Home AIDS testing
David Christopher Rogers
a major undiscussed topic... home AIDS tests. Doug and I spent an
afternoon with a bottle of wine discussing this issue. He felt
that we should do everything possible to encourage people to know
their HIV status, that people have the right of access to medical
information unregulated by the establishment, and that the supposed
downside (lack of counseling, etc.) is both unproven and irrelevant:
it should remain the person's choice to take such a risk.
Comments?
David Christopher Rogers
Jeff Dauber
Well, I have some problems which do not even approach the ethical
issues. For example, I know how much blood is drawn for HIV tests.
If this is going to be the method at home, I can see a lot of problems
with the logistics of the method.
I also am concerned with the accuracy of home tests. A false positive
from a home test or a false negative from a home test is very dangerous
to people's mental health and behavior.
Finally, on the real issue at hand, I don't think that the lack of
counselling would be bad for everyone. With a lot of education, I
don't think that it would be a big problem. However, back in the
real world, that education is not in place. Most people who are
unfamiliar with HIV (you know, the ones who feel HIV+=AIDS, who
feel that HIV+=instant death, who feel that PWA=untouchable) are
not going to react properly to the results.
Jeff
-FWA
Max Meredith Vasilatos
>>I was a bit disappointed that no-one picked up on what I considered
>>a major undiscussed topic... home AIDS tests.
>I also am concerned with the accuracy of home tests. A false positive
>from a home test or a false negative from a home test is very dangerous
>to people's mental health and behavior.
Young women especially often suicide on discovering
themselves pregnant, yet tests for this condition are
available over the counter and I don't hear a peep
of complaint.
The differences are left as an exercise for the reader.
Jeff Dauber
Ahhhh, the differences are obvious to a cynical person like myself....
Home HIV tests are marketted to men and women.
Home pregnancy tests are marketted to women only.
The federal government does not care about women at all (note
the alarming rate of breast cancer in this country....)
FWA
Michael Thomas
Should it really be any different to women giving themselves self
examinations for breast cancer? Unlike pregnancy tests, breast cancer
and AIDS are at least closer to the same level. They also probably show
similar emotional responses as well. If a home test for breast cancer or
HIV were possible I think its benifits are incalculably better (early
detection) than its drawback (emotional distress, possible error).
What is the real alternative? Penalizing the majority of people who
can deal with the results and thereby afford themselves early treatment
to the few that cannot?
A better question is why the government (presumably) should have the
jurisdiction to take away our right to purchase such a test if the first
place. Why is it the governments charter to protect us from ourselves?
[I was going to use the phrase "Since when" instead of "Why", but that
has an answer: late 1800's, with roots sown much earlier]
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@gordian.com)
"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."
-- Hobbes to Calvin
USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca, 92707-5637
PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Michael Thomas
|> Well, I have some problems which do not even approach the ethical
|> issues. For example, I know how much blood is drawn for HIV tests.
|> If this is going to be the method at home, I can see a lot of problems
|> with the logistics of the method.
My guess is that a successful home test would probably not draw blood.
It opens to many avenues to contamination etc. This of course will probably
make designing one much more of a challenge. I would guess that it would
be more like a patch test for TB. It would have to be mindlessly simple
to have any overall accuracy. (RTFM???)
|>
|> I also am concerned with the accuracy of home tests. A false positive
|> from a home test or a false negative from a home test is very dangerous
|> to people's mental health and behavior.
Probably not any worse than a woman finding a lump in her breast.
Ominous yes. Frightening certainly. Emotionally crippling, (to the
point of suicide), I doubt.
Jeff Dauber
>In article <vjr...@fido.asd.sgi.com>, dau...@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>|> I also am concerned with the accuracy of home tests. A false positive
>|> from a home test or a false negative from a home test is very dangerous
>|> to people's mental health and behavior.
>
> Probably not any worse than a woman finding a lump in her breast.
>Ominous yes. Frightening certainly. Emotionally crippling, (to the
>point of suicide), I doubt.
Well, the difference between the popular perception of breast cancer
and the popular perception of AIDS is quite different. The general
populace knows that though breast cancer is quite dangerous, it is not
always lethal (I am talking perceptions, not reality). On the other
hand, the general perception of AIDS (which is what the general populace
thinks that testing HIV+ implies) is that it kills you quickly.
I think that this difference of perception is somewhat important....
You know, sometimes I think that I argue opposite sides of arguments (this
suicide thing, you know) just to be contrary...
FWA
George Neville-Neil
You know, sometimes I think that I argue opposite sides of arguments (this
suicide thing, you know) just to be contrary...
Well, when I used to do this to my family as a kid my Grandmother
would call me a "contrary Mary." I didn't know what it meant th :-)
Come to think of it I still don't know why she said it.
Later,
George
--
George Neville-Neil "T'aint nobody's business if I do."
g...@manray.berkeley.edu B. Holiday
"There are only smiling happy people in LegoLand" -- Lego Rep.
Tim Pierce
>|> I also am concerned with the accuracy of home tests. A false positive
>|> from a home test or a false negative from a home test is very dangerous
>|> to people's mental health and behavior.
>
> Probably not any worse than a woman finding a lump in her breast.
>Ominous yes. Frightening certainly. Emotionally crippling, (to the
>point of suicide), I doubt.
As Max has already pointed out, women suicide from positive results
from home pregnancy tests. I would not be surprised to learn the same
about breast cancer tests, and I WOULD be surprised to learn the
opposite about home AIDS/HIV tests. It remains true that the larger
segment of the population equates HIV with AIDS and AIDS with death.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "If you eat _Light Twinkies,_ do you kill
\ / pie...@husc.harvard.edu / 1/3 less people?"
\/ (aka twpi...@amherst.edu) / -- Stan Schwarz (st...@dir.texas.gov)
Bil Snodgrass
was all opinion so it should have been in the editorial section, about
how homophobic the movie "JFK" was. Excuse me. I had to sit through
a movie that was so "GAY NEGATIVE" this fall that I felt like cutting my
wrists when that movie ended. That second movie was "MY PRIVATE IDAHO"
which except for the visual aspect of the film, sucked the big one,(oh
if only I had one that big!). MPH was practically this years "gay event".
I don't understand why that man couldn't have produced a halfway
"GAY POSITIVE" film, which we all know Hollywood has a hard time
doing.
Then I go to see "JFK" which I enjoyed immensly and I read that the
gay scenes were offensive to some guy down in L.A. More stuff happens
in the S.F. Gay Pride parade that I would lable very offensive, than happens
in this movie. It was not even a part of the plot, it was just
background. To deny that some gays and some straights don't get a
sexual kick off of that type ofparty is so prudish.
Where does all this weak stomach come from? All I know is that to
be a good P.C. gay person you have to tolerate many different
kinds of people. To go off bitching about "JFK" when the real
issue is our goverment's little secret war against demorcary, the
same goverment that may be the reason AIDS is so prevalent in the
gay populace is just silly.
We really need to cuss out gay movie directors who have the
financial backing and power to create good positive gay
stories and in turn produce shit like MPI. I do not
need the general public going to MPI and having their
warped opinions about Gays being warped more. I spend to
much time educating them that we are just like them!
Jeff Dauber
>Going through the "ADVOCATE" I came across an editorial, I mean it
>was all opinion so it should have been in the editorial section, about
>how homophobic the movie "JFK" was. Excuse me. I had to sit through
>a movie that was so "GAY NEGATIVE" this fall that I felt like cutting my
>wrists when that movie ended. That second movie was "MY PRIVATE IDAHO"
>which except for the visual aspect of the film, sucked the big one,(oh
>if only I had one that big!). MPH was practically this years "gay event".
>I don't understand why that man couldn't have produced a halfway
>"GAY POSITIVE" film, which we all know Hollywood has a hard time
>doing.
I don't think that MPI is even remotely gay negative. The gay characters
are portrayed sympathetically. They may not be your cup of tea, but they
are not portrayed in the classic "evil" way...
>Then I go to see "JFK" which I enjoyed immensly and I read that the
>gay scenes were offensive to some guy down in L.A. More stuff happens
>in the S.F. Gay Pride parade that I would lable very offensive, than happens
>in this movie. It was not even a part of the plot, it was just
>background. To deny that some gays and some straights don't get a
>sexual kick off of that type ofparty is so prudish.
The reason that you find the SF gay pride parade more offensive than
JFK is due to an uptight streak which you have shown before.
I'll explain this as simply as possible, so maybe you will understand.
In JFK, the gay characters are portrayed as evil and untrustworthy. The
reason that homosexuals take offense at this is because it shows the same
relegation to stereotypes that hollywood has always used in portraying
gay characters. This is a different type of offense than going "ick,
those people are doing something I find distasteful." It is a more deep
seated offense.
>Where does all this weak stomach come from? All I know is that to
>be a good P.C. gay person you have to tolerate many different
>kinds of people. To go off bitching about "JFK" when the real
>issue is our goverment's little secret war against demorcary, the
>same goverment that may be the reason AIDS is so prevalent in the
>gay populace is just silly.
If the only impression that mainstream america gets is this hollywood
interpretation of homosexuals, then they will side with the government
in keeping us as second class citizens. They are both related.
>We really need to cuss out gay movie directors who have the
>financial backing and power to create good positive gay
>stories and in turn produce shit like MPI. I do not
>need the general public going to MPI and having their
>warped opinions about Gays being warped more. I spend to
>much time educating them that we are just like them!
So, let me take a guess... You think that a gay positive movie will show
a nice gay couple living their life? I get it now. Face the facts Bil,
the gay characters in My Own Private Idaho are real. I know people like
that in SF. I know people who actually did the same sort of thing (hustling
to go from small town to big city). They are real.
Jeff
-FWA
David Christopher Rogers
From: pie...@husc4.harvard.edu (Tim Pierce)
>As Max has already pointed out, women suicide from positive results
>from home pregnancy tests. I would not be surprised to learn the same
>about breast cancer tests, and I WOULD be surprised to learn the
>opposite about home AIDS/HIV tests. It remains true that the larger
>segment of the population equates HIV with AIDS and AIDS with death.
I'm not sure what the point is... the implication is that since people
may kill themselves, we should not give them the information.
My first comment is that that attitude is a variation of the "Japanese Doctor"
syndrome, referring to the habit of Japanese doctors to NOT tell patients
when they are dying of cancer because it would upset them and ruin the
quality of their lives. More extreme, perhaps, but the same behavior as
what is hinted at here. Restrict access to information that may be upsetting.
My second comment is that protecting people by restricting access to
potentially life-saving information is bizarre at best. It seems likely
that offering multiple routes to HIV status information, including
home testing, is the best way to have the most people aware of their
HIV status. I believe that the people unwilling to use currently
established avenues to get the HIV status are often the ones most in
need of this knowledge, both for their sakes and for other's sakes.
Of course this is still an academic discussion until we have a safe
and accurate home AIDS test.
David Christopher Rogers
George Neville-Neil
|> So, let me take a guess... You think that a gay positive movie will show
|> a nice gay couple living their life? I get it now. Face the facts Bil,
|> the gay characters in My Own Private Idaho are real. I know people like
|> that in SF. I know people who actually did the same sort of thing (hustling
|> to go from small town to big city). They are real.
|>
|>
Which of course is WHY they are offensive. It would seem that
people don't like reality much. This is why hollywood's version
of reality sells so well. People would rather see ST:TNG where
the future's so bright they gotta wear shades. This is why the
news did so poorly until the War for Oil. WFO was covered in
such a way that it could look like a video game.
