Hacker News Reader

Comment by azernik | Hacker News Reader

There's more to it than that - these men were into their own personal liberation rather than helping change society to make their own underground organizing unnecessary.

(I happen to think it's presumptuous to make that an obligation for members of oppressed groups, but okay.)

View on HN

>obligation for members of oppressed groups, but okay.

Presumptuous even to consider MSM to be part of the same oppressed "group." I understand that unity, as a minority, is essential for fighting the good fight. But, it's also important to recognize that not every MSM identifies as "gay," and behavior does not dictate identity. People must be free to identify as they wish, without judgement. Describe, don't prescribe.

What makes this group of businessmen so fascinating is that they subvert the homogeny of the modern gay rights movement -- "you're one of us! Admit it!" -- and reveals a different kind of queer.

Indeed, I thought the origin of the MSM term was through people who didn't want to be associated with the gay-rights movement or politicise their identities that way.

No, it originated in the medical/scientific field. When trying to evaluate, say, the epidemiology of AIDS in the "gay" community, they realized that there were a lot of men who would deny being gay even in a confidential survey, but still had sex with other men and would admit that in the same survey. To be crude, they would often have these exchanges: "When's the last time you sucked a guy's dick?" "Last week." "Are you gay or bi?" "No." Which makes a lot of your study's results useless if you're keying on the second question rather than the first.

Plus, you know, bi men make "gay" a bad term if what you're studying is the phenomenon of men having sex with men.

So, they started using a category "men who have sex with men" instead of "gay men", and classified study subjects into those categories based on questions about specific behaviors rather than about identity.

It's not a label invented by the people to whom it applies, and doesn't have much to do with politicization or activism (though of course MSM who don't identify as gay or bi are less likely to be politically active on LGBTQ rights issues, but many gay-identifying men also aren't politically active).

In this case, though, they did identify as gay: "But Syrett writes that the 50 letter-writers he studied identified as gay, at least privately, and did not marry women. "

I don't think "identify" in your quote is meant in the same sense as GP. I read the quote as meaning merely that they weren't confused about their sexuality, but weren't willing to let that define them any more than eg their hair colour.

Perhaps they would not describe themselves as gay as a primary identity, but rather as a facet of a broader identity. This type of complication is the essence of queerness: people are different even though they share things.

Note, I do agree with you, I am trying to clarify terms only.

It's worth noting that remaining unmarried, in that era, was itself a pretty loud social signal.

I don't think that's really true, in the sense of signaling homosexuality, even if being single was very slightly risqué.

It didn't 100% signal homosexuality, but it signaled that something was odd, with homosexuality as a possibility.

I'll also note that a lot of gay people from that era report that they felt pressured to be heterosexually married to fit in. I have a couple of friends from a more recent era, currently in their mid 60s, who felt that pressure when they were younger. One had "an arrangement" with his wife, and two "came out" in their 50's and had extremely messy divorces.

What if they did not want to make it "unnecessary" because they enjoyed having this kind of club and such connections? The power to improve the lives of other men if they so chose, for example.

Not arguing with you, fwiw, just pointing out that more reasons could be in ay besides "personal liberation".

Ellen Page had a travel show and I think in the first episode she visited Japan and explored the gay culture there. One of the older Japanese gay men expressed a sentimentality, maybe even a preference, for the time when everything was more secretive.

The show was otherwise interesting but that scene was a standout.

Things are honestly still pretty secretive. Even here in SF. Anti-gay bias is everywhere and pushes many gay people to just quietly hide their sexuality. Fun fact, one of the two times I was ever called a faggot by a stranger was on an SF Muni bus (I was holding hands with a dude). Stuff like that, plus the long glances and stares, plus you remembering other forms of discrimination, just kinda makes most gay people in my experience very reserved in public compared to straight couples.

Oh, it's an obligation for everyone, not just members of oppressed groups. None of us is free until all of us are free, and all that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com