Conference quark::mennotes-v1

I like being told that I'm good looking by my boyfriend (though I am
single now).  I feel embarrassed when I hear compliments, and, I have
to admit, that I have a hard time believing blanket statements like
"You're handsome."  It's easier for me to believe subjective
statements like, "I think you're handsome." 

Out of context (excluding "that was a great dinner you made" or "you
look great in that shirt"), I would say that I compliment my boyfriend
every few weeks, with an out-of-the-blue, "You are sooo handsome." 


							--Gerry

    
    
    The man I'm seeing right now frequently calls and leaves wonderful
    little messages on my machine (both at home and at work) like "you're
    cute", "you looked great when you left this a.m.", etc.  They always
    make my day.  I reciprocate, as well.
    
         Greg

    I've learned to take compliments of any kind by saying
    thank you.  I needed to believe that I was worthy of the
    compliment before I could say that, and that took a lot
    of hard work to get past all the shaming stuff that went
    on when I was a kid.   (I can't be loved unless I love
    myself.)
    
    And giving someone a compliment, especially a woman, and
    watching what she does with it, is a great insight into 
    the woman.  She can decline it in a lot of ways, "Oh, that's nothing."
    or "Oh, you don't have to say that."  "Oh, I've had this
    for a long time."  She can accept it in a lot of ways,
    "Thank you."  "I like to do something special for..."
    "I always like to wear this."  
    
    If the woman always declines the compliments, then I stop
    giving them, because it is so disappointing for me.  A wall
    comes up between us, and it is the woman's lack of self-esteem.
    
    I know about lack of self-esteem, and I can see it in others.
    It shows during the giving of compliments.
    
    Wil

    
    I like recieving compliments. I work hard to look my best, and be on 
    my best behavior at all times; so it feels good to recieve a
    compliment. My lady and I play games with compliments. For instance
    if she takes a long time to get ready for a date I'll say, " I waited
    all this time, and this is the best you could do!" We laugh and it's 
    done. (Maybe I should mention that she is "extremely" beautiful so
    me knokkin' her ego has no effect.) 
    I do agree that "self esteem is the key" to taking a compliment in 
    stride. If you look good - YOU LOOK GOOD! :-)
    
    

    I too like sincere compliments. I have noticed that women have
    a harder time accepting them, like there is an ulterior motive
    or something. Keep em coming.
    
    			-Jim-

    
    Gerry, even though the base note was about one's wife or girlfriend,
    (and I understand your on-going crusade of turning every topic into a
    promotion of the gay life-style, or at the very least, a singles ad for
    yourself), I'm curious about one thing you mention.  You talk about
    your 'boyfriend' and then say you're 'single' now.  Does this mean you
    were married to another man, and now divorced?  Or if a gay man says
    he's single, does it just mean he ain't getting any dates at present
    and is in-between boyfriends, (no pun intended).
    

    
    I now like receiving compliments, though I had to work hard to get
    comfortable with acknowledging them....
    (I trained myself to say "thankyou" and then SHUT UP and count to at
    least 10...)
    
    I like to compliment men, but I sometimes stop myself because so often
    they seem to be uncomfortable with it...if it's going to cause
    discomfort or embarassment it sometimes seems more courteous to say
    nothing, somehow. Varies depending on the man, and if I know what
    his reaction is likely to be.
    
    I especially apreciate compliments on things other than how I
    look - that's always nice, but a comment like "that was a really
    assertive thing you did there, and I know you've been working on that"
    or "that was a professional job you did there" are far rarer and
    mean a great deal to me.
    
    'gail

    re: .6
    	I don't see Gerry's contributions as either a crusade or a singles
    ad., and I think it unfair to refer to them as such. Your question is
    irrelevant because I am sure you are aware that Gerry lives in one of
    the many countries that does not countenance homosexual marriage. Try
    assuming that your country did not permit heterosexual marriage and
    imagine asking a similar question around some of your friends.
    
    	Gerry's contributions are extremely valuable because he is
    expressing the viewpoint of what is statistically 10% of men, but a lot
    less than 10% of men have the courage to express that viewpoint.

    I read Gerry's "incessant reminders" as 
    Gerry trying to take part in discussions of "relating"
    from his perspective.  It makes me aware that my "relating
    as a couple" comments often apply for any kind of couple,
    and I have narrowly viewed them as applying only to a
    heterosexual couple.  He sometimes points out that there
    is a difference between het couples and gay couples, but
    more often the problems/solutions, joys, etc are the same.
    And I find the sameness illuminating.  It lessens my
    awkwardness or unease around gays.
    
    I don't think Gerry is "advertising" any more than any
    other single male in this file. 
    
    Is Gerry supposed to hide himself?
    
    Wil

Re .9

Ah, so it's "back in the closet where you belong, scum" eh? Gerry is no more
"incessant" about his gayness than most people here are about their
straightness. Why does it bother you so much?

    Why doesn't someone just start a "Gerry discussion" string and stop
    derailing various topics by discussing his viewpoint?

Lets put it this way, Herb.  Gerry's reminders are only as intrusive to your
Space as all the explicit straightness of your reminders are, to his space.
You own that unease, Dwight owns his.  Gerry has the courage to participate
here and I for one welcome it, for as Wil said, it helps me understand that
in so many ways, gays are not so dissimilar from straights.  You folks with
your unease seem to lack that particular understanding.

DougO

    	I didn't mean to derail the discussion with a compliment to Gerry,
    so as an apology can I comment on a difference. I tend to compliment my
    wife when she is wearing almost nothing, while she compliments me (and
    expects compliments herself) when we are wearing a lot.

     As a man with an ever expanding number of gay, lesbian and bisexual
    friends, I admit that occasionally I am also annoyed by the unending
    qualifications "as a gay man" "from my gay perspective" etc that Gerry
    uses almost automatically in his replies. In many instances, the only
    reason that Gerry's orientation is an issue in a comment he makes is
    because he himself brings it up, often for no apparent reason. Perhaps
    it is the repetition that I find annoying, familiarity breeding contempt
    and all...
    
