One part of America I don't love: In the past I could say that I love my country, but I can no longer do that. The best I can say is that I love parts of it. Let me give an example why.
I watched a documentary yesterday called "Gay Sex in the 70s." It recounted with graphic footage how homosexuals after Stonewall and before AIDS first hit in 1981 had sex like bonobo chimps, without the discretion. Now I get disgusted when I hear wild tales of casual heterosexual sex, but add to that a type of sex that makes your stomach turn, and add to that that guys are doing it in massive orgies in very public places (like Central Park or on an abandoned pier) and I must confess there are parts of America that I loathe. Someone in the documentary said this kind of sex has not been witnessed in the Western world since the days of Rome, and I'm not pleased that it was America that brought it back.
Now gay sex alone is just gross to me, but when it is combined with libertinism, irresponsibility, obsessiveness, audacity, and radical politics, I'm looking to join a group that advocates that homosexuals be banished to some island. And I don't mean Manhattan. I mean some place that is not America, because I don't want to be associated with it. One fortunate thing that has come out of the tragic AIDS epidemic is that gay men have been forced to grow up. They're less obnoxious now than in the 70s.
Are gun owners mentally ill?
Some anti-gun people think owning a gun is a sign of some kind of mental abnormality. According to General Social Survey data, gun owners ...
When one is given things to dislike
ReplyDeleteabout America, remember that they're
quite often trying to get you to lose loyalty to fellow citizens.
No one pretends that everything is perfect or superior here in every way, but the nation cannot mean less than that we owe loyalty to fellow citizens, such as the net taxpayer, when foreigners increase the level of aggression here.
When someone says that there was a lynching in America, or that there were slaves, or that homosexuals are even currently being given license to commit murder by spreading disease, the question has to be what is the conclusion from that?
Does it mean that we do not owe loyalty to fellow citizens; does it mean that we need not take the side of the net taxpayer against domestic aggressors? Failure to ask those questions in such context is itself treacherous or unintelligent.
By this I do not mean that RG is attempting anything like that, but that critiques of America, usually coming from the left, though also sometimes from elsewhere, tend to be excuses as to why loyalty is not owed.
ReplyDeletemarcz: Controversial topics are always fascinating to me (just look at my blog), and I think we can agree that the excesses of the 70s are controversial.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised that a documentary was so graphic. It seemed like the film was made only for homosexuals, or they were rubbing my face in it, and sadly, the makers of the film portrayed the time as dreamy.
By the way, I told myself I'll indulge myself with a cheeseburger if someone asked you're type of question. So thanks.
Just witness the pride parades that gays have in various cities if you want to see "in your face" type stuff. A few years ago you also had gays interrupting mass in St.Pat's in NYC, etc...Why gay people can't just be gay and leave it at that has always been a mystery to me.
ReplyDelete"I was surprised that a documentary was so graphic. It seemed like the film was made only for homosexuals..."
ReplyDeleteWell, gee, Rob, do you think? I mean, how many straight guys line up to see a documentary with the words "Gay Sex" in the title? I completely accept (and actually anticipated, as a regular reader of your blog) your explanation for why YOU wanted to see the documentary. But most people do not have your level of interest in controversy, and most heterosexuals don't want to spend their evenings watching a documentary about gay sex. So I'm pretty sure the filmers of the documentary filmed it with a very specific audience in mind.
Which, incidentally, is why they probably felt safe showing what homosexuality can entail. If they had anticipated a straighter audience, their Must... make... gays... palatable... to the... public... programming would have kicked in and they would have sugarcoated it somewhat, a la Will and Grace.
I sympathize with your situation, thought. I have no interest in converting to Islam, but I can't stop renting documentaries about the Islamic world. Hoepfully I'll never rent one showing mass beheadings or anything else that grosses me out, but such is the risk I take.
"By the way, I told myself I'll indulge myself with a cheeseburger if someone asked you're type of question. So thanks."
Well. Looks like I *did* make a difference today! :-)
"Just witness the pride parades that gays have in various cities if you want to see "in your face" type stuff."
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't know if straight people are really the target audience there. Gay men are just a bunch of frickin' exhibitionists. I think they are more showing off to other gays than to straights.
"A few years ago you also had gays interrupting mass in St.Pat's in NYC, etc..."
Yes, a childish stunt and an absolute disgrace.
"Why gay people can't just be gay and leave it at that has always been a mystery to me."
Why can't straight people just let us be gay and leave it at that?
Why can't straight people just let us be gay and leave it at that?
ReplyDeleteWe do. If it wasn't for you guys, we'd all be wearing Mao Suits and have very dull interior design schemes.
marcz: My complaint was not about gays making documentaries for themselves; it was about gay men doing things like having sex in an open street behind a truck, or piling into the back of a dark semi-truck trailer and having sex with whomever they groped first. I might grumble about how gay sex is gross, but I wrote the post about gay decadence.
ReplyDelete"If they had anticipated a straighter audience, their Must... make... gays... palatable... to the... public... programming would have kicked in and they would have sugarcoated it somewhat, a la Will and Grace."
I'd like to think that the average homosexual is not completely different from me--that he values restraint, propriety, decency, etc--and that this movie only showed the out-of-control extreme. You seem to be saying what I saw is REAL homosexuality, and us straights usually get the air-brushed version. This is not helping your case.
I can understand why this makes your stomach turn. That's the natural response. I also consider the aforementioned behavior nihilistic and undoubtedly misery-inducing.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is a gay thing, however. If women had the same sex drive as men, I have no doubt that heterosexual orgies would be common, as well.