BTW Happy WFO day. It was one year ago that the US destroyed
Iraq.
Fuck,
Jeff Dauber
>My second comment is that protecting people by restricting access to
>potentially life-saving information is bizarre at best. It seems likely
>that offering multiple routes to HIV status information, including
>home testing, is the best way to have the most people aware of their
>HIV status. I believe that the people unwilling to use currently
>established avenues to get the HIV status are often the ones most in
>need of this knowledge, both for their sakes and for other's sakes.
Before this happens, the american populace needs to be educated concerning
HIV. Until then, HIV+ = instant death in the minds of the people who
will be using this home test. This is the reason I suspect that people
will take the news poorly. I am not saying that anyone finding out that
they are HIV+ takes it well, I just think that if you were uneducated
on the topic you will take it much worse...
Jeff
-FWA
Scott Stevens
>
>The federal government does not care about women at all (note
>the alarming rate of breast cancer in this country....)
>
Assuming that you are not proposing that the federal government
is causing the breast cancer, the RATE of breast cancer cases
per 100,000 women is not changing very much, and really
has little to do with the goverment. (In other words: genetics)
I'm not debating your intended point, only your expressed point.
Scott Stevens
po...@med.unc.edu
Jack Hamilton
I don't think Jeff was talking about transmission, but about education,
detection, and treatment. No matter what the cause, it's a serious problem,
and many cases could be caught earlier and managed better.
--
------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton j...@netcom.com
Mike Hennahane
>I'm not sure what the point is... the implication is that since people
>may kill themselves, we should not give them the information.
[two pertinent comments]
this is just another rerun of the "i know better than you what's best
for you" game. my opinion (since i'm so shy about offering it) is that
we're all big boys and girls and we should be able to decide for
ourselves whether we want to be tested for HIV and how (doctor, home
test, ...). just provide me with the information (accuracy, risk,
what if?...) and let me make a choice.
isn't this the same blunt instrument that is used against children
until they reach the magical age when they become "adults?" i guess it
doesn't stop there.
--mike
Mike Hennahane
>Which of course is WHY they are offensive. It would seem that
>people don't like reality much. This is why hollywood's version
>of reality sells so well.
avoiding a whole 'nother thread on reality, maybe people go to the
movies to get away from "reality." maybe MPI was too close to the
real world to be an escape. where's arnold schwartzeneggar when you
need him...?
>BTW Happy WFO day. It was one year ago that the US destroyed
>Iraq.
happy, happy...
>Fuck,
ok, when?
>Later,
oh.
--mike
Jeff Bowles
Unfortunately, it's not as cut-and-dried as that. The two immediate
results of home HIV tests are:
1. The mentality that will have two people do the test before fucking,
not knowing that the test might take months to show a positive result
after seroconversion;
2. The lack of counseling will lead to even more people deciding to off
themselves immediately upon finding that they're positive.
It's a little like "home lie detectors" --- think about all of the
unscrupulous characters out there, and what they'd do with one. I don't
see "home AIDS [sic] kits" being a lot better.
-------
Oh, and I won't let one thing pass: you say that people should have
the right to information. Of course, of course, of course.
But to tell someone he/she is HIV-positive and not give them access to
health care is cruel. And that's what all these proponents of testing
("at any cost!") seem to want.
Get the test, absolutely. But only after you've got certain support
systems in place, financially and emotionally. Otherwise, you'll go
from a bad situation to a far worse one.
Jeff Bowles
--
"Pack the cat and the tofu, Marge - here come the Republicans." - M. Shore
Jeff Bowles - j...@ingres.com
Bil Snodgrass
>In article <1992Jan15.1...@lclark.edu> snod...@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>I don't think that MPI is even remotely gay negative. The gay characters
>are portrayed sympathetically. They may not be your cup of tea, but they
>are not portrayed in the classic "evil" way...
The Hell they weren't. Do you remember a book called "Everything You
Wanted to Know about Sex But Are Afraid to Ask" by, I think, Dr. Rueben?
Get it and read the section on Homosexuality. It paints a "realistic"
picture of the Gay lifestyle too. I didn't want to live like a "Gay"
person did, at least according to that book. At thirteen I was almost
out. Not after that book. Those kinds of portrayals have an
over all negative affect on us and we don't need anymore negativity.
The timing on MPI just seems wrong. We need real stories about
real middle of the road gays.
>The reason that you find the SF gay pride parade more offensive than
>JFK is due to an uptight streak which you have shown before.
I love Drag, I love leather, I love dykes I love much of
the Gay cultural scene. I march in gay pride parades. I have sung
in two Gay Chorus and two MCC plus a Dignity Chapter. I have sung
at memorials for friends who have died of AIDS. I wear my
pink triangle with the black circle around it so please tell me
what streak you are talking about! I didn't find the gay scene in
JFK to be offensive at all. Did you see what the OCA (Oregon
Citizen's Alliance) did with footage from the SF Pride parade? I would
have loved to have been in that parade and seen all the wonderful depth
and felt all of the pride in that parade. But the OCA took that wonderful
event and is currently using it against us.
>I'll explain this as simply as possible, so maybe you will understand.
What snobbery! It really doesn't impress me.
>In JFK, the gay characters are portrayed as evil and untrustworthy. The
>reason that homosexuals take offense at this is because it shows the same
>relegation to stereotypes that hollywood has always used in portraying
>gay characters.
Wrong again. The only thing that these character portrayed were
evil murders. The other was brought in because that is where
some of the interaction of the characters occured. Maybe
it is you how has difficulty with "realites". This was a historical
reality. We cannot change history and I feel that bringing this
issue up on the particular film is just part of the media smear
campaign against this great film. The book "Animal Farm" was right
that sometimes you cannot tell the difference between the pigs and
the humans.
This is a different type of offense than going "ick,
>those people are doing something I find distasteful." It is a more deep
>seated offense.
MPI just reinforced what we "all" know about gays. It was pretty
close to the gutter. I am tired of having my people in the
gutter. Sorry, most of us are pretty neat people.
I considered "Paris is Burning" to be a fantastic movie. I've never
done drag, but I related with so many of the people on that
show. Any straight person with half a mind who saw that
movie would have been educated about many different issues
in the Gay community. It would also have shown the survival
side of our people.
>If the only impression that mainstream america gets is this hollywood
>interpretation of homosexuals, then they will side with the government
>in keeping us as second class citizens. They are both related.
>>We really need to cuss out gay movie directors who have the
>>financial backing and power to create good positive gay
>>stories and in turn produce shit like MPI. I do not
>>need the general public going to MPI and having their
>>warped opinions about Gays being warped more. I spend to
>>much time educating them that we are just like them!
>So, let me take a guess... You think that a gay positive movie will show
>a nice gay couple living their life?
You really are an ass. I mean "Terms of Endearment" was a great
movie, it showed growth in relationships and what not, but it
wasn't any Ozzy and Harriet. There has to be something other
than AIDS and street hustling in the Gay world that is worth a movie!
I called you an ass because your tactics remind me of right wings
tactice i.e., "If Bil doesn't like bad movies then he must want
goodie two shoe movies". No I want more realistic Gay movies. Ones
that most of us can relate too. Ones that other people can relate
too. Sort of like my being able to relate to heterosexual love stories
in the movies all these years.
I get it now. Face the facts Bil,
>the gay characters in My Own Private Idaho are real.
Never said they weren't, but I still wonder if the time and
energy wasted on such a film , could have been used for
a great film based around gays?
>Jeff
>-FWA
Bil Snodgrass III
Jeff Dauber
> Ask for inches, and you only
>get fucked.
Please Sir, may I have some inches?
FWA
Jeff Dauber
> We need real stories about
>real middle of the road gays.
Well then, make one....
I get tired of gay people saying "gay directors should make gay movies."
If you do not like the movies that other gay directors are making, then
make your own, but don't whine that the gays they portray do not meet
your standards....
Jeff
-FWA
Tim Pierce
>need the general public going to MPI and having their
>warped opinions about Gays being warped more. I spend to
>much time educating them that we are just like them!
Nevertheless, "we" are not.
Bil Snodgrass
>In article <1992Jan15.1...@lclark.edu> snod...@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>I do not
>>need the general public going to MPI and having their
>>warped opinions about Gays being warped more. I spend to
>>much time educating them that we are just like them!
>
>Nevertheless, "we" are not.
>
Let's see now, are "we" all not HUMAN BEINGS?
>____ Tim Pierce / "If you eat _Light Twinkies,_ do you kill
>\ / pie...@husc.harvard.edu / 1/3 less people?"
> \/ (aka twpi...@amherst.edu) / -- Stan Schwarz (st...@dir.texas.gov)
Bil Snodgrass III
Melinda Shore
That remains an open question.
Nonetheless, I am unwilling to stake my rights on Jane
Q. Public's perception that I am "just like" her. Doesn't
this belong on the FAQ list or something?
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
Jess Anderson
>In article <1992Jan16....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>pie...@husc4.harvard.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan15.1...@lclark.edu>
>>snod...@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>>I do not
>>>need the general public going to MPI and having their
>>>warped opinions about Gays being warped more. I spend to
>>>much time educating them that we are just like them!
>>Nevertheless, "we" are not.
>Let's see now, are "we" all not HUMAN BEINGS?
Can we try to elevate the level of the discussion a little,
please? It is *so* trying to have to deal with this
sophomoric style of argument. If you must state the
obvious, try at least to do so amusingly or artfully. Your
remark doesn't begin to address Tim's points (left as an
exercise for you: how many points did he make and what are
they?).
<> Expecting something for nothing is the most popular form
<> of hope. -- Arnold Glasow
--
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: ande...@yak.macc.wisc.edu Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Jeff Baron
BS: I love Drag, I love leather, I love dykes I love much of
BS: the Gay cultural scene. I march in gay pride parades. I have sung
BS: in two Gay Chorus and two MCC plus a Dignity Chapter. I have sung
BS: at memorials for friends who have died of AIDS. I wear my
BS: pink triangle with the black circle around it so please tell me
BS: what streak you are talking about! I didn't find the gay scene in
BS: JFK to be offensive at all. Did you see what the OCA (Oregon
BS: Citizen's Alliance) did with footage from the SF Pride parade? I would
BS: have loved to have been in that parade and seen all the wonderful depth
BS: and felt all of the pride in that parade. But the OCA took that wonderful
BS: event and is currently using it against us.
So? People (we are not all people, contrary to popular belief)
are going to believe what they want to believe. If they
had not had this parade footage (or these parade inches???) to
use, they certainly would have found something else. Like the
current stuff about NAMBLA. THEY will find SOMETHING.
Of course, why should we bother with them? Even if the parade
had been the only offensive footage they could have EVER found,
that is STILL not enough reason to pay them any mind.
It's so nice that you want to be a good, unobtrusive fag. But
in the end, it is the people that ask for a mile that get the
feet that we count as progress. Ask for inches, and you only
get fucked.
Jeff
Nelson Minar
>Do you remember a book called "Everything You Wanted to Know about Sex
>But Are Afraid to Ask" by, I think, Dr. Rueben? Get it and read the
>section on Homosexuality. It paints a "realistic" picture of the Gay
>lifestyle too. I didn't want to live like a "Gay" person did, at least
>according to that book. At thirteen I was almost out. Not after that
>book. Those kinds of portrayals have an over all negative affect on
>us and we don't need anymore negativity. The timing on MPI just seems
>wrong. We need real stories about real middle of the road gays.