     I occasionally wonder if there are any opinions that Gerry states that
    are not prefaced by "as a gay man." :-)
    
     I have discussed this with a bisexual woman and two different gay men,
    and we all hold the opinion that Gerry often uses the qualifications
    unnecessarily. This doesn't make it so, but does tend to disqualify the
    idea that people who hold this opinion do so in order to "force gays
    back into the closet where they belong." (Two of the three in question
    are "out".)
    
     The Doctah

Hi folks,

I'm between a rock and a hard place with this one.  First, I reread .1 
and I didn't see any mention of "as a gay man."  I realize that I, in 
the past have used that phrasing, but I would like to stop using it, 
to speak more naturally, simply from my experience.

Second, there is a note in here (I neglected to look up the number), I 
think that it is the "What heterosexuals can do for gay people" or 
something like that.  In it, I jumped all over a note because it was 
worded with heterosexual parameters.  In that note, I tried to make 
the point that I felt excluded by these notes, and I recommended that 
you change your wording to welcome people of all sexual orientations 
into MENNOTES discussions.

Your response to me, if my memory serves me, was that 1) sometimes 
people wanted to talk about heterosexual behavior, and that we 
shouldn't automatically broaden all discussions [I agree with this], 
and 2) that I was being far too sensitive, and that all I needed to do 
was to jump right into MENNOTES discussions and talk naturally [I 
disagreed about me being too sensitive, but I have tried to take your 
advice].

So I've tried to drop the "as a gay man" tag line and I've tried to 
speak in MENNOTES discussions as naturally and freely as any member of 
the file, even though base notes like this one cause a "twinging" 
feeling of "Gee, am I really welcome, here?" feeling (because of it's 
"man/woman" wording).  And now you give me the feedback that I am 
"incessantly" talking about gayness, that I have an "agenda," that I 
am running a constant "personal ad," and that I make some of you feel 
"sick of it."

If I take this feedback seriously, my ability to talk to you is 
seriously hampered.  I cannot ask you to change the wording to include 
gay and bi people (and I kind of agree with this).  I am getting the 
distinct impression that I should remove any mention of my sexuality 
or relationships, lest I keep making you "sick of it."  I am only left 
with 1) stripping all gay content out of my notes, even though most of 
it does not include any explicit references to gay sex, 2) only 
noting in topics that have no connection to sexuality, 3) going read 
only, or 4) dropping out of the file.

Am I misperceiving this situation, or does it seem as if I am being 
asked to apply a stricter censorship to my notes than the heterosexual 
men of this file?  Is this fair?  If I stay off of my "you are using 
exclusive language" soapbox, isn't it fair in return for those who 
feel uncomfortable to type NEXT UNSEEN for 1/3 of my notes?  (I hit 
NEXT UNSEEN for 90% of some of yours, and it hasn't damaged my fingers 
any.)

:-(


							--Gerry

            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 466.13           Heterosexuals working with Gay People             13 of 70
FSTVAX::BEAN "Attila the Hun was a LIBERAL!"          9 lines  25-JUN-1990 12:11
                            -< how much is enough? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    His base note was a plea for help from a heterosexual man, with a
    specific problem which happened to be heterosexual, and he identified
    it with heterosexual phraseology.  
    
    Aren't you a bit sensitive about this?  Must we all now couch our
    questions, our feelings, our thoughts in gender-neutral ways so you
    won't feel omitted?  
    
    tony
            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 466.16           Heterosexuals working with Gay People             16 of 70
CVG::THOMPSON "Aut vincere aut mori"                 19 lines  25-JUN-1990 13:05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oh, no! Perhaps I'm becoming one of those sensitive guys :-) but
    when I read the topic about the sexaholic stuff the first thing
    that I though of was "there must be gay men with the same problem."
    That base not could have been written in a more orientation neutral
    way. In fact it could have done so and still been directed at just
    the problem of men being so attracted to women. There are differences
    in societal acceptance of men going after men and men going after women
    after all. There are some similarities though as well and including
    gay men would be more useful to everyone then excluding them.

    The point in this topic may just be that somethings that heterosexual
    men are not aware of my appear as blatant exclusion to gay men. In
    cases like that a little understanding may go a long way. Gay men
    should also be aware that those kind of notes are not always, in fact
    my seldom be, attempts to deliberately exclude them. Assuming the worst
    can get in the way of good communication and make enemies out of
    allies.

    			Alfred
            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 466.21           Heterosexuals working with Gay People             21 of 70
QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent"      11 lines  25-JUN-1990 13:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My take on the situation is that I don't feel the way Gerry does.  I don't think
that noters here have an obligation to phrase their notes so as to automatically
make everyone feel included.  People write from their own experiences and
environment, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to stop and 
generalize their notes to the extent that it's no longer relevant to them.

Now Gerry, if you want to add a reply that says you know men who pick up
other men off the street and feel they must ask them for sex, go right ahead.
We all need our horizons expanded.

						Steve
            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 466.26           Heterosexuals working with Gay People             26 of 70
WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Mourn for us oppressed in fear."     9 lines  25-JUN-1990 14:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     I don't think Herb was saying "go back into the closet."
    
     I don't think that 467.0 necessarily excludes gays by virtue of the
    fact that it does not specifically include them. I am not convinced
    that it is worthwhile to have to word every sentence in a gender
    neutral manner. I understand how you could feel excluded, but there's
    nothing to stop you from starting a homosexual-aholic note.
    
     The Doctah
            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 466.30           Heterosexuals working with Gay People             30 of 70
STARCH::WHALEN "Personal Choice is more important t" 14 lines  25-JUN-1990 15:03
                -< Don't hide the thought with too many words >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .13

    
>    Aren't you a bit sensitive about this?  Must we all now couch our
>    questions, our feelings, our thoughts in gender-neutral ways so you
>    won't feel omitted?  

