Thursday, August 18, 2011

William (Billy) Haines

William Haines was born in Virginia in 1900 and in 1914, opened a nightclub in Hopewell, Virginia. Destined for entertainment and high style, he arrives in Hollywood in 1922 after winning a talent contest. He appeared in over twenty films as a leading man to Hollywood’s most famous stars including Joan Crawford, Marion Davies and Constance Bennett. He was a star of the silent era until the 1930s, when Haines' career was cut short by MGM Studios due to his refusal to deny his homosexuality. Haines never returned to film and instead started a successful interior design business with his life partner and supported by friends in Hollywood.

Haines redefined the way movie stars lived. He lived large and played the role of a successful movie star to the max with the encouragement of his partner, Jimmie Shields. He defined style and his passion for grand automobiles was no exception.

When Haines ran away from home at 14 with his first boyfriend, the fun was only just starting. Next stop: Greenwich Village, New York, where he worked as a model and lived with Cary Grant. A talent scout landed him a contract in Hollywood where he became a top box office draw in silent films. In 1926 he met Jimmie Shields who became his life-long partner.

Then in 1933 he was arrested for being caught with a sailor in the Y.M.C.A.. MGM studio head Louis B. Mayer gave Haines an ultimatum: break up with Jimmie Shields, or get out.

Haines got out. Shields took his lover's Y.M.C.A. scandal a lot easier than Mayer did. In fact, Haines and Shields had a legendarily open relationship, often sharing tricks and cruising Los Angeles’ Pershing Square together. Joan Crawford described them as “The happiest married couple in Hollywood.”

The young men went on to become some of the most influential designers and antique dealers for the glitterati of Hollywood and Beverly Hills. His BFF was Joan Crawford, and his influence over her look, career, and even her behavior is inestimable— she was one of his greatest creations. His design studio continues to this day and his furniture designs are in constant reissue.

Their lives were disrupted in 1936 when members of the Ku Klux Klan dragged the two men from their home and beat them, because a neighbor had accused the two of propositioning his son. Crawford, along with other stars such as Claudette Colbert, George Burns, Gracie Allen, Kay Francis, and Charles Boyer urged the men to report this to the police. Marion Davies asked her lover William Randolph Hearst to use his influence to ensure the neighbors were prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but ultimately Haines and Shields chose not to report the incident.

The couple finally settled into the Hollywood community in Brentwood, and their business prospered until their retirement in the early 1970s, except for a brief interruption when Haines served in World War II. Their long list of clients included Betsy Bloomingdale, Ronald and Nancy Reagan when Reagan was governor of California, and Walter and Leonore Annenberg with their 240-acre estate "Sunnylands."

Haines never returned to film. Gloria Swanson, another lifelong friend, extended him a personal invitation to appear with her in the film Sunset Boulevard (1950), but he declined.  Haines and Shields remained together for the rest of their lives. Joan Crawford described them as "the happiest married couple in Hollywood."

Haines died from lung cancer in Santa Monica, California at the age of 73, a week short of his 74th birthday, which was on the new year of 1974. Soon afterward, Shields, who suffered from what many believe to be Alzheimer's Disease, put on Haines' pajamas, took an overdose of pills, and crawled into their bed to die. They were interred side by side in Woodlawn Memorial Cemetery.

William Haines Designs remains in operation, with main offices in West Hollywood and showrooms in New York, Denver and Dallas. Haines's life story is told in the 1998 biography Wisecracker: The Life and Times of William Haines, Hollywood's First Openly Gay Star by William J. Mann, and his designs are the subject of Peter Schifando and Haines associate Jean H. Mathison's 2005 book Class Act: William Haines Legendary Hollywood Decorator. World of Wonder produced Out of the Closet, Off the Screen: The Life of William Haines, which aired on HBO in 2001.

Sources:

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

On His Queerness

On His Queerness

When I was young and wanted to see the sights,
They told me: 'Cast an eye over the Roman Camp
If you care to.
But plan to spend most of your day at the Aquarium -
Because, after all, the Aquarium -
Well, I mean to say, the Aquarium -
Till you've seen the Aquarium you ain't seen nothing.'