>MPI just reinforced what we "all" know about gays. It was pretty
>close to the gutter. I am tired of having my people in the
>gutter. Sorry, most of us are pretty neat people.
Bil, there is a very important difference between Reuben's filth and
Van Sant's film.
Reuben's book claims to be a book about sexuality. In it, he portrays
himself as an expert on human sexuality, a liberal expert at that.
When he gets to the chapter on homosexuality, he starts spreading the
lies we all know and hate. This is dangerous, because readers of the
book Reuben is an expert. When Reuben says "gay men are unhappy
because they don't have cunt to put their cock in", the reader assumes
that Reuben knows this is true for all gays.
Van Sant's My Private Idaho is completely different. It *never* claims
to be a portrayal of "the gay lifestyle." What he does show is the
life of two street hustlers whose clients are frequently of the same
gender. One hustler is gay, one is not.
Van Sant is depicting one small reality, one that he happens to be
fond of showing. To consider his film as "a negative portrayal of the
gay community" is reading a lot more into the film than the director
intended and, I think, reading more into the film than *most* viewers
would see.
>I considered "Paris is Burning" to be a fantastic movie. I've never
>done drag, but I related with so many of the people on that
>show.
But, Paris is Burning just reinforces what we "all know" about black
queers - they are effeminate prissy queens who want to be women.
>>In JFK, the gay characters are portrayed as evil and untrustworthy. The
>>reason that homosexuals take offense at this is because it shows the same
>>relegation to stereotypes that hollywood has always used in portraying
>>gay characters.
>Wrong again. The only thing that these character portrayed were
>evil murders. The other was brought in because that is where
>some of the interaction of the characters occured.
I just saw JFK again last night. I saw it a month ago, and didn't
think twice about the portrayal of gay people. Didn't bother me one
bit. In fact, I found the young hustler and Clay Shaw to be amusing
caricatures of some gay people I know.
Then I read the Advocate article. As with most Advocate articles I
found it to be overblown and annoying, but they did make a good basic
point: its another Hollywood stereotype of the evil faggot.
So when I watched the movie again, I looked more closely, and found a
couple of things that were annoying. The gay characters *were*
caricatures, more so than most of the other characters. The
stereotypical fag voice of Shaw was one of the major ways Stone told
us "this guy is bad".
But the worst part was a 15 second scene of a party involving Shaw,
Ferrie, the hustler, and one other guy. A completely *gratuitous*
scene, not only showing them together, but showing them together doing
something really bizarre and hedonistic - one person painted in gold,
the other three in period garb, all doing poppers and those other
things my mommy told me never to do.
I find nothing wrong with this sort of party in real life, but the way
it was used in JFK played on the viewer's (supposed) homophobia.
--
__
nel...@reed.edu \/ .signature anti-virus utility v2.3
lar...@yang.earlham.edu
> In article <vmd...@fido.asd.sgi.com> dau...@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan15.1...@lclark.edu> snod...@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>
>
>>I don't think that MPI is even remotely gay negative. The gay characters
>>are portrayed sympathetically. They may not be your cup of tea, but they
>>are not portrayed in the classic "evil" way...
>
>
> The Hell they weren't. Do you remember a book called "Everything You
> Wanted to Know about Sex But Are Afraid to Ask" by, I think, Dr. Rueben?
> Get it and read the section on Homosexuality. It paints a "realistic"
> picture of the Gay lifestyle too. I didn't want to live like a "Gay"
> person did, at least according to that book. At thirteen I was almost
> out. Not after that book. Those kinds of portrayals have an
> over all negative affect on us and we don't need anymore negativity.
> The timing on MPI just seems wrong. We need real stories about
> real middle of the road gays.
>
I didn't find the portryal of Gays in this movie at all negative. Perhaps
they weren't rich, pretty, well-mannered or anything else our society
values. But they were loving, sensitive, community-minded, people who
celebrated teh richness and fullness that life in its own right, without
material possestions or societal approval can offer. It showed the
strength of people who should have been destroyed by socities pressures
and sanctions to keep on living. This was in extream opposition to the
main straight charcter Scotty, who might as well have been attending his
own funeral at the end of the movie. In MPI, if anyone, Scotty was evil,
materially obssessed, self-interested, and without love.
> MPI just reinforced what we "all" know about gays. It was pretty
> close to the gutter. I am tired of having my people in the
> gutter. Sorry, most of us are pretty neat people.
As above the Gays in MPI were pretty neat people, and it depnds on what
you define as the gutter.
> No I want more realistic Gay movies. Ones
> that most of us can relate too.
I and many of my Gay friends like and related to this film
>>the gay characters in My Own Private Idaho are real.
>
> Never said they weren't, but I still wonder if the time and
> energy wasted on such a film , could have been used for
> a great film based around gays?
So in essence, you want your reality portrayed in movies. You want thongs
to appear the way you want them to be. Well, I for want there to be room
for many realities to be portrayed. It is attitudes like this ("I only
want to what I think the world should be like to be portrayed") that has
kept gay people out of the media all together. And while we often see
things we may not like, it is part of cultural diversity.
-- Lar
LAR...@Yang.Earlham.edu
Tim Pierce
>
>Let's see now, are "we" all not HUMAN BEINGS?
I believe we are. I believe Hitler was a human being too, but I don't
see you rushing out to say that we're just like Hitler.
--
Randy Clark
(Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>I do not
>>need the general public going to MPI and having their
>>warped opinions about Gays being warped more. I spend to
>>much time educating them that we are just like them!
>
>Nevertheless, "we" are not.
Thank you, Tim.
I've already gone ballistic over a previous snide remark
that touched on Gus van Sant and his films, so I'll try
to keep my temper.
I want to point out, Bil, that behind your notion of the gay
characters in _My Own Private Idaho_ being "warped" and
"evil" (your word too) is the notion that street life and
hustling are also "warped" and "evil." Not all of us agree.
Sad? often. Difficult? certainly; even dangerous. But not
something to condemn on moral grounds ... and even if they
were, they're still facts of life, and as such, worthy of
depiction.
Also, I wonder about the humanity of anyone who can find
the Michael character (River Phoenix's part) anything less
than lovable.
The evil in the story, as I saw it, is inherent in society
at large. There's not much in the movie, really, about
hustling or street life per se. As I saw it, it's about
America (the US).
And about love.
What's wrong with that?
-R
--
What's the use of playing roles unless there's excess
involved? -- Carter Wilson
Randy Clark {}!autodesk.com!randyc
Gene Ward Smith
>MPH was practically this years "gay event". I don't understand why
>that man couldn't have produced a halfway "GAY POSITIVE" film, which
>we all know Hollywood has a hard time doing.
>Then I go to see "JFK" which I enjoyed immensly and I read that the
>gay scenes were offensive to some guy down in L.A.
People don't seem to agree much on what a positive portrayal of a gay
character is. When "Cruising" came out there were huge protests, but I
thought it was much more realistic than the crap about gays I was used
to seeing. In comparison, "Partners" was supposed to be relatively
positive, but I didn't like the way gays were depicted in it myself.
"Torch Song Trilogy" has a warm heart and seems to be the favorite gay
movie of half of soc.motss, but I think it has a bit of the "La Cage a
Folie" syndrome--the idea that half the gay men in existence are drag
queens. I dunno, maybe I'd just rather see movies which suggest that
half the gay men in existence are Beautiful People, like "Longtime
Companion", which I thought was reasonably realistic *and* positive
even so.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University
gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Bil Snodgrass
I made an observation and an opinion from the very start, which was about
an opinon made by a critic in the "ADVOCATE". Why did you not say
in your first initial response to my posting something directed at
the writer in the "ADVOCATE" like, "he shouldn't be whining about the
gays in "JFK" who do no meet his standards.....?" Or better yet, "That man
in the "ADVOCATE" should make his own movie?"
Why didn't answer my question about your denial of historical recall? Why
do you think it should be changed?
Something tells me that you like arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Bil Snodgrass III
Bil Snodgrass
Please note in my response to a response that I asked why several of the
issues I brought up wern't addressed. Just fluff from one of
the "Net. Gods". And you could you address me in such a way, your
Honor the judge, when Jeff acts as if he knows me?
Jeff said, "Never the less "we" are not." I replied, "Let's see now, are
we not all human beings?" My answer was dead serious. Then I get responses
that say we are not the same. It is all a big huge word game to some of
you. We are all the same in my book. We all deserve the same rights and
privlages. We should all love and on and on. How can anyone deny this fact
that "we" are all the same?
Bil Snodgrass III
Bil Snodgrass
I agree with most of what you said, believe it or not, but that
initial response from we was directed at your comment about
a "streak". You made a judgement call without knowing very much
about me and with my above paragraph I was trying to let
you know that your judging me on the "one" issue from the past
was a little weak. To me your judgements are like me saying that
you are 6'2", 180 lbs., blonde hair and brown eyes. I don't know
that information about you, so I shouldn't act or assume I do.
Bil Snodgrass III
Bil Snodgrass
Thanks for your response! I still don't think that the "party"
was anything more than just a bizarre party. I don't know
what Shaw's real voice was like. Maybe it was effeminate?
I listened to Stone on C-Span the other day and I have seen him in
interviews before "JFK" and I just don't think he is the type
of person who would interntionally be homophobic.
Bil Snodgrass III
Bil Snodgrass
>In article <1992Jan16.1...@lclark.edu> snod...@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan16....@husc3.harvard.edu> pie...@husc4.harvard.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>>Nevertheless, "we" are not [all just like straights].
>>
>>Let's see now, are "we" all not HUMAN BEINGS?
>
>I believe we are. I believe Hitler was a human being too, but I don't
>see you rushing out to say that we're just like Hitler.
>
>--
>____ Tim Pierce / "If you eat _Light Twinkies,_ do you kill
>\ / pie...@husc.harvard.edu / 1/3 less people?"
> \/ (aka twpi...@amherst.edu) / -- Stan Schwarz (st...@dir.texas.gov)
I never said anything about "we" all rushing out to be straight.
When I looked up the term human beings, and I did, it didn't say
anything about acting straight. What dictionary were you using?
Ghandi was human and I am trying everyday to be more like him (what a
long journey I have ahead of me!).
Bil Snodgrass III
Bil Snodgrass
Nothing. I felt that Michaels character was tragic. I felt sorry for
him. I keep on pushing myself to go no matter how bad it gets and
I have a hard time relating to the Michael character. I did feel
sympathetic about the circumstances of the individuals in the movie.
I agree with you about "societies inherent evil" and that the movie
did portray that very well. Maybe I do have a problem with that notion.
If I were to dwell on that evil too much I wouldn't get up in the morning.
It is wrong to say that I felt the portrayals in the movie as a whole were
warped. I never said any such thing. I said that, "I didn't need
the general public going to MPI and having THEIR WARPED opinions about Gays
being warped anymore." I was worried about adding gas to the already
billowing fire. I didn't say the movie was warped. It is a movie about
the inherent evil in society. It is very negative about the evil in todays
society. Any society that forces children and adults into hustling just for
survival purposes is evil. The movie was negative on all grounds.
My stated opinon of the movie was in the context of my "JFK discussion.
For some reason that was missed by quiet a few people.
Bil Snodgrass III
Jess Anderson
In article <1992Jan17.0...@lclark.edu>
snod...@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>Ghandi was human and I am trying everyday to be more like
>him (what a long journey I have ahead of me!).