Today's hyper-sensitive society demands that we write/speak so that no one could
possibly feel excluded.  While it is important to recognize that the differences
in people cause them to react in different ways to different situations, to try
to include this in most expressions of thought makes sentences so long that you
generally can not not easily determine the meaning of the sentences.

Rich
            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 466.40           Heterosexuals working with Gay People             40 of 70
CSG001::MEDEIROS "Value MY Difference"               11 lines  25-JUN-1990 16:02
                              -< Blech, yourself >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Re .37:
    
          American Heritage Dictionary:
    
          tolerance, n.: The capacity for or practice of recognizing
                         and respecting the opinions, practices, or
                         behavior of others
    
    What more do you want, Gerry?
    
            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 466.46           Heterosexuals working with Gay People             46 of 70
BUFFER::PCORMIER "The more laws, the less justice"   12 lines  26-JUN-1990 09:04
                        -< A time out is in order.... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RE: last several replies.....obviously note 467 was written by a man
    who is having a problem with his sexual attraction to women. I feel he
    entered this note looking for help for *HIS* problem. I've reread it
    several times and I fail to see where he specifically excluded
    participation by gay men. I feel that since he is having a heterosexual
    problem, he is looking for help from other heterosexual males who may
    have had the same problem. If those of you who could relate homosexual
    experiences that could possibly provide some insight, post it. 
    
    Don't crucify him beacuse his problem just happens to deal with women.
    
    Paul C.
            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 466.53           Heterosexuals working with Gay People             53 of 70
DECWET::RICHARD "Richard Brown"                      33 lines  28-JUN-1990 02:22
                                  -< my view >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerry,
	I'm glad you decided to enter reply 467.32.   Like many of your notes, 
it is well-written and insightful.  I don't know why you were hesitant to 
write that reply.

	I must admit that when I read 466.11, I had problems with it.  Even
though we are both gay, we often see issues from a different perspective (at
least that seems to be the case, from what I've seen in Notes). 

	When I read 467.0, the issue of inclusiveness never crossed my mind. 
I felt that I was reading a heterosexual man's description of a problem he is
having, written from his own personal perspective and experiences.  (I do know
that the issue is one that some gay men are dealing with, and I did wonder if
anyone would enter a note providing a gay perspective.) 

	But from the tone of your 466.11 you gave me the impression that you
had no interest in the original noter's problem.   In some of your subsequent
replies you corrected that impression.

	Sometimes inclusiveness comes from within ourselves.  Our own
insecurities can sometimes cause us to feel excluded from a conversation,
issue, or event when we really aren't. 

	If someone doesn't walk up to me and say, "Richard, you are welcome
here," every time I enter a room, it doesn't necessarily mean that I am not
welcome in that room. 

	Sometimes I forget that.

	Your 466.11 seems to indicate that perhaps you sometimes forget it
also. 

-Richard-

    No, Gerry, I think your perceptions are correct.  Don't let'em get you
    down.  I find nothing wrong with the style or content of your 
    contributions to the notesfile.
    						- Vick

>================================================================================
>Note 466.57           Heterosexuals working with Gay People             57 of 70
>TLE::FISHER "Work that dream and love your life"    127 lines   2-JUL-1990 11:16
>                  -< I don't feel as if I'm being heard, yet >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   .
>   .
>   .
>If you want to tap into how I was feeling, imagine a man walking to a
>party with a group of men he thought were friends.  Everybody but me
>walks in the front door, and lets the door shut before I have a chance 
>to get in.  I wonder why they didn't hold the door open for me, but I 
>shrug it off and open it myself.  Once I get into the party, my 
>friends treat me well.  I follow a few of my buddies into another 
>room, and the door shuts before I get a chance to open it.  I begin to 
>wonder more, but I decide that I'm an indeed welcome, it's just that 
>they have other things on their minds.  So, I open the door, walk into 
>the room, and am treated well once I am in there.  Next, I go to the 
>refridgerator with my buddies.  They open the door, grab beers for 
>everyone but me, and then shut the door.  A bit disgruntled, I open 
>the door, and one of my buddies yells out, "Hey, Gerry, feel free to 
>grab one of my Bass Ales!"  
>
>They never explicitly excluded me.  They didn't mistreat me once I got 
>into the action.  They were even very nice to me at times.  But it 
>took a lot of energy (emotional, mostly) for me to open all the doors 
>myself.  On some days, when I am feeling strong, up, and happy, I can 
>put out the extra energy, knowing that, once I have expended the 
>energy to get inside, I'll be treated okay.  However, on days in which 
>I'm tired, depressed, scared, or lonely, I don't have a lot of extra 
>energy to open up the doors myself.  On those days, I might get pissed 
>at my buddies and yell at them.  On those days, I might ditch my 
>"buddies" and spend time with people who will hold the door open for 
>me and ask if I want a beer while they are in the refridgerator.  When 
>I feel stronger and in a better mood, I can go back to spend some time 
>with my other buddies, since they do treat me well once I let myself 
>in the door.
>   .
>   .
>   .
>However, please be clear that it was the tenth door that closed in 
>my face in this file, not the first.  It's just that this door closed 
>in my face when I was down.  Remember that I have participated in the 
>"What women are attracted to in men," "How men feel about women's 
>breasts," and more than a few other basenotes in here that also felt 
>like a closed door in my face.  
>
>Some days I have the energy for it.  Other days I don't.    ...

I was struck at how much this still applies today.  Only I should have 
mentioned that, once I follow my "buddies" into the room, I'm not 
always welcomed, even if I am the one opening the door for myself.


							--Gerry

I'm on Gerry's side here.  The base note is decidedly worded assuming
only hets would reply.  Gerry, feeling that he has a valid response to
the question, if only it had been posed in a less exclusionary fashion,
replies anyway, finding it necessary to make clear that he is choosing
to broaden the question to include a gay perspective.  

Now if Cin's wording of the question had been deliberately exlusionary,
if people thought that she didn't want gays to answer, then I could perhaps
understand some of the objections to Gerry's "butting in".  But I don't
think that was Cin's intention; as discussed in the earlier note, most of
us hets don't even think about altering our phrasing to include gays.

