THE BILL (BURROUGHS) OF GAY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
I reserve the right to claim to worship women, while, in private, thinking that ‘fish’ jokes and disregard of women’s feelings, opinions and realities are hunky-dory. If you look at the women I worship (Barbra Streisand and Judy Garland, among others), you will see that what I am really looking for is someone more fucked-up or unreasonable than myself, and, since I like men, I am not going to look to them to fulfill those roles, even though, logically, the acculturation of males should result in a larger pool from which to draw for those purposes. One could cite James Dean and Montgomery Clift, but they are more jerk-off images (or, in the case of the latter, largely forgotten) than objects of patronizing ‘admiration’.
I will allege that I am troubled by the limited scope of male beauty in magazines, but I will buy those publications and insist they speak for the ‘gay community’, rather than a small, moneyed, superficial segment of same (or, for that matter, a portion of it that forgets the master’s dick won’t dismantle the master’s dungeon). I will, furthermore, put forward that there is not much I can do about these images, since they sell, failing to see the pink circle that puts my thoughts in.
I will think that William S Burroughs is ‘bad’, rather than bad. I will contend that the boring, macho-fantasy, gun-fellating misogyny he put forward as a world view was radical, rather than, in the end, a conservatism that the Militiamen would hold close to their Bearish chests (they might not care for the sexual elements of Billy’s approach, but it is a hard call – as Bart Simpson said: ‘Something about a bunch of men hanging out in the woods – seems kinda gay.’).
I will think the way to protect the gay community is to ignore its most vulnerable elements (sex industry workers – street youth – heck, youth in general). How else can youngsters and other marginalized groups learn to cope in the straight world and embrace the queer world except by being abandoned to the malice of the former and being given the internalized-homophobia-if-I-pay-attention-to-kids-it-means-I’m-a-pedophile-to-the-ignorant-and-if-I-defend-prostitutes-I’ll-seem-like-a-john cold padded shoulder of the latter? Makes sense to me – after all, that’s how I grew up and, short of an ulcer and smoldering resentment, I turned out okay! (ed. note – gee, but most studies suggest pedophiles are in the bosom of the straight nuclear family (not every family, but statistics don’t lie…unless WE’RE generating them…) – and that it seems more important, if we want to cut down on murder rates (I think all but the most sadistic prude would agree a prostitute doesn’t deserve to be butchered), to try and target the pimps and the abusive johns, rather than the prostitutes – if there IS a market for prostitutes, would it not make sense to try and preserve, organize, and train that workforce, rather than leave it in danger (I know it’s unlike me to appeal to market forces – I’m wearing my Devil’s powdered wig and robes right now, OK?)
I will use identity politics to suggest that committed straight supporters of gay rights (and, of course, those NAUGHTY fence-sitting bisexuals) are less qualified to fight for liberation, even though even the dimmest pink bulb should be able to figure out that somewhere between 1% and 10% of the population is NOT going to effect meaningful change on its own (ed. note – even if you reject the notion of an uprising, workers’ struggle, etc., you would have to concede that the likelihood of such small numbers having an effect on representative democracy, particularly given that we ARE everywhere, rather than in a concentrated voting bloc in one location (and, baby, queers are all across the political spectrum), is slim – oops, I mean ‘statistically improbable’). On the other hand, rich white faggots who look to marriage and adoption as ways to normalize ourselves, so people who DON’T LIKE WHAT WE DO IN BED, WHETHER WE HAVE FUCKING WEDDING COCK RINGS ON OR NOT will mysteriously love us all of a sudden, can easily speak on behalf of all the queers in the world, because they stand for the majority (ed. note – sorry – guess I slipped through there and possessed your cheery disco-bunny spokesperson! I often wonder how the majority is determined – it puzzles me that no-one I know can remember ever being consulted about these decisions and position papers – I certainly know I haven’t been, or have been told my opinion is respected, but then it is never actually presented as, say, a minority dissent in any official documents I’ve seen – nope – all I see is the marriage train to the High Camp of Matrimony, and nice little queers who want prostitutes out of neighbourhoods that the whores were in FIRST, and Pride events dedicated to Love (not that I think Hate is a BETTER alternative, but, really! Why not a Pride event dedicated to Puppies or Sunsets!?))
I will nod and smile at dissenting opinions, saying that I respect them, and then act as though the critics did not speak (particularly in the presence of government officiouses, er, officials), even when they sometimes represent, numerically, a larger number of speakers than the gaggle of moneyed, politician-ear-bending robots near the sewage’s mainstream. Only in this way can the rights of all be secured…
I will love Big Brother, and accept that queer, by which I mean ‘straight’ in a general-life-pattern sense, is normal (I will avoid discussing the relevance and meaning of ‘normal’ with intellectuals named Tim…). I’ve already got a Daddy fixation, so it’s just another incestuous twist – and I won’t have to worry about producing idiots (ed. note – well, not through reproduction, anyway…).