Andrew Lesk (http://www.andrewlesk.com/index.html) further commented on the Q-Study list and again I think he makes some excellent points, some of which are very good responses to the earlier post. He wrote:
The fact remains that, despite exceptions, the rule still largely follows that sexual behaviour and identity are very closely linked. The idea that some ostensibly heterosexual men have sex in washrooms (when they might, say, go to rub parlours) are simply looking for a "release" is a little disingenuous. It is ever (and unfortunately) incumbent these days that gays (as a category) must be amenable to submitting themselves to a queer rubric because their identity is, somehow, not commensurate with activity. Tell a het person that to be het is really a misleading misnomer and see what kind of reception you get.
I live in Toronto, the third (or fourth) largest metropolitan city in North America. I know a good deal of gay men who do frequent such locales. Wherever did you get this misinformation? (Note that above, you wrote "some men" are frustrated hets, etc; so who are the "other" men?)
What was once called "internalized homophobia" is now called "personal underdevelopment"?Arguments like these continue to undermine the (political) positions of those who freely identify themselves as gay men, or lesbians.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Post a Comment