what it's like to be homosexual and
live in the country. Let me dispel that notion for you right now: i was born
and raised in rural Oklahoma; for the first twenty years of my life, i never
lived in a town with a population greater than 5,000 people. i came out in
the country, and ultimately that's where my roots are. However, i *choose* to
live in the city because this is where i'm most comfortable. Just as you say
you worked to get away from the city, i worked hard to get out of the country;
i knew my college education was my only ticket out of an environment where i
never thought i would be accepted or belong.
i do understand your anger with the seeming insensitivity of urban gays, who
sometimes act like anyone from the country is a backwards hick with
questionable tastes. i find this kind of attitude just as insulting
and offensive as you do. i also understand your frustration with the apparent
self-indulgence of urban gays who take the greater freedom of city life for
granted, and no longer seem to relate to the basic issues of equality you're
facing on a daily basis.
But let me turn that around for you and show you the other side as well. If
urban lesbians and gays have sometimes been high handed towards their rural
counterparts, then so too have the rural lesbians and gays tended to lump
urban gays together and accuse us of understanding nothing of your situation.
Just where did you think we all came from? Do you think that we've all grown
up in the city and have never known anything of country life? Here's news for
you: many of us are expatriate country boys and girls who fled to the cities
to escape what we felt was the oppression and ever-present homophobia of our
families and (perhaps to a less painful extent) our neighbors.
Furthermore, as far as the self-indulgence goes, we each deal with the issues
that are nearest at hand to us. That means that, of necessity, we've often
got a different agenda than you do. Rather than trying to impose some
artificial limits on what we're doing, we should continue to work together
when we can, and when we can't, we should strive to treat each other with
mutual understanding and respect, not condescension. Above all, we need to
LISTEN to each other.
i would never patronize a rural lesbian or gay man by telling you that *you*
shouldn't live in the country just because *i* don't choose to do so. But i
do think it's high time we started showing some mutual respect for each other
and our decisions as to where we feel the most comfortable living out our
lives. Don't assume that all urban gays are just city slickers profoundly
ignorant of the realities of rural life. Dorothy didn't forget everything she
knew about Kansas the second she got to Oz.
boy brent | Not only will the revolution be televised,
bca...@cse.ogi.edu | it will have a laugh track.
Richard Bryan
In article <57rait$f...@nadine.teleport.com>, bca...@teleport.com says...
Whoa there friend! Do I sound angry? If so my writing is worse than I
thought. I care not one whit what anyone one man, or group of men, thinks
about me as a country man (by choice and fortune) or as a city-born boy,
be these men in the city or out here. Were I to take offense, feel
insult, it would not first be because someone treated me like a 'hick'.
I think you're right that the urban 'gays' pay probably just about as
much attention to their country cousins as urbanites as a whole think
about any of the folk living and working in forest or farm.
You know, its' funny that you write about using education as the way to
get where you wanted to go; it was the same for me - mathematics actually
did it for me!
> But let me turn that around for you and show you the other side as well. If
> urban lesbians and gays have sometimes been high handed towards their rural
> counterparts, then so too have the rural lesbians and gays tended to lump
> urban gays together and accuse us of understanding nothing of your situation.
> Just where did you think we all came from? Do you think that we've all grown
> up in the city and have never known anything of country life? Here's news for
> you: many of us are expatriate country boys and girls who fled to the cities
> to escape what we felt was the oppression and ever-present homophobia of our
> families and (perhaps to a less painful extent) our neighbors.
Hmmmm... how does that song go.... "And what do you think you'll find
there?" My concerns, thus far, are with rural homsexual men. Not
lesbians; not city folks; not straight people. If it is true that country
homosexuals are antagonistic toward city 'gays', then that will be
something new for me to learn.
> Furthermore, as far as the self-indulgence goes, we each deal with the issues
> that are nearest at hand to us. That means that, of necessity, we've often
> got a different agenda than you do. Rather than trying to impose some
> artificial limits on what we're doing, we should continue to work together
> when we can, and when we can't, we should strive to treat each other with
> mutual understanding and respect, not condescension. Above all, we need to
> LISTEN to each other.
Agenda? Now, it's true I've only lived in the sticks for a few years...
but I've seen nothing at all that looks like a 'rural homosexual
_agenda_'!
I can just see it now folks. Down the road, where there are all these
little hamlets, strung out along the highway and scattered along the
country roads. Folks with big gardens in a one store town. Mill work,
shop work, truck driving, forestry, farmers and ranchers.... all these
somehow getting their heads together, holding a meeting (where? The Civil
Defense Hall?) and drafting a 'Homosexual Agenda' for the county. Come on
guy! This _is_ the country!