So I cast my eye over
The Roman Camp -
And that old Roman Camp,
That old, old Roman Camp
Got me
Interested.

So that now, near closing-time,
I find that I still know nothing -
And am still not even sorry that I know nothing -
About fish.

-- Christopher Isherwood

For a biography of Christopher Isherwood, click on "Read More" below.

Monday, August 15, 2011

May-December Romances

The term "May-December Romances" refers to a romantic pairing where one person is significantly older than the other. The age difference is at least a decade, but often more. The phrase comes from the younger person being in the "spring" of his or her life (i.e., May), while the older partner is in his or her "winter" (i.e., December). In the gay community there often seems to be  a focus on youth, but when a gay man is out of their twenties, does age really matter anymore?

Several weeks ago someone requested a commentary on age differences. There are no real moral or ethical implications of dating a person older or younger than yourself. Most people do find an attraction to someone a few years older or younger. However, in this email that I received the man was referring to age differences of 10, 20, or 30 years. He is in his sixties and his partner is in his forties.

The first thing that needs to be determined is if there is an unhealthy reason for not choosing a person of ones similar age. This would be true of the predatory adult who needs to control and manipulate another person and therefore seeks a weaker type of person who sometimes is also younger. This type of predatory person is dangerous and may be violent. Though I don't know a great deal about their relationship, the man that emailed me seemed very happy with his relationship and did not give any indication that there were any unhealthy reasons for their relationship, and I can't see any reason that there should be.

I have no experience myself with a May-December relationship, but I know several men who are older than me, that if they lived closer to me, I would be all over them. An intelligent, cultured is the type of relationship that I have always wanted. I have no desire to be a gold-digger or a boy-toy (which I am too old for anyway), but to have a mature relationship that is not all about sex (though sex is a consideration in the equation) is the type of relationship I have always desired. Whether the person is older, younger, or the same age as I am, it is the connection of the minds that means more to me.

One of the most famous gay May-December romances is probably that of Christopher Isherwood and Don Bachardy. At forty-eight years old and already an esteemed British writer, Christopher Isherwood met 18-year-old Don Bachardy at Will Rogers State Beach in October 1952 and by early the next year, the two had begun an intimate relationship that lasted until Isherwood's death in 1986. They were a high-profile, openly gay couple whose meeting coincided with one of the most homophobic decades in American history, the era of McCarthyism, when homosexuals were being driven out of the State Department.

Yet to the gay community at large, as well as those who were casually acquainted with the couple, Isherwood and Bachardy seemed to live an enviably idyllic existence in their hillside Santa Monica home, where they entertained the leading figures of the world of arts and letters, and the movie stars that Bachardy once sought out for autographs. For all that seeming perfection, Guido Santi and Tina Mascara's loving yet clear-eyed documentary, "Chris & Don: A Love Story," reveals that the couple worked hard and long to achieve their bliss.

Nowhere in this fine, quiet, richly-sourced documentary is the phrase "gay marriage" ever uttered. But then, the relationship at hand spanned three pre-political decades until 1986, when Christopher Isherwood died in L.A. Today, in the same gloriously sunny, cozy Santa Monica cottage they shared, his surviving partner Don Bachardy, a portrait artist, leafs through dozens of often nude sketches made during Isherwood's last days—and even after his death. It seems perfectly natural, and the film includes even more dazzling visual records—photos and color home movies from Venice in the '50s and of mingling with the stars back home (including Igor Stravinsky, Truman Capote, Tennessee Williams, Aldous Huxley, David Hockney, and John Boorman). And in a nice nod to Cabaret, which made Isherwood's fortune, Michael York reads from the author's letters and diaries. Chris and Don met at ages 49 and 18, respectively, on the beach, where Don and his older brother (also gay) were trolling for sugar daddies. Was that so wrong? Their relationship—and this movie—prove otherwise. Boorman comments, "Isherwood had succeeded in cloning himself." To which Bachardy, speaking in the third person, agrees: "It was exactly what the young boy wanted."