(I used to misspell it too.) Gandhi would probably have
thought more and talked less, or at least through first,
then talked.
Jess Anderson
ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>thought more and talked less, or at least through first,
>then talked.
Hoist on my own petard, eh?
Bil Snodgrass
Thank you God!
Jeff Dauber
>Please note in my response to a response that I asked why several of the
>issues I brought up wern't addressed. Just fluff from one of
>the "Net. Gods". And you could you address me in such a way, your
>Honor the judge, when Jeff acts as if he knows me?
>
>Jeff said, "Never the less "we" are not." I replied, "Let's see now, are
>we not all human beings?" My answer was dead serious. Then I get responses
>that say we are not the same. It is all a big huge word game to some of
>you. We are all the same in my book. We all deserve the same rights and
>privlages. We should all love and on and on. How can anyone deny this fact
>that "we" are all the same?
Okay, loser, here we go....
First off, figure out attributions correctly. I did not say "never the
less we are not." Gee, now that you look, you might notice that it
was not me. Second, the reason I did not address you issue of historic
remembrance is that it does not apply to me, since I was born 3 years
after JFK was plugged. Third off, your whiny tone is not excusable by
saying that you were quoting the advocate, you were whining that MOPI
was not gay positive because it did not portray mainstream gays. Fine,
make your own movie if you want a movie about you.
Now, on to the other argument:
The reason that I like MOPI more than JFK, as gay portrayals go is that
MOPI showed the homosexuals as humans, with feelings emotions and more
than just their sexuality as characteristics. In JFK, the gay portrayals
were two dimensional, showing homosexuals as the stereotypes that hollywood
has always used. I don't mind if the gay characters are lisping queens (a
la the 60s sissy character) as long as they are real people, like the
rest of the characters. Unfortunately they were not.
Bil, you need to learn to argue before you are worth any more of my
time.
Jeff
-FWA
George Neville-Neil
|>
|> Something tells me that you like arguing just for the sake of arguing.
|>
Later,
George
--
George Neville-Neil "T'aint nobody's business if I do."
g...@manray.berkeley.edu B. Holiday
"There are only smiling happy people in LegoLand" -- Lego Rep.
George Neville-Neil
|> The evil in the story, as I saw it, is inherent in society
|> at large. There's not much in the movie, really, about
|> hustling or street life per se. As I saw it, it's about
|> America (the US).
|>
|> And about love.
|>
|> What's wrong with that?
Well, it's not *HIS* kind of love so how could it be OK.
Very often people want to see themselves mirrored in their
art and only themselves.
Remember Narcissus.
Rod Williams
>
>Very often people want to see themselves mirrored in their
>art and only themselves.
Well sure. I'm a bit like that myself, but how often can
anyone watch "Now Voyager"?
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san francisco -=- rjw...@pacbell.com
Tim Pierce
>"Torch Song Trilogy" has a warm heart and seems to be the favorite gay
>movie of half of soc.motss, but I think it has a bit of the "La Cage a
>Folie" syndrome--the idea that half the gay men in existence are drag
>queens.
When my parents saw the play on Broadway, my mother seemed rather
shaken by it; when I asked what the play was about, she told me "a
transvestite Jewish homosexual." She thought the whole thing was
rather freaky, in fact.
When I saw the film for the first time last summer, I thought she'd
missed the point of the whole thing: that many gay Jewish drag queens
ARE beautiful people, just the same. But she couldn't get past the
most visceral element, to see that her life is just as strange as his.
>I dunno, maybe I'd just rather see movies which suggest that
>half the gay men in existence are Beautiful People, like "Longtime
>Companion", which I thought was reasonably realistic *and* positive
>even so.
I'd like to see more of these, too. Though I don't care particularly
if the people in it are drag queens, transsexuals, or what, as long as
the people in them are fundamentally GOOD people.
Tim Pierce
My middle name is William, not Jeff. But I go by Tim.
>I replied, "Let's see now, are
>we not all human beings?" My answer was dead serious.
Though completely beside the point.
>Then I get responses
>that say we are not the same. It is all a big huge word game to some of
>you.
It is no such thing. It is an attempt to define what the queer
movement is about, and allay those who would whitewash peoples'
individuality in the hope of a small crumb of mercy from the great
white straight shark.
You see, I am not "just like" you, nor am I like Jess, nor Jeff who
you apparently think you are talking to. The same could be said of
probably anybody on soc.motss. Yet we all deserve the same rights and
privileges as straights, even so. THAT is the point.
--
Randy Clark
In article <1992Jan17.1...@lclark.edu> snod...@lclark.edu
>> The evil in the story, as I saw it, is inherent in society
>> at large. There's not much in the movie, really, about
>> hustling or street life per se. As I saw it, it's about
>> America (the US).
>>
>> And about love.
>>
>> What's wrong with that?
>>
>> -R
>
>Nothing. I felt that Michaels character was tragic. I felt sorry for
>him.
So did I. But I didn't see it as completely tragic:
I sensed a glimmer of hope at the end that maybe not
everyone reads into it.
>I keep on pushing myself to go no matter how bad it gets and
>I have a hard time relating to the Michael character.
I'm not sure I get the connection here. For all his
passivity, I felt that Michael *was* pushing himself,
awkwardly, toward a resolution of his problems.
>I did feel
>sympathetic about the circumstances of the individuals in the movie.
So did I. But I guess I empathized more, as well.
Not that I've lived that kind of life, but I've been through
similar enough situations, especially in the emotional sense.
>
>I agree with you about "societies inherent evil" and that the movie
>did portray that very well. Maybe I do have a problem with that notion.
>If I were to dwell on that evil too much I wouldn't get up in the morning.
I hear this. I long ago gave up on listening to the news
in the morning as bad for my health! But I still think
indictments like this film need to be made, from time to time.
>
>It is wrong to say that I felt the portrayals in the movie as a whole were
>warped. I never said any such thing. I said that, "I didn't need
>the general public going to MPI and having THEIR WARPED opinions about Gays
>being warped anymore." I was worried about adding gas to the already
>billowing fire. I didn't say the movie was warped. It is a movie about
>the inherent evil in society. It is very negative about the evil in todays
>society. Any society that forces children and adults into hustling just for
>survival purposes is evil. The movie was negative on all grounds.
I guess I did misread the intent of your words. Sorry.
Though I still don't think the movie deals in stereotypes,
and may even break a few.
I guess it all comes down to whether you see any hope in
_My Own Private Idaho_, or not. I did, and so have most
of my friends (of various sexualities).
>
>My stated opinon of the movie was in the context of my "JFK discussion.
>For some reason that was missed by quiet a few people.
I didn't miss this, I just have nothing to say about it,
not having seen the other film. But the topic of media
representation is an ongoing debate, and one I have strong
feelings about because as a sometimes actor and writer,
I'm involved in such portrayals, myself.
Thanks for answering my concerns without responding to my
crankiness!
-R
--
How can we talk about the causes of something we can't
even define? -- Vincent Manis
Randy Clark {}!autodesk.com!randyc
Vincent Manis
``ARE WE NOT MEN??? WE ARE DEVO!!!''
--
\ Vincent Manis <ma...@cs.ubc.ca> "There is no law that vulgarity and
\ Department of Computer Science literary excellence cannot coexist."
/\ University of British Columbia -- A. Trevor Hodge
/ \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394
Randy Clark
>>real middle of the road gays.
>
>
>Well then, make one....
Of course, not everyone has the wherewithal.
But in principle I agree that positive action
accomplishes more than negative action.
>
>I get tired of gay people saying "gay directors should make gay movies."
Agreed. This is an attitude I not only share, but try
to act on. I'm not a film director, of course, but as
a writer my situation's not too different. Some of what
I write about has no gay content at all; most of it has
at least some. And when I'm working on a "gay story,"
I don't ignore politics (how could I?), but I'm much more
engaged by portraying interesting people and situations,
not by preaching.
>
>If you do not like the movies that other gay directors are making, then
>make your own, but don't whine that the gays they portray do not meet
>your standards....
Also agreed.
Maybe we should just be glad that Bil apparently hasn't
seen _Poison_ yet. :-)
Roger B.A. Klorese
>In article <1992Jan16.1...@sunova.ssc.gov> jba...@dirac.ssc.gov (Jeff Baron) writes:
>
>>get fucked.
>
>
>
Of course, boy.
But not very many...
(It's an ethnic thang...)
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rog...@unpc.QueerNet.ORG {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
-- J. Foster
S^u~n^wa U~ Wachi
>concordia.ca> gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>>I dunno, maybe I'd just rather see movies which suggest that
>>half the gay men in existence are Beautiful People, like "Longtime
>>Companion", which I thought was reasonably realistic *and* positive
>>even so.
>
>I'd like to see more of these, too. Though I don't care particularly
>if the people in it are drag queens, transsexuals, or what, as long as
>the people in them are fundamentally GOOD people.
I think I'd like to see characters that I can relate to. This doesn't
mean a character *has* to be gay, or *has* to be ethnically Jewish, or
*has* to be a middle class professional, etc., but it certainly helps --
an awful lot.
Several years ago I found this novel about rural gay men. It was awful.
But I ate it up, simply because it was something I could relate to.
--
Rob Bernardo r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (510) 827-4301 (hm)
"What kind of software solutions does the Devil-mountain provide,
anyway? Object oriented COBOL?" -- FJ!! van Wingerde
Gene Ward Smith
pie...@husc4.harvard.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
I write:
>>I dunno, maybe I'd just rather see movies which suggest that
>>half the gay men in existence are Beautiful People, like "Longtime
>>Companion", which I thought was reasonably realistic *and* positive
>>even so.
>I'd like to see more of these, too. Though I don't care particularly
>if the people in it are drag queens, transsexuals, or what, as long as
>the people in them are fundamentally GOOD people.
The few drag queens I've met seemed nice enough, and I like movies
like 'Torch Song Trilogy'. But two points: one is that this does not
show what gay life is like with most gays, and the second is that it
doesn't show what gay life is like with me and the people I know.
Showing guys getting in a dress for Halloween would be realistic--but
every night? That is a part of our community, but a distinct minority.
I guess it is partly the idea that there should be a *reason* why a
character is gay which produces this. That is what is so nice about
films like 'My Favorite Laundrette' or 'The Man Who Fell to Earth'--we
have gay characters who just are there, because *we* are there.
Bil Snodgrass
>
Randy say,
>
Maybe we should just be glad that Bil apparently hasn't
> seen _Poison_ yet. :-)
>
> -R
>
I saw the movie twice. It was a great movie, up there on my top twenty
of all time. Sorry to disappoint anyone out there who thought they had
already packaged me up into a little "understood" package. Like all
people I have many wonderful attributes and flaws!"
>
>--
>How can we talk about the causes of something we can't
>even define? -- Vincent Manis
>
>Randy Clark {}!autodesk.com!randyc
Bil Snodgras
Portland, Oregon
Jeff Baron
|> The few drag queens I've met seemed nice enough, and I like movies
|> like 'Torch Song Trilogy'. But two points: one is that this does not
|> show what gay life is like with most gays, and the second is that it
|> doesn't show what gay life is like with me and the people I know.
|> Showing guys getting in a dress for Halloween would be realistic--but
|> every night? That is a part of our community, but a distinct minority.
|>
|> I guess it is partly the idea that there should be a *reason* why a
|> character is gay which produces this. That is what is so nice about
|> films like 'My Favorite Laundrette' or 'The Man Who Fell to Earth'--we
|> have gay characters who just are there, because *we* are there.
