Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    In _Intercourse_, Dworkin argues compellingly how laws define "nature".
    The  power structure, whether it be inherited or evolving, make
    laws which support its continued existence.  Many of these laws
    do control the relations between individuals (as opposed to between
    corporations or other congregate bodies), and these laws often cite
    "nature" as their basis.
    
    Animals relate sexually to members of both sexes (and even sometimes
    this includes members of other species).  Animal behavior is divergent
    enough that we cannot pattern closely to human behavior; yet it
    seems so odd to me that here is a part of nature that is ignored
    by those who claim that relating sexually to a member of the same
    sex is unnatural.  As a person who has lived with household animals,
    I have observed situations which resembled very closely affection
    or some other form of bonding outside that of sexual. [I can't remember
    any scholarly citations; anybody read Hearne's _Adam's_Task_?, which
    I would think would be a likely source for other observations.]
    
    The automatic ticket dispenser to the Mass. Pike at 495 has a sticker
    "A Lesbian was here!" (places like this have occasional sticker
    graffiti).  When I see it, I always imagined it shocking starched
    people in their over-airconditioned road couches. :-)  That, and
    the stencilled graffiti "U.S. Out Of My Pants" I see on the body shop on
    the way to my HMO, they give me a good cheer.

    Isn't "homophobia" a slanted word in itself ?  "Phobia" meaning
    an illogical,abnormal fear. Maybe the "homophobics" are being dis-
    criminated against ?  Maybe we need to coin words for people who
    do not fear, but rather hate, or loathe, or pity homosexuals. 
    It's difficult to understand a person one has labeled "phobic"
    when that person isn't motivated by fear, but by other ideas,
    true or false.

    Single, male, heterosexual:
                                                                        
    You may remember a few years back the orignal furor about two gay
    male high school students that wanted to attend their prom as dates.
    It was all over an assortment of news media.
    
    I went to a Catholic junior high school with one of those kids.
    It was my first conscious exposure to homosexuality.  I was pretty
    messed up in high school, and thought it was an awful big deal to
    make over something as stupid as a high school prom.
    
    A little later, I learned that two of my elementary school teachers
    had been gay.  In fact, they were practically married.  I went to
    an extremely Catholic elementary school, but I remember them as
    pretty good teachers, and since I didn't know or care one way or
    the other at that age, I never gave it much thought.
    
    Once in college, I ran into people from all across the spectrum
    of sexual preference.  There were some initial uncomfortable moments,
    but very rapidly it began to make very little difference to me what
    sex a person preferred to sleep with.  Now, I don't even think about
    it any more.
    
    My parents retain a lot of their prejudices, the ones about what
    they perceive to be sexual deviation included.  I know they're very
    uncomfortable with the thought that I have gay, bi, and lesbian
    friends.  Much to my chagrin, I discovered those same prejudices
    in the few people I was close to in high school, people I thought
    might have finally grown up. 
    
    I'm not sure what all of this is leading up to.  I don't want to sound
    like I'm getting up on a pedastal and declaring that people's sexual
    preference is completely meaningless to me, because that isn't true.
    You can't take that attitude and function as an adult.  Sometimes, on
    hearing that a woman I might have been interested in is a lesbian, I
    can't keep myself from thinking 'Damn!'  That doesn't last.  After all,
    she might have said no for a thousand other reasons.
    
    I guess what it means is that I seem to treat people with other
    sexual preferences as 'just plain folks.'  You can hardly go to
    bed with everyone you know, anyway, and to cut yourself off from
    another set of life experience is to deny oneself something very
    important.
    
    DFW

    re .2:
    
    But, you could apply the same line of reasoning to someone who do
    not like any particular group for irrational reasons, such as blacks,
    Jews, women, men, etc.  These people are labeled bigots, mysandrous
    _____s, etc.  Aren't these people (the bigots) discriminated against 
    too?  They can't even use their prejudices to tell the (woman, black,
    Jew, etc.) that they don't want to hire them.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    I was unused to the idea of accepting many sexual viewpoints until
    college and after.  I have met many gay/bi people, and they're all very
    nice.  This is not always the case, as some people who feel the world
    is "against their kind" can get pretty militant about their stance, and
    very defensive with little provocation.  Gay men are the same as
    straight when they're a friend....except you can both ogle the same guy
    :-).  I once had a friend who told me of a vacant bedroom in her
    4-bedroom apartment, which I decided to take.  She told me just prior
    to my agreement that she was unsure, but that she had tendencies toward
    bisexuality, and did that bother me. I told her it did not, as long as
    nothing sexual happened with her and "partners "in the hallways or
    kitchen, and as long as she didn't "come on" to me sexually.  I was
    very happy there for several years, and her tendencies did not
    inconvenience or unnerve me in the least.  She had set out to make me
    comfortable with her, to include me in her views.  I find this is often
    a positive trait gay people exhibit - those who are conscientiously
    trying to detect discomfort in friends, and set them at ease, are
    admirable in my eyes.  Homophobia - or dislike of homosexuals - or fear
    of their "strange" ways - is, in my mind, destructive to the unity of
    "humanity as a whole".  I am not afraid of my sexuality (although I
    used to be), and although I am heterosexual, if I suddenly developed an
    urge to explore other options (unlikely, I think, at this point),
    neither I nor my friends would be excessively hung up. 

    I was put on this earth, not to judge, but to accept....
    
    -Jody
    

    
    I don't remember whether it was Isacc Asimov or Frank Herbert, but
    I read a SF book once where it was stated that the kamikaze fighters
    in the armed forces (in this story) were mostly gay, since by choosing
    to be gay they no longer reproduced and therefor placed no value
    on their life.
    
    It really made me think.  If this is true, the Marines should start
    recruiting gays instead of throwing them out.
    
    
    

Last Friday, I taped the 5 hour "Aids Connection" show.  Very boring
"preaching to the choir" with the absolutely most boring public-service
announcements I have ever seen.

Things shuffled along until about 2 hours into the show, when
a woman "of a certain age" got up and started haranging the speakers
on the evils of anal intercourse and how "homosexuals are repositories
of disease."

The announcer tried to shut her up by talking over her.  She would
not be quited, so he took the microphone away.  She kept going,
in a voice loud enough to carry across the studio (and probably
into the next state).

When she finished, all but one of the speakers put her down as
an inconsiderate know-nothing.

A few hours later, the telephone poll results showed that over
70% of the callers want to quarantine people testing positive
for Aids, and about the same percentage want to test all immigrants.

The panel was shocked (and after all their hard work explaining that
Aids wasn't a threat to the general population).
What bothered me about this incident is how far out of touch
the "movers and shakers" are from the general population.

I suspect that there is a whole lot of homophobia in the USA, but,
like most prejudices nowadays, people are keeping quiet about it.

Also, I suspect that homophobia is like many other prejudices:
"I wouldn't want *them* to be foster parents" co-existing with
"nice Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones who own the house down the street
and keep such a lovely garden."

Martin.

    As a divorced, female, heterosexual, I have no idea why so many
    straight people are prejudiced against gays.  The first time I became
    aware of homosexuality (probably in my late teens) and then heard
    some of things people said I couldn't imagine what the problem was.
     I still can't.  The only time it would ever bother me who another
    person slept with, would be if it was a person I was in love with
    and wanted to be with myself.  I don't feel at all threatened by
    the fact that Lesbians exist.  I've never been attracted to another
    woman myself, but if I ever was and she reciprocated, I guess I'd
    go for it.
    
    I've never had any close women friends that I knew were gay or bi,
    but that's just coincidence, and maybe the fact that I didn't go
    to college.  I worked with one gay man at DEC a few years ago and
    got along great, and have a few gay male aquaintances in P-town
    who work in shops that I frequent.  They're just like anybody else
    as far as I can tell.  I've met some that I got along great with,
    and then there was a gay couple who lived in the apartment below
    my ex and I when our daughter was small.  One of these guys used
    to complain constantly about our daughter running overhead, and
    said once, "If you people are going to have children, you have to
    learn to take care of them!"  I thought that was pretty funny because
    he sounded like he thought having kids was unnatural!
    
    I remember talking to my mother and her best friend once about gays
    when we were in P-town.  My mother felt gays should have all the
    rights of anybody else including adopting and getting married and
    teaching, just as long as she didn't have to know what "disgusting
    things" they did together!  Her friend was so upset that I couldn't
    see what was wrong with homosexuality that her face turned red,
    and she wouldn't speak to me.
    
    Lorna
    

    <sigh>
    
    re: a few back
    
    When I wrote that note, I preceded it with a paragraph about a gay
    friend of mine in High School but I took it out because I didn't
    want it to appear that I was telling everyone how great I am because
    I have gay friends.  Now I have a received a letter from someone
    who has accused me of hating gays because of that note.
    
    <flame on>
    
    I thought this was supposed to be a note where people could put
    quotes and such.  So I wrote a paraphrase of a quote from an SF
    book, where the author was probably showing his hatred of gays.
    I wanted people to see how some people reasoned with their hatred.
    I was paraphrasing the author not myself.
    
    I said it made me think.  Well gee, is that not allowed now?  It
    made me think because it sounded convincing and I wondered why it
    sounded so convincing, was there anything to it or was it just some
    hitler type rhetoric?
    
    Now if it is true, and I never said it was or wasn't, I thought
    the Marines should give it some consideration, on a purely military
    and non humanitarian level.
    
