I've been engaged in an email dialogue with someone who would rather not be named, but who is a regular reader and occasional commentator here - in my usual effort to be fair-minded, I've let him read this posting before I've made it public, to be sure I'm not misrepresenting him. For simplicity's sake, I'm going to adopt the pseudonym 'Stephen' for him.
The essence of Stephen's initial contact was that this site generally, and this blog specifically, aren't gay enough. By which he meant that I don't reiterate as frequently as I should that the perspective presented is a gay one, and that the matters discussed are not often enough specifically gay. At first, I'll confess, I was tempted to reduce my reply to a simple "there's more to me and my opinions than just being gayî, but upon reflection, I felt that to do so would not only be somewhat rude, it was also a bit disingenuous. So I embarked upon what has been a very interesting discussion with Stephen, still ongoing, but having hit a few conclusions which I think I'm ready to share.
To begin with, in principle, there categorically is more to me and my opinions than just being gay - and there is a very wide range of subjects in which I'm interested that would not be defined as 'gay-related'. But I'm aware (and possibly increasingly so) that much of my view of myself and by extension the world is profoundly affected by my sexuality. In a sense it's impossible that it should be otherwise - I'm not one whose acceptance of their homosexuality was particularly painless (*are* there such people? I don't think I've met many, if so.). I spent years, in a period of my life that was turbulent anyway, trying to deal with being 'different', and not doing so terribly successfully. I forget when the specific realisation first struck - I can *never* remember fitting into the typical gender groupings and behaviours at school, for instance - but it was certainly a lot earlier than I ever verbalised it to anyone. (And yet weird how other kids pick up on difference - I must first have been called a poof at the age of about 10 - maybe it was just the generic term of abuse at my school.)
The relevance of this apparent digression is to underscore the fact that I spent *years* self-analysing and questioning some extremely fundamental aspects of myself, and I would challenge anyone to emerge from that kind of activity without its conclusions affecting one's perspectives at a fundamental level. By my early twenties, when I'd resolved many of these issues and moved on to other concerns, it was regularly remarked that I had a great deal of self-confidence for someone my age. I used to suggest that it was actually self-knowledge, based on all those years of introspection and self-study - several of my gay friends from around that time made similar points about themselves and their own experience, so I suspect it's a broadly-felt sentiment.
So that's where the acceptance of my 'gayness' informing my perspectives and opinions comes from - it's no different than the way my maleness affects them, for instance, but because of all that thinking time, I'm (far) more aware of myself as a gay person than as a male person, or a Londoner, or a [fill in as appropriate].
And yes, therefore, I categorically have a gay perspective on things, and interestingly, I tend to think that it's fairly obvious. But then, I also tend to think that people should instinctively pick it up from me when they meet me, and am constantly surprised when they don't, so what do I know? Perhaps in the same way it's nowhere near as apparent in writing as I think. It's definitely there though.
As to my subject matter (though I could expand on the above quite a bit further and probably will at some point), well, there, I and Stephen are having some disagreements. Register first of all what I tend to think of this site as being; a home for some critical writing, and for this journal are the primary ones - other things are useful add-ons. Taking each of those in turn: critically, I tend to write about the things I've chosen to read/view and as such, they reflect the range of subjects that catch my interest, so some are gay and some are straight. The latter predominate because there are just more of them, but that said, I've recently picked up a copy of L.I.E. which I'll review as soon as I've had a chance to sit down and view it, plus my long-awaited copy of David Ehrenstein's book on gay Hollywood, Open Secret just arrived, and I'll be doing likewise when I've read it. This may shift the balance in favour of Stephen's stated preference that I spend more time dealing with gay media. In any case, I'll continue to review everything from a 'gay perspective', no matter its provenance.
In this journal though, things are less straightforward. There's a split here between three basic types of content:
1) Interesting/useful/funny links that I've come across.
2) Discussions of topics that are exercising my mind.
3) Actual 'journalling' of what I've been doing and how I feel about it.
Among the first, there are probably a smattering of gay-themed things, among the second, a larger number, and among the third, actually not that many at all.
The reason for this latter is that I'm living the life of a gay man - I'm not sure I'm living a gay life. The reason that there are next to no descriptions of my trips to gay bars or the various dates I've been on is simply that I hardly ever go to those bars and I don't go on dates.