I'm sure that the few drag queens that you met, and the many
that you have not met, are oh so delighted that they "seem
nice enough."
But on to other things.
First, how can you be sure that this does not show what life
is like for "most gays"? Are you "most gays"? Have you even
considered that the selection of gay people that you know
and hang out with may not be "most gays"? Have you considered
that you may not even KNOW how to get in touch with other
segments of the gay population, such as closeted, married
gays, or those that were portrayed in _Paris_is_Burning_ ?
Second, the same things that make you, and "most gays," boring,
the NOT doing drag, the NOT being street hustlers, the NOT
being deranged homicidal maniacs, simply makes you unfit to
be the subject of a movie. What would such a gay movie show-
lots of clones that work at banks in NYC, work out in the
Chelsea gym, and then retreat to The Pines every weekend during
the summer? What makes that interesting- the incredible
bodies that they all have, or the incredible amount of drugs
they all do?
Perhaps a gay movie would show Joe and John and their
tastefully decorated house in Sonoma county. What makes
that interesting- the 4 "originals" they have on their
walls, or the fact that they are into nude sunbathing at the
Russian River? Let's face it, Gene, the fact that we are
gay does not make our lives interesting.
The fact that people are gay does lead to interesting lives-
like _Paris_ or _Idaho_. Those people are interesting
because what they do IS AN OUTGROWTH OF BEING GAY.
Being gay influences how they act, how they feel, who they are.
Does it have any influence on you, other than the sex of
the person in bed next to you?
Jeff
J. N. Shaumeyer
>In article <1992Jan17....@husc3.harvard.edu>
>pie...@husc4.harvard.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>>I dunno, maybe I'd just rather see movies which suggest that
>>>half the gay men in existence are Beautiful People, like "Longtime
>>>Companion", which I thought was reasonably realistic *and* positive
>>>even so.
>>I'd like to see more of these, too. Though I don't care particularly
>>if the people in it are drag queens, transsexuals, or what, as long as
>>the people in them are fundamentally GOOD people.
>The few drag queens I've met seemed nice enough, and I like movies
>like 'Torch Song Trilogy'. But two points: one is that this does not
>show what gay life is like with most gays, and the second is that it
I think that I can agree with both statements about movie content.
It seems to me that there are two ideas at work here. I would like
to see more movies that: 1) have gay & lesbian characters who are
just there; and 2) are *about* a gay character.
Having the g&l characters as *incidental* reinforces, in a possibly
non-threaghtening way, the fact the We Are Everywhere. It is
visibility & aclimation for those who think that they've never
known a queer, and is another small step [I hopefully imagine]
in the direction of being seen by society without fear and hatred.
This is for those time when I think "but we're just like you."
Having a movie *about* a g/l character is a different matter
altogether. It is for those times when I think "no, we're NOT
just like you". A profound, not *necessarily* simply positive,
story about one of these people can portray emotions and thoughts
that are exclusive to the character but inextricably tied to
the character's homosexuality, and possibly in such a way that
non-homosexual viewers may be able to understand something which
was previously beyond their comprehension. More often than not,
there is some part of the character's story that I can relate to,
and if it is art, I perceive it in a deeper-than-intellectual
way. This regardless of the fact that I haven't lived a life
even remotely similar to that character. This is what I liked
about movies like "Maurice", "Longtime Companion", and
"My Own Private Idaho".
But, it will often be the case that characters in a type 2 movie
will not be recognizably like me. I can think of two possible
reasons. One is the artistic perogative to create fiction that
is a heightened non-realistic picture of reality *in order* to
highlight the aspect of the character which the creator wishes
to examine. The other is simply that, no matter how much I
may think that I'm an average sort of queer, there may be no
such thing. I don't know, George, that it is possible to show
what gay life is like for "most" of us, simply because in a
situation like this the idea of "most gays" may not obtain.
So, I think that there are two ways to portray g&l folk in
movies [books, too], and that both are valid, but that I may
judge the two products differently. Somebody in this thread
had said, referring to one of the types of movie, that he'd
like to see more of *these*. My thought then was that I would
like to see *more*.
--jns
George Neville-Neil
The few drag queens I've met seemed nice enough, and I like movies
like 'Torch Song Trilogy'. But two points: one is that this does not
show what gay life is like with most gays, and the second is that it
doesn't show what gay life is like with me and the people I know.
Showing guys getting in a dress for Halloween would be realistic--but
every night? That is a part of our community, but a distinct minority.
OK. I've fucking had it and it's time to go off. What the fuck is
"...show what gay life is like with most gays" ?!! Do you mean the oh
so clean clone look of the 70s ?!? The queer look of the 80s ?? The
closet cases ?? Men who cruise parks and porn booths ?? Who are you
talking about ?!?!?
I get the feeling that you are talking about the oh so proper we're
just like them crowd who'd like everyone to be white like them and
march quietly in all white all vanilla gay day parades.
Wake the fuck up !! Life is not the clean cut white bullshit heaped
upon us by Madison Ave. and Hollywood. It is diverse, to say the
least. There are as many varieties of "gay" or what ever you want to
call it as their are people who sleep with the same sex!!
Get your head out of your assimilationist asshole !!!
Later, George (A 5'10", loud, obnoxious, culturally jewish, faggot who
likes S/M, books, trains, art, music, romance, a good fuck, body
piercings, is clean shaven with a 1/2" of hair on his head, and fur
everywhere.)
The point is that we're all DIFFERENT!!!
Jeff Putnam
writes:
> > Ask for inches, and you only
> >get fucked.
> Please Sir, may I have some inches?
Followed, of course, by
Please Sir, may I have some more?
ja...@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com
> I've already gone ballistic over a previous snide remark
> that touched on Gus van Sant and his films, so I'll try
> to keep my temper.
i don't remember you going ballistic, and i was probably the one
who made the "snide" remark.
> The evil in the story, as I saw it, is inherent in society
> at large. There's not much in the movie, really, about
> hustling or street life per se. As I saw it, it's about
> America (the US).
there's not much in the movie about gays either. i can't see how you
can make the "it's a gay negative movie" claim.
--
Jason Coughlin ( ja...@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
Queer Without A Cause!
"I find myself suddenly in the world and I recognize that I have one
right alone: That of demanding human behavior from the other." -- Fanon
Randy Clark
In article <1992Jan20.0...@lclark.edu> snod...@lclark.edu
(Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>In article <98...@autodesk.COM> ran...@autodesk.com (Randy Clark) writes:
>>
>Randy say,
>
>>
>
> Maybe we should just be glad that Bil apparently hasn't
>> seen _Poison_ yet. :-)
>>
>> -R
>>
>
>I saw the movie twice. It was a great movie, up there on my top twenty
>of all time.
I wouldn't rate it that high, myself, but I certainly
liked it a lot and was impressed by the directing.
>Sorry to disappoint anyone out there who thought they had
>already packaged me up into a little "understood" package.
Not disappointed. I wrote that wisecrack before you'd
explained your reaction to the van Sant film more
thoroughly.
I must confess I'm a bit intrigued that _Poison_ didn't
affect you the was _Idaho_ did, given that the situations
-- especially in the prison sequence -- are equally lowlife.
>Like all people I have many wonderful attributes and flaws!"
Por seguro.
I *had* already gleaned, at least, that by "positive
portrayals" you didn't mean middle-class WASPS, as some
posters apparently do.
Cheers, -R
Gene Ward Smith
jba...@dirac.ssc.gov (Jeff Baron) writes:
>I'm sure that the few drag queens that you met, and the many
>that you have not met, are oh so delighted that they "seem
>nice enough."
Best I could do--unlike transexuals, I've never really known any drag
queens, though I've met a few people who might qualify. Which was part
of my point--I don't see much evidence there *are* many drag queens to
know. If you have reason to believe that there really are vast numbers
out there and that this is more typical of the entirety of the gay
experience that I think, you could tell us about it.
>First, how can you be sure that this does not show what life
>is like for "most gays"? Are you "most gays"?
I guess I'll defer to your vastly more extensive experience. You
want to tell me what is typical or not typical, or are you merely
carping at my judgements as to what is typical? Your method
would not allow anyone to explain what was typical about any group.
I've met a large percentage of American number theorists, and could
not even pontificate on that, since I am not most American number
theorists.
>Have you even considered that the selection of gay people that you
>know and hang out with may not be "most gays"?
Have you considered that once again your standard (that I must
personally know most of the gay people on the planet) might not be an
appropriate one for forming a judgment? Have you considered that the
selection of gay people I know might in fact be fairly broad?
>Have you considered that you may not even KNOW how to get in touch
>with other segments of the gay population, such as closeted, married
>gays, or those that were portrayed in _Paris_is_Burning_ ?
I had a lover once who was at one time a closeted, married gay.
I've had friends who were once. I've tricked with a guy who mentioned
that wifey was coming back tomorrow after we'd just bounced around
in the connubial bed. So I know this *is* a good part of the gay scene.
>Second, the same things that make you, and "most gays," boring,
>the NOT doing drag, the NOT being street hustlers, the NOT
>being deranged homicidal maniacs, simply makes you unfit to
>be the subject of a movie.
This is complete crap, and ignores the point I was making. Straight
people in movies don't have to be homicidal maniacs or whores or
transvestites or anything. Why *not* more "boring" gay characters
in ordinary jobs? That is the way the world *is*--there are lots
of gay people in "boring" jobs.
>What would such a gay movie show-
>lots of clones that work at banks in NYC, work out in the
>Chelsea gym, and then retreat to The Pines every weekend during
>the summer? What makes that interesting- the incredible
>bodies that they all have, or the incredible amount of drugs
>they all do?
Right, right--gay people are *inherently* boring, their lives
are just a wasteland of stereotypical gay behavior. I almost
wonder if you know *any* gay people, or did you learn all
you know by reading Andrew Holleran novels? I at least have been
around enough to know that gay people come in all ways, shapes
and kinds, despite my horribly limited experience.
>Perhaps a gay movie would show Joe and John and their
>tastefully decorated house in Sonoma county. What makes
>that interesting- the 4 "originals" they have on their
>walls, or the fact that they are into nude sunbathing at the
>Russian River? Let's face it, Gene, the fact that we are
>gay does not make our lives interesting.
You might want to think about what I guy named Jeff Baron said about
this--are *you* most gay people? How do you know your idea of what is
typical reflects reality? It might be that some gay people are
actually interesting, even though they aren't drag queens or hustlers.
It might be that a movie with gay people in it doesn't need to be more
boring than a movie with only straight people in it, though I realize
that is a pretty radical notion to bring up on a group like soc.motss.
>Those people are interesting because what they do IS AN OUTGROWTH OF
>BEING GAY. Being gay influences how they act, how they feel, who they
>are.
>Does it have any influence on you, other than the sex of
>the person in bed next to you?
Of course it does. I'm sure it must with you too, which you would
realize if you would think about it for a few seconds.
Gene Ward Smith
g...@heisenberg.Berkeley.EDU (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>OK. I've fucking had it and it's time to go off. What the fuck is
>"...show what gay life is like with most gays" ?!! Do you mean the oh
>so clean clone look of the 70s ?!? The queer look of the 80s ?? The
>closet cases ?? Men who cruise parks and porn booths ?? Who are you
>talking about ?!?!?
Yes.
>I get the feeling that you are talking about the oh so proper we're
>just like them crowd who'd like everyone to be white like them and
>march quietly in all white all vanilla gay day parades.
Them too.