If the question had been "Do you like to be told that you're good looking
by your partner?", Ger and others wouldn't feel the need to explain themselves
before responding.

I'm well aware that many het readers of this conference find the open 
participation of gays unsettling.  I'm also aware that in the 50s and 60s, 
many whites didn't like sharing a bus with blacks; to them, it was just 
as "unnatural".  All I can say to these people is that this conference is
open to all DEC employees, no matter what their gender or "sexual orientation",
and that DEC policy won't have it any other way.  Personally, I'd hope that
those who are uncomfortable would resist being openly hostile, and perhaps
even try to be more accepting.  I think we all have a lot to learn from
each other.

				Steve

I went back over this string to get my own second take, and I found a few
surprising things.  I think Dwight was actually interested in understanding
the terminology Gerry used, he was reaching out just a little bit.  It's too
bad his parenthetical remark was so offensive, it rather completely hid the
question from view.  

.6>  Gerry, even though the base note was about one's wife or girlfriend,
>    (and I understand your on-going crusade of turning every topic into a
>    promotion of the gay life-style, or at the very least, a singles ad for
>    yourself), I'm curious about one thing you mention.  You talk about
>    your 'boyfriend' and then say you're 'single' now.  Does this mean you

"crusade", "promotion of the gay life-style", "singles ad", those are easily
recognized as insults.  I find them offensive though they weren't directed
at me, for I find them an unfair characterization of Gerry's participation.

Herb wrote all of his complaints in "I" language, and while I don't endorse
them, I'll acknowledge that I don't think he was deliberately offensive.  But
"making a commentary on one facet of his behavior" in a disapproving manner 
is not likely to be taken as anything but an attack on that person, Herb, and
to suggest that you are surprised when some of us defend him from that attack
strikes me as disingenuousness on your part.

DougO

>I am getting the 
>distinct impression that I should remove any mention of my sexuality 
>or relationships, lest I keep making you "sick of it." 

 No- you don't have to go overboard in the other extreme.

>but I would like to stop using it, 
>to speak more naturally, simply from my experience.

 As you become more confident and happy with this style of noting, I'm sure
people will be more receptive to it. I like reading your notes, Gerry. It's
just that I have a tendency to roll my eyes when I see the tag lines, that's
all. :-) It really isn't a big deal (to me). And just so you know, my comments
were not directed to anything you've written in this particular, but were 
directed at the overall trends I've noticed in your notes wrt tag lines
in particular.

 The Doctah

    
    
    Every time a male participant in this conference mentions his "wife" or
    his "girlfriend", that person's heterosexuality is being stated, though
    implicitly.  I refuse to answer notes (like the base note) with gender
    neutral wording.  Sure, I could have used terms like "the person I'm
    dating" rather than "the man I'm dating", but doing so would be hiding
    a part of me that I kept hidden for years and years.  I won't do that
    again.  
    
    I feel saddened reading this last string of replies.  It only goes to
    show that the g/l/b contigent of this, a public notes file, are seen as
    unwelcome intruders in "straight space" by certain of its members.  If
    only there was some way for "you" to feel what people like Gerry and I
    feel when we are expected to remain quiet or when we are expected to
    communicate in ways that will allow you to "feel comfortable" with
    complete disregard for how we feel.   I agree that there are other
    notes files which deal with gay issues.  I, however, want to relate to
    the rest of the world as a gay man, not just to the rest of the gay
    world.  It seems some people are incapable of understanding that.  Of
    course, this is only my opinion.  
    
    	Greg -- who feels that closets are for clothes

    I can think of no more appropriate place to speak of male homosexuality
    than in the MENNOTES conference.  This isn't the HETEROSEXUAL-MENNOTES
    conference after all.  Climb aboard, guys, we're almost into the
    21st century.
    					- Vick
    

    I really don't care if your green and purple and are from the dark side
    of the moon. I don't care if you have two left feet and carry a nerd
    pack in your shirt pocket. It doesn't matter. I value very very much 
    Gregs, Gerrys, Herbs, Doc's, and Steve L's views. When these men open
    their mouths, there is something prefound said. You cannot miss it.
    It was mentioned in a note that I wrote earlier then deleted for it 
    seemed not the right thing to say at them moment reguardless of how
    much toning down I could make it.  The bottom like, I enjoy Gerrys
    writings, he is by all means a man. I enjoy Herbs points made too.
    Like the Doc pointed out its that 'tag ending' that gets you. Like
    a beacon that you want to turn down or off but you need that light
    to see where you REALLY are at sea. I cannot seem to understand
    why the constant reminder, but then agian one can see why the constant
    reminder. But is it constantly necessary? 
    
    Steve L. I really don't think that Herb is asking Gerry or Greg to sit
    in the back of the bus or eat at the table of non whites. :) 
    
    Gerry, no one is asking you to leave nor are they asking you to
    delete your valued view as well.
    
    Herb, yes it takes courage to write either streight or if one is gay in
    this file. No doubt about it.:)
    
    

Re: .32

It's only silly when you make an issue of it.  Try taking it less 
personally.

Re: .31

George, I didn't say that anyone was asking Gerry, Greg or whoever to
"sit in the back of the bus."  I simply said that I am aware that some
people are uncomfortable with the open participation of gays in this
conference.  I know that some wish that all the gays would go back
into their "closet" and lock the door.  My response is "Sorry, that's
just not the way it is." 


I take this whole discussion very seriously.  One of the attitudes I have
had to continually fight is one which supposes that MENNOTES is "for" a
specific group of people, and that those not in the group are "guests".
I've heard that before about women, and I've heard it before about gays.
Some people make these assumptions because they know of other notes
conferences which are structured that way, and they feel that MENNOTES
must therefore be the same.  To these folks, I say "Your assumption is
incorrect.  Just because conferences X, Y and Z do it, doesn't mean
MENNOTES does it."  MENNOTES is for EVERYONE.  MENNOTES is for discussions
ABOUT men, it's not a private club FOR men.  The distinction is
significant and important.  Nobody is a second-class noter here.