    I am absolutely livid that someone could accuse me of hating gays
    because I try to figure out why some people think the way they do.
    If you put yourself in someone shoes (as I was told to do) you might
    begin to understand why they feel this way, and you might have made
    some progress.  When I see something I don't like I don't bury my
    head in the sand and say "Hey, something's wrong with them".  I
    try to figure it out.
    
    I'm not going to apologize for offending you, if you were offended
    and think I'm a gay hater, that's your problem.  I have no doubts
    that I'm not, I really don't feel I need to prove it.
    
    Now read it again with that in mind, and do as I did.  Wonder why
    the author said this and wonder why people would believe it.  Then
    you've made the first step to understanding those that are so opposite
    to you.
    
    <flame simmer>
    

    re: .9
    
    But don't you see, that's the point!!  Straights make commentaries
    that seem perfectly innocent, and it makes a gay person mad.  It
    FEELS like an attack, whether or not it is.  I read the first note
    you wrote, and thought: "sure, that's ne good way to kill 'em all
    off."  I'm sure you didn't think that was what you were saying,
    I certainly hope not anyway, but even _I_ thought that was part
    of what the statement said, and _I_'m not teriffically paranoid
    (tho I'm sure someone will bash me for it :)_).
    
    It strikes me that homosexuality is an awfully touchy issue on all
    sides of the fence.  PLEASE try to listen to each other, and give
    the other person credit for being a generally okay person before
    getting ticked off, okay?
    
    Lee

    I think I must be getting old and jaded, because comments like that
    DON'T make me upset like they used to.  I just assume the person's
    intentions were good, and wait to see what their next note says.
    
    I guess I don't have a lot to add right now, but I *have* noticed
    how so many people are fine with people they know, but really
    prejudiced against gays in general.  It's like "you know how 'those
    homosexuals' are, but Chris and Pat are different", instead of 
    "Gee, I always thought homosexuals were weird, but Chris and Pat
    are so nice, maybe homosexuals are just normal people, too".
    
                    Carol

    re .6
    
    Yes, but it's such a stupid idea.  And if you meant the part about
    the Marines as a joke, you should have put a bunch of smiley faces
    or some other warning.
    
    Don't we all value something more to our lives than simply having
    children?  Admittedly, they're great, but still.
    
    ---------------
    I haven't figured it out quite yet, but the line "Some of my [best]
    friends are <blank>s" often generates anger in a <blank> who is
    part of the conversation.  I think it's because it's patronizing:
    "Yes, and I'll even like you, as long as you're a good little <blank>
    and behave quietly and with proper deference for my wonderful
    tolerance."  Chris and Pat may be nice, but what happens when you
    find out that they want to adopt; Chris and Pat are nice, but what
    happens when you find out your teenager is spending a lot of time
    talking with them.              
    
    Of course, one doesn't always mean to be patronizing; sometimes
    one is merely clumsy or naive about one's own prejudices.  I suppose
    the line about the Marines could be said by someone realizing that
    gays could serve their country's defense.  Well, I'm sure they have
    and do, although you have to be passing as straight to be in the
    armed forces.

    Jeeez, but you're all so good at rifling someone
    you don't even know personally, or have the slightest
    clue of how they meant it.  Why not ASK her what she meant
    instead of first abusing her with your slanderous caa caa.

    Sharon made mention that these were kamikaze fighers.
    In Japan, it was a disgrace to be homosexual so it might
    have been a gay persons choice to become a kamikaze fighter
    to at once protect Japan and die an honorable death, so very
    important at that time.

    We all take things differently.  When I read her note,
    I took it as that Marines shouldn't be turning gays away,
    but should be taking them in.  Maybe it's the way
    she phrased it.

    Yeah, I amust admit the "good for cannon fodder" slant occurred
    to me, too. But when I re-read the note (admittedly, a couple of
    times to try to understand the drift) I figured it was more of a
    "A gey person can be an asset to the armed forces, so it's stupid
    to keep 'em out" than a "great! put 'em in the armed forces and
    get 'em all killed".
    
    An *I* didn't even like "Kiss of the Spider Woman" cuz I figured
    its messgae was "The only good fa***t is a dead fa***t"
    
    I think this is a matter of network "conversation" not being immediate
    enuff to clarify shades of meaning as they happen.
    
    Dawn
    

    Don't know about the Marines but the Navy has a saying "We don't
    need good losers, we need tough SOBs who can win."
    
    Back from the tangent, I would venture to guess that a lot
    of people have insufficient contact with gays to form an 
    educated opinion. On the other hand, the more members of a
    'group' you encounter, the more diversity you see, the less
    meaning the label. Maybe we form opinions of a group based
    on the majority of our encounters, or the most intense en-
    counter, or the most recent. My first encounter with a lesbian
    was very positive, my most recent, very negative. Mixed emotions.
    Just one example.

    Re the insufficient contact theory, I partially agree, but we should
    keep in mind that we don't know the sexual preference of many
    of the people we know casually. Someone quoted a 10% proportion
    of gays in the population - or was it only 10% of men? - anyway,
    it's virtually certain that ALL of us know one or more gay persons,
    whether we are aware of it or not. The cases where we don't know it are
    powerful arguments that homophobia is just that - irrational fear.
    
    Myself, BTW, I have a high comfort level with lesbian/bi women but
    male homosexuality makes me uncomfortable. "Some of my best friends"
    ( :-) ) are the former, but if any are the latter, I don't know
    about it. So, I must confess a touch of homophobia, but I'm confident
    I can overcome it in impersonal situations (such as voting on gay
    rights matters.)

    Chuck

    
    Chuck, thanks for admitting to that "touch of homophobia."  I always
    get worried when I hear people say that they're not racist or classist
    or homophobic, etc.  The world in which we all live is full of these
    influences, and I am convinced that none of us is immune to "touches
    of" homophobia, racism, ageism, etc., even if we were raised in
    the most egalitarian of households.  If you read or watch T.V., then
    you have been bombarded with thousands and thousands of images that 
    tell us that to be anything other than white, male, Christian,
    able-bodied, young, handsome, well educated... is to be less than
    adequate.  I often think that when we talk about someone
    being successful or learning how to "play the game" we are really
    talking about the extent to which that person manages to impersonate
    that most perfect model I described above. 
    
    The question is (not whether or not we're immune to those influences
    but) what do we do about them?  How do we identify and work to
    challenge both in ourselves and others those feelings of fear of and 
    hatred toward people who are different from us.  As a lesbian, I
    know some of what it feels like to be oppressed as a woman and as
    a gay person.  I have spent a long time challenging my own internalized
    homophobia, and although I see this as a life-long struggle, I can
    say that I feel good about my life and about who I am.  BUT just
    because I have experienced oppression as a member of 2 devalued
    groups that doesn't mean that I understand all oppression.  Maybe
    I am more sensitive to it than some, but I try to remember that
    I am  a member of the white middle class, and I cannot know what
    it feels like to be black or poor.  And I try to remember that
    sometimes my classist and racist assumptions may get in the way
    of my ability to understand how others feel. It is my hope that
    others will call me on those assumptions when they become apparent
    and that I will be able to continue the life-long work of challenging
    the racisim and classism that exists in me.  
    
    How do others feel about that?  If you write something here that
    others find to be sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, etc., do
    you want to be told?  The non-lesbian members of this file help me
    understand things that I sometimes forget, and I as a lesbian, feel
    that I have valuable insights that I can share with non-lesbians.
    Sometimes that means that I feel the need to say, "Ouch, that hurts.
    When you said that, this is how I felt."  Is that ok?  I think that
    if we can continue to challenge each other's ideas but in ways that
    are less threatening AND similarly, if we can learn to respond to
    each other in ways that are less defensive, Then we will all have
    a chance to grow in ways that might not have otherwise been possible.
                                                        
    	
    Have a nice weekend, 
    Justine

    Re: .13
    
    Michael,
    
    Why do you believe that "In Japan, it was a disgrace to be a
    homosexual"?
    
    It turns out that Japan has a long tradition of male (and female)
    homosexuality, and that until fairly recently (with the introduction
    of Christianity into Japan) it was no disgrace at all to be homosexual.
    This tolerant attitude is continued in large part in modern day
    Japan.
    
    So I repeat, where do you get your information?
    
    As for Marines, and the Navy, both are traditionally hotbeds of
    male homosexuality. Officially censured, privately condoned. This
    has been the case since the days of "rum, buggery, and the lash".
    
    	-- Charles

    At the time of WWII, it was a disgrace to be gay in Japan.  In
    fact, many if not most of the Kamikaze pilots were forced into that
    role.
    
    Elizabeth
    

        I'm not sure this is a wise thing to say, and I can only hope
        that it will be read as I intend it. If it in any way offends
        anyone, please accept my appology in advance, and please feel
        free to address me either here or by mail. 
        
        I will admit that my feelings about homosexuality are not
        entirely positive. On the other hand I bear no ill feelings of
        any sort towards any homosexuals. This may sound like the
        traditional "some of my best friends are homosexuals", but I
        don't know how to explain it much better.
        
        In point of fact some of my best friends ARE homosexuals or
        bisexuals, so are some of the people with whom I am only
        casual friends. I don't believe that I hold it against them
        or judge them for it. I also don't approve of divorce nor
        sex outside of a committed relationship, and yet many of
        my friends are divorced or promiscuous by my standards.
        Many of my friends over indulge in drink or use drugs or
        smoke, and I disaprove of those things as well.
        