>Wake the fuck up !! Life is not the clean cut white bullshit heaped
>upon us by Madison Ave. and Hollywood. It is diverse, to say the
>least. There are as many varieties of "gay" or what ever you want to
>call it as their are people who sleep with the same sex!!
And you wouldn't know it by watching most movies with gays in them,
would you.
>Get your head out of your assimilationist asshole !!!
I can play guessing games about you too, if I want to be silly. I'd
guess your the kind of guy who thinks he's into a real heavy scene
because he's got a tit ring and sometimes gets his butt paddled. But
that's likely to be as far off the mark as your assumptions about me.
Nelson Minar
>Straight people in movies don't have to be homicidal maniacs or whores
>or transvestites or anything. Why *not* more "boring" gay characters
>in ordinary jobs? That is the way the world *is*--there are lots of
>gay people in "boring" jobs.
What a bizarre impression of what makes a movie, Gene.
How many (successful) movies do you know about boring heterosexual
people? Most movies are about interesting, unusual people: sleazy
businessmen, philanthropists, prostitutes, adventurers. I'd sure hate
it if all heterosexuals were bizarre and unusual, and all the homos
were boring.
Or do you mean background characters? If you do, could you explain to
me how you know what the sexual orientation of most of the background
('boring') characters in a movie are?
Is Longtime Companion an OK movie by your standards? But not Torch
Song, because the main character is not normal?
--
__
nel...@reed.edu \/ Usenet is the television of computer networks
FJ!! van Wingerde
>The point is that we're all DIFFERENT!!!
Thank heaven for that. Else I'd have no more stories to listen to.
FJ!!
Jeff Baron
ME- that you have not met, are oh so delighted that they "seem
ME- nice enough."
GWS- Best I could do--unlike transexuals, I've never really known any drag
GWS- queens, though I've met a few people who might qualify. Which was part
GWS- of my point--I don't see much evidence there *are* many drag queens to
GWS- know. If you have reason to believe that there really are vast numbers
GWS- out there and that this is more typical of the entirety of the gay
GWS- experience that I think, you could tell us about it.
[Much more of the same incessant drone deleted.]
You know Gene, you really are an ass. Nowehere in my
posting did I bother to put forth a definition of
what constitutes "gays" or "gay culture" or "gay this"
or "gay that." You know why? Because unlike you,
I do not claim to know what it means to say typical gay.
You "don't see much evidence that there *are* many drag
queens to know," so therefore they do not exist? Is that
what you are saying?
You did make the claim that you know what life is like for
"most gays"-
|> The few drag queens I've met seemed nice enough, and I like movies
|> like 'Torch Song Trilogy'. But two points: one is that this does not
|> show what gay life is like with most gays, and the second is that it
|> doesn't show what gay life is like with me and the people I know.
|> Showing guys getting in a dress for Halloween would be realistic--but
|> every night? That is a part of our community, but a distinct minority.
So which is it, Gene? You do know what "gay" is, or
you don't? Do you want to give us more examples of
your "exploits" in the gay community, how vast they
are, and how this DOES make you expert on what "gay"
is?
Or are you willing to admit, closeted lovers, married
men, and all, that just maybe, you do not know who
is out there?
BTW, to be perfectly honest, I don't even care about
the run-of-the-mill gay characters that are portrayed in
movies. Those are not the persecuted gays, the ones that
we should all be concerned with. Those are not the ones that
Mr. and Mrs. Public are going to remember a week
later, so it's back to the same old homophobic mode.
People need to accept ALL gays, the ones in _Paris_ and
the ones in _Idaho_ included. Showing Joe and Bob
in bed together is, well, nice, I suppose, but it
doesn't help the 15 year olds that are thrown out of
the house.
Jeff
Steve Carpenter
Home testing at this point is completely ridiculous! For those of you who have
been tested, if you recall, there is a 10 day germination period from the time
the blood is drawn until the time that the test can be accurately read. There
is no way to bypass the germination period. In a home test, how many people
would conciously or un-conciously alter the test in some way during the
germination period, to test negative? How many times a day would you check
the sample? I agree that HIV testing needs to be confidential, and needs to
be done (only about 1/3 of the people infected with HIV know they are positive)
on a large scale. But a home test at this stage is clearly unrealistic.
Steve Carpenter
5 Jane St.
New York, NY 10014-1934
(212) 691-8547 CIS: 70313,122
My expressed opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my clients.
Jeff Dauber
>In article <vp6...@fido.asd.sgi.com> dau...@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
>writes:
>> In article <1992Jan16.1...@sunova.ssc.gov>
>jba...@dirac.ssc.gov (Jeff Baron) writes:
Sorry, I just wanted to post something with three different Jeff's talking.
We return you to soc.motss, already in progress...
Jeff
Gene Ward Smith
Minar) writes:
>In article <23...@daily-planet.concordia.ca>
gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>>Straight people in movies don't have to be homicidal maniacs or whores
>>or transvestites or anything. Why *not* more "boring" gay characters
>>in ordinary jobs? That is the way the world *is*--there are lots of
>>gay people in "boring" jobs.
>What a bizarre impression of what makes a movie, Gene.
>How many (successful) movies do you know about boring heterosexual
>people? Most movies are about interesting, unusual people: sleazy
>businessmen, philanthropists, prostitutes, adventurers.
Most movies are about "boring" jobs, like cops, sleazy businessmen,
philanthropists, archeologists with bullwhips, space cadets with
psychic powers, etc. etc. These jobs are "boring" according to the
standard I was rejecting because they don't have anything in particular
to do with sexuality.
>Is Longtime Companion an OK movie by your standards? But not Torch
>Song, because the main character is not normal?
Actually, if you will recall, I liked both and had reservations about
both. My reservation about 'Torch Song' was with the idea that in any
movie about gays, at last half the characters must be nelly drag
queens. This is not because I have anything against nelly drag queens,
it's because it is too limited a vision. Why *not* a gay Indy Jones?
Hollywood has managed to put other minorities, notably blacks, up on
the big screen. Gays are introduced as comic Step-n-fetchit
characters, or "problem" characters as one kind or another. In other
words, we get treated like black characters used to be treated. Why
not more often just as character type characters?
I feel like I'm arguing with a pack of clueless straights here.
Christopher J. Vandemore
>Straight
>people in movies don't have to be homicidal maniacs or whores or
>transvestites or anything. Why *not* more "boring" gay characters
>in ordinary jobs? That is the way the world *is*--there are lots
>of gay people in "boring" jobs.
Thanks for writing this. Now I know that I'm not alone in wanting
to see a boy-meets-boy, boy-looses-boy, boy-gets-boy-back love
story. I've seen hundreds of straight love stories. I havn't
seen many (any?) gay love stories.
Chris Vandemore
Nelson Minar
>My reservation about 'Torch Song' was with the idea that in any
>movie about gays, at last half the characters must be nelly drag
>queens. This is not because I have anything against nelly drag queens,
>it's because it is too limited a vision. Why *not* a gay Indy Jones?
>Hollywood has managed to put other minorities, notably blacks, up on
>the big screen.
Ah, then we do not disagree. I think that a gay Indiana Jones would
be a marvelous thing. And I hope that it happens. It's starting to
happen in comic books.
(Then again, I think a nonsexual Indiana Jones would be better. Frankly,
if it's going to be an action flick I'd prefer to leave the cheesy
love affair.)
But I've been reading this discussion in the context of people's
complaints about My Private Idaho. I apologize for posting this as a
reply to Gene, because frankly I do not remember what he thinks of My
Private Idaho.
If a film's primary focus is going to be sexuality, say Torch Song
Trilogy, My Private Idaho, Naked Lunch, or somesuch, then it is
completely inappropriate to request that the characters be "normal
ordinary people." Torch Song is about a nelly drag queen: it is not
about a "normal" faggot. Longtime Companion is mostly about "normal
gays." The film maker uses whatever type of character is appropriate.
>I feel like I'm arguing with a pack of clueless straights here.
Are you trying to be insulting? At least you're not trying to argue
with a pack of Luckys.
--
__
nel...@reed.edu \/ There is absolutely no other possibility
Jeff Baron
Now we've gone from "boring" characters to trash?
No thank you. The straights can keep that stuff.
IMHO, of course.
Jeffrey X McQuillen aka CaptPicard
Snodgrass) says:
>
>Something tells me that you like arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Welcome to soc.motss, or rather usenet in general.
---
"Two and two continue to make four in spite of the whine of the amateur for
three, or the cry of the critic for five." -James McNeill Whistler
Jeffrey X McQuillen aka CaptPicard
(George Neville-Neil) says:
>
>People would rather see ST:TNG where the future's so bright they gotta wear
>shades.
Why would anyone want to watch reality? This is entertainment, and
usually reality is not very entertaining.
George Neville-Neil
|> In article <23...@daily-planet.concordia.ca> gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
|>
|> >Straight people in movies don't have to be homicidal maniacs or whores
|> >or transvestites or anything. Why *not* more "boring" gay characters
|> >in ordinary jobs? That is the way the world *is*--there are lots of
|> >gay people in "boring" jobs.
|>
|> What a bizarre impression of what makes a movie, Gene.
|>
Not if you are trying to use hollywood to spread propaganda for
you. It's been done before. I just don't think I agree with Gene's
idea of what that propaganda should be.
Later,
George
Jeffrey X McQuillen aka CaptPicard
>
>In article <1992Jan17.1...@nmt.edu> je...@akbar.nmt.edu (Jeff Putnam)
>writes:
>>In article <vp6...@fido.asd.sgi.com> dau...@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
>>writes:
>>> In article <1992Jan16.1...@sunova.ssc.gov>
>>jba...@dirac.ssc.gov (Jeff Baron) writes:
>
>
>Sorry, I just wanted to post something with three different Jeff's talking.
Sheesh, why not go for four?
>
>We return you to soc.motss, already in progress...
yeah...
Jeff Dauber
>Why would anyone want to watch reality? This is entertainment, and
>usually reality is not very entertaining.
Reality is very very entertaining if you have a sick sense of humor.
Inquire within for more details....
Jeff
-FWA
J. N. Shaumeyer
> In article <1992Jan17.1...@nmt.edu>
> je...@akbar.nmt.edu (Jeff Putnam) writes:
>> In article <vp6...@fido.asd.sgi.com>
>> dau...@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>>> In article <1992Jan16.1...@sunova.ssc.gov>
>>> jba...@dirac.ssc.gov (Jeff Baron) writes:
>
> Sorry, I just wanted to post something with
> three different Jeff's talking.
Ah, come on, we can do better than that!
--jns (aka Jeff)
david carlton
In article <92021.174...@psuvm.psu.edu>, JXM...@psuvm.psu.edu (Jeffrey X McQuillen aka CaptPicard) writes:
> Why would anyone want to watch reality? This is entertainment, and
> usually reality is not very entertaining.
Mine's sort of fun, actually. Wouldn't necessarily want to live
through it again, and I probably wouldn't want to see yours, but I
wouldn't claim that reality is not entertaining.
david carlton
car...@husc.harvard.edu
PUNK ROCK!! DISCO DUCK!! BIRTH CONTROL!!
Tim Pierce
>
>>Straight people in movies don't have to be homicidal maniacs or whores
>>or transvestites or anything. Why *not* more "boring" gay characters
>>in ordinary jobs? That is the way the world *is*--there are lots of
>>gay people in "boring" jobs.
>
>What a bizarre impression of what makes a movie, Gene.
>
>How many (successful) movies do you know about boring heterosexual
>people?