				Steve

> I believe that a very important part of Gerry's agenda is to sensitize the
> 'traditional male community' to homosexuality. 
> 
> I resent that! I particular resent that in a conference that is about/for men.
> I also resent being patronized. I feel there is all too much of that in
> this conference.

There is always the possibility that any two people, like you and me, Herb,
are going to be using words differently and misunderstanding each other.  
I want to explain where my views differ from yours in some fundamental ways.

I'd start with the notion of a "traditional male community".  I don't think 
there is one, actually, in this country, in these last few decades.  Its no
secret that the participation in this file has been extremely slow compared
to other files.  There are many reasons that that is so, but one of the base
ones is, that men in this country don't know how to talk to each other about
iddues of interest to men.  The very idea of such issues has been ridiculed
in this very file, by men.  And I don't think you can have a community when
the people in it don't know how to communicate.  From what I've read of Bly
I'm not the only one who's noticed.  Even you admit that this is one of a
very few places for men to communicate.

Now, there are a host of examples for us of other communities.  And most of
us participate in many places where we've learned to communicate with others.
And we can bring our experiences here, and slowly, slowly begin to develop a
men's community.  But...that is defined by everybody who participates here.
And, no secret, some of our participants are gay, and bisexual.  So, here is
*not* a "traditional male community".  We know how to communicate, and we're
not all heterosexual.  

Another aside; I've picked up several times in the past that you think Gerry
is a very articulate contributor.  You seem not to hold the same opinion of
some other writers here, ("inchoate").  I'm of the opinion that this community
(and any other) is defined by the people who contribute to it.  Perhaps it is
true that undue influence attaches to the opinions of people who express their
opinions clearly and effectively.  I think you find this situation to be bad,
or at the least, to be frustrating.  I don't understand that when you express
it.  It's been so slow for this community to be built that *any* articulate
contributions are to be welcomed!  My opinion is that community building is
good.  I don't know why you find some people's contributions to be frustrating.

So; I find in Gerry a kindred spirit who has contributed a whole host of good
examples on 1- writing as a member of the community 2- writing his own story,
telling the truth as he sees it and lives it and 3- sharing his examinations
and growth as he experiences it.  It is appalling to me to see his contributions
decried by someone who only sees them through the filter of their own rejection
of Gerry's sexuality.  He is *NOT* only a gay male.  He is a man, and has made
many great contributions here.  When those are rooted in his experiences as a
gay man, he tells us that, too, that we can more fully understand him.  Its his
life, and he is entitled to share it. 

Am I telling you what your values should be?  Herb, I think you are doing that 
to us when you see Gerry only as a gay man.  You are doing that when you say 
things like:

> There IS a conference for homosexuals and -presumably- for homophiles
>
> There IS a conference for feminists and for their supporters.

as if he is not also a man who has invested a lot in building this community.
There is so much more reflected in his writing.  I don't want anybody driven
away from here.  If there is a 'values' message being pushed here, it is one
of simply, "Live and let Live".  And to me, that means that we cease making
Gerry's contributions an issue.  He is what he is, and he's given us a lot.
It is limiting this community too much to insist he tone down for the comfort
levels of our 'traditional' readers, and ungrateful to even ask.

Personally, I'd like to apologize to Gerry for participating in this undue 
focus upon his participation.

DougO

    I'm very angry and upset by many of the notes I read in this string
    about Gerry's 614.1 note. From reading other topics in here I sense a
    lot of hostility towards homosexual men, hostility that I don't see in
    other notes files such as womannotes. Gerry wanted to participate in the
    topic here and I don't see any reason why he can't. Someone could have
    gone off and created the same topic except for gay men. But I don't see
    why gay men should be segregated out of this topic.
    
    Laurie

RE: .6 

>>>     Gerry, even though the base note was about one's wife or girlfriend,
>>>    (and I understand your on-going crusade of turning every topic into a
>>>    promotion of the gay life-style, or at the very least, a singles ad for
>>>    yourself), I'm curious about one thing you mention.  You talk about
>>>    your 'boyfriend' and then say you're 'single' now.  Does this mean you
>>>    were married to another man, and now divorced?  Or if a gay man says
>>>    he's single, does it just mean he ain't getting any dates at present
>>>    and is in-between boyfriends, (no pun intended).
    
Regarding "Gay life-style"...for many homosexual people having relationships 
with the same sex isn't a "life-style" but a natural way of living and 
feeling. In other words, it's not a choice, it's just natural. I don't 
see where Gerry's note was promoting homosexuality or acting as a 
singles ad for himself.


RE: .12 (Herb)

>>>    I don't like to be reminded of somebody's homosexuality on a regular
>>>    basis; I'm glad to see that somebody else feels the same way.
    
But you're constantly reminded of other people's heterosexuality so
why is somebody's homosexuality such a problem for you? Say a gay man
had entered the base note and used boyfriend instead of girlfriend.
Then a heterosexual man entered a reply about his girlfriend.
Would you have been as upset at the heterosexual man? 

>>> I believe that a very important part of Gerry's agenda is to sensitize the
>>> 'traditional male community' to homosexuality. 

Maybe Gerry doesn't have an agenda. Maybe he's just trying to be honest 
and open about his life and other people are pinning the "agenda" tag 
to him.

>>> I resent that! I particular resent that in a conference that is
>>> about/for men. I also resent being patronized. I feel there is all too
>>> much of that in this conference. 

    Are homosexual men any less men then heterosexual men? Some of the 
    most courageous and sensitive men I've meet in my life are homosexuals.
    I think heterosexual men could learn a lot from listening to homosexual
    men and the different ways they relate to the world.
    
>>> I believe there are a lot of very traditional, AND VERY DECENT men who
>>> read this conference. I think it is one of the few places for a lot of
>>> men to articulate -as inchoately as many of us do- our feelings about
>>> life in our society. 

