Boy meets Boy Finale

[Will]

>I disagree. Your statements about possible abuse in his

>background represent the classic psychoanalytic technique of

>seeking the roots of adult behavior in childhood trauma. All

>I suggested was that he may be wary of new relationships

>because he's been burned in the recent past -- which is pretty

>much what he said about himself on the show.

 

Of course you are correct in concluding that James may be wary of new relationships because he's been burned in the past. That wouldn't alter my perception that James has very little ego-strength, which in psychobabble is usually translated "self-esteem." James might be happier if he were to recognize that perhaps he's been choosing the kind of man who will turn away from him, abandon him, betray him: however he interprets sexual infidelity. And why would he choose such a person? To reaffirm his sense of himself. Mind you, I'm not saying that any of this is true of James; but I am saying that this is perfectly plausible as a way to account for the kinds of decisions that leave James feeling burned.

 

There are lots of reasons for a person to believe that he doesn't count for very much in the scheme of things; but you and I both know that early conditioning frequently makes it difficult for many gay youngsters to believe that they deserve to get what they want and that they are free to go get it. I would term any of the conditions that result in that kind of self-concept as "abuse." If you don't believe that one's personal history influences one's personal present, there's nothing I can say that will convince you, so I won't even try.

 

>No, they are simple statements of logic.

 

They may be simple statements of logic, but until you verify the terms of your syllogism as empirical, they are not simple statements of fact. Thus, to my mind they remain tentative. While it may be true that that "(t)he whole concept of

>unacceptable discrimination in our history and jurisprudence

>rests on the notion that the discrimination is based on

>prejudice rather than on real differences between the victim

>group and the rest of the community," we are not talking here about measurable degrees of skill, expertise, or any other ability to carry out the ordinary duties of ordinary citizens.

 

If the differences ARE

>real, on the other hand, it becomes far more difficult to

>argue that the discrimination is unjustified.

 

I quite agree. But I would also say that one doesn't need the "we're all the same" assertion in arguing, for example, against discrimination against any non-Caucasian racial group. Prejudice alone, in other words, can be grounds for objection. (Can't it? Here I betray -- as I'm sure I do elsewhere -- my ignorance of legal history and jurisprudence.) I doubt, however, that you'd find an African American stockbroker who would say that differences of race have no effect on the way he thinks about himself, that in every important way he is exactly like his white colleague. As Cornell West has so eloquently put it, race matters. So, in like measure, does sexual orientation.

 

Whether the differences be racial or sexual, their valence is not merely a consequence of what other people think. The opinions of others have everything to do with the way we form opinions of ourselves. If you grow up being hated, you may rightfully conclude that you are hate-worthy. How would you know otherwise? As long as parents and others modify their behavior towards their children according to their perceptions of the childrens' sexual orientations, those children will reach adulthood with similarly modified attitudes towards themselves as gay or straight. You cannot separate an individual's self-consciousness from his environment's consciousness of him. That's all I'm trying to say, and I doubt that it's very far from what you're trying to say. We seem to find different things differently interesting, you the effect and I the cause.

[woodlawn]

>All

>>I suggested was that he may be wary of new relationships

>>because he's been burned in the recent past -- which is

>pretty

>>much what he said about himself on the show.

 

 

>That wouldn't alter my perception that James has very little

>ego-strength, which in psychobabble is usually translated

>"self-esteem." James might be happier if he were to recognize

>that perhaps he's been choosing the kind of man who will turn

>away from him, abandon him, betray him: however he interprets

>sexual infidelity. And why would he choose such a person? To

>reaffirm his sense of himself. Mind you, I'm not saying that

>any of this is true of James; but I am saying that this is

>perfectly plausible as a way to account for the kinds of

>decisions that leave James feeling burned.

 

I don't know whether any of what you've written is plausible. I know that whether it is or not it requires you to make a number of assumptions you can't prove. The only assumption required by my explanation is that James was telling the truth when he said he's been burned in past relationships.

 

>If you don't believe that one's

>personal history influences one's personal present, there's

>nothing I can say that will convince you, so I won't even

>try.

 

I do believe that one's personal history influences one's personal present. But I also believe that locating the roots of adult behavior in childhood trauma, as you are trying to do, requires expertise that neither you nor I possesses. It also requires something else that neither of us possesses -- personal contact with the subject of the analysis. Without those things it is nothing but uninformed speculation.

