Renewal of queer male sex culture: take 2

[jawnbc]

We are queer men who celebrate our sexuality together—purposefully, affirmatively and joyously. We share pleasure, exploration and knowledge. We are determined to claim our space for that purpose, against those who undermine it.

We are positive and negative; gay, bi and queer; biomale and trans. We are all ages, races, sizes and cultures. We don't discriminate or exploit: when not interested, we decline offers of sex politely; when interested, we say yes enthusiastically.

We are passionate. We are respectful. We pleasure one another. We take care of ourselves and one another.

And we all, as queer men, deserve nothing less.

That's the latest version, building on various contributions (special thanks to bix02138).

Comments please? Let's keep this moving...

Comments

[gav-and-rog.livejournal.com]

umm, what's biomale? Sorry, not heard that terminology before.

Thanks!

[feygele.livejournal.com]

"Biomale" is a term used to define guys who were born guys, as opposed to guys who weren't (ie, transguys). Not all trans people like/use the term biomale, as there are some trans who are "biomale," but it's an easy enough "us/them" term pairing to use, like "gay/straight."

[timbear.livejournal.com]

I've kept quiet on this one. I'm afraid that none of it works for me.

Firstly, as I understand your original post and the posts it referenced, this was born out of a distaste for drug culture and the perceived need to protect people from the influences thereof, and also to make it clear that there is a need for gay spaces where drugs/attitude don't intrude. Moreso it seems to me it's an attempt to dissasociate from the people and venues who indulge in such things in order not to be tarnished with the same reputation.

Well, when I read the above statement it doesn't appear to make reference to any of that either directly or indirectly. All I get out of it is "I want to have sex when, where, and with whom takes my fancy" and I have issues with that.

Secondly, while I may not agree with the drugs, unconsidered unprotected sex, etc, is it really my place to tell other people what they can and can't do? Educate them about the risks and if they carry on then that's up to them, not us. This statement in no way educates anybody about such things.

Surely if there are venues that condone the bad behaviours it would be better to "vote with your feet" and not visit those venues while taking time to let the management know why?

But bear in mind that I am completely non-scene, I have very little contact in the real world with the so called "gay community" so I might be missing some important point here, if I am, please educate me. It may be that I'm simply not best placed to understand the issues - but then again, assuming this statement is aimed at straight people or TPTB, neither will they.

On the other hand if it's simply that you are stating to the perpetrators that you don't want their behaviours in your spaces then surely a simple "get your shit out of here" would be more appropriate?

[blue-by-you.livejournal.com]

I like it. I think it's respectful and purposeful and fun at the same time.

[feygele.livejournal.com]

I think it's rather... utopian. I mean, the drug-free post was too, but I think that one was more plausible than this one. From my experience, there are always going to be guys who are rude and/or disrespectful in turning you down, guys who have a very narrow definition of what "hot" "gay" "man" means.

[danthered.livejournal.com]

I am late to this discussion, so I may be off-side here, but I think this is too veiled. It strikes me "We protect ourselves and each other" might be clearer and more direct.

[ink-ling.livejournal.com]

This statement seems to lose needed specifity it had before. It sounds like this to me: "Continue as before, but joyously!" The intended audience is unclear -- antagonistic homophobes or disrespectful/harmful sorts already among the ranks of queer men? It seems that -- maybe in an effort to not offend? -- what "we" are opposed to gets lost in an overly general positive statement.

Maybe a format with a general mission statement followed by specific value components would work better?

[nashobabear.livejournal.com]

Over breakfast I read Mubarak Dahir's recent column about gay male "fabulosity" [my term] in the Fort Lauderdale ghetto, and after reading the above comments (noting especially timbearuk, I see cast in strong relief a very real divide, or perhaps the existence of utterly separate gay/queer men's cultures. Those who live in the "bubble" of urban and resort gay enclaves or as satellite to them, and those who live in the "real", i.e., heterosexual-mainstream society, in specific communities. The role and self-understanding of one's sexual queerness is dramatically different, one from the other. As I am thinking through bear community and its regeneration, I come up against the dynamic: who defines primarily by sexuality, who sees it as a lesser aspect. For whom is queer sexuality and practices part of identity, for whom merely behaviors engaged in? (Not new questions, but ignoring the obvious does not make it go away.)

Having recently left the rural, non-scene world of gay and bi men who do not embrace their sexual difference as an identity, and locating myself on the outskirts of the "bubble" of the gay/bi/queer communities of San Francisco today, I find I have to take stock, and revisit underlying assumptions. Crystal meth use is severely out of control here; it seems to be a key part of joining the "gay community," much like an earlier wave of being poz came to be seen, by some, as key to joining the gay male "community."

I struggle, in my own utopian way, with seeking nurturing, emotionally present men for intimacy (emotional, intellectual, someday sexual again, I hope), building my own community one person at a time -- and trying to formulate a way to both (1) keep at bay guys who are "out of control," messed up in addiction, self-abuse, and in perpetrator and predatory behaviors. Do I pursue this by creating extrinsic frames, do I pursue this by an intrinsically-focused, "spiritual" approach, which seeks to accept people where they are, but encourage them to "come into the light" of a holistic, healing, self-empowering, loving, nurturing practice?

Sorry if I veered too far off topic ...

[mikeybill.livejournal.com]

A lot to chew over here, still cogitating.

But I think the underlying aim is good.