The Woody Allen opus, which I've recently been discussing in e-mail,
comes quickly to mind.
--
____ Tim Pierce / "If you eat _Light Twinkies,_ do you kill
\ / pie...@husc.harvard.edu / 1/3 less people?"
\/ (aka twpi...@amherst.edu) / -- Stan Schwarz (st...@dir.texas.gov)
Gene Ward Smith
jba...@dirac.ssc.gov (Jeff Baron) writes:
>I do not claim to know what it means to say typical gay.
In fact what you seem to be claiming is that nobody can ever know
enough to claim to know anything about any group--an argument I gave
before and which you evidently can't refute; at least I would guess so
because you responded with an insult rather than give one. The way
you counter an argument is with another argument. If you don't have an
argument, I suggest you withdraw from the discussion. If you do, I
suggest you give it.
>You "don't see much evidence that there *are* many drag
>queens to know," so therefore they do not exist? Is that
>what you are saying?
No. If I have not met very many drag queens, it means I must have met
a few. If I have met a few, it must mean they exist. If you actually
bothered to read what I was saying or to think about it, this would
have been obvious. It is not possible to infer "X does not exist" from
the statement "few examples of X are known"; even less so from the
statment "little evidence is known by someone that very many examples
of X exist". Otherwise, from the fact that I don't see much evidence
that many finite sporadic nonabelian simple groups exist one could
conclude that no such groups exist, even though I also know that they
do exist.
>You did make the claim that you know what life is like for
>"most gays"-
I claim to have some idea of what life is like for most gays in the
US. Obviously, this is a matter of degree. I don't know everything,
but I do know something. I suspect you do too. In fact, I suspect you
even know enough to know that most gays aren't drag queens.
>So which is it, Gene? You do know what "gay" is, or
>you don't? Do you want to give us more examples of
>your "exploits" in the gay community, how vast they
>are, and how this DOES make you expert on what "gay"
>is?
I gave that because you were expounding a lot of bull about how I
didn't know anything about gay married men in the closet.
>Or are you willing to admit, closeted lovers, married
>men, and all, that just maybe, you do not know who
>is out there?
You keep contradicting yourself with your own examples. If you know
enough to know that there are closeted lovers, married men sneaking
out to the baths, etc. etc. then you also know something about the
variety of gay life. In particular, you know there is a lot more to it
that people doing lip sync in drag. Which was *my* point, in case you
had forgotten.
>BTW, to be perfectly honest, I don't even care about
>the run-of-the-mill gay characters that are portrayed in
>movies. Those are not the persecuted gays, the ones that
>we should all be concerned with.
Oh, give me a break. We are all "persecuted gays" to some extent.
Some of the most persecuted can be pretty ordinary, from what
Clay Bond was saying about growing up in shit-kicker country.
We should all be concerned about a lot of things--AIDS, for
instance. Now you are saying that run-of-the-mill gays
(whom you just got through denying was something it is even
possible to talk about) are in some way second class, second
rate gays not worth a moment of anyone's time.
>Those are not the ones that
>Mr. and Mrs. Public are going to remember a week
>later, so it's back to the same old homophobic mode.
We should only portray gay characters that Mr. and Mrs.
Public can hate, is that it?
>People need to accept ALL gays, the ones in _Paris_ and
>the ones in _Idaho_ included.
No argument there. My objection is really to the way that gay
characters are fitted into a certain stereotype so much of the time.
There are other uses of gay characters than as a device either to
titillate, to shock or to serve as comic relief.
Showing Joe and Bob
>in bed together is, well, nice, I suppose, but it
>doesn't help the 15 year olds that are thrown out of
>the house.
I think you are dead wrong, but that is another matter altogether.
Gene Ward Smith
vand...@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>Thanks for writing this. Now I know that I'm not alone in wanting
>to see a boy-meets-boy, boy-looses-boy, boy-gets-boy-back love
>story. I've seen hundreds of straight love stories. I havn't
>seen many (any?) gay love stories.
You could try 'Maurice'--the characters in there are deliberately
"boring"--that was part of Forster's point.
Bil Snodgrass
Chris, you brave soul!!!!! DITTO!
Bil Snodgrass
Portland, Oregon
P.S. For those who are against assimilation, have you ever
noticed any sort of assimilation pressure within the Gay Culture to
conform to the "GAY NORM"? Just forcing the idea of not assimilating into
the social norm of this society is an assimilation in itself. I want
you to praise me for being a Gay Catholic who is fat, believes in monagamy
and marriage.
Ken Johnson
@ Ask for inches, and you only get fucked.
In article <vp6...@fido.asd.sgi.com> dau...@sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
writes:
# Please Sir, may I have some inches?
In article <1992Jan17.1...@nmt.edu> je...@akbar.nmt.edu (Jeff
Putnam) writes:
% Followed, of course, by
%
% Please Sir, may I have some more?
To which the reply is:
Possibly, boy. Let me see how many you already have.
--
Ken Johnson, A I Applications Institute //// ``Managers go through a number
80 South Bridge, EDINBURGH EH1 1HN //// of phases, but eventually they
E-mail k...@aiai.ed.ac.uk //// learn to think for themselves''
phone 031-650 2756 fax 031-650 6513 //// -- MSC report
Scott Stevens
>
>Home testing at this point is completely ridiculous! For those of you who have
>been tested, if you recall, there is a 10 day germination period from the time
>the blood is drawn until the time that the test can be accurately read. There
>is no way to bypass the germination period. In a home test, how many people
>would conciously or un-conciously alter the test in some way during the
>germination period, to test negative? How many times a day would you check
>the sample?
Where in the world did you come up with this information?
What is that 10 day period you speak of? I've gotten results back
in less than 10 days! And anyone who would rig the thing to read
negative is probably positive and trying to convince someone else
that they are negative. THIS partially fuels debates about whether
to release the product or not.
There is no "germination" required. A virus does not germinate,
and even if it did, the tests available to test for HIV test
for the presence of antibodies, not for the presence of the virus.
A few years ago, a company came out with a test that could be read in
10 minutes, and this debate raged in the health care community. I have
no idea if this new talk is the commercial manifestation of the same
test, but that one tested for the presence of antibodies in saliva.
No blood need be drawn, and dere ain't no germination required.
Pardon the flame-like demeanor, but you're coming from left field
with this one!
Scott Stevens
po...@med.unc.edu
Tim Pierce
>P.S. For those who are against assimilation, have you ever
>noticed any sort of assimilation pressure within the Gay Culture to
>conform to the "GAY NORM"?
No, because there is no "GAY NORM." The very fact that this
discussion comes up so frequently, and that there is an attitude that
can generally be referred to as "assimilationism," indicates that
there is no single "gay norm" that encompasses everybody gay.
>Just forcing the idea of not assimilating into
>the social norm of this society is an assimilation in itself.
That depends partly on whether the idea is really being "forced."
Argued vehemently, yes. "Forced?" I really don't believe it is.
>I want
>you to praise me for being a Gay Catholic who is fat, believes in monagamy
>and marriage.
Bil, I praise you for this. You seem to feel that people are beating
you down simply because you take some of the less popular viewpoints
of sexuality and gender; I don't really see that. People are arguing
with you not because they perceive you simply as saying, "I want to
see more people who are more like ME," but because they perceive you
as saying, "I want to see FEWER people who look like THAT."
At least, that's the way I perceive it.
Gene Ward Smith
g...@heisenberg.Berkeley.EDU (George Neville-Neil) writes:
>Not if you are trying to use hollywood to spread propaganda for
>you. It's been done before. I just don't think I agree with Gene's
>idea of what that propaganda should be.
I'm not sure you have any idea what I want or don't want, because you
seem to be reading what you conceive to be my subtexts rather than my
texts. Why not just respond to what I actually say?
I would like "propaganda" if you want to put it that way. The
"propaganda" I want would be for gay characters to be more commonly
and more representativly depicted. To some extent gays are ghettoized
and marginalized in movies. Straight society is happy for the most
part to pretend we are not there, and the movies reflect this
attitude.
If gay characters do occur they should be marginalized. Characters
which are innocuous (the nice gay boy) or easy to laugh at and feel
superior to (the nelly queen) are preferred. In this way the movie can
be a hit with both gay and straight audiences. But we miss out on a
whole range of possibilities here, and in accepting this situation we
are accepting our second-class status. We may not be able to get what
we want but we should at least be able to see what that is.
In your relentless quest for subtexts, I notice you are ignoring the
fact that I was defending 'Cruising' which was widely attacked at the
time of its release. This was a movie which was attacked on the
grounds that it was bad propaganda. If propaganda is really my goal,
why did I bring this movie up? Could it possibly be that I actually
meant what I said, and a certain degree of realism and
representativeness is what I would like to see?
Nelson Minar
>noticed any sort of assimilation pressure within the Gay Culture to
>conform to the "GAY NORM"?
All the time, from various sides who all have their notion of what "Gay
norm" is:
Guppies who want me to have short neat hair, and designer clothes.
Promiscuous faeries who want me to be sexy and fuck a lot.
Moral gays who want me to "get married to a nice man," and act like a
nice straight boy.
Activists who want me to devote my life to The Cause.
Queers who want me to tell the world to fuck all, wear black leather,
and put unnatural bits of metal in my body.
Society tries to make you conform: that is how society persists. The
pressure to conform becomes oppressive when it dominates.
I tend to argue more for the 'queer' side because I feel like the
'normal' side of gay life is too dominant for my taste.
I should note that in those 6 examples, I intend no judgement. My life
is a curious balance of these various forces - I don't know how
promiscuous I want to be, and I don't know how to balance my life
between "queer" and "normal."
>I want you to praise me for being a Gay Catholic who is fat, believes
>in monagamy and marriage.
Why should I need a convenient label like "fat" or "catholic" by which
to praise you. I sing the body electric.
--
__
nel...@reed.edu \/ .signature anti-virus utility v2.3
Jeff Dauber
>I would like "propaganda" if you want to put it that way. The
>"propaganda" I want would be for gay characters to be more commonly
>and more representativly depicted. To some extent gays are ghettoized
>and marginalized in movies. Straight society is happy for the most
>part to pretend we are not there, and the movies reflect this
>attitude.
I can think of gay movies that represent all facets of homosexuality
except one: Assimilationists. I can think of gay movies that deal
with white males, black males, white and black males together, old
men, young men, hustlers, DJs, designers, nelly queens, leather dudes,
and any other characterization you wish to make. I tend to suspect
that what you are looking for is a move which has gay characters who
are exactly like straight characters except that they happen to love
men. Is this what you are looking for? The reason that you will not
find this is that gay film makers are interested in representing people
that they know. I cannot think of a gay assimilationist film maker who
is making gay films. Why? I suspect that this particular breed of \
filmmaker would make a movie about a straight couple instead.
>If gay characters do occur they should be marginalized. Characters
>which are innocuous (the nice gay boy) or easy to laugh at and feel
>superior to (the nelly queen) are preferred. In this way the movie can
>be a hit with both gay and straight audiences. But we miss out on a
>whole range of possibilities here, and in accepting this situation we
>are accepting our second-class status. We may not be able to get what
>we want but we should at least be able to see what that is.
This passage makes almost no sense at all. Let's take the example
of a movie you did not like, _My Own Private Idaho_. This movie
did not depict gays as nelly queens or as the nice gay boy. You did
not like this film though... Perhaps you are changing your story.