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Sodomy and the States

Eight years after the US Supreme Court ruled Texas’ sodomy laws unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas (2003)—a decision that technically made all sodomy laws invalid—eighteen states still continue to enforce legislation designed to criminalize any form of non-vaginal sex—butt, mouth, eye and nose—between consenting same-sex adults.

Some states push these anti-gay statutes through tight-lipped loopholes in the Lawrence ruling, while others decide to completely ignore it altogether.

For instance, Michigan can prosecute gay men under “Abominable and Detestable Crimes Against Nature” and “Gross Indecency” laws, which carry 15 year maximum prison sentences. Montana can issue a $50,000 fine to any penis inside anything but a vagina. And Virginia and South Carolina can hand those same penises a fat felony charge, as if to prove to the moral majority that oral and anal gay sex stands equal to aggravated assault, arson, battery, grand theft, rape and murder.

Over at Equality Matters, Alexis Agathocleous—staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights—says: “Laws actually criminalizing the community, many people assumed, were a relic of the past. And accordingly, the LGBT rights movement shifted gears. Litigation, lobbying, advocacy, and resources, in the years since Lawrence, have overwhelmingly focused on civil institutions such as marriage and visibility in the mainstream media. In short, the mainstream LGBT community stopped talking about criminal justice.”

Despite whatever reasons these states would love to make you believe, they all bleed the same color of homophobia from their twisted, judicial hands.  Notice that in four states, sodomy is a felony punishable of up to 15 years.  The worst penalty, however, is Massachusetts which has a 20 year prison term for sodomy.  In a state where gay marriage is legal, apparently gay men cannot have sex.

Click to Enlarge
In Alabama, the penalty for breaking sodomy laws is a Class A Misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $6,000 fine.  This particular law on the books in Alabama, though no longer valid because of   Lawrence v. Texas is still on the books because it takes a statewide vote to repeal an amendment, of which all Alabama statues are.  Only in the last few years did the state of Alabama vote to repeal laws prohibiting interracial marriage (2000); however, the Constitution still requires racially segregated education in the state. Section 182 of the Constitution of Alabama disenfranchizes all "idiots and insane persons," men who interracially married and those convicted of "crime against nature" (homosexuality).  Since the statute in Alabama states that only missionary position vaginal sex is legal in the state, my sister who is married to a 350 lb man (she is only about 125 lbs.) used to joke that they could only have sex by breaking the law.  As she says, "If we had sex in the missionary position, he would crush her."  Yet it is still just as illegal to have sex with her husband with her on top as it is for me to have sex with a man.

At 340,136 words, the document is 12 times longer than the average state constitution, 40 times longer than the U.S. Constitution, and is the longest still-operative constitution anywhere in the world. (The English translation of the Constitution of India, the longest national constitution, is about 117,369 words long, a third of the length.) There is a growing movement for democratic reform of the Alabama constitution. It is spearheaded by the non-profit organization Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform (ACCR), which was formed out of a rally in Tuscaloosa in 2000. Alabama is not unique in having outdated and obsolete laws as part of its Constitution, but because of its length, there is just too much to correct without writing a new constitution. The ACCR has found little success in its efforts at reform.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Moment of Zen: A Day With A Book


I just finished Robert Harris's Conspirita, (which was a great book, but I wish I had read the first book in the trilogy Imperium first) and now I can't decide what to read next.  Now that school has started back, I don't have as much time to read, but on many nights, it's reading a book that allows me to fall asleep at night.  All of those worries of the day disappear as I transport myself to another world in a book.  I have a few choices for what to read next: Donna Leon's Drawing Conclusion, Greg Herren's Who Dat Whodunnit or his book Sleeping Angels, or Steve Berry's The Jefferson Key.  I will probably decide sometime today what to read, but since I know that many of you are readers also, do you have any recommendations?  What are you currently reading?

Friday, August 12, 2011

LOL


This cartoon really did make me laugh out loud, and I thought I would share it with you guys.  At 3pm today, my first week back teaching will be over.  So far, it has been a good week; I am enjoying my students much better this year, since some of my trouble students have either graduated or moved on to grades that I don't teach.  I am going to do my best to make sure that this continues to be a good year.  I want my positivity to rub off on my students.