>
> i would never patronize a rural lesbian or gay man by telling you that *you*
> shouldn't live in the country just because *i* don't choose to do so. But i
> do think it's high time we started showing some mutual respect for each other
> and our decisions as to where we feel the most comfortable living out our
Hmmm... perhaps a nerve, eh? It's very interesting.
Thanks for responding, sincerely.
Richard Bryan
In article <57qqdp$h...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu says...
> Here's wishing you luck. I fear this will draw out the cranks though...
Yes, well one just hopes to draw out something, hopefully of value. Every
good question is a sort of experiment; riddling the unknown.
> >Question: How do rural men find companionship and love with their
> >fellows?
>
> I can't speak from direct experience, but I would expect that finding
> appropraite companionship in rural (i.e. low population) areas is almost
> as hard for straight men as gay men. Granted there are probably not
> church socials to attend, and there is likely some additional risk
> involved in being openly gay in such a setting, but low population often
> means limited interaction on a social level, and certainly limits the
> number of "available" prospects of any orientation. I'd also wager that
> gay men are disproportionately drawn to urban living because of the
> potential to "hide in the crowd" and the variety of services a larger
> community offers.
>
> That said, gay friends of mine living in rural (or semi-rual) areas
> have told me that they either travel to find dates, meet folks on the net,
> or read the personal ads in magazines and newspapers. Things like Bear
> magazine must serve a fairly rural clientle I'd figure.
>
We can take it you're in the city?
> >Question: Are these men as ready to call themselves ‘gay’ as urban
> >homosexual men?
>
> Speculating again, I'd guess not publically, at least not in their rural
> settings. Folks are folks, but if you live in a very small community the
> chances of avoiding someone that's hostile to you are slim-- best not to
> chance it.
I was not clear; I am not so much interested in what others call country
men (i.e. 'Did you know he was gay!') but how the man might or might not
call himself. If you like, what words would he be likely to use - what
would he say he 'was'?
> >Question: Do country men live differently from their urban counterparts
> >as homosexual men?
>
> They obviously live differently a *rural* men, as you ahve pointed out.
> The stereotypical urban gay male is probably best identified by the word
> urban in this case, in terms of differentiation. Of course they are
> different, but are they different because of the setting, of because they
> choose to live there?
Yeh! Verily! That's a nice way to put the question. If the man was born
in the country, he might stay - or depart for the bright lights as
countless country children have done for ages. Surely the advertised 'gay
lifestyle' must play a role in attracting a country boy, more perhaps
than the bright lights themselves. A country born fellow might also say,
as some (who can find work) do, "No, I don't care much for cities. It's
much nicer here". After all, where's he gonna go fishing in the city?
Then there are the city boys who flee; not for a vacation, but for a
lifetime. These have clearly made a choice.
> This is an interesting set of questions and I hope you get some more
> useful responses than this.
Thanks.
Richard Bryan
In article <glp-011296...@ppp87.cinenet.net>, g...@cinenet.net
> In article <MPG.d0a755b9...@news.snowcrest.net>,
> rbr...@snowcrest.net (Richard Bryan) wrote:
>
>
> > What I will call the ‘gay’ identity is an urban creation; certain history
> > books demonstrate that adequately. Those borrowed clothes do not then fit
> > a rural man very well. He may refuse the ‘gay’ label entirely, or he puts
> > on those clothes as a costume worn only for certain holidays, or he may
> > accept the identity entirely, embracing its notions on how a man should
> > live his life even while living in ‘the sticks’.
>
> Even though it baffles me, this confounding of:
>
> - having an self-defined identity which includes, accepts, and promotes
> one's sexuality; and
> - wearing certain clothes, going to certain clubs, having certain haircuts,
> liking certain music, because that's what other gay people do
This is very interesting. Off topic, but interesting. One has to use some
word (note that I chose homosexual for the header); I use 'gay'
reluctantly because I don't know for sure what it means. You are drawing
a distinction between a man's self-knowledge (self-defined identity) and
a set of habits - which I think extend to matters of more import than
fashions and taste in music - that are observed in a social setting, that
is 'what other gay people do'.
It is not I who 'confounds' the two; it is life that presents the
conflict. This is not new, of course; it is just the age old fight
between the individual and the society. How American!
Then there's that word 'sexuality'; then again, there's the ugly
'homosexual'. What, for example, is serious minded man who loves - and
not merely sexually - other men to call himself?