>In your relentless quest for subtexts, I notice you are ignoring the
>fact that I was defending 'Cruising' which was widely attacked at the
>time of its release. This was a movie which was attacked on the
>grounds that it was bad propaganda. If propaganda is really my goal,
>why did I bring this movie up? Could it possibly be that I actually
>meant what I said, and a certain degree of realism and
>representativeness is what I would like to see?
Realism is what you are looking for? I looked at _My Own Private Idaho_
and saw the life of my friend Christian. Christian was a hustler from
Seattle. That is realism. When I saw _Young Soul Rebels_ I thought,
"Gee, I've had those conversations." That is realism. In fact, I think
that realism is great, it means that the gay characters will have
personalities and will not be two dimensional creatures.
Just to call you on your nonsense....
If all you have been saying is that you want more realism in your
"gay" movies, then why did you dislike My Own Private Idaho? Was it
because it did not represent a sanitized-for-heterosexuals view at
some homosexuals?
FWA
gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Minar) writes:
>But I've been reading this discussion in the context of people's
>complaints about My Private Idaho. I apologize for posting this as a
>reply to Gene, because frankly I do not remember what he thinks of My
>Private Idaho.
Bil Snodrass was the one who disliked 'My Favorite Idaho'; my comments
were a reply to his but I wasn't concerned with it. My complaint was that
there tends to be too restrictive a notion of what a gay character is
supposed to be like. The cumulative effect is annoying.
Jeffrey X McQuillen aka CaptPicard
says:
>Moral gays who want me to "get married to a nice man," and act like a
> nice straight boy.
Then says:
>I should note that in those 6 examples, I intend no judgement.
Maybe I read that one wrong, but there seems to be a judgement in there.
---
"... And I will shed my light over evil, for the evil cannot stand the
light, the light of the Green Lantern." - The Green Lantern
brou...@admin.usask.ca
> In article <23...@daily-planet.concordia.ca> gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>>My reservation about 'Torch Song' was with the idea that in any
>>movie about gays, at last half the characters must be nelly drag
>>queens. This is not because I have anything against nelly drag queens,
>>it's because it is too limited a vision. Why *not* a gay Indy Jones?
>>Hollywood has managed to put other minorities, notably blacks, up on
>>the big screen.
...
> If a film's primary focus is going to be sexuality, say Torch Song
> Trilogy, My Private Idaho, Naked Lunch, or somesuch, then it is
> completely inappropriate to request that the characters be "normal
> ordinary people." Torch Song is about a nelly drag queen: it is not
> about a "normal" faggot. Longtime Companion is mostly about "normal
> gays." The film maker uses whatever type of character is appropriate.
Unfortunately, Longtime Companion is NOT mostly about "normal gays". It is
about gays with AIDS. This may be "normal" in New York, San Francisco, etc. but
it is definitely NOT the norm in most places in the world and is NOT the norm
for a lot of gays.
Someone complains about the formula:
GAY = DRAG QUEEN
But you propose that it is better to do:
GAY = AIDS
I find both unfortunate.
I'm not disagreeing with your ideas, per se, but I think your example does not
present a good case for them.
Darrell
Randy Clark
In article <1992Jan20.2...@watson.ibm.com>
ja...@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com writes:
>ran...@autodesk.com (Randy Clark) writes:
>> I've already gone ballistic over a previous snide remark
>> that touched on Gus van Sant and his films, [...]
>
>i don't remember you going ballistic, and i was probably the one
>who made the "snide" remark.
It was you. And maybe I wasn't ballistic by the standards of
Usenet (maybe that 2d adjective needs sneer quotes), but I did
call you a 7-letter word; usually I try to keep my invective more
polite than that. :-)
>
>> The evil in the story, as I saw it, is inherent in society
>> at large. There's not much in the movie, really, about
>> hustling or street life per se. As I saw it, it's about
>> America (the US).
>
>there's not much in the movie about gays either.
Agreed. Nor did there need to be. It created its own
little world and told a story within that.
>i can't see how you can make the "it's a gay negative movie" claim.
*** attribution fault ***
I never did. I was responding to one of the other people who
said that. I've seen _My Own Private Idaho_ twice so far;
I loved it; I liked it even better the second time; and I
wouldn't mind owning a copy of the tape.
>
>--
>Jason Coughlin ( ja...@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
Incidentally, did you like MOPI? When I reacted to your
comment about Gus Van Sant, you had yet to see it.
Cheers, -R
--
How can we talk about the causes of something we can't
even define? -- Vincent Manis
Randy Clark {}!autodesk.com!randyc
Jeff Shaevel
gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
> Gays are introduced as comic Step-n-fetchit
> characters, or "problem" characters as one kind or another. In other
> words, we get treated like black characters used to be treated. Why
> not more often just as character type characters?
Hear, hear. I think that Lanford Wilson did a good job of that in his
play "Burn This", but we're not exactly talking top 10 commercial material.
======================================================================
Jeff Shaevel / E-mail! -> shaevel%shaevel.aus...@apple.com
"And it *was* love, even if it was only for a few hours" -- R. Chesley
Nelson Minar
>Unfortunately, Longtime Companion is NOT mostly about "normal gays".
>It is about gays with AIDS. This may be "normal" in New York, San
>Francisco, etc. but it is definitely NOT the norm in most places in
>the world and is NOT the norm for a lot of gays.
>you propose that it is better to do:
> GAY = AIDS
I think you misunderstand my point.
The characters in Longtime Companion mostly match the stereotype of
"normal" gay. Nice hair, attractive, 30s, tastefully decorated
apartments, Fire Island, etc. I have no objection to this.
Most of the characters in Longtime Companion acquire AIDS. Not
terribly surprising, considering this is a movie about AIDS. But this
does not make the implication that gay = AIDS, any more than a movie
about a twisted male rapist says that male = rapist.
If someone were to only watch the film Longtime Companion, and
extrapolate from that information about "all gays", then I suppose
that person could make the connection gay=AIDS. But he or she would
have to possess only subnormal intelligence.
--
__
nel...@reed.edu \/ Do what thou wilt; it's not just a good idea, it's the law
Gene Ward Smith
>In article <23...@daily-planet.concordia.ca> gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>>I would like "propaganda" if you want to put it that way. The
>>"propaganda" I want would be for gay characters to be more commonly
>>and more representativly depicted. To some extent gays are ghettoized
>>and marginalized in movies. Straight society is happy for the most
>>part to pretend we are not there, and the movies reflect this
>>attitude.
>I can think of gay movies that represent all facets of homosexuality
>except one: Assimilationists.
I'm not sure what "all facets" means exactly, but that gay characters
occasionally appear does not mean they commonly appear, nor does
"all facets" appearing (supposing this is true) mean that they
representativly appear. In other words, even if what you say is
true it does not mean that the over-all effect does not amount to
a distortion. What "assimilationists" appearing I leave to you to
determine; what does an "assimilationist" do or say, anyway?
>I can think of gay movies that deal with white males, black males,
>white and black males together, old men, young men, hustlers, DJs,
>designers, nelly queens, leather dudes, and any other characterization
>you wish to make.
Maybe you know a lot more "gay movies" than I do, then. I was giving
as an example the gay action-adventure character. Which movie is
this--Stryker Force?
>I tend to suspect that what you are looking for is a move which has
>gay characters who are exactly like straight characters except that
>they happen to love men. Is this what you are looking for?
Close, but no cigar. I wouldn't mind seeing movies with recognizably
gay characters who are "exactly like" straight characters in terms of
the role they play in the film. This may not be too likely to happen
on demographic grounds, because this sort of movie will be aimed at a
largely straight audience. I'm also a little uneasy with
characterizations which seem to me intended to cater to straight
notions of what gay characters ought to be like. I suppose this is the
propaganda aspect, if you want to call it that.
>This passage makes almost no sense at all. Let's take the example
>of a movie you did not like, _My Own Private Idaho_.
This passage makes absolutely no sense at all. When did I say I
disliked 'My Own Private Idaho'?
Roger B.A. Klorese
>about gays with AIDS. This may be "normal" in New York, San Francisco, etc. but
>it is definitely NOT the norm in most places in the world and is NOT the norm
>for a lot of gays.
No, it's about "normal gays" and what happens when AIDS affects people in
their lives. It's not just about "gays with AIDS."
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rog...@unpc.QueerNet.ORG {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
-- J. Foster
lonrax lonray
Private Idaho"... I wish there were more movies out there, so I can get
lost in all the titles.
save
--
lon...@PDaXcess.techbook.com (lonrax lonray) (Public Access User)
PDaXcess gives free access to news & mail. (503) 644-8135 - 1200/2400, N81
Public access users are <NOT> affiliated with TECHbooks. We don't endorse
what they say. But if they do something good, we want the credit. :-)
Gene Ward Smith
writes:
> *** attribution fault ***
> I never did. I was responding to one of the other people who
> said that. I've seen _My Own Private Idaho_ twice so far;
> I loved it; I liked it even better the second time; and I
> wouldn't mind owning a copy of the tape.
In a way, I'm glad I'm not the only one suffering from attribution
faults. But I keep having a feeling that problems with understanding
what people write is more common around here than needs to be the
case. We are all by necessity literate on this group, with a little
more care and thought we will not misunderstand each other so often or
so completely.
I endorse the above review. 'My Own Private Idaho' is a wonderful
film, especially for Shakespeare specialists who see it on LSD. It is
realistic in parts, such as the warning sign that tourists in Idaho
need to take care not to laugh at the permanent residents of the
state. It is unrealistic in parts--the cover boys on Torso might talk
but they don't have big boobs. But it really doesn't have much to do
with stereotypes, nor can it usefully serve as an example of the
typical practices of Hollywood.
John Fisher
gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
> [...] My reservation about 'Torch Song' was with the idea that in any
> movie about gays, at last half the characters must be nelly drag
> queens. This is not because I have anything against nelly drag queens,
> it's because it is too limited a vision.
TST is not a "movie about gays" in that general sort of way. It's clearly
a discussion by Fierstein about his life and his world, and it contains the
sort of people and the sort of situations which have been important to him.
I don't see why he should be expected to make some other movie, containing
47% straight-acting gay men in monogamous relationships, 37% lipstick
lesbians, 14.5% twinks, 12.63% SM bears, 3.5% Ursi Vanilliaribuses, 1.6%
Dykes on Bykes and .053% Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, just because this
vision would be less "limited".
He had a particular film (well, play) he wanted to make, and he made it.
Where's the problem? You could say you like it, or don't like it, or
feel it has something to say to you or it hasn't, or whatever. But to
say "He should have made a completely different film instead" seems a
bit impertinent.
> Why *not* a gay Indy Jones?
> Hollywood has managed to put other minorities, notably blacks, up on
> the big screen. Gays are introduced as comic Step-n-fetchit
> characters, or "problem" characters as one kind or another. In other
> words, we get treated like black characters used to be treated. Why
> not more often just as character type characters?
Well, I agree. But TST was not made by an anonymous "Hollywood"; it
was made by Fierstein.
--John
Bob Donahue
[lots o' people, lots o' phosphor]
WRT finding a character in a flick who for all intents and purposes
is like everyone else except that he's gay, what about the sidekick in
_Frankie and Johnny_? He's used as a comparator in all the other
relationships in a VERY positive way (there's a hilarious scene that
addresses ignorant heterosexual questions about gay people), and made
me wish he lived next door (OK, even though he was the first gay male
middle aged bear that was cute stable and seemed intellegent in a movie).
BBC, who also liked
MOPI as well...