 

 

>>No, they are simple statements of logic.

 

>While it may be true that that "(t)he whole concept of

>>unacceptable discrimination in our history and jurisprudence

>>rests on the notion that the discrimination is based on

>>prejudice rather than on real differences between the victim

>>group and the rest of the community," we are not talking here

>about measurable degrees of skill, expertise, or any other

>ability to carry out the ordinary duties of ordinary

>citizens.

 

Maybe you are not talking about those things, but I am. And I think James and the other men on the show were talking about those things in their closing remarks about how little difference there is between gays and straights. If they were not saying that the differences are very modest and so cannot support the discrimination to which gays have been subjected, then what were they saying?

 

 

>If the differences ARE

>>real, on the other hand, it becomes far more difficult to

>>argue that the discrimination is unjustified.

 

>I quite agree. But I would also say that one doesn't need the

>"we're all the same" assertion in arguing, for example,

>against discrimination against any non-Caucasian racial group.

> Prejudice alone, in other words, can be grounds for

>objection. (Can't it? Here I betray -- as I'm sure I do

>elsewhere -- my ignorance of legal history and jurisprudence.)

 

No, prejudice alone cannot be grounds for objection. There is no law I know of that forbids believing that all black people are stupid and lazy. There are laws that forbid denying a black person a job because of such beliefs. You're free to believe what you like about other races; but the law requires you to ACT as though you believe "we're all the same."

 

> I doubt, however, that you'd find an African American

>stockbroker who would say that differences of race have no

>effect on the way he thinks about himself, that in every

>important way he is exactly like his white colleague.

 

I would expect him to say that in every way that bears upon his rights as a citizen he is exactly like his white colleague. If he does not believe that, he is in no position to argue that he deserves the same rights.

 

>If you grow up being hated, you may

>rightfully conclude that you are hate-worthy. How would you

>know otherwise?

 

But plenty of people in that position do know. Like Frederick Douglass.

 

>You cannot separate an

>individual's self-consciousness from his environment's

>consciousness of him. That's all I'm trying to say, and I

>doubt that it's very far from what you're trying to say.

 

What I'm trying to say is very simple. The whole thrust of the civil rights movement and its various offshoots is to remove from certain groups of people the burden of being treated differently based on myth and tradition rather than on real differences. Those of us who believe in racial equality base our demand for equal treatment of the races on the belief that the races are in fact equal -- that the only differences between them are superficial and trivial. If that belief is wrong -- if black people really ARE stupid and lazy as compared with other races, for example -- then those who advocate racist policies were right all along.

 

The same is true of gays. Gays as a political group are not demanding the end of restraints on what we do in the bedroom, because there are no real restraints on that now. What we're demanding is recognition that what we do in the bedroom has no relevance to what we do in other spheres of activity, such as the workplace, the military, and the home in which children are raised. If that's NOT true, however, then we have a real problem.

 

Those who defend Florida's law against gay adoption, for example, cite statistics showing that gay men are more prone than the rest of the population to certain behavior that is thought incompatible with child raising. If that behavior is part and parcel of being gay, as opposed to, say, a reaction to hatred and discrimination that would end when those things ended, then maybe the other side should win.

[Will]

>What I'm trying to say is very simple. The whole thrust of

>the civil rights movement and its various offshoots is to

>remove from certain groups of people the burden of being

>treated differently based on myth and tradition rather than on

>real differences. Those of us who believe in racial equality

>base our demand for equal treatment of the races on the belief

>that the races are in fact equal -- that the only differences

>between them are superficial and trivial. If that belief is

>wrong -- if black people really ARE stupid and lazy as

>compared with other races, for example -- then those who

>advocate racist policies were right all along.

>

>The same is true of gays. Gays as a political group are not

>demanding the end of restraints on what we do in the bedroom,

>because there are no real restraints on that now. What we're

>demanding is recognition that what we do in the bedroom has no

>relevance to what we do in other spheres of activity, such as

>the workplace, the military, and the home in which children

>are raised. If that's NOT true, however, then we have a real

>problem.