I have to apologize for not answering comments yet.  This has been a busy week, but I will get to the comments this weekend.  I prefer to answer all comments.  I love your comments and discussions on this blog, so I like to respond to the comments to show my appreciation.  I read all of my comments, and I do eventually respond to all of them.

Thanks for reading.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Harvard's Secret Court of 1920

May 27, 1920 is the day when the dean of Harvard College convened a secret court in 1920 to question students about the suicide of sophomore Cyril Wilcox.

The questions weren't about Cyril's death. They focused on a letter that connected Cyril to a gay scene at Harvard. Dean Greenough said the discovery was "unspeakably gross" and that it "tainted" the college. He took quick action. All students found to be gay would be expelled.

Eugene Cummings had studied five years to become a dentist. The senior wouldn't graduate. A note was added to Eugene's file: "Proved guilty, but took ether upon receiving news. Died on morning of June 11, 1920."

Back then, students like Cyril and Eugene were silenced by shame. Today they speak proudly.

How open are we?

In America we have Glee on TV, gays in the military and same-sex marriage in six states — but not the other 44. In some 30 states, workers can be fired just for being gay. Gays don't have full rights in most countries. Even the oppressed oppress gays. The deaths of Cyril and Eugene in 1920 were repeated in 2010. There was a rash of gay teenage suicides across America last fall.

Kids internalize the intolerant speech that still runs deep in our politics, religion and culture. Growing up, all I heard about gays was how bad they are — by ministers, politicians, in jokes on television and at school. I believed what I was told.

Back in 1920, a mother spoke out when her gay son was expelled from Harvard: "You could have done much good," she wrote to the dean, "had you perhaps had a little less sense of justice and a little more of the spirit of Jesus in your heart."

That Harvard mom of 1920 represents the true religious traditions of love and compassion. She also represents the true Harvard tradition.

Speech, then openness

Next year, a dedicated faculty member will provide support for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) students for the first time in school history. After injustice, a rainbow. Just a side note: The Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus is composed of more than 5,000 gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Harvard and Radcliffe alumni/ae, faculty, staff and students. HGLC was formed in 1984 to pressure Harvard University to include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination policy.

Speech is what has moved Harvard toward openness — not just for gays, but all the people who weren't welcome on campus at one time. Today's diverse graduates will export their values of tolerance to the world, negotiating solutions for the many injustices that still exist. Imagine the power of their education.

This post was adapted from a May 20, 2011 article in USA Today by Joel P. Engardio who graduated last May with a Master of Public Administration degree from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

So Close, and Yet So Far Away

School starts back today (pray for me, LOL), so I didn't have a lot of time last night to write a post. A friend of mine sent me this article, and I found it an interesting and delightful read.  I hope that you do as well. (Thanks, FOC.)


The contorted history of autofellatio.
By Jesse Bering

Italian poet Gabriele d'Annunzio
Long before I knew very much about anything regarding sex, I did what many young males do, which of course is to place an empty paper-towel roll over my penis and suck hopefully upon the cardboard end. Okay, perhaps not everyone does this; I was a little confused about the suction principle. And now I'm a bit embarrassed by the story, although it's been a full year since the event and I'm much better informed on the subject of fellatio today. Oh, settle down, I'm only joking.

Well, kind of. I did actually attempt this feat, but I was 12 or 13 at the time, which, to give you a clearer sense of my unimpressive carnal knowledge at that age, is also around the time that I submitted to my older sister with great confidence that a "blow job" involves using one's lips to blow a cool breeze upon another's anus.

So to avoid similar confusion, let us define our terms clearly. Autofellatio, the subject at hand—or rather, not at hand at all—is the act of taking one's genitals in one's mouth to derive sexual pleasure. Terminology is important here, because at least one team of psychiatrists writing on this subject distinguishes between autofellatio and "self-irrumatio." In nonsolo sex, fellatio sees most of the action in the sucking party while irrumatio has more of a thrusting element to it, wherein the other person's mouth serves as a passive penile receptacle. (Hence the colorful and rather aggressive-sounding slang for irrumatio—"face-f*cking," "skull-f*cking," and so on.)