Either one of those is subject to change, and would certainly be different had I started this thing ten years ago, but just at the moment, and for the lifetime of this journal so far certainly, that's not what's been happening. Stephen points me to the Royal Vauxhall Tavern (a pub I haunted regularly in my early years in London) and the fact that not only is it very popular, but that there's a whole blogging community who go there and then blog about it. "Why not go along?" he asked. "Why go along?" was my glib reply.
It's a fact that at this point in my life, the large majority of my friends are straight, and when I socialise, I tend to do so with my friends (shock!). I'm by no means saying that I'll never go to another gay bar, though actually, based on recent experiences, I'm far more likely to do so when I'm away from London than I am here. Equally, if/when I start a new relationship, if my new partner has a 'gayer' social life than I, I'll inevitably end up sharing in it. At that point, you might start to see references to gay bars, etc on a regular basis.
Or equally, if no eligible young men stumble upon this site and decide that I'm their soulmate, when the time comes that I decide actively to seek a new partner, getting back into the bar scene might be a part of the gameplan. At that point, this would almost certainly become a more overtly 'gay blog'.
More on this subject will no doubt follow, but in the meantime, here are a few related links that have had some impact on the ongoing discussion.
Philip Hensher article - Gay Art Lite
Swish Cottage Vauxhall Tavern A-Z
And just to round things off for the minute, here, coincidentally, is a gay link that I was going to post anyway: Rusty Is A Homosexual [Via various places.]
And today's the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, by the way.
Wimbledon Question II: Just how cool is it, on a scale of 1 to 10, to see Martina Navratilova playing on the Centre Court again?
I'd give it a 15.
Wimbledon Question: If Tim Henman gets booted out somewhere along the way, but Greg Rusedski continues on, does 'Henman Hill' become 'Rusedski Rise'?
I've not been journalling so much lately, because I've been doing a fair bit of my 'tending to the sick' routine (pity I don't suit grey serge), and also, I've been a bit low, and tend not to want to impose that on the world. I can't work out entirely where it's coming from, because I think it's compound reasons. No doubt it will pass.
In the meantime, though I will be doing a proper review of it, I'm quite convinced that most people don't read the comics reviews on here, so I'm 'foregrounding' this. I discovered an absolutely unique, self-published series called Strangehaven last week, and I'm glad I did. You can get some details from its creator's site, but the key information you need to know is that 14 issues have been published to date, and the first 12 have been collected into a pair of trade paperbacks, Arcadia and Brotherhood, and that you should all go out and buy copies immediately. Seriously - right now. I'm not one who gushes by nature, but I'll gush for England on this one. Go on - what are you waiting for?
And on a related subject, three search terms that brought people here over the last 24 hours or so are: jade big brother pig photos, jade pig big brother picture, and on a different front altogether, amazing 3 way lesbians
Jade: "My arse has got so frigging fat."
Direct quotation. Oh my god. Did she actually think it was slim and gorgeous in the first place????????
I know that recently I've become a bit of a Metafilter Whore, posting links there and commenting like never before, but on days like this, I almost reach the point of getting too depressed with it to keep bothering.
Not much point in doing a Wimbledon Watch, given that it's all over the news: Goodbye Andre, goodbye Pete, goodbye Marat. Quite the day. I can't help but think that the highlights will be well worth watching.
"George Bush is demanding that Palestine become Sweden before it can become Palestine....This is George in Wonderland stuff."
Jonathan Freedland, erm, disagrees in principle with many main points of Dubya's Plan For Peace in the Middle East. It's not just me, is it? The Leader Of The Free World(tm) really is a raving loon.
So think about it:
It's 1940 and you're the United States of America. You're embarking upon a highly secret and highly risky series of experiments designed to create a serum to turn regular men into super-soldiers. There's no guarantee that the experiments will even leave their subjects alive, never mind deliver results. And you're already in the habit of experimenting on the unknowing underclass of your society. So, is the first person you try this experimental serum on;
a) A blond-haired, blue-eyed WASP. or
b) A member of said underclass?
Those who recognise the details of Captain America's origin will be familiar with the history started by answering 'a'. Marvel Comics will shortly be embarking upon the history that started with the possibly more realistic answer 'b'.
And a right fuss they've kicked off too.