I *know* that there are a lot of *very* decent men in this conference. 
Some of them heterosexual, some bisexual and yes some homosexual. I'm 
glad that I know some of them.

>>> But most of all, I resent people trying to tell me what my values should
>>> be over and over and over and over again. 

I don't see anyone trying to tell you what you values are. You're 
welcome to your own opinions just as I am to mine.

Laurie    

    
>>    Do you like to be told that you're good looking by your
>>    girlfriend/wife?  How do you take compliments from her.  Do you
>>    believe her?  How often do you compliment her?  In private? in public?
>>    What if you don't give her compliments, why not?
    
    So, by the wording of this, is it OK for Lesbains to reply ??

    	For a note dedicated to discussion of exchanging compliments with
    your lover there seems to have been a lot of mention of Gerry.

Back to the base note (thank you Mr/Mrs/Ms MONAHAN)?

This "issue" in the base note really struck a chord with me -
not precisely a "good" one though.  Back when I was married
it used to bug the dickens out of me that my wife seemed to
*thrive* on those little compliments [in retrospect I don't
blame her for looking for some compliments, after all she
was married to a dingbat and needed some confirmation that
she had done *something* right:-)  ].

Sure when something stood out, I tended to pass on a "my that
looks good" type of compliment ... but ... I tended to NOT 
so it as ... well "run of the mill" - that is to say, it had
to be something that stood out.  

To "keep the peace" I found myself passing them (compliments)
somewhat at random and indiscriminitely.  This bothered the
Hell out of me - it really did - but - I continued.  It made
her happy and as I said it "keep the peace".

Do you ever find yourself passing out compliments just to
"keep the peace" ... does it bother you?  For those female
readers, do you "spot" insincere (random) compliments?


General Bubba

Wow.  My note was #6.  I asked Gerry two sincere questions.  37 replies exist
before this one.  Gerry has ignored the questions and it looks like I gave him
the opportunity to once again step forward and remind us of things he's told us
before.  He even dug up old notes and re-entered them for us in case we missed
them the first time around.  Gerry, what about my questions?  I posed them to
you looking for real answers.  I was willing to try and understand something
about you, about gays, in spite of the fact that your entries on your life
style are often tiresome in the manner that you represent them. 


Personally, I can't understand the gay life style... how one man can look at
another man's brown, hairy, butt and say, "Wow!"... but I'm trying to keep an
open mind, (although it's tough), and get *some* insight to that life style, as
it keeps popping up here.


re:  .14  (olson)

"Unease" was a bad choice of words to describe at least... me.


re:  .16  (levesque)

Doctah, the unending qualifications are annoying with me also, even though the
tags were not used in .1, somehow reading it... it still struck me as such, as
many of Gerry's notes certainly do serve as part of an on-going campaign.


re:  .24  (olson)

Correct DougO.  My questions were earnest ones that still have yet to be
answered.  I'd really like Gerry to answer them.

As for you finding my wording as offensive, sorry.  I don't see it as offensive
as much as I see it as honest feelings that surfaced.


re:  .25  (nichols)

I am in agreement with your thoughts.  I too feel that MENNOTES is a place that
the traditional male can sit back and share his traditional views and not be
beat over the head with people telling him how he should feel, how he should
think, and putting him down for being himself.  I know that this conference
doesn't promise that, but still, I feel this way about it.  I don't mind gay
people noting here, but to have them constantly flaunting their gayness up to
what they KNOW to be mostly heterosexual males is not only tiring, but starts to
become offensive and builds resentment in much of the audience.  The string of
notes here are a good example of that.

I OFTEN hit NEXT NOTE on Gerry's notes, not because he doesn't have good
contributions, but because he gets repetitive. I also grow tired of the same
folks that constantly run to Gerry's aid with "but Gerry is soooo articulate." 
The best *politicians* are the one's who are also *articulate.*  And
politicians have a platform to express, a campaign to win.  I think Gerry
makes some valued contributions, but he's hurt himself, IMO, by becoming so
predictable with his notes.  I expect every note of his to be yet... another
reminder that he is gay male in a heterosexual world.  I could reference myself
as being a black belt in every note, but I'm smart enough to know that the
readers would quickly tire of my reminding them of it and I'd deserve all the
off-line jokes that was shot across the net about me.

    WE NEED A RATHOLE TOPIC.
    
    Just my opinion, of course.
    
    ed

    
    
    >>Personally, I can't understand the gay life style... how one man can
    >>look at another man's brown, hairy, butt and say, "Wow!"
    
    	I see this as yet another example of a person who equates gayness
    with nothing but sexual activity.  It shows great ignorance, in my
    opinion, of gay people.
    
    	What's really funny is that I can't, my self, understand the
    attraction that non-gay men have for women.  But, I've never found it
    necessary to raise that issue here.  The attraction a non-gay man feels
    for a woman is no-different than the attraction that I feel for certain
    men.  There is, of course, a certain amount of pure physical
    attraction, but it goes much, much deeper than that.  As has been said
    before both in this conference and in other places, any man is capable
    of having "sex" with another man purely for the sake of getting their
    rocks off.  The emotional bond that forms between two gay men who are
    in a relationship is unique, comparable, I suppose, to that bond formed
    between a man and a woman in a relationship or between two woman
    involved in a lesbian relationship.  It ain't just sex!!
    
    	Greg
    

    Yep.... I just saw Willard and some other associated rodents. Me thinks
    its time to throw water on this hot spot lads or we'll burn a hole thru
    the keel of this ship. I don't swim very well since that Mobey too me
    leg off with Captin Aaaa-hab. :) A bast ye lilly livered land lovers!
    Shiver me timbers and blow me down. Lets keel haul those who wish to
    continue this fuedal war of words and witless ness. And make sail to
    some other tropical island where deltal floss means bikini.:)
    
    

RE: .25


|I believe that a very important part of Gerry's agenda is to sensitize the
|'traditional male community' to homosexuality. 
|I resent that! I particular resent that in a conference that is about/for men.