>
> is very common and often is stated by gay/homosexual men who have spent
> very little time around other gay people, or around groups of gay
> people.
>
> One of the best things about having the experience of living in
> (usually urban) areas where there are enough gay people that it
> is in general safe to just be your gay self, whatever form that
> takes, is that you learn the ability to not be aware of being
> a minority. It's incredibly freeing to just be yourself without
> thinking about who knows, who doesn't, what if someone finds out,
> how different you are, etc. etc. It's something that most straight
> people just take for granted. It's very close to the fallacy that
> many non-out gay people work with, that their sexuality is nobody's
> business and they don't "parade it around" or "stick it in people's faces"
> and it's "only a small part of who I am". For being such a small
> part of who they are, they seem to spend a lot more mental time
> and energy on it than most out gay people do.
Yes, well that's always the tradeoff isn't it? The social group offers a
number of benefits - at the price of membership. One could - as thinkers
far greater than I have done - argue that such a comfortable social
identity is anything but 'freeing'.
>
> So when I see statements about "gay identity" which characterize it
> as something urban - as though appearances and activities which can
> be fully described in a gay bar rag were the whole of it - it makes
> me wonder how much unexamined anti-gay attitude there is involved in
> it. No small amount, I think.
It is urban. If you really want some references I'll dig them out for
you. Boswell wrote well to this topic. You know this yourself already
though; you've just told us about the benefits of living in an (urban)
area where 'gay communities' exist.
>
> > Question: Are these men as ready to call themselves ‘gay’ as urban
> > homosexual men?
>
> Probably not, and I think the foundation of why that is has little
> to do with a preference for urban or rural settings.
>
> I don't remember the source of it but years ago I read an article
> which talked about something they called "metrosexual". Their
> contention was that there was an urban sexuality (or lifestyle
> involving sexuality) which was common to some people who lived
> in large cities and expressed itself in very similar ways for
> both gay and straight people.
> Since a "gay lifestyle" is any way that gay people live, I wonder
> if the real issues here are rural vs urban, in general, and
> the lack of opportunities that rural gay men have to really examine
> and deal with by-default anti-gay attitudes.
Well the first part's sort of obvious, though I'm not sure what it means.
And when a man is not certain what 'gay' means, then he can't say much
about 'anti-gay'.
I think you'd find very many men, town and country, who can tell very
ugly stories about those 'by-default anti-gay attitudes'; they've felt
them on their own backs - no there's no lack of opportunities for for
that out here. Nor in the city, for that matter.
James Dalton
I grrew up in a very small town (a post office and a general store). The
nearest gay bar is an hour away, and has never really been all that
fasinating too me. I've never lived in what would be considered a big
city, although I have lived in a coulple of small to medium size cities.
That said I figured I would throw my $0.02 in....
> >Question: How do rural men find companionship and love with their
> >fellows?
While in college I dated a few different men, nothing long term. I had to
return home to that small town after graduating to met my current lover of
5 years. I was working at a nearby fast food dump to pay the bills til I
found something real. He was OUT from early high school on.... I've
discovered now that I live in this area again that there are more of us
here then I thought.
Living in a small town is a little pre-Stone Wall..... There aren't any gay
bars and usually no gay groups in the yellow pages. I can't speak for all
rural areas, but know that I know one other gay person here, I've been
introduced to more gay people in this area then I knew in college. We do
have one advantage here, two local colleges. One medium liberal arts
school and one large mostly technical school.
> >Question: Are these men as ready to call themselves ‘gay’ as urban
> >homosexual men?
I would have to say yes. At least now anyway.... When I was in high school
I only knew of two other gay people. Both where stereo-typical "flaming
faggots". And at that age I didn't want anything to do with them. But
now, being gay or at least bi, seems to be the "in" thing with the younger
crowd (16 - 21). I see more pink triangles and rainblow flags then I can
count anymore....
>
>
> >Question: Do country men live differently from their urban counterparts
> >as homosexual men?
ONLY comparing gay men that I personally know... Rural gay men tend to
have longer lasting relationships... the flip side is fewer rural gay men
end up in relationships. Rural gay men tend to have small gatherings of
gay friends over on weekends. Urban gay men head to the bar... Not much
different the hetero counterparts.
It's early morning and past time for me to be getting ready for work, or I
would write more.....
James
Tim
Greg Parkinson wrote:
>
> [.....]
>
I must profess to be impressed with this group. 3 days into this
thread and not a single FAG or SICKO flame ....
I'm moving to the country. You are good people.
peace ...
Tim (gay in the suburbs)