        
        Many many of my friends do things of which I disaprove or which
        I think may not be good for them. I myself have been known to
        over indulge in alcohol and have done a number of other things
        that I feel are stupid, immoral or unhealthy. Am I too judge my
        friends and to disapprove of them if they show any failings in
        my eyes? I can't stand up to my standards, why must my friends?
        
        That being said, it seems to me that homosexuality may be more
        of a dysfunction than it is popular in liberal circles to admit.
        Both some of the scietific studies I have read and some of the
        anecdotal evidence I have encountered make think that at least
        some cases of homosexuality may be reactions to or compensations
        for stress or bad experiences. 
        
        In rats that are subjected to extreme over-crowding the
        incidence of violence and of homosexuality go way up. This makes
        homosexuality look more like a dysfunction or at least a
        reaction to stress than the "just the way some people are" kind
        of thing that the liberated party line would have us believe.
        
        It also seems to me that a number of the homosexual people I
        have known have had histories of extreme sexual repression or
        have suffered some form of child abuse. It seems at least
        possible that like the rats they are reacting to an unhealthy
        situation in their adoption of a homosexual orientation.
        
        Neither of these things nor any of the other things that I know
        about homosexuality convince me that it is either a dysfunction
        or just a coping mechanism for a deeper underlying problem, but
        they do open the door to that possibility. As a result, I am not
        decided on the issue. I think that it may be unhealthy, but I'm
        not sure. Not being homosexual, it doesn't directly affect me,
        so I see no reason to decide the issue in my mind.
        
        It is also my understanding that the Bible teaches that
        homosexual sexual activity is immoral. I understand that there
        are folk who don't believe that the Bible does teach this, but
        to date the arguments that I have seen in this direction have
        been (in my opinion) pretty sloppy scholarship. In so much as I
        accept the ethical teachings of the Bible, I must listen to what
        it has to say on the issue. On the other hand, I don't see where
        the immorality lies. Again I am not decided on the issue, and
        again it doesn't affect me directly, so I don't feel I need to.
        
        So there it is, I feel that homosexuality may be unhealthy or a
        sign of some sort of ill-health, and that it may be morally
        wrong. Does that make me a homophobe? I don't think so. Nor do I
        feel that everyone who has come to the conclussions that I leave
        as open possibilities is a homophobe. Not everyone who is sure
        that homosexuality is immoral is a bigot, nor is everyone who
        thinks it is sick, or aesthetically repulsive.
        
        What I do think is important is how we view other people, how we
        treat them, whether we love them and support them. I love,
        respect and value people who are variously chaste, promiscuous,
        strictly heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, single, married,
        convinced that homosexuality is wrong or sick, or whatever. Does
        any of these things devalue a person? I think not.
        
        I hope that I can be just as supportive of my gay, lesbian and
        bisexual friends as any of my other friends. Certainly they
        deserve that. 
        
        JimB.

    Jim, I found your note to smack of - well, condescention (sp?)
    
    "Even tho' I disapprove of your lifestyle, I'll be your friend anyway"
    
    Going by all your past notes, I find it hard to believe this was
    your intention. But, it was the impression I got.
    
    I have no statistics, but the "homosexuality-as-a-reaction-to-some-
    problem-situation" is (I believe) shaky. There's a joke about the
    psychiatrists talking about their patients. One says "EVERY SINGLE
    ONE of my homosexual patients is dysfunctional" The other says "Humph.
    ALL of MY patients are dysfunctional"
    
    So heterosexuality is merely a neurotic response to constant societal
    brainwashing? :-?
    
    I think the stats are pointing to healthy people being of all sexual
    lifestyles, adn dysfunctional people being of all sexual lifestyles.
    
    Anybody got the numbers?
    
    Dawn
    

   <--(.20)
   
   Jim, I ran across a rather interesting author recently.  I've only
   managed to get 2 of his books so far, but they are both exceptionally
   well-written and (to me) make a very persuasive case for his general
   thesis, namely that we can, indeed, understand quite a lot of
   phenomena -- particularly "incomprehensible" cultural phenomena --
   if we just work at it a bit.  And that we should do so.
   
   Here is part of what he has to say on this subject.
   
   (Extracted and condensed, without permission, from "Why the Gays Came
   Out of the Closet", chapter 6 of "Why Nothing Works; the Anthropology
   of Daily Life", by Marvin Harris, PhD Professor and former Chairman
   of the Department of Anthropology, Columbia University.  Simon &
   Shuster, 1981.) 
   
   
   "I think gay liberation is more than a sequence of historic accidents
   connecting one form of frustrated or indignant human consciousness
   with another.  Once again, there is a deeper institutional causal
   level that must be taken into account, one that relates the rise of
   the American homosexual community to the rise of the service-and-
   information economy, the recruitment of married women into the labor
   force, and the collapse of the marital and procreative imperative and
   of the male breadwinner family. 
   
   The linkage between women going to work and gays coming out of the
   closet will become clearer if we ask ourselves why gays were in the
   closet in the first place.  Some people suppose that it is only
   "natural" for a society to try to suppress homosexual forms of sex.
   No doubt most human beings experience a strong erotic attraction to
   the opposite sex that is rooted in human nature (although the social
   environment obviously shapes this attraction, and determines what
   kind of heterosexual activity, if any, it will lead to).  But why
   should the natural predominance of heterosexual impulses lead to
   tabooing homosexual impulses and making them a crime?  One
   possibility is that along with the natural preference for the
   opposite sex, most people also have a natural aversion for the same
   sex.  But that seems unlikely. There is a lot of evidence that men
   and women acquire their aversion to homosexual sex in the course of
   growing up and being molded by social customs and conditions.  This
   is not to say that all heterosexuals are potential or repressed
   homosexuals -- the categories are misleading -- but that people
   easily learn to accept homosexual forms of sexuality if there are
   social precedents or personal advantages to be derived from it.  Few
   human beings can be described either as "obligative" heterosexuals or
   "obligative" homosexuals, that is, as individuals for whom any
   deviation from the pattern of exclusive heterosexuality or exclusive
   homosexuality is suppressed by powerful innate drives.  As
   researchers C.S.Ford and F.A.Beach concluded after studying the
   incidence of homosexuality around the world, 'Human homosexuality is
   not basically a product of hormonal imbalance or "perverted"
   heredity.  It is the product of the fundamental mammalian heritage of
   general sexual responsiveness as modified under the impact of
   experience.' 
   
   A description of the sex practices of some societies that expect or
   demand homosexual relationships may be helpful here.  One of the
   better-known examples is the ancient Greeks. 
   
   [Older males had intercourse with younger men and boys.  Sex was
   integral to the educational process.  The Greek practice was modeled
   after an older form of military apprenticeship, and was lauded by
   both Plato and Xenophon.  The men of ancient Greece were not
   obligative homosexuals; all were expected to marry, have heterosexual
   relations with their wives, and produce children.  The women were not
   concerned about their husbands' homosexual activities as long as they
   and their children were treated well.  Greek men who had homosexual
   relationships were not thought effeminate; everyone considered it to
   be the manly thing to do.] 
   
   Similar forms of what might be called "supplementary homosexuality"
   occur in many parts of the world, each with its own special social and
   sexual attributes adapted to local contexts. 
   
   [The Azande, a people of the Southern Sudan in Africa, are described.
   Their practice is similar to that of the ancient Greeks in some ways,
   different to them in others] 
   
   Among the most thoroughly homosexual societies known are the Etoro of
   New Guinea.  As reported by anthropologist Raymond Kelly, the Etoro
   believe that semen is a precious life-giving fluid which each man
   possesses in limited supply.  Without semen, a man withers and dies.
   This in itself is not an unusual doctrine...modern-day Hindus in
   India [have a similar belief, and] in the last century similar
   beliefs were [also] common in Europe and the USA....  What is
   radically different about the Etoro is their notion [that a semen
   supply can only be acquired as a gift from one man to another, via
   fellatio.]  To ensure that semen is properly distributed and used for
   worthy social purposes, older Etoro men are expected to transfer
   their semen to young boys [and generally to provide religious and
   military socialisation].  Etoro seniors are deeply concerned that
   some youths may cheat on the system and that they will attempt to
   augment their semen intake by "stealing" semen from their age mates
   through illicit affairs.  A young man who matures very quickly and
   shows a lack of deference to his seniors will come under suspicion as
   one who is getting more than his proper share of seminal nourishment.
   If a youth persists in such antisocial practices, he may be accused
   of witchcraft and be severely punished or killed. 
   
   The worst threat to the Etoro male's peace of mind is the temptation
   to have intercourse with women.  All Etoro men get married, but they
   are forbidden to have intercourse with their wives for 205 to 260
   days each year and then only [far away from their homes and normal
   support system]. 
   
   Unfortunately, anthropologists have not acquired as much information
   about female as about male homosexuals.  In some societies...such as
   the Azande, wives...have clandestine lesbian relationships. But since
   males usually dominate the means of physical and psychological
   repression, relatively few instances of lesbianism have come to
   light.  (Also, most anthropologists have been males and have not been
   willing or able to talk with women informants.) 
   