 

I completely agree with you in every detail. And I don't see why anything I have said previously gives the lie to my agreeing with you.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Those of us who believe in racial equality

>base our demand for equal treatment of the races on the belief

>that the races are in fact equal -- that the only differences

>between them are superficial and trivial. If that belief is

>wrong -- if black people really ARE stupid and lazy as

>compared with other races, for example -- then those who

>advocate racist policies were right all along.

 

That's not necessarily so. Andrew Sullivan, discussing the Lincoln-Douglas debates on his website, says that "Douglas essentially argued that blacks were intrinsically unable to be as full and worthy citizens as whites. Lincoln replied that that was even more reason to grant them equality, so that they could live up to their fullest potential even if it wasn't as elevated as the white norm. Today we rightly abhor even Lincoln's bigotry of low expectations."

 

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2003_08_31_dish_archive.html#106265013673155815

 

This seems to me like a good illustration of the fact that people can and do come around to recognizing someone's rights as a citizen before really coming around on the idea that there are no meaningful differences (even differences they might characterize as negative) between themselves and members of another group. What is most significant is that nowadays people are more likely to concede (and hopefully will grow more likely to concede) that those differences, however they might feel about them, have no bearing on their rights as citizens.

 

>Those who defend Florida's law against gay adoption, for

>example, cite statistics showing that gay men are more prone

>than the rest of the population to certain behavior that is

>thought incompatible with child raising. If that behavior is

>part and parcel of being gay, as opposed to, say, a reaction

>to hatred and discrimination that would end when those things

>ended, then maybe the other side should win.

 

Only if you think the right to adopt should be accorded or denied on some kind of actuarial basis. African Americans as a group are statistically more inclined to some of the same "incompatible" behaviors as gay men, but nobody seriously suggests that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. And what good does it do to take a kid from the home of a statistically improbably monogamous, sober, stable gay-parented home and stick her/him with a single mother with crystal meth addiction just because she was statistically likely to be the better parent?

 

To get to the broader point of how gay and straight men are or aren't different, certainly they aren't different in ways that bear on their rights as citizens. And I think -- to paint with a broad brush -- that they ulimately have more in common with each other than either group (gay men or straight men) does with women. But gay men, as diverse as we are as a group, tend to have a great deal of overlap with regard to at least a small but important set of common experiences, and it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that, regardless of social discrimination, different sexual cultures (some of which carry over into something broader called a "lifestyle") would still naturally emerge for gay men, for straight people, and for lesbians, if only because male-male dynamics are likely to differ somewhat from male-female or female-female dynamics.

[axebahia]

>That's not necessarily so. Andrew Sullivan, discussing the

>Lincoln-Douglas debates on his website, says that "Douglas

>essentially argued that blacks were intrinsically unable to be

>as full and worthy citizens as whites. Lincoln replied that

>that was even more reason to grant them equality, so that they

>could live up to their fullest potential even if it wasn't as

>elevated as the white norm. Today we rightly abhor even

>Lincoln's bigotry of low expectations."

 

Is Andrew Sullivan one of your regular clients? Why do you constantly cite him as a source for your ideas?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Is Andrew Sullivan one of your regular clients?

 

Axe! Whatever your suspicions who might be hiring me, I'm disappointed that you'd ask me to betray a client's trust. :*

 

>Why do you constantly cite him as a source for your ideas?

 

I only site him as a source for HIS ideas. When the ideas are mine, I don't have to give credit, but I'm not sure my escorting career could survive a plagiarism scandal. :+ In this case, it wasn't so much an idea I was citing as his characterization of Lincoln and Douglas's positions on racial equality. Not being an expert on their debates, I thought it made sense to note where I'd read this particular take on them. Do you think he's mischaracterizing their positions?

[axebahia]

>>Is Andrew Sullivan one of your regular clients?

>

>Axe! Whatever your suspicions who might be hiring me, I'm

>disappointed that you'd ask me to betray a client's trust.

>:*

 

From what I read, you are his type, and you do mention him a lot so maybe you have already betrayed his trust?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>From what I read, you are his type, and you do mention him a

>lot so maybe you have already betrayed his trust?

 

Hmm, I've heard I'm not even close to his type. The mentions are in exchange for access to his Rolodex. Keeps me busy when I'm in DC... :+