	Hmmmm.... could you tell us where one is suppossed to put something
like that then? Is this a, "you're ok to be what you are as long as you don't
talk about it" type-o-thing? 

| I believe there are a lot of very traditional, AND VERY DECENT men who read
| this conference. 

	Hmmm..... traditional and very decent. Nice choice of words. Of course
they don't mean very much. One can't continue to go through life with blinders
on. If you can't look at the whole picture, see everything for what it is and
try and learn something from it then you will never really get anywhere in this
world. Why put up a wall as soon as the word gay comes up? Is it attacking your
masculinity? I would hope not. It shouldn't. I guess if you just looked at man
A or man B as a man and not as tall, short, white, black, straight or gay the
clouds would start to disapear and you could see the sun shining. 

| There IS a conference for homosexuals and -presumably- for homophiles
| There IS a conference for feminists and for their supporters.
| I resent the strong emphasis on those matters here.

	I guess I don't understand this. Are you saying it's ok to put the
emphasis on "traditional" matters, but if any "non-traditional" matter comes
up, well, then the emphasis shouldn't be talked about? IF that's the case,
then it sounds more like censorship than anything else.

| But most of all, I resent people trying to tell me what my values should
| be over and over and over and over again. 

	I for one would never tell you what your values should be. That's up to
you to decide. The only thing anyone could really ask of you is that you had an
opened mind. That's no value, but it's amazing at just what an opened mind can
do. :-)


Glen

RE: .32

| <I, however, want to relate to the rest of the world as a gay man
| <It seems some people are incapable of understanding that
    
| I understand it perfect well. I RESENT it. 
| Greg I don't WANT to relate to you as a gay man. What could be simpler? 

	I wonder. If someone came up to you and said, "You know, I bet you're
gay". Would you then turn around and refer to yourself as a het? Wouldn't you
want people to relate to you as a straight man? I mean.... what could be
simpler?

| Please don't forgot that. 
 
	Yes, please don't.

| However, I have a responsibility (called civility, I think) to "grin
| and bear it". And to relate to you on your terms to some extent. 

	You know, it seems from your writings that it's taking a great pain
staking effort on your part to do this. I wish it was something that you felt
you wanted to do to help yourself understand more about people (this could go
further than just gay men).

| You have rights too. Including the right to say things that I find offensive.
    
	I have noticed another thing about your writing style. It upsets YOU to
have non-traditional things written. It upsets YOU that someone wants to be
refered to as gay, YOU feel that YOU have to "grin and bear it" to relate to
someone on their terms and YOU feel that others have the right to say things
that upset YOU. I guess I lied, there is one thing you could change about your 
values. The YOU this and YOU that could be broadened a little to include others,
don't you think?

| But, I feel that Gerry has exhausted all his 'rights' with respect to
| homosexuality in this conference.
  
	Why is that? Does it have to do with the fact these are non-traditional
things that you are being forced to read? Things that you can't come to terms
with? I'm curious about your reasons.
  
| I'm bloody sick of grinning it and bearing it. 

	I see we're back to the YOU aspect again. Let me ask you something. If
someone starts talking about gay issues, do you instantly get turned off?

	One other question would be if someone you knew, who was a good friend
told you that she/he were a lesbigay, would you end that friendship? Would you
continue the friendship, but put restrictions on it (you can't refer to
yourself as a lesbigay around me. etc) or would you just continue on as if
nothing had changed in the friendship, even though you knew that now a "new"
dimension was going to be added?

RE:	90% het issues, 10% gay issues, isn't that silly?

	It is VERY silly. But I get the impression you would rather see NO
issues about the gay side of life. That's even sillier. It's part of life, no
matter what you do, it will always be there. 


Glen

RE: .41

|I am in agreement with your thoughts.  I too feel that MENNOTES is a place that
|the traditional male can sit back and share his traditional views and not be
|beat over the head with people telling him how he should feel, how he should
|think, and putting him down for being himself.  

	I wonder, if you took what you said in the above paragraph, took out
the "traditional male", and inserted just the word "male", then I bet you'd
have something. In fact, if you just used the word people, you'd have something
even better. You feel that the "traditional male" shouldn't be beat over the
head, but what are some doing to what you perceive as the untraditional male?
If this is what you TRULY expect from others in this conference, why can't that
be extended to everyone, regardless of whether they are <insert all genders>?
Just curious.

| I don't mind gay people noting here, 

	I see the words, but I get the impression that it's only ok if they do
so with restrictions, ie, they don't bring up their sexuality.

| but to have them constantly flaunting 
| their gayness 

	I guess I was right. You seem to be talking about people flaunting 
their non-traditional roles as being wrong, but it seems to be ok for you to
flaunt your "traditional role". I don't understand this.

| up to what they KNOW to be mostly heterosexual males is not 
| only tiring, but starts to become offensive and builds resentment in much of 
| the audience.  

	Another thing I wonder about is if it's mostly a het audience, why are
you and others bringing up (constantly) this traditional male stuff? They
should know that you're the traditional male, right? Why flaunt it? Maybe if 
you could explain to all of us just what the "traditional male" term means, we
could all get a better understanding of what it actually is you're trying to
say.

| The string of notes here are a good example of that.

	Of flaunting peoples gayness, or flaunting peoples traditional male
roles?



Glen

>    Every time a male participant in this conference mentions his "wife" or
>    his "girlfriend", that person's heterosexuality is being stated,

 You make a very big assumption that I'm sure you'd be happy to punish others
for making. It's no wonder that bi-invisibility is a big problem in the
homosexual community...

 The Doctah

This has gone far enough.  There will be no more discussion in this topic,
or anywhere else in this conference, as to who should be allowed to participate
in this notes conference.  Everyone is welcome here.

I also don't want to see any more attacks against individual noters, or
suggestions that certain sets of noters should "keep quiet" about important
aspects of their lives.

This conference is for everyone to discuss subjects pertaining to men.
If you want to argue this, feel free to send me mail.  I will return to
the authors any further notes which attempt to place restrictions on
participation or make any group of people feel unwelcome.