   Anthropological studies do show quite conclusively nonetheless that
   relatively few societies place a complete ban on all types of
   homosexual activities.  Therefore, the appropriate question to be
   asked about societies that instill an aversion to all forms of
   homosexuality and force their gays into the closet is not why
   homosexual behavior sometimes occurs (a favorite but misguided theme
   of psychiatrists, social scientists, and homosexuals themselves), but
   why it doesn't occur more often.  Not why some people find it
   appealing, but why so many people find it appalling. 

   Anthropologist Dennis Werner of the Graduate School of the City
   University of New York has made an important discovery [about
   the question:] the aversion to homosexuality is greatest where
   the marital and procreative imperative is strongest.
   
   Western society in the Judeo-Christian tradition fits this formula
   to perfection.  Throughout most of European and American history
   we have been consummate procreationists.  The biblical injunction
   to multiply and fill the earth and subdue it has been spelled
   out in countless laws, repressive acts, and moral precepts directed
   not only against abortion, contraception, and infanticide, but
   against any form of nonprocreative sex -- not only against
   homosexuality but against masturbation, pederasty, fellatio, or
   cunnilingus, regardless of whether performed by a man and woman
   or regardless of whether performed in or out of wedlock.... 
   
   If a society is strongly pro-natalist to begin with and has a
   long-standing tradition of opposing nonprocreative sex, the movement
   to lower the birthrate [that we have been experiencing since the
   Industrial Revolution made large families uneconomical] may not
   immediately result in easing or lifting pro-natalist taboos. 
   In the short run, the contrary may happen, especially if there
   are powerful segments of the society that continue to benefit
   from and insist upon high general rates of population growth.
   In these conditions, instead of leading to greater sexual freedom,
   the threat to the birthrate may at first simply provoke a reaction
   leading to ferocious and bizarre forms of sexual repression [such
   as occurred during what we call the "Victorian era", which actually
   lasted well into the twentieth century.]
   
   Prudery rose as the birthrate fell.  The attempt to enforce the
   procreative and marital imperative became so extreme that the very
   words for nonprocreative sexual acts were taboo.  Even doctors
   hesitated to utter them or to write them down in medical textbooks.
   The veil of secrecy about such matters became so thick that lawmakers
   and judges as well as ordinary citizens lost their ability even
   to have coherent discussions about them.  Onanism, for example,
   which in the Bible simply refers to Onan's ejaculation on the
   ground after withdrawing from intercourse with his brother's wife,
   got confused with masturbation.  And masturbation lost its specific
   meaning when doctors and preachers used it to designate almost
   laws against sodomy, but the prosecution sometimes failed to get
   convictions because the legislators had shied away from defining
   what they meant by the term.  This loss was more than compensated
   by the aura of fear and loathing that rises when horrors are left
   to the imagination.  The Victorians' reluctance to discuss sexual
   matters, their ignorance concerning the anatomy and functions
   of the sex organs, and their propensity to blush or faint simply
   upon hearing the vernacular words for sexual intercourse are all
   understandable from the same perspective:  an increased need to
   repress non-procreative sex in order to counter the increasing
   temptation to violate the marital and procreative imperative.
   
   ...
   
   The hysterical intensity with which homosexuality was repressed
   during the Victorian period has much to do with the specific
   militant content of the gay movement.  The ban on homosexual sex
   was so complete, and the odium attached to it so strong, that
   even a single homosexual performance was sufficient to brand a
   person for life as a pervert or degenerate.  Instead of making
   way for homosexuality as a supplementary or secondary form of
   sexual pleasure, the American Victorians insisted that only the
   most depraved persons could so much as contemplate homosexual
   intercourse.  From this there developed the peculiar notion that
   homosexuality is not a type of activity, but a state of being;
   that people are either in a heterosexual state of being or a
   homosexual state of being; and that if they are in a homosexual
   state of being, they are a depraved type of person whom other
   people ought to shun.
   
   ...
   
   The question remains as to why the Stonewall Rebellion took place in
   1969.  Just as the birthrate kept coming down, despite all the
   marital and procreative laws aimed at achieving the opposite,
   repression and prudery could not prevent large numbers of people from
   clandestinely experimenting with homosexual sex as an alternative to
   bachelorhood, spinsterhood, and procreative marriages. Dennis
   Werner's basic theory implies that any strengthening of the
   anti-natalist position tends to increase the practice of
   homosexuality.  Women's liberation ... was itself made possible by a
   major shift in the balance of power between anti- and pro-natalist
   forces -- a shift rooted in the rapidly changing character of the US
   labor force.  During 1960-1970 the same shift provided powerful
   incentives for rapid growth of the nonobligative homosexual
   population in the United States.... 
   
   The timing of the Stonewall Riots therefore was governed by a
   convergence of conditions favorable to adopting an exclusionist
   homosexual life-style.  On the one side there were all the
   anti-natalist sentiments unleashed by married women's entrance
   into the wage labor force and all the penalties associated with
   the male-centered breadwinner family in an increasingly inefficient
   and inflationary economy plagued by high unemployment.  On the
   other side there was the slow buildup of ... closet gays looking
   for alternatives to [a dehumanising existence].  
   
   In other words, gay liberation accompanied women's liberation
   because each movement represents a different facet of the collapse
   of the marital and procreative imperative and the male-dominated
   breadwinner family. 
   
   ...."

    I've had homosexual friends for many years now, and feel that the
    reaction to homosexuals really does depend on who you know.  Since
    my experiences have been good ones, my reaction to homosexuality
    at large is "live and let live".
    
    I know that when I know little or nothing about a subject or a group
    of people, that's the time when I fall back on what I've heard,
    whether or not it's just a bigoted opinion.  So when I hear someone
    talking about homosexuals in what I call an ignorant way, it bothers
    me because I naturally think of my friends of 25 years+.
    
    I once talked with a man whose wife had left him.  It turned out
    that she had moved in with another woman, and had (he said) "turned
    Lesbian".  After he left, I laughed my head off--I had always assumed
    that homosexuals are born, not "turned".  Now whether or not you
    realize it right away is up to the person.  Am I right?  It just
    sounded so ignorant to say "turned Lesbian"..like she had "turned
    into another lifeform".
    
    It never ceases to amaze me,
    
    Jane

    If you will bear with me I will explain how I personally feel about
    other people's sexual orientation.
    
    It seems to me that we have two major appetites, sex and hunger.
    It also seems to me that we have a lot of problems with both those
    appetites.  We have problems as individuals and how we handle the
    need for sex and food and the world as a whole does a lot of judging
    on individuals and their appetites.
    
    The engineer who designed seemed to want to accomplish two goals.
    A means for us to nourish our bodies and a means to reproduce. 
    
    I think we were set apart from animals and less structured in our
    approach to satisfying the two appetites.  By that we were given
    free will and although we had some instincts we weren't given a
    clear path on what to do.  The squirrel 'knows' he must eat nuts,
    for instance.
    
    Whether we should be vegetarians or eat meat, whether we should
    hetreosexual or homosexual was not determined.  What was determined
    was we must eat some sort of food (Eskimos would naturally be meat
    eaters, other people might have a diet that consisted mostly of
    grains and vegetables).  In order to reproduce we would satisfy
    our sexual appetite with the opposite sex.
    
    Society has convinced me that whatever two consenting adults do
    in private is their concern not mine.  
    
    We are beginning to discover why some people eat more than others
    and as a result are obese.  We are also discovering the American
    image of lean may notbe as healthy as we once thought.
    
    But I think about the original plan and I feel that our bodies were
    meant to work a certain way and homosexuality is not the original
    design.  
    
    So I feel homosexuality is a deviation from the plan.  One that I
    as a member of society I am willing to accept.
    
    There are many ways of expressing sexuality that are not acceptable
    in current society.  I forget the name of the group that is doing
    a lot of work to have us accept older men expressing their sexuality
    with young boys.  This may have been done in past cultures but I
    don't like it.
                  
    But each of us have deviations in some way from the original plan.
    So in essence we are all dysfunctional.  wonder how we separate
    which deviations we are willing to accept and which are unacceptable.
                    

        Dawn (and any others who may have felt the same),
        
        I am terribly sorry if what I said smacked of condescention.
        That was certainly not my intent. Issues such as this are hard
        to discuss, though, so it is not too surprising that I failed to
        convey what I intended. If you will allow me, I will attempt to
        clarify what I had meant to say. Again, no offense is intended
        to anyone, and if it is given, I have no doubt again failed to
        be clear. Please have patience with me.
        
        You have paraphrased what you felt I said in 416.20 as "Even
        tho' I disapprove of your lifestyle, I'll be your friend
        anyway". This is close to my position but at the same time quite
        different. 
        
        I do not *disapprove* of my friends or their lifestyles when
        they differ from mine. Rather I disagree with their judgements.
        To me at least disagreement is a different beast than
        disapproval. We condemn, at least in a small way, those whose
        actions we disapprove. We may, on the other hand, disagree with
        someone we hold in extremely high esteme. In fact we may readily
        respect someone for taking the thought to formulate opinions for
        us to disagree with, and for the conviction to argue them. 
        
        I feel much more comfortable with the statement, "I disagree
        with your lifestyle, but I still value you as a friend." This
        changes the condemnatory "disapprove" to the more neutral
        "disagree", and also puts the value in the right part of
        friendship. Friendship should not be the gift of our valuable
        selves, but the recognition of the value of our friends. If we
        condescend to bestow friendship we put ourselves first, if we
        value others we put them first.
        