In any event, my paper-towel-roll act was simply a "Plan B" at that puerile age, a futile way to circumvent the obvious anatomical limitations to oral self-gratification. And by all accounts, I wasn't alone in hatching Plan B. Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues reported in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, in fact, that, "[a] considerable portion of the population does record attempts at self-fellation, at least in early adolescence." Sadly, given our species' pesky ribcage and hesitant spine, Kinsey estimated that only two or three of every 1,000 males are able to achieve this feat. There's the story of the Italian decadent poet, Gabriele d'Annunzio, who is said to have had a bone removed to facilitate the act, or that old Saturday Night Live skit in which Will Ferrell enrolls in a Yoga class only to become flexible enough to fellate his own organ. But truth is often stranger than fiction. In 1975, the psychiatrist Frances Millican and her colleagues described the real case of a "very disturbed" patient who learned Yoga precisely for this reason.

Now, you may think that being one of the ultrabendable 0.25 percent of the population is all fun and games. (We've all heard those quips about never having to leave the house.) But think again. There's a long and unfortunate history of pathologizing this behavior; psychiatrists have described its practitioners as being sexually maladjusted, stuck in an infantile state of suckling dependency, or even motivated by repressed homosexual desires. Take the case described by psychiatrists Jesse Cavenar, Jean Spalding, and Nancy Butts, who wrote in 1977 of a lonely, 22-year-old serviceman who'd been fellating himself since the age of 12. He was driven mad, "by the fact that he could physically incorporate only the glans, and wanted to be able to incorporate more." Honestly, it must have been so—oh, what's the word I'm looking for … it's right on the tip of my tongue—frustrating, for this poor soldier. This is the ultimate cock tease, its being so close yet so far away.

Since the days of Freud, psychoanalysts have gone to town on the subject of autofellatio. In a 1971 article by psychiatrist Frank Orland, we see the typical jargon-filled language used in dissecting the "symbolic" bases of autofellatio, which is conceptualized as a virtual "ring of narcissism":
… autofellation represents a recreation of the early infantile state in which the intrapsychic representatives of external objects are separated from the self-object, with a coexisting parasitic symbiosis with the external object. Through the autofellatio phenomenon, the ego re-establishes the necessary mastery over the external object representative as a defence against object loss and to restore the parasitic fusion with the nipple-breast.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is unadulterated psychobabble—and I tell you this as a psychologist. Sometimes, people are motivated to lick their own genitals because it just feels good. Of course, there are always going to be those, such as the dubious Yoga master, who take it a bit too far and for whom autofellatio contributes to mental illness. The foregoing soldier, who couldn't take it far enough, got so frustrated by his semifulfilled fantasy that, when he masturbated the old-fashioned way, he could achieve climax only by imagining himself fellating himself.

The very first published psychiatric case of autofellatio, appearing in the American Journal of Psychiatry way back in 1938, was also one of the most outrageous and pathological. The patient was a 33-year-old store clerk who, prior to being referred to Yale psychiatrists Eugen Kahn and Ernest Lion, had just completed a 60-day jail sentence for sexual assault. "Among his perverse practices," explain the authors, "were pedophilia, cunnilinguism, homosexual acts (fellatio, sodomy and mutual masturbation), exhibitionism, transvestism, fetishism, algolagnia, voyeurism and peeping." But never mind all those vanilla paraphilias. The man's psychiatrists were especially intrigued by his more unusual habit. He seems a devious wee character, this patient of theirs. The authors describe him as being somewhat effeminate in posture, gait and mannerisms; he stood only 5 feet 2 inches tall—"somewhat thin and with wide hips," they wrote, with "a female pattern of distribution of his pubic hair" and "his gag reflex is very sluggish."

