So What About That 'B' In LGBT?

So Gays and Lesbians have their fight. They struggle with the issues of homophobia and heteronormativity and they have each other to to run to consistently. Transgenders though the most visible normally and taking the most visible stigma from dominant culture, just their bravery to change their gender warrants them the favor of community. So honestly what about that middle obscure group the Bisexuals? They are clearly the least visible in the community though. When it comes to identity all three of the other members have distinctly carved out boxes, but WHAT ABOUT BISEXUALS? That is a question even "living legend" Esther Newton could not answer in her visit to our class.

Esther Newton's visit was quite informative and enjoyable, and she gave some nice new perspectives to the way I view LGBT issues. She spoke of the boxes that exist, gay and straight, and how Gays and Lesbians play their roles against the dominant straight culture. When I asked about the role of Bisexuals and how did boxes play a role in our lives she could not give me a definite answer. Her answer stated that Bisexuals do not have this awkward choice of being in one box or the other, some sort of confusion, nor is it just a harmony of two boxes merged, but it indeed is it own box. I first had my own doubts about such a comment, even from one as prominent as Esther Newton herself, but after thinking of it I do believe she is right.

I came to the realization that her claim was at least at least basally correct because if one were to search the internet, or libraries about bisexuality it would be very scarce in consideration of the voluminous information that could be found about Gays and Lesbians. Actually in researching for this post, I found the resources to be most depressing. How is it that an entire category of people can garner so little thought and consideration?

Now logistically I am not inept, I understand there are not going to be entire bisexual movements and fights for "bisexual rights" because honestly only one half of our being is being oppressed. That being said the fight for gay rights fights to the same ends, thus winning similar rights for bisexual people as well. That being said, it makes sense when talking about the community it is acceptable to just say Gay and Lesbian right? I find that a bit problematic because it diminishes our identity in a way.

In the end bisexuals will still of course support the gay cause because it affects them as well. The marches, the prides, the oppression will still be shared to an extent with purely homosexual culture. Could there in the future though, be awareness for the stigma faced by Bisexuals by both Gays and Straights? Possibly for the constant coming out that we endure and grow weary of the explanation? Well there is hope for us apparently, it isn't much, but it seems we have a symbol now! Maybe we are actually coming up! Also of all of the sites that exist, which aren't many, there is one I approved of in attempting to explain our identity and didn't make us one dimensional or confused. Sad it is the best it gets as for references though.

Anal Sex Really Is Wrong?

Is the anus really meant for intercourse? That question is often posed because people see it as a wholly unnatural act, when between two men that is. The shocking realization is that anal sex is not as frowned up as one might think, but because it is the primary icon of gay male sex it is often looked upon as disgusting. A funny fact about thought abroad, anal sex, which was at one point illegal, is now legal in Singapore! The catch is it is only legal to heterosexual couples and the punishment for two men being caught in physical relations is up to two years in prison.

Though America does not have any major laws prohibiting anal sex amongst men, the media and dominant thought of the time perpetuate the act of male anal intercourse as wrong, and often time will associate AIDS as the punishment for such doings. As mentioned in class AIDS in America is definitely a gay man’s disease but the connotation and thought that follows that statement is in most cases very wrong. People who use biology to explain why anal sex between men is wrong and unnatural will make the claim that vaginal sex is RIGHT and that is why straight men did not get AIDS easily.

The common claim is that the vagina was specifically made for intercourse so it is tougher. In slang terms, it would go something like the anus was made to only have things come out and the vagina was made to have things go in. Funny enough though this thought is rather widespread and transcends all sorts of bounds like class, race, and religion, it could not be any more wrong. The pure facts are that any receptive sex partner has a higher risk for HIV transmission, vaginal or anal. In contention directly with the slang myth, the vagina was not made tougher so things could go in, quite the contrary it was made tougher so something generally about six times the size of the canal could come out. Pure science states that due to the stress intensive nature childbirth puts on the vagina it must be built stronger or people would not exist. The anus although was biologically made to carry fecal matter, a much less stress intensive product from the body.

Looking at the facts there is nothing that actually points to anal sex as wrong. This has actually been already established though, for heterosexuals at least. Heterosexuals who practice anal sex would not be branded as wrong, unconventional maybe, but definitely not so far as to say wrong. The question then is why are homosexuals still branded as wrong? The question lies in the emergence of HIV, but that is not much more than a manipulation of the media and government needing a scapegoat. The unfortunate truth is that gay men had a radical movement at the wrong time and because of such they were blamed for an epidemic. The epidemic extends worldwide and affects millions who are not male or gay, or possibly even old enough to know what HIV is yet it is still blamed upon gay men placing even more stigma upon them and their relationships.

Acceptance or Respect?

In class this week there was talk of acceptance and respect of the homosexual community. What is meant by respect and what is meant by acceptance? Can there be respect before acceptance and what exactly makes respect different in the first place? Some would contend that they could be interchangeably used, but with careful evaluation it is clear that respect holds a much deeper meaning and brings understanding and action to a whole new level. Acceptance by definition says that it is the act of having a “favorable reception” or “approval.” I contended, that the definition of acceptance and respect would ultimately change as time progressed when referring to members of the LGBT community because as most oppressed parties realize, they must take the baby steps given by the oppressors until they can reach a happy medium in some possibly distant future.

That being said, I would contend also that the acceptance that the pioneers of the gay movement wanted was much less acceptance than it was tolerance. From the definition of acceptance there still lies that need for a favorable reception, which is a large leap from complete oppression and disgust. Tolerance on the other hand is quite different, and seemingly much more on the lines of what the early movements strived toward. Tolerance asks for a non-oppressive, fair, and permissive reception, where as acceptance still awaits a favorable reception.

Another contention I would make is that members of the LGBT community still struggle for tolerance alone nevertheless acceptance and then respect. Examples of how even tolerance, which it could be argued has honestly been attained and we are thus on the way to acceptance, are easily found. One common and popular example is the issue of gay marriage. Also in class it was brought up some of the popular reasons how heterosexuals “on the side of the gays” validate their claims for gay marriage. A particularly interesting argument is “They can’t help what they are so we cannot discriminate what they are because of it.” While this is actually compelling and in most rights could be thought of as true, at what point does that view just resort back to homosexuality as pathology?

While the stance at hand may yield results, at what price do members of the LGBT community pay? After hard working individuals in the past worked to shake the stigma of sickness for their identity, what would they say if today’s generation simply reverted back to it in order to obtain rights? That then brings up respect; would the pioneers that worked so hard to free members of the LGBT community of that stigma respect their descendants? Then if there cannot be respect within ones own community, how can they then ask respect of others, especially ones that oppress them?

With the lack of an active and powerful LGBT movement now, actively fighting for rights with protests, demonstrations, etc, like the 1960’s what is to be said for the dreams of acceptance and respect? Society’s current state would seem to be a loosely kept sense of tolerance, that there are institutionally rules and laws against discrimination, but it is still widespread. Can the LGBT community ever move toward the once avidly aspired goal of acceptance and then possibly respect one day?