        I will even go further and admit to saying--although never of
        homosexuality--"I think what you are doing is wrong, but I
        support you, value you and respect you." When asked I have
        always been open about my own judgements, ethical and otherwise.
        I have at the same time always striven to underscore that
        disagreement--even over fundemental judgements--does not mean
        disapproval.
        
        There are a couple of reasons why I've never said to a
        homosexual friend that I thought what they were doing was wrong.
        The first is the accident that I've never discussed the subject
        in any depth with any of my homosexual or bisexual friends. The
        second is that, as I tried to say earlier, it is a subject upon
        which I am undecided. The most I could honestly say is "I am
        uncomfortable with what you are doing" or "I think what you are
        doing may be wrong or not good for you."
        
        The closest I've come is that a person I love quite dearly and
        who is admittedly bisexual said that she new I disapproved of
        homosexual sex, but knew that I loved her anyway, or something
        quite close to that. I corrected her by saying that I did not
        disapprove of homosexuality, but rather I was not convinced that
        it was right, but that she was correct that it in no way
        diminished my love for her. We then went on to discuss the more
        timely and important issue that was on her mind (which involved
        my taking a real disagreement with a judgement of hers, but we
        still love each other.)
        
        I really can't be comfortable taking any other position. If my
        moral judgements are worth making they are worth stating and
        living by. Yet, recognizing that my judgement is no less flawed
        than any other, it would be arrogant of me to look down on those
        who disagree with me. I will admit to disaproving of those who
        do not think about their actions or who do not consult their
        consciences, but when they do and they come up with an answer
        different from my own, who am I to deny the validity of their
        judgement? If they are wrong, they are merely mistaken.
        
        JimB.

    <-----  Thanks for typing all that in maggie.  It was very interesting.

    Re: Justine's question about telling us when we have said something
    hurtful:
    You know this, but I'll still say it: I would encourage ANY WOMAN
    to say when they have been stepped on.  We are not ogres, nor are
    we omniscient.  We cannot know how many of the things we say are
    hurtful to those we would rather not hurt.  If I step on your toe,
    scream at me, tell me I almost broke it, tell me that's the toe
    EVERYbody seems to want to destroy, because, I cannot know.  You
    are a woman, this is your space as much as it is mine, and I do
    not want to help chase you out.  [I do not encourage this in the
    men who use this space, as many of them are already quite good
    at telling us when we are being sexist and hurting them, tho I must
    say some of them tell us this in what seems to me to be a pretty
    weird way...:)  ]
    
    As women we owe an awful lot to the feminist movement and to our
    "left-wing."  While that left-wing is not entirely lesbian, nor
    are all lesbians members of our left-wing, lesbians have been our
    sisters in this fight, and we owe much to them.  I miss the more
    radical voice and wish we heard more of it.  I also am really glad
    to hear lesbian voices in this file and wish there were more of
    them.
    
    Is there a way that we can be more welcoming to them?  Why should
    people with varying sexual orientations be unwelcome here?  Are
    we doing this on purpose?  Why should this be yet another place
    where a homosexual (or ambisexual, for that matter) have to "watch
    what they say"?  Yes, I know Martin, this file is not the wisest
    place to "come out", but is there anything to be ashamed of in
    homosexuality?  "perversion"? stuff and nonsense.  "against God's
    will"?  Pooh, DEC supports "valuing differences", not evangelism
    (er, the sort that seeks to convert everyone to one viewpoint/
    morality/ethic).  Any form of blatant discrimination such as has
    been described in earlier notes as a possible outcome of coming
    out here (<-- cute play on words, aren't I clever? :)_) can be
    challenged at DEC.  Personnel, for all it's foibles, is still quite
    powerful in this arena.
    
    <flame on>
    
    Seems to me, the only things to hide here are things of which you
    are ashamed.  If you're not ashamed to be a dyke, why the f***
    shouldn't it be okay to say your SO is a woman?!?!
    
    <Geez louweeze, I'm getting mad again.  Flame off now.>
    
    Homosexuality is born of LOVE y'all.  It abuses no one.  It only
    hurts if you get a disease, and that can be prevented.  A woman
    does not "become" a lesbian because she has been abused.  A lesbian
    might be more willing to say "the h*** with these creatures that
    abuse me and my kind", she might be more willing to scream about
    the injustices done to her (ask a battered wife about her alchoholic
    husband, and she'll say yes, he drnks too much, but the real problem
    is _us_, not him), but abuse and anger is not what makes a person
    gay; they are gay because they LOVE, and it happens to be that they
    LOVE the "wrong" gender in the eyes of others.
    
    Re: "turning lesbian"
    I giggle at that phrase too, but if you think about it, there is
    a bit of truth to it.  In these times, most gays and lesbians
    "comeout", maybe to the world at large, maybe to a select few, maybe
    only to themselves.  It can be a time of deep soul-searching.  When
    you take the plunge, it can be very changing, I mean to say, while
    you may feel that you have merely acknowledged (and rejoiced in
    the rediscovery of ) who and what you are, to an outsider it may
    seem to be an utter transformation; the person they thought they
    knew no longer exists.  Maybe s/he never existed at all, but the
    change in a person's outer expression of their inner self could
    seem like a loss to those who only knew the false outer expression.

    In Sisterhood,
    
    Lee

        RE: Maggie's tome
        
        Yes, thank you, Maggie. It was quite interesting. It didn't
        settle any issues in my mind, but it is yet another data point.
        I appreciate the work that went into preparing it. 
        
        RE: Lee's comment to Justine
        
        Not only should the women in this file speak up when someone
        offends them here, but women in general should be encouraged to
        speak up about the things that offend them outside the file.
        They may want to start here and get practice, but it is
        important everywhere. 
        
        As somebody with pretty traditional an conservative views on a
        number of issues, I find that I occasionally give offense where
        I had not intended. I can't stop that if I don't know. Perhaps I
        *should* know without being told, but dolt of a man that I am, I
        really need it spelled out. 
        
        JimB. 

    (No thanks were needed, guys...though, as ever, kind words are
    always welcome :-) 
    
    My point in quoting Harris's book, of course, Jim, is that unless
    you take a strictly Judeo-Christian view as [you should excuse
    it] gospel, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that being
    lesbian or gay is "perverse" or "harmful" in any sense but a
    local-cultural one.  Now, granted we can say, quite legitimately,
    that as a culture we are determined to value being straight and
    devalue being lesbian or gay, but such a stance squares very
    poorly with more general cultural ideals of various kinds.
    (The official Christian stance also squares very poorly with
    a number of *their* more general religious ideals too, but that's
    a different issue :'}                                    
    
    						=maggie

The following is a partial posting - that I personally found offensive,
and have responded to.  By the way Jim, don't take this personally,
some of my best friends are straight, and I love them anyway even if
I think their predeliction to heterosexuality is unhealthy :0).
        
>        I will admit that my feelings about homosexuality are not
>        entirely positive. On the other hand I bear no ill feelings of
>        any sort towards any homosexuals. This may sound like the
>        traditional "some of my best friends are homosexuals", but I
>        don't know how to explain it much better.
        
>        In point of fact some of my best friends ARE homosexuals or
>        bisexuals, so are some of the people with whom I am only
>        casual friends. I don't believe that I hold it against them
>        or judge them for it.         
        

I would venture to say that after reading the rest of your posting that most
homosexuals you know - DO NOT consider you one of THEIR best friends.

        
>        That being said, it seems to me that homosexuality may be more
>        of a dysfunction than it is popular in liberal circles to admit.
>        Both some of the scientific studies I have read and some of the
>        anecdotal evidence I have encountered make think that at least
>        some cases of homosexuality may be reactions to or compensations
>        for stress or bad experiences. 
        
SOME cases of heterosexuality may be reactions to or compensations for
stress or bad experiences.

The American Psychiatric Association obviously disagrees with you.  The 
problems that most lesbians and gay men encounter with their sexual
orientation is how society has "conditioned" them to feel about themselves.
Why not read Lesbian Psychologies by the Boston Women's Psychological 
Collective.

>        In rats that are subjected to extreme over-crowding the
>        incidence of violence and of homosexuality go way up. This makes
>        homosexuality look more like a dysfunction or at least a
>        reaction to stress than the "just the way some people are" kind
>        of thing that the liberated party line would have us believe.

Try homosexuality as a natural reaction to overcrowding - keeps the breeding
down.  Natures way of real birth control.
        
>        It also seems to me that a number of the homosexual people I
>        have known have had histories of extreme sexual repression or
>        have suffered some form of child abuse. It seems at least
>        possible that like the rats they are reacting to an unhealthy
>        situation in their adoption of a homosexual orientation.

Since 3 out of 4 women are sexually abused, raped or physically abused, it 
would seem that with that logic,  3 out of 4 women should be lesbians. 

        
>        Neither of these things nor any of the other things that I know
>        about homosexuality convince me that it is either a dysfunction
>        or just a coping mechanism for a deeper underlying problem, but
>        they do open the door to that possibility. As a result, I am not
>        decided on the issue. I think that it may be unhealthy, but I'm
>        not sure. Not being homosexual, it doesn't directly affect me,
>        so I see no reason to decide the issue in my mind.
        
What is unhealthy is the internalized homophobia that many lesbians and 
gay men experience.  When even your stated * best friends * think that
you are deviant it does create some problems.