The patient was the third-oldest of eight children and grew up in a strict, religious family, which the physicians felt he rebelled against by egregiously breaching their high moral standards. In recounting to the psychiatrists the origins of his interest in autofellatio, the troubled clerk recalled being invited at the age of 14 by a "cripple boy" to engage in oral sex with him. The patient, being shy, had refused this offer, but the thought of it simmered and, lacking the courage to approach anyone else, he took matters upon himself: "He kept trying night after night, managing to bend his back more and more until he finally succeeded in August, 1923." (The 89th anniversary of this event is coming up, in case you want to mark it on your calendar.) It turns out he liked it—so much, in fact, that even amidst the long litany of perversions he enjoyed, self-irrumatio instantly became his favorite autoerotic act.

In an odd Pavlov's dog sort of way, the authors even describe how the man's sexual arousal had since then been accompanied by a "constricting feeling in the throat." That must be a terribly annoying feeling, I'd imagine, and apparently also one not easily resolved. "He has attempted to secure substitute gratification," say the authors, "by smoking, or by stimulating his pharynx with a banana, vaginal douche or a broom handle. These have yielded various degrees of satisfaction." And he did apparently get over his adolescent shyness and lack of confidence, too—he particularly enjoyed fellating himself in front of a shocked audience.

Since this initial case report by Kahn and Lion, a handful of others have trickled in over the years, with subsequent investigators attempting to find a set of common personality denominators in those who prefer autofellatio over other forms of sex. In a 1954 article in Psychoanalytic Review, for instance, William Guy and Michael Finn saw a theme beginning to emerge. "In all of the clinical descriptions," observe these authors, "one finds repeatedly such phrases as sensitive, shy, timid, effeminate, and passive." This is code for "queer," I believe, and in fact other writers have more expressly noted the often-suppressed homosexual desires in these autofellators.

In fact, judging by the scant literature, one of the big psychoanalytic questions yet to be resolved satisfactorily seems to be the extent to which engaging in autofellatio—or perhaps simply the desire to do so—signals a latent erotic attraction to the same sex. I suspect, however, that the overrepresentation of gay men in the antiquated case reports is simply a reflection of the cultural ethos of those times. The most recent psychiatric investigations on autofellatio date to the late 1970s (around the time that Freud's particular grip on psychiatry lost its tenuous hold), and the earlier ones to the 1930s, so as a rule the men described therein faced baseless moralistic proscriptions against homosexuality. This meant other men's penises were very hard to come by. So it's not terribly surprising that those too frightened to perform fellatio on another man would develop severe neuroses after indulging in their own penises.

A 1946 article from the American Journal of Psychiatry exemplifies this phenomenon. The case involves a 36-year-old, highly intelligent, personable, but virginal staff sergeant (not to be confused with the military man we met earlier) with closeted homosexual desires. According to the official record, he'd first performed autofellatio at age 13, but he became so frightened by this "impulse" that he resisted ever doing so again—that is, until a month prior to arriving at the psychiatric ward of the hospital. After giving himself head in private, the sergeant became intensely paranoid that the other soldiers somehow knew of his autofellatio, and that every little snigger, whisper, or averted glance concerned this transgression. He suffered a nervous breakdown on hearing the word "cocksucker" floating about so casually and playfully in the military barracks, convinced it was meant just for him.

It's a rather sad ending for him, too, because despite his responding well to the doctors' reassurance that he was being overly paranoid, the sergeant was discharged for being "no longer adaptable within the military service." The therapists assigned to the case, Major Morris Kessler and Captain George Poucher, reached a rather strange conclusion, one that I have a hunch you might disagree with: "Sexual self-sufficiency," they write, "either by masturbation or autofellatio, is tantamount to having an affinity for one's own sex." In other words, if you were a fan of manual masturbation in 1946, my heterosexual male friends, you'd have been branded a secret homosexual pervert who likes penises so much that he gives himself hand jobs. This would have made autofellatio a devil of a case under the Clinton-era "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on gays in the military had it arisen then. And, seriously, good riddance to those ignorant days of yore. To each his own—quite literally in the case of autofellatio.

I know, I know, I didn't even get a chance to talk about autocunningulism in females. Given the even more serious anatomical hurdles in lacking a protruding reproductive device, such behavior in women may not even be possible. I confess I don't know; and there's no mention of it in the scientific literature. The closest female comparison to autofellatio I stumbled upon is the case of women who suckle from their own breasts, for sexual or other purposes. One therapist writes of an especially self-sufficient female patient who had a habit of doing this. When he asked her why, she merely replied, "I'm hungry." But that's another article for another day.