Now, back to the original topic, if you please!

			Steve

    I compliment my wife often, e.g. daily. There's always something nice
    to comment on: her appearence, our dinner, something kind she's done
    for me or the kids. I do it to make her happier, and also to convey
    that I like those things. It's positive reinforcement.
    
    My wife compliments me much less often. My make on this is slightly
    convoluted. *I* am comparatively insecure, slightly amazed that I am
    loved, and as a result I seek reassurance in the form of compliments
    and affection. I project this onto my wife, inferring that she would
    like to hear/feel those things which *I* would like. She is VERY
    secure, however, and doesn't feel the need for to receive assurance, so
    she doesn't guess my need to get it from her.
    
    One of my self-amusing adaptions is to loudly compliment mySELF, to
    prompt others and to model the behavior: "Excellent tacos, Hoyt!" The
    kids will occasionally repeat my cue with various degrees of
    enthusiasm.
    
    Unsolicited compliments are frequently occasions for clumsiness, for
    me. Observations that I've lost weight evoke replies like "Well, I've
    got a ways to go." Good job performance reviews evoke either
    minimization ("No big deal") or mock braggadocio ("Yeah, I coded that
    left-handed to make it a challenge!"). I'm happier when I can simply
    hear and accept the compliment, possibly responding "Thanks, and I
    appreciate your mentioning it."
    
    I think among my male friends, we are much more comfortable trading
    insults than compliments. An exception is on the athletic field, where
    good performance is praised.
    
    - Hoyt

Receiving complements is not only a difficult thing for men, but also for 
people of different cultures.

Scandihuvians, such as myself, don't do it very well.  It's been a long 
process for me to just say "Thank you" to someone.  I would usually downplay
whatever I did.

In Chinese, the polite responses to a compliment are "Where, Where?" meaning you
must be talking about someone else, or "Don't be polite" meaning what I've
done isn't worth all the fuss.

>>>Ken

    re: back a few.
    
    I can understand the 'feeling secure' therefore not needing compliments,
    actually I feel uneasy when compliments are handed to me and I am the
    more secure person in the relationship. My husband on the other hand is 
    not as secure and is always complimenting me wanting for more compliments
    from me.
    I was left to fend for myself growing up which strengthened my feelings
    that I can do things myself, David had a close family that was
    very nurturing which might detract from the development of the feeling
    that you can depend on yourself. I guess that would depend on how
    independance the parents encourage, mine encouraged alot. It is
    interesting to look back on how your parents were raised and how they
    raised you and see how that affected the end result.

    
    
    I deleted the original .54 -- when I've calmed down and can look at
    things more clearly and objectively, I'll start a new topic appropriate
    for the discussion.
    
    	Greg
    

    Too bad this note had become such a bad experience and led to a
    total irrevelant discusssion.  
    
    I think it is important that spouses  compliment each other
    once in awhile.  Especially in pubic amongst friends and relatives.
     Reason I asked this of men, is that I thought I'd get some really
    good viewpoints from the male perspective.  And if that includes
    men's husbands so be it, rather interesting I think.
    
    Anyway, as someone had noted about insecurity, perhaps that is very
    true.   Being insecure in that your mate desires you.  When your
    mate praises you, you feel so wonderful and appreciated and wanted,
    by him.  That's the important thing, (by him).  It doesn't matter
    how other men praise you, the wife wants to be praised by her own
    husband, I feel.  I think it can really benefit the romance department.
    
    While watching some "Outer Limits" SciFi the other night, (way old
    re-runs from the late 50 or early 60's) there was this episode of
    which the wife spoke so highly and supportingly of her husband.
     My husband, (ex) says to me, "See that, now why can't you talk
    about me like that?" (Well, in that flick, the husband replies in
    the same tone.  It was all so "in love" and respectful.) I responded
    back to him, "yea, but see how he is, it's mutual."  I don't know
    I was actually mad at him for telling me that.  Like I don't stand
    up for him.  
    
    To tell you the truth, it's going to be a very hard road, 'til he
    and I can really stand up for each other like that.  I just thought
    that some nice words every once in a while would help. (since trust
    has been somewhat broken between us these past 5 years)  
    
    What about when you actually ask your spouse, "what do you like
    in me, or what the heck attracted you to me in the first place?"
    and you get "I don't know" in response.  Sometimes I don't know
    what to think.   Is it wierd for him not to talk about such things
    or am I making too much out of it?  Maybe being "romantic" is just
    unrealistic or unimportant, I don't know.

    I do not normally reply in here, but I feel I have to.
    
    A bit of give and take goes a long way. My wife and I are not perfect
    we have our differences now and again. We also are very close. I do 
    like to tell her she looks well or cuddle her or show some form 
    affection to her regardless of whether we are in company or not. I 
    don't expect her to turn around and do the same things to me just 
    because I do them to her. We are often complimented and sometimes
    ridiculed for the way we act, like to lovestruck kids of thirteen
    or fourteen.
    
    
    
    B.T.W.
    	We are married ten years and have five wonderful children.  

>    What about when you actually ask your spouse, "what do you like
>    in me, or what the heck attracted you to me in the first place?"
>    and you get "I don't know" in response.  Sometimes I don't know
>    what to think.   Is it wierd for him not to talk about such things
    
    You ask good questions - hope you don't mind the answers...  ;-)
    
    I know in my case, it took me a while to be able to tell my (now ex)
    what I was attracted to...
    
    Basically, I saw her walk out of the bar, and said to my brother, "I'm
    gonna marry that woman some day..."  and I did!   So, as you might
    imagine, it can be tough to tell someone you love their ass (or any
    physical attribute), especially if that attribute has changed since you
    first met! ;-)
    
    I also loved her because she was cute, funny and, well, vulnerable...
    and I felt needed...  
    
    Not exactly a ringing endorsement of anything she might feel pride
    in...   so, unless you REALLY want to hear it - don't push it!  JMHO,
    
    Dave