My solution is to be very careful about my * best friends *.  They not
only love me, but understand my life style, and are SUPPORTIVE of it.
The pits is the supposed liberal who will embrace me as  half a person
and tell me how much they love me.  BULL S**T.  It's not possible.

Being a lesbian is a total life experience.  It is NOT just who I sleep
with.  It is WHO I AM.  It's my political outlook, the way I parent my
sons, how I relate to my friends, my spirituality, the beer I drink, 
etc.,etc.,etc.

So, Jim....you could never be a * best or even good * friend.  You are
in effect patronizing (my view).  Now you should be aware that I AM
a radical lesbian feminist.  My views are not those of "gay women",
but those of a "Radical Dyke" (and there is a difference).

Flora

    I'll also, for the record, echo Lee's sentiment:
    
    I am very glad to hear lesbian voices in the file, and hope that
    we can hear more of them more often.  (And that we can hear from
    gay men as well, just as we hear from straight men.) 
    
    We are all in this together, sisters and brothers, lesbian, bi,
    gay, straight, asexual, african, european, asian, mixed, old,
    young....everybody.  If we don't take care of one another, we all
    lose. 
    
    We can change the world, if only we will.
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie

    
    re .29
    
    Those of you who are straight might have been a little put off by
    Flora's angry words, and I can appreciate that.  I think most of
    us like to avoid confrontation, and it's scary when we think our
    own words and feelings might be under attack.  But my own response
    to Flora's words was one of exhilaration.  It's exciting to finally
    read words that I would love to have said if I only dared.  
    
    It's been my experience that this conference often has problems
    dealing with direct expressions of anger, much as I think women often 
    have trouble dealing with anger.  But I think anger can be very
    useful.  It challenges us to keep examining the rules, and it helps
    us to keep in touch with what's most important to us.  Anger can
    also stimulate growth.   In this case, Flora's willingness to jump
    right in without fear makes me feel a little less afraid to stick
    my toes in to check out the water.  If it weren't for the risk takers
    who are willing to keep pushing, I'm convinced that rest of us would
    not be able to move as far.   Thanks, Flora!
    
    Justine

    re .29
    
    One of your statements says:
    
    " 3 out of 4 woman have been sexually abused "
    
    I have a lot of problems believing that this is the case in the
    culture I know best, i.e. the European culture, or even the American
    culture. I don't know enough about Asia, Africa or even South-America
    to make any statement about them, but I guess in this file, unless
    otherwise specified, we are talking about our own culture, so my
    immediate reaction is:
    
    IT CAN'T POSSIBLY BE TRUE !!!
    
    What you say implies that:
    
    - 75 out of every 100 women has been subjected to a "bad" - for
      want of a better word - sexual experience;
    
    - logically 75 out of every 100 ***MEN*** has behaved "badly" towards
      women (or a woman).
    
   I refuse to consider that 3/4 of humanity is behaving badly towards
    the other 3/4 ...
    
    Joana
    

    re 32    .29 said 3 out of four had been sexually abused, raped
    or physically abused. Three different, though sometimes related,
    forms of abuse. Not what you quoted. 

    reply to 416.32
    
    Those figures are quoted by "Take Back the Night" gathered from
    FBI statistics.  Ain't that a kick.

    the stats say that approximately 60% of american women have been
    raped, mostly by someone they know.  I am unsure of the source of
    this stat, but am pretty sure of its validity: tell ten women you
    have been raped, and I'll lay odds four or five of them will tell
    you their stories too.  One or two will never tell anyone, and may
    deny (even to themselves) that it even happened.
    
    Rape is just one form of abuse.  Harrassment does not just happen
    in third world countries: when was the last time you walked on a
    street after sundown in a populated area without being propositioned?
    It happened to me more overseas than it does in the US (to me),
    but that could just be the "sore-thumb" american (doubt it, tho).
    
    It is also likely that _not_ a majority of men are responsible for
    the abuse, but that a smaller proportion abuses more than one woman.
    
    Lee

You might find these numbers interesting.  The source is
the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Board, 1980.


			 Japan	U.S.A.	  U.K.	W.Germ	France
	Known Cases	 2,610	82,088	 4,588	 6,904	 1,886
Rape	Crime Rate  (%)	   2.2	  36.2	   9.3	  11.2	   3.5
	Arrest Rate (%)	  89.0	  48.8	  87.0	  72.3	  76.6

The (%) figure appears the rate per hundred thousand (unless I dropped a
zero somewhere).  These are, of course, per-year statistics and do not
reflect the experiences of a lifetime.

Statistics are generally collected by someone to prove a point.
(In this case, Japan was showing the world how little crime it
has and how well its police work).  In general, I would tend to
take any collection of numbers with a slight dose of suspicion.

Martin.

    
    Does Japan "outlaw" spousal rape?  Does Japan "blame" the victim
    if there is "perceived inticement", does the rape then not count?
    Since Japan is extremely oppressive of women do you really believe
    that they feel free to report cases of date rape, spousal rape etc..
    The women's community in the U.S. has had to work very hard to 
    change attitudes about rape.  Women in this country will call a
    volunteer rape crisis center before they call the police so they
    can be guaranteed of having a supportive person - who knows the
    laws and understands the trauma of rape.
    
    If anyone has been involved with a rape crisis center they know
    that the majority of women DO NOT report the crime.  Even with
    the support system, women have to "endure" the typical patriarchal
    responses to rape.  Many women feel they have suffered enough.

    I guess I had the same immediate take as did Flora, Martin.
    I love japanese art, food, and zen philosophy...but it is
    a *sexist* society [do we have any japanese women readers?
    would you comment, please?  thank you!].  I feel quite sure,
    admittedly without being able to defend my certainty, that
    "rape" over there is construed as something very different
    to "sexual activities undertaken without the consent of one
    of the participants".                              
    
    And the statistics for the US also fail, I think, to reflect
    grim reality, for the reasons given by Flora.
    
    						=maggie 

        As the person to whom 416.29 was addressed I was not as 416.31
        put it "put off by Flora's angry words". In fact I very much
        appreciated reading it. Flora Piterak's anger is completely
        understandable, and her voicing it may sadden me, but it does
        not offend or anger me.
        
        It saddens me anytime I unitentionally anger or pain another
        person (and with luck you'll know without a doubt when I'm
        trying to anger or hurt you should that happen). I am truely and
        deeply sorry to have angered and offended Ms. Piterak (you will
        excuse, I hope, my formality but it is not my custome to use
        familiar forms of address without permission, and this may not
        be the best time to ask it), especially as this is woman notes
        and as a male I feel that I am somewhat of a guest here. 
        
        I have been asked by mail why I posted this note, and perhaps
        this is as good a time as any to speak to that. While my
        intention is certainly not to offend or to harm anyone, and to
        the best of my knowledge I am neither motivated by a fear of
        homosexuals or homsexuality, nor by bigotry against them, my
        views have at times been categorized as homophobic. I feel they
        are not, but there's no guarantee that I am correct.
        
        Lee in her topic note brought up the question of what views are
        hurtful and why. In my opinion my views are not, but I'm willing
        to admit to error. It seemed to me worthwhile to lay my views
        clearly on the table and allow them to be discussed as one of
        the many examples of allegedly homophobic statements. There are
        many possible positive outcomes of this. One is that homosexuals
        or bisexuals may come to see that not all negative views about
        homosexual behavior are condemneations of them. Another is that
        I will be convinced that my views are either wrong or harmful.
        (If they are *right* and harmful it leaves me an interesting
        dilemma.) Whatever the outcome, an honest discussion of views
        and feelings ought to be better than concealed resentment and
        unstated anger.
        
        I am glad that Ms. Piterak has expressed the offense and anger
        that I have caused. It gets it on the table, and we can at least
        attempt to discuss it and to resolve differences. As I said in
        each of my notes above, it was not my intent to offend, and in
        as much as I have I have failed, and I am sorry, very sorry.
        
        I have tried in my second note above to express myself better,
        and may have done so, for the moment I will not attempt to
        restate what I have said there a third time. I will comment on
        some of the issues Ms. Piterak has brought up directly, though.
        
        First, please let me assure you that what I have written is not
        intended to be patronizing, and I certainly do not feel in
        anyway superior to anyone on the basis of sexual orientation. If
        what I said made it sound as if I did, I am sorry, I have failed
        to express myself well.
        
        I certainly would feel badly about treating anyone as half a
        person, and that is not my intent. I don't know if I understand
        the lifestyle of my homosexual and bisexual friends. How truely
        and deeply do we ever understand one another. I think I have a
        feel for it, but how can I be sure. I can try to understand,
        though, and I do. How about being supportive of it. Well, I can
        quite say that I am supportive of a homosexual life style in
        that I do feel that it may be wrong in some sense, but I can be
        supportive of my friends, and of their decisions.
        
        If you have considered your lifestyle and your conscience gives
        you no problems with it and you therefore choose to live your
        life as you see fit, then I can applaud that despite the fact
        that I might make those decisions differently myself. I will
        not, given my scruples encourage anyone to engage in homosexual
        activity. I will encourage people to assume a set of ideals and
        standards and live up to them even if that means that they
        assume a homosexual lifestyle. 
        
        I have no problems feeling warmth or admiration towards you, Ms.
        Piterak. You make your decisions and you live by them. You
        clearly have principles which you live by, and you lay the cards
        squarely on the table. If you were my friend, I know of no
        reason that I couldn't commit to being supportive of you in
        whatever you choose to do. 
        