Jesse Bering teaches at Wells College and is the author of The Belief Instinct. He is a frequent contributor to Slate and writes the "Bering in Mind" column for scientificamerican.com. His next book will be on the curiously scandalous science of human sexuality. Follow him on Twitter @JesseBering or try adding him on Facebook.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2300733/

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Born This Way?


The following was posted on Brainstorm, The Chronicle of Higher Education's blog about Ideas and Culture, as a guest post by Suzanna Danuta Walters, Professor of Gender Studies, Indiana University*
Spending time in Provincetown – Cape Cod’s mecca of all things homosexual – is both a thrilling inversion of everyday life where queerness is the banal majority and a depressing reminder that normative ideologies can seep into even the most festive of gay milieu. As New York made history by approving same-sex marriage, Ptown vacationers congratulated each other as they slathered sunscreen on their finely chiseled bodies and circuit-partied until the sun came up. But pro-marriage T-shirts (“Put a ring on it”) were soon eclipsed by the T-shirt slogan de jour “Born this Way.”
Now, I’m the last person to dis the wondrous Lady Gaga, but her well-meaning ode to immutability is less helpful to gay rights than Guiliani in drag. If marriage and military access are conjured as the Oz of queer liberation, then biological and genetic arguments are the yellow brick road, providing the route and the rationale for civil rights. The medicalization of sexual identity – and the search for a cause if not a cure – has a long and infamous history. This history includes well-meaning attempts by social activists to create a safe life for same-sex desire through the designation of homosexuality as biologically predetermined but also, more ominously, includes the sordid history of incarceration, medication, electroshock “therapy” and numerous other attempts to rid the body (and mind) of its desires.
Notions of homosexuality as “inbred,” innate and immutable were endorsed by a wide variety of thinkers and activists, including progressive reformers such as Havelock Ellis and not so progressive conservatives, eager to assert same-sex love as nature’s mistake. Richard von Krafft-Ebing in the 1880s and Magnus Hirschfeld in the 1903s – both pioneer sexologists and generally advocates of “toleration”– came to believe in some notion of “innate” homosexuality, whether through theories of a kind of brain inversion or through vague references to hormonal imbalances. These theories mostly had little traction, and no evidence whatsoever, and were further undermined during the heyday of the early gay movement which included a deep commitment to the depathologization and demedicalization of homosexuality, manifested in a long-term attempt to remove “homosexuality” as a disease category in the DSM.
Theories of biological origins of “gayness” have ebbed and flowed during different historical and social moments, most obviously intersecting with the rise of eugenics and other determinist frameworks in the early part of the last century. There is no question that the romance with biological and/or genetic explanations for sexual “orientation” has ratcheted up in recent years, due in no small part to the combined force of the gay marriage debates and the increasing “medicalization” and “geneticization” of behavior and identity, spurred on by the initiation of the human genome project in 1989 which furthered the already booming interest in genetic bases for behavior, personality, disease, etc.
This turning of the century seems to provide a “perfect storm” moment in which the idea of immutability takes hold of the public imagination. Even the hit Broadway musical Avenue Q couldn’t avoid having its homo puppets chime in:
TO TELL YOU IT’S OKAY,
YOU WERE JUST BORN
THAT WAY,
AND, AS THEY SAY,
IT’S IN YOUR DNA,
YOU’RE GAY!
No cultural moment sums it up like the otherwise quite illuminating debate that took place in August of 2007. Logo – the all-gay cable network – joined with the Human Rights Campaign to host the first ever Democratic primary presidential debate. At one point, host Melissa Etheridge asked the inevitable “born with it” question to Bill Richardson who clearly answered “wrong” when he responded that he didn’t know and even uttered the awful word “choice” in speaking about gay identities. Etheridge was quick to correct him, for how or why – she asked – would anyone choose to be gay?
Three years earlier, John Kerry made the same case in speaking of Dick Cheney’s lesbian daughter. “We’re all God’s children,” said Kerry when asked a “gay” question by the moderator. Referring to Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Kerry said, “She would tell you that she’s being … who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it’s not choice.” Strangely enough, it was George Bush who said, “I just don’t know,” once again demarcating the “choice” position as the conservative one!
In our present political context, gay volition is like Voldemort – dangerous even to be uttered. This “born with it” ideology encompasses gay marriage, gay genes, gayness as “trait” and is used by both gay rights activists and anti-gay activists to make arguments for equality (or against it). This is bad science (mistaking the possibility of biological factors with wholesale causation) and bad politics (hinging rights on immutability and etiology). Causality is – of course – the wrong question and will only get muddled answers. The framing of “gayness” as an issue of nature vs. nurture or destiny vs. choice misses the point about (fluid, chaotic) sexuality and about civil rights. It’s not our genes that matter here, but rather our ethics.
*Suzanna Danuta Walters, author of All the Rage: The Story of Gay Visibility in America and the forthcoming The Tolerance Trap: What’s Wrong With Gay Rights.