Finally, I don't see how this affects you. So long as you're not required to witness same, or to pay the health care costs of people who have engaged in this level of risky behavior, then who cares?
(kingm)"I don't think this is a gay thing, however. If women had the same sex drive as men, I have no doubt that heterosexual orgies would be common, as well."
ReplyDeleteI agree, but that is no excuse for it.
"Finally, I don't see how this affects you. So long as you're not required to witness same, or to pay the health care costs of people who have engaged in this level of risky behavior, then who cares?"
The extreme libertarianism of our thinking people has brought us to the point where people can say "So what?" to gays orgies in the park. (That is the topic of my post, not homosexuality in general).
I identify with my country, she made me what I am. She's like my mother. If she's a whore, I'm going to wish she'd stop, even if it doesn't directly impact me. I would be morally neglectful if I didn't try to stop her. I would get angry at her if the neighborhood laughed at her, because it reflects on me, and I care about her dignity as well.
Gay orgies is one thing, gay orgies in the park another thing entirely. The second should be punished, the first ignored.
ReplyDeleteThe country is not "a whore." It's a place filled with 300 million people with all different values and beliefs. I guarantee there are people so conservative that they would consider your every day filled with obscene, immoral, and disgusting behavior. And no matter how liberal you are, there are people with views about sex, drugs, or whatnot that you would find horrifying.
Now, we can find our favorite theory of morality and set about enforcing that on all the deviant sects, beliefs, and non-beliefs, or we can try to find a way to ignore those personal decisions that bother us. When they start to infringe on your rights (such as the park example), then go ahead and fight back. Until then, live and let live, and be glad that others afford you the same priviledge.
"If it wasn't for you guys, we'd all be wearing Mao Suits and have very dull interior design schemes."
ReplyDeleteHa! Seriously, you know what I am saying. You straight people will always have your vocal, harrassing homophobes, and we gays will always have our vocal, harrassing activists. Let's find common ground by agreeing that both are annoying.
"My complaint was not about gays making documentaries for themselves; it was about gay men doing things like having sex in an open street behind a truck, or piling into the back of a dark semi-truck trailer and having sex with whomever they groped first. I might grumble about how gay sex is gross, but I wrote the post about gay decadence."
Ok, I misunderstood then. I thought you were complaining about the decisions of the filmakers to include certain things in the documentary, but you were in fact complaining about the behavior itself. Sorry, I have it now.
No, I agree, gay decadence is deeply disturbing. It offends me too. The temptation to fall into that kind of hedonistic pattern when you are gay is extreme, though. For one, you can ALWAYS find men who are up for casual sex. For another, if you are gay, chances are you aren't paying a lot of attention to the future, since you aren't really worried about saving up for your kids' college fund, etc... I'm not trying to justify decadence, I'm just saying there are reasons why so many gay men act the way they do--reasons which are, unfortunately, inextricably intertwined with 1) the immoderate nature of masculinity and 2) the inability of homosexual acts to produce children.
Stil, when I think about it, even this doesn't explain the anti-social stance that so many gay activists take. I remember when I was in college (only a few years ago) the police busted a bunch of gay men for having sex in the bathroom of (where else?) the theater building. The GLBTQA on campus was up in arms, arguing that public bathroom stalls are private places and people should be able to have sex in them if they want. What an inexplicably assinine and anti-social argument.
"I'd like to think that the average homosexual is not completely different from me--that he values restraint, propriety, decency, etc--and that this movie only showed the out-of-control extreme. You seem to be saying what I saw is REAL homosexuality, and us straights usually get the air-brushed version. This is not helping your case."
When did I try to make a case for anything? I just asked you why you were watching gay sex documentaries. Anyway, I think "real homosexuality" is somewhat closer to the extreme depicted in the documentary and what a lot of well-meaning straight people would like to believe. You seem to love statistics: look up the number of sex partners the average gay man has over the course of his lifetime. It's huge.
Believe me, it bothers me a lot more than it does you. But I'm not going to pretend it's not the truth.
Whoops. Third line in the next to last paragraph should read:
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think "real homosexuality" is somewhat closer to the extreme depicted in the documentary THAN what a lot of well-meaning straight people would like to believe.
Also, I should add that is only the case among men.
If you think this is unique to gays, I've got another documentary for you to watch. "Gimme Shelter". About the Altamont Speedway concert. It was supposed to be Woodstock west, and turned into an out-of-control fiasco resulting in several deaths, including a justifiable homicide caught on film.
ReplyDeleteThe late '60s and '70s ...it was just a crazy time. Too much stuff happening too quickly, and I think there were certain people who just couldn't cope. Mostly people who were heading out into brand new territory without the support or guidance of traditions or institutions to fall back on.
That's one of the reasons I'm in favor of gay marriage. If you don't like orgies in the park, you have to offer alternative outlets.
You know I loathe America when I see a heterosexual couple with a newborn baby. How in this world, with the way people behave, with the change in climate, with the homosexuals and drug addicts... HOW could anyone be so irresponsible enough to have a child. How selfish! There are times where I wish the newborns of the world were just put on an island, so I can be a proud American again.
ReplyDeleteOh, sorry... that's just my opinion and it has as much weight as yours.
Fine. I'll keep loathing blow jobs in the middle of the street, and you keep loathing a baby's birth, and we'll let the readers decide between our equal opinions.
ReplyDelete