        As to my friends who are homosexual or bisexual, or my friends
        who engage in non-committed sex or who have abortions or who
        make any ethical judgements with which I disagree, I have no
        qualms about supporting them in carrying out the actions that
        those decisions entail. I may that what they are doing *appears
        wrong to me*, but I will not say that with absolute certainty
        they *are* wrong, and I will as best I can support them in doing
        what they feel they ought.
        
        Is that any less offensive, any less patronizing?
        
        JimB. 

    
    re: -1
    
    Forget it Jim. I think you have expressed both your views and your
    reasoning. You were just the first to walk out openly to the lions
    den. Homophobia can be broken down to two words. FEAR and
    MISUNDERSTANDING. But trying to confront one's own fear and 
    misunderstanding is not so easy to do. Perhaps this notes could
    address some of the major fears and misunderstandings? 
    
    
    							Chris
    

    Some time ago I read that acrophobia, the fear of heights, was
    not rooted in a fear of falling, but a fear of jumping.
    
    My response was, "Yeah, when I peek over a cliff edge or the like,
    I wonder about my wayward feet suddenly choosing to step forward
    too far.  That sounds right."  I've mentioned this to other people,
    and some have said, ~Yup, I could see that.~ and some have said
    nothing, but no one thought the view was nonsense.
    
    Could it be >>in some cases<< that homophobia is the fear of saying
    "yes" if one were propositioned by a member of one's own sex?
    
    I don't *think* of myself as homophobic, but, like many/most women,
    I've been propositioned and said "no", so I know I can do it (even
    though I'm aware of the pain that even a polite "Thank you, but
    no." could cause).
    
    But what of members of that Other Gender?  Could any of them be
    worried about saying "yes" instead of "no"?  Or even afraid that
    a "no" will be taken for "yes" (as some men have done when asking
    women)?
    
    						Impishly, Ann B.
    
    P.S.  To acknowledge JimB.'s writing:  This I know would not
    apply to him; one of his favorite anecdotes shows he knows "no".

    re .22
    
    " In other words, gay liberation accompanied women's liberation
       because each movement represents a different facet of the collapse
       of the marital and procreative imperative and the male-dominated
       breadwinner family. "
    
    This "collapse of the ..." bothered me all through my reading of
    the article, I think mostly because it seems to be assuming that
    this is the norm?  For all time?  :-)  For recently?  Well, maybe,
    although the title _Why_Nothing_Works_... then should be
    _Why_Nothing_Works_Anymore_...  Or something.
    
    re .12:. (various sources)
    
    I still think that recent examples will bear me out: that saying
    "some of my best friends are gay" is going to start you out on the
    wrong foot with many gay people who read that.  (And it still holds
    true if you substitute "women" or "black" for "gay".)  I realize
    there is a very strong pull for many non-gays to justify their
    position, to show that yes, they have some relations with gays.
    But is this really necessary?  Shouldn't your opinions about gays
    be presented without any coverings of disclaimers?  Is "some of
    my best friends are gay" said to defuse or soften a possible attack?
    And is there any amount of self-justification?  Having gay friends
    is never enough to prevent you from learning about gays from others,
    unless you want it to.    
    
    re: Anger and criticism
    
    One more word to those who are angry: please try, when you are angry,
    to put forth as much information as you can.  When you are angry,
    say what made you angry and really try to nail down why, if you
    can.  The more information you can give, the more help you can give
    the person who made you angry--they can either think of other ways
    to say what they really meant to say, or they may be brought to
    self-reflection about their ideas.  (horrors!  :-) )  Just "that
    makes me angry" may not be enough to cause thought rather than
    dismissal. 
    
    re: coming out at Digital
    
    While I cannot speak from direct experience about coming out about
    homosexuality at Digital, I can speak about the effect of rumors
    on your workplace.  Rumors are those things that sometimes
    even your best friend or the boss can't tell you, and yet they may
    have a distinct impact on your perceived performance at work.
    If you are never told them, you may never be able to fight them.
    Prejudices are much like rumors, in that you will rarely be confronted
    with someone telling you you can't be promoted because you're
    gay/black/female (*well* if you do, and they're a person in a position
    to know, you *can* do something legal about it).  On the other hand,
    indirect trashing can happen to anyone, and accusing of everyone
    for not liking you will get you to the Employee Referral Program.  
    One might argue that being open about one's differences is like 
    drawing a big line and daring someone to step over it, and in that 
    case, everyone should come out, but you won't get even me to go to 
    such an extreme argument.  (This time.  :-) )
      

Anyone who'se seen me over the last year has probably noticed that
I've become significantly bald.  Some friends haven't noticed, others
have asked if I was allright -- worried that I was on chemo, etc.
It's a strange condition called alopecia areata, which is medical Latin
for "your hair fell out and we don't know why."  I don't know if it
was caused by running three marathons, vacationing in Europe after
Chernobyl, or eating too much pesto.  Anyway, I look even less like
your average yuppie than I used to.

Well, I've discovered in the most obvious possible fashion that there
are people out there (of every possible gender) who get off on that
sort of thing.

So, to answer Ann's question in .41, I've been propositioned by people
who seemed quite embarrased when I shrugged and said, "Thanks, but that's
not my style."  I suppose it was a bit wierd for both of us, but I have
a suspicion that the proposer was a bit more experienced at going up
to some strange guy and saying "I'd sure like to take you to a party"
than I was in hearing it.

By the way, the proper response to "some of my best friends are <X>"
was created by Lenny Bruce: "All of my best friends are <X>."

Martin.

    Speaking from my personal experiences I would like to thank
    JimB for his recent notes. I remember (as I have related in a 
    previous note) how a Black friend of my husband's and mine
    was willing to teach me about my misunderstandings about being
    of a different race in America, but he wouldn't have been able
    to teach me if I hadn't been able to express my ignorance. The
    only way to help people expand their coniousness is to be able
    to listen to them and teach them. If people of good will whom I
    know call my children 'colored' or 'retarded' I will take the time
    to explain to them why I prefer 'Black' or 'special needs'. I think
    that in Jims case he expressed a lot of the concerns/ideas/feelings
    /conceptions/misconceptions that others with similar or less experience
    with homosexuals might have but were afraid to express thro fear
    of offending or getting flamed. Tho I have know a few homosexuals
    the first time I have been able to talk about homosexuality with
    a gay person was when I started a correspondance with a woman in
    this conference on an entirely different subject, and I guessed
    that was her orientation and we talked about it.  If we are going
    to get any where in this world then we must be able to express our
    questions and our doubts.
    
    To be perfectly honest, my personal concern with the way this discussion
    is going is that some women who are conservative will be turned
    off by it and leave the conference. I am concerned because they
    will lose a change to learn about different people, and because
    they will also lose out if they decide that this conference is not
    for them and not enter subjects that they want to talk about.
    
    Let us all try and listen to each other.
    
    Bonnie J
    

    I've been trying to articulate why I was bothered by Jim's note.
    
    I think I've figured it out. I get the same feeling from his note
    that I do from some of my Christian friends, a feeling that they
    know better than I what is right for me. That they love me even
    though I persist in behavior they disapprove of. Their attitude
    is basically condescending, no matter how well meaning it is. Hating
    the sin and loving the sinner assumes a division between the sin
    and the sinner. In the case of homosexuality that just isn't true.
    Homosexuality is not something different from the person, it is
    PART of the person (perhaps not ALL homosexuals but CERTAINLY some).
    Flora said it very well. You cannot hate homosexuality and love
    homosexuals. To do so assumes that homosexuality is something chosen
    and is something changeable, for if it were not changeable, hating
    it would be cruel, *even* if you believed it was bad.
    
    Homosexuality is not just (or even first) physical sex, it is love.
    Those who claim to hate homosexuality usually focus on the physical
    aspects and ignore the love. How can people loving each other be bad?
    Does it REALLY matter what sex they are?
    
    Claims about the "naturalness" of the physical act are somewhat
    suspect as well, after all it's "obviously natural" that people
    should only love those of the same race... Claims about what's natural
    always make me worried, after all, the "natural" way to win arguments
    is to beat the sh*t out of your opponent.
    
    Unless you can describe what it is about homosexuality that is wrong
    or bad, in rational terms, your dislike for homosexuality is based
    on faith, not on reason, and an unreasonable fear (or hatred, or
    dislike) of homosexuality is homophobia.
    
    Anything that causes others pain is a sin. Anything that increases love
    is good. Everything else is simply a matter of taste. 
    
    	Chacun a son gout!
    	-- Charles
    
    [Why isn't there a simple word for the opposite of "sin"? Says
    something about us, no? Sick culture... Whorff was right.]

Note 416.42          
    
    re: coming out at Digital
    
	In my opinion, everyone should come out.  It is not an easy
	task. Coming out is coming out every single day, over
	and over and over again.  However, it is much healthier
	personally and professionally.  

	Personally it is very empowering to be free of the lies, 
	half truths and the creative non-gender discussions about 
	your wonderful weekend! Some times you lose "friends", and
	family...but, you gain yourself and an extended family in
	the community.

