#2, #12, #15, #23, #30.

[+ Chris Eisenhower]

And you?

 

30 Things I’ve Learned About Gay Relationships While Being Single

[bigvalboy]

Thanks Chris...Sometimes it's good to hear someone else say what we already know.

 

#11 #15 #24 #26 #29 #30 There's a pattern, but I'm not explaining.

[+ SimplyAdam]

The list gets richer toward the end, but #1 resonates foremost because I've always been single (there's another great read on "enduring social stigma around singletons" at http://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/09/going-solo-klinenberg/).

 

It's been disheartening since moving back stateside how, if I smile at a gay couple walking down Ninth Avenue, I might get a jealous look. Or how homos brag about their "husbands" as though they were the nerd finally allowed admittance to the popular kids' lunch table (which I was, and then I went to my ten year reunion). When did we get so boring? (I'm all for gay commitments, but let them be GAY!)

 

Maybe it's not "gay relationships" that are riddled with such difficulties, but relationships in general - especially when bi/gay men conform to a heter-normativity that doesn't serve heterosexuals instead of demanding that society adjust to us.

 

Maybe if we loved ourselves - as individuals and as a queer collective - enough to better formulate our own models and myths we could create a more queer-centered list. And one much less shallow.

 

Confrontational, I know. But think about it. The assimilation has gone too far. We're mimicking pseudo-medieval models on the one hand and locating ourselves on lists straight out of the likes of Redbook. I feel like "our people" are losing their unique essence, and taking in "rights" over allowing for genuine social acceptance.

 

Oh, and - #25 and #30 are noteworthy too. Just dig deeper. Ask provocative thoughts, be unsettled, and then let's come to our own conclusions.

[doitb4ugo]

+1

[+ quoththeraven]

I thought it was a good list, but I also thought that you could drop the word "gay" throughout, make the pronouns neutral, and it would apply to everyone irrespective of category.

 

In the spirit of "the list applies to everyone," #2, 12, 27, and 30.

 

Simply Adam -- Could you expand on what you mean about heteronormativity and assimilation? I'm not sure I agree with you, or at least think you've overstated things, but I'm also not sure I understand what you're saying, specifically.

[+ Chris Eisenhower]

I thought it was a good list, but I also thought that you could drop the word "gay" throughout, make the pronouns neutral, and it would apply to everyone irrespective of category.

 

In the spirit of "the list applies to everyone," #2, 12, 27, and 30.

 

Simply Adam -- Could you expand on what you mean about heteronormativity and assimilation? I'm not sure I agree with you, or at least think you've overstated things, but I'm also not sure I understand what you're saying, specifically.

 

He's a Borg.

[namchebaz]

#15, #30, #30, #30, #30, #30

[+ SimplyAdam]

I think between *Walden* and tasking and the third coffee I not only overstated, quoththeraven, but found myself on a bit of a tangent.

 

We all conform, but it's a matter of consciously picking and choosing what works for one as an individual and for a group as a collective. This list is one more "gay" example of not leaving much room for self-definition and group-expansion.

 

I think it's bizarre to witness the sheer amount of gay men who are dating, marrying, and modeling a heterosexualized version of relationships (one example would be striving for monogamy, which works for so few, and wasn't even really expected of men in opposite-sex pairings until the rise of feminism) and the subsequent dishonesty. And the loss of a sense of self. It would be refreshing if more gay men had a deliberate dialogue about how relationships look like for them, specifically, and our community as a whole in a way that adapts to our own standards and stories. It feels like we're blindly being vacuumed into a faulty system in exchange for a craggy version of equality within it. Equality is not sameness. Let's stay different, and make that work (i.e., if fucking is the gay handshake, so be it - as long as we call it for ourselves).

 

I think queer men are unique. I believe being gay goes well beyond a simple notion of sexual orientation and extends to an essence that has been evidenced in all cultures - as two-spirits and artists and other showers-of-a-broader-way... cultivating the old and dancing around social taboos to nudge society as a whole forward. I think we should push to honor that role instead of watering ourselves down into cultural acceptability. Perhaps society should pay heed to us, and not so much the other way around.

 

This list just tipped me into that tirade. I think I'm having a day. But I want so much more for myself and our community. I want more enriching dialogue. I think deep down we all want it.

[+ sam.fitzpatrick]

#1, #12, #21, and #29.

[Diverdan]

Thanks for sharing, Chris... there is a lot to ponder here, and I plan to share it with several of my single gay friends.

[namchebaz]

The assimilation has gone too far. We're mimicking pseudo-medieval models on the one hand and locating ourselves on lists straight out of the likes of Redbook.

 

Adam,

I follow your blog and I like it. I agree that if we think about who we are as something beyond "orientation", to include a unique and different "essence" or fundamental identity, with something unique to offer the world, it might lead us to stake out different ground than demanding to be accepted within the existing norms -- norms that don't work for the "normal" much better than they'd work for us -- Maybe we aren't so different after all? ... I don't know, I have to think about that some more.

 

But your Redbook comment made me laugh out loud. I know that probably wasn't your intent, but it makes the point in a funny way for me.

 

One day I hope to "shake your hand".

Keep thinking, keep writing.

[+ quoththeraven]

Thanks for clarifying, SimplyAdam. I have no issue with your points as summarized by Namchebaz, but I have a problem with some of what you say because it seems to elevate the gay male experience, viewpoint. and culture above all others. For example, just before the statement "I believe being gay goes well beyond a simple notion of sexual orientation and extends to an essence that has been evidenced in all cultures - as two-spirits and artists and other showers-of-a-broader-way... cultivating the old and dancing around social taboos to nudge society as a whole forward" - with which I agree wholeheartedly as someone who herself tries to show the benefits of a broader way that nudges society as a whole forward and breaks down categories like gender and sexual orientation -- you write, "Queer men are unique," which makes it sound as though queer men have some special ability others don't to make this happen, as opposed to gay culture being distinct and worthy of preservation.