I understand Professor Walters's argument, though I don't agree with her argument that our sexual identity/orientation is not genetic or inborn.  Yes, there is little if any scientific evidence that there is a gay gene, but just because there is not evidence does it make it untrue.  I believe in God, but I have no hard scientific evidence that he exists, just faith.  Quintus Tullius Cicero, from 63 BC until his death in 43 BC, told everyone he knew that the end of the Roman Republic was near. Not only did he uncover the Cataline Conspiracy, but he believed that Julius Caesar would cause the end of the Republic.  He never was able to get hard evidence of what Caesar was planning, but we all know that he was right.  Caesar ushered in the end of the Roman Empire (sorry for the tangent, but I have been reading Robert Harris's book Conspirita). The point is, that just because we don't have hard evidence doesn't make it false.  That being said, I do not believe that I am the only one who thinks this way.  There were many comments to this post, and here is one that I found very poignant.
OK--someone help me out here. I understand the author's argument to be that gay rights should not be based on identity--ie, one's right should not be limited by what or who someone is (including race, sex, ethnicity, gender, or other innate/inborn quality)--but on the premise that we should not restrict somone's rights on the basis of their sexual behavior--ie, persons should have the same right to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex or to marry members of the same sex, etc. regardless of whether this is a matter of choice or a matter of inborn preference. To put it somewhat crudely, my right to do something shouldn't be based on whether I can help doing it or not. Do I understand that correctly?
If I do understand this argument correctly, then it appears to become a sort of libertarian argument that I should be able to do whatever I want to do (in matters of sex, in the case) regardless why I want to do so. But if that's the case, then isn't the argument susceptible to the same sort of arguments for limitation with which libertarian arguments are always addressed: You can do whatever you want to "as long as . . . (you don't hurt someone else, you conform to the general/religious/ethical standards of society, you don't break any laws/you do so in private, etc.)."
It seems to me that while there may be strong philosophical reasons to support the position that permission for certain behavior (or even the idea that certain behavior requires permission) should not necessarily depend on the reasons for that behavior--in particular, on the premise that the behavior is inborn--that in practical terms the legal status of the behavior most likely depends on an appeal to the argument that "I was born this way (and I can't change it)" and should therefore not be penalized or restricted for it." That this position is also then liberating for persons who engage in the behavior by choice is a bonus.
Human rights are premised on identity. Human rights become civil rights as the result of legislation, but these civil rights depend ultimately on some foundational belief based on human identity. "I was born this way" is another way of saying "my sexual idenity is part of my humanity and therefore must be respected." Laws removing restrictions based on sexual orientation are based, like those desgregating insitutions or removing voting and property restrictions based on race and gender, on an expanding sense of what it may mean to be fully human, on, that is, a fuller sense of who you may be. They affect behavior, but they are based on identity. To jettison this premise is, I think, dangerous.
(NB: And as I write this it occurs to me that the issue may be whether human identity is based on more than [simple] biology.)
So what do you guys think about the nurture v. nature/gay gene/born this way debate?  I would love to hear your opinions.