 

For another take on this issue, see this:

 

http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/city-of-brotherly-love/

 

I agree with the overall point made but disagree with its application to Looking. I'm not sure it's fair to expect that level of nuance and social commentary from a half-hour slice of life show, and I don't think it's a failing that the show is trying to reflect and appeal to a middle-class audience rather than a marginalized one.

[+ SimplyAdam]

Thanks, Nam! That's the whole point, I suppose - to just mull these things over more. I keep coming at things, just to have the whole damn thought process unravel itself further. Also, thank you so much for reading my blog. I'm a novice writer and am riddled with imposter syndrome. It's such an effort, so it's thrilling that thoughtful men are following it and taking something away. (And the Redbook comment was meant to lighten my own heaviness up - laugh away.)

 

And ye who quoth (is that correct?)! I'm not a homo-supremacist (well...), but do think special is special. And - take notice, world! - queer men are special. And I think, as a collective, we do have abilities that are our inherent strong points - and while individuals from "other groups" (to radically simplify it) may be exceptional... the broad brushstroke seems to have been brushed. (That all being stated, there are groups I am not a member of that I absolutely light candles to, and this causes no shame or sense of lack on my part.)

 

I wrote about this all at http://www.simplyadam.com/blog/man-overboard. I'm still wrapping my mind and heart around what it means to be a gay man in the West in 2015. So much has changed, and in so many ways I've been so removed from it all - for too long. To "living the questions"!

[+ quoththeraven]

Thanks for clarifying, Adam. As I thought, we disagree on that point, but I appreciate your answering my question directly.

 

As for my name: Around here I'm mostly known as QTR, which someone else came up with.

[+ SimplyAdam]

I emailed you, QTR. And I love that we can disagree. I'm partly on here to have my mindset altered - just a bit - and like to think of these exchanges as winning one another over to "living the questions."

 

To conjecturing while leaning into uncertainty...

[Juan Vancouver]

I have to confess that I was a bit annoyed by most of the article. Sorry, I should have written I was annoyed by most of this Gay article.

 

I might be alone in this, but receiving relationship advise from someone who is single and seems to defend his singledom so actively feels a little like going to a Pig Roasting class taught by a Jewish Vegan chef. I am sure he might have wonderful recipes, but... do they taste good?

 

Why didn't he focus on the subject he has so much knowledge about, which is being single? I'd be fascinated to read that.

 

Also... it's not gay relationships. It's interpersonal relationships. It's relationships. And I find it interesting that while he kept writing "Gay Relationships" he kept ascribing them the same duties, qualities and conditions that are force fed to us as the only way in which two people (heterosexual, of course) can mate.

 

Jewels like:

 

Don't put out on the first date! That's what bad boys do. (And nobody wants to date bad boys).

 

If you withhold sex, you are enhancing the mystery and imagination. (Really...? So the real me is not enough? I have to resort to smoke and mirrors?)

 

Sex is more powerful than the connection you can create. (You can't create a romantic, bonding connection without sex.)

 

If you pretend to be a meany and feign disinterest, he will be more interested in you. (Because we all love an aloof, mean girl.)

 

Making him work harder to get you, TRICKS him into thinking you are more valuable. (Bitch, I AM valuable. No need for games here.)

 

If you ask him on a date, you have to pay. (Last time I checked this is 2015. It's perfectly okay to actually talk about this.)

 

The memories you make while being single are the ones you'll treasure. (You won't treasure your best memories, you'll only treasure you single ones.... ?)

 

Being single is the time you can have guilt-free fun. (Because when you are partnered, every bit of fun will be guilt ridden. Because you have to conform to the rules your mother told you were acceptable for relationships, and no, little strumpet, being the master of your body and sexuality is no longer possible when you are partnered... you are a bad, bad, slutty, trampy boy and will end your sad, spent life in a back alley giving gummies to dummies for five dollars.)

 

If this list was put together by Princess Ariel, Sleeping Beauty or Belle to teach little girls what to expect, I'd find it a little sad but it would not shock me in any way. This list written by a grown, ostensibly gay man, and vociferously presented as a GAY article, makes me feel I am in a bizarro alternate universe.

 

This is the same flaw that I find with "Looking". Everyone, even the bad boys are wide eyed, innocent of the ways of the world, suscribing to the Disney tale, ashamed of themselves when they veer away from it. That is why I found it so incredibly refreshing (Finally, a true moment!) when Scott Bakula's character tells his partner with a kind chuckle: "Of course I don't mind if you had sex with someone else. If I ask it's because I want to know if you had fun. I just want to share that moment with you."

 

And yeah, by all means learn to love yourself. That is really all that matters.

 

Thanks for sharing it, though, Chris. I find this conversation fascinating.

[+ SimplyAdam]

I might develop a wide-eyed schoolboy crush on you if you keep this chuckle-inducing articulation up, Juan.

 

"Amen!" Preach it.

[Juan Vancouver]

=)

 

Chuckle inducing? I intended it to be dead serious. xxxx

[+ SundayZip]

Yeah, sure... the article is a bit of fluff, but it was fun anyway. Thanks Chris.

 

#5 #11 #15 #24 #29 #30

[namchebaz]

no, little strumpet

 

I had to look up the definition of "strumpet".

I like it.

[+ deej]

(and nobody wants to date bad boys)

 

I do! I do!

[Juan Vancouver]

I do! I do!

 

That's why there will always be a special place in my heart for you! (Okay, technically, it's not in my heart, but it IS for you.)