	Professionally - well, I had a friend who is very out in
	Digital, and in a very visible job, tell me that once
	you defuse the rumors with fact...what is there left
	to say.  It's true.  Now that there are no more rumors
	about whether I am or not, I can move ahead.  I can be
	more productive for DEC....I'm not spending a lot of
	energy hiding who I am.  If someone doesn't want to 
	hire me because I'm a lesbian, did I really want to
	work for them in the first place?  If people don't
	choose to acknowledge me, did I want to be friends with
	them anyway?  In addition I'm often asked to participate
	in valuing differences work for DEC because I'm out - visible
	and vocal.  
	
	The gay and lesbian community is where the black community was 
	in the late 60's.  There is a sense of pride about how
	we have managed to shape our communities of love, support
	and caring in the face of incredible oppression.  We have
	a lot to share with the straight world.  

Note 416.44          

	Yes, I think Jim was at least honest about his "homophobia".
	I still don't agree with his conclusions or his philosophy.
	But, at least it is on the table and we can talk about it.

	
>    To be perfectly honest, my personal concern with the way this discussion
>    is going is that some women who are conservative will be turned
>    off by it and leave the conference.     

	By the same token, what about radical women leaving this conference
	because some of the subjects MAY seem dull and insipid.  If this
	is a place for all women, then I guess us radicals, and conservatives
	will have to put up with each other!

Note 416.45                       


	Charles, thanks...I had a difficult time putting my finger
	on what bothered me about the posting (other than all the
	obvious things!)  Very well articulated.

re .43
    
>Well, I've discovered in the most obvious possible fashion that there
>are people out there (of every possible gender) who get off on that
>sort of thing.

	There really are only 2 genders!!  We may all fall at different
	places on the -percieved femininity to perceived masculinity-
	spectrum, but I would argue that notions of femininity and 
	masculinity are social constructions that vary cross culturally 
	and over time.  

With regard to fending off unwanted propositions, I guess in the best of
all possible worlds, we would feel no greater discomfort in saying, "no"
to someone because he or she is not the right sex than we would feel
when we're just not interested in that person.  Any ideas on why there's 
such a difference now?  

Justine


    

    That's what *I* was feeling, too, and failed miserably at saying.
    
    Dawn
    

Initially, coming out was an incredibly intense experience
for me. I anguished over acknowledging the fact that I was a lesbian, 
a woman-identified woman.  What I discovered as I grappled with this pro-
cess was that the fear, embarrassment and discomfort I felt about myself
were results of my socializing and society's lesbophobia that I had inter-
nalized. Choosing NOT to own that "stuff" stengthened and freed me.  My hunch
is that I became a more compassionate and sensitive human being as well.

Now, more than ever, I believe that coming out is vital emotionally, spiritually
and politically.  Retreating and/or maintaining oneself in a closet are neither
adequate nor healthy responses to manifestations of homo/lesbophobia.

Ann Marie

    One never stops coming out.  It is a process...sometimes I get tired
    of coming out and educating people about homophobia.  But, it is
    more important for me to continue to come out now than ever before.
    
    Sometimes I say to my SO, I love you more now because you need more
    love now...It is the same with coming out, I'll continue to speak,
    to educate to learn.  I have to to counter the fear, phobia and
    repression.
    
    MaggieT

    re.32
    
    Why do you choose not to believe 3/4 of the people abuse the other
    3/4. Take a look around you, look at history, look at South Africa,
    look at how the American Indian was treated, look at slavery, wars,
    read about how the English have treated people in India, these are
    the things that are admitted and documented in history. Now add
    all the things that no one wants to admit. Looks like, to me, that
    a lot of people are out ther abusing other people. 
    
    Until we start accepting people as people first, and stop looking
    at skin color, hair color, body shape and size, sexual preference,
    and some of the other stupid reasons for judging people the will
    continue to be phobias of all kinds. 
    
    

This is being entered for a an individual who wishes to remain annonymous
    __________________________________________________________

I think that this discussion should have instead been named heterophobia.
From what I've read, there started out a nice exchange of personal
feelings. Then someone got angry (phobic perhaps?) and started picking apart
syntax. Someone even got hate mail. 

Based on this, you folks tell me who has problems dealing with what?

It looks like yet another double standard to me. Homosexuals want to be
accepted and yet I see no homosexual acceptance of heterosexuals.

I see entries where heterosexuals start with disclaimers and pre-apologies
in case anyone is offended and I don't see this same courtesy extended by
homosexuals when a vituperative reponse is entered. Would this community
also lend support to an angry reply aimed at a homosexual?

I see a lot of support in this community for those of a homosexual preference.
Do you folks also support other types of sexual activity? One person
brought up NAMBLA (or whatever it is)? What about people who prefer bondage?
S&M? etc.. And understand, I am not comparing homosexuality to any of these
activities. These are merely other types of activities that some folks enjoy
and I ask you: Do you share equal openmindedness for sexual activities
such as these that you might never do? 

My views? I DON'T CARE! I am not the least bit interested in your sexual
preferences and I don't care to discuss mine with others. To tell you
the truth, the entry by Marcie::Jlamotte reflects my feelings on the
subject very well. 


P.s. If anyone cares to ask me specific questions I'll be glad to offer
     honest answers.

Note 416.52                      
                             -< Anonymous entry >-

>I think that this discussion should have instead been named heterophobia.
>From what I've read, there started out a nice exchange of personal
>feelings. Then someone got angry (phobic perhaps?) and started picking apart
>syntax. Someone even got hate mail. 

I get hate mail often...and mostly just because I'm radical.

>It looks like yet another double standard to me. Homosexuals want to be
>accepted and yet I see no homosexual acceptance of heterosexuals.

I love my mother, I love my sons, I love lots of people, many of whom
I presume are heterosexual.  I DO NOT LIKE HOMOPHOBES - period.  There are 
homophobic people who are bisexual, homosexual and heterosexual.  We - 
Lesbians and Gay men live in a heterosexual world.  Most of us have parents 
that are heterosexual. The whole world accepts heterosexuality.  I accept 
heterosexuality as a type of lifestyle that is viable for a large portion 
of people.  

>I see entries where heterosexuals start with disclaimers and pre-apologies
>in case anyone is offended and I don't see this same courtesy extended by
>homosexuals when a vituperative response is entered. Would this community
>also lend support to an angry reply aimed at a homosexual?

I personally feel - note the personal -it is incredibly manipulative to
apologize to someone before you tell them they are immoral, deviant,
dysfunctional etc.,etc..  Should an apology then make all the words
ok?

>I see a lot of support in this community for those of a homosexual preference.
>Do you folks also support other types of sexual activity? One person
>brought up NAMBLA (or whatever it is)? What about people who prefer bondage?
>S&M? etc.. And understand, I am not comparing homosexuality to any of these
>activities. These are merely other types of activities that some folks enjoy
>and I ask you: Do you share equal openmindedness for sexual activities
>such as these that you might never do? 

THIS IS IMPORTANT - SEXUAL ACTIVITY IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!
Bondage, pederasty, sado-masochism are sexual activities.  That is a whole
different subject.  We are talking about lives...the total person, not
the sexual activity they choose.

>My views? I DON'T CARE! I am not the least bit interested in your sexual
>preferences and I don't care to discuss mine with others. To tell you
>the truth, the entry by Marcie::Jlamotte reflects my feelings on the
>subject very well. 

And my apologies first....but, if you don't care, why are you reading this
particular note, and why are you choosing to respond?  Why did you reply
anonymously?  Let me clue you in - it's a hell of a lot easier to be a
heterosexual homophobe than it is to be an out lesbian, and my name's
here.

    One of the reasons why people discuss their sexual orientation
    especially if the orientation is different than most people's is
    to identify who we are and to address our issues. Most of our issues
    around homophobia have got to do with the fact that the dominant
    culture militates against us. ( Which does not mean that I hate straight
    folks...some of my best friends are straight as are the other 13
    members of my immediate family.)  
    I would much prefer to have rational dialogues with folks who are
    different than I in order for all of us to value our differences.
    Tho' I suspect that when "buttons" are being pushed one is more likely
    to get a reaction and not a response..

    You might say that I'm immoral
    I might say that you're a whoral
    We might think we know the answer
    As if there's just one question.
    
    Perhaps I am dysfunctional
    and hiding for the good of all
    and arguing electronically
    over society's awful crimes.
    
    Part of me is more neurotic
    some of me is less erotic
    Did you say someone's to blame
    for these sad and lonely times?
    
    Of course these must be natural aversions.
    At least my GOD must be a given.
    Otherwise I'd have to rely on shifting
    values and altered beliefs.
    
    But I don't disapprove!
    But I always say let live!
    Still we do protest too much
    and cause unending grief.
    
    Don't mutter that word lesbian
    don't bother us with questioning
    And you won't know the half of me
    Behind a televideo screen.
    
           -Barbara Corman

re: .53:
  >THIS IS IMPORTANT - SEXUAL ACTIVITY IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!
  >... We are talking about lives...the total person, not the sexual
  >activity they choose.

Umm, I'm confused.  Are you suggesting you can live a homosexual
life[style] without engaging in homosexual activity?  I am aware that
some psychological profiles (such as MMPI) attempt to predict
"orientation" by examining lifestyle.  ("Ballet" is feminine, for
example.)  However, that particular MMPI scale isn't taken very
seriously -- by itself -- by anyone, so I'm wondering what you mean.

As near as I can tell, outside of the bedroom (and ignoring people
who are into camp), gays act/look pretty much like straights.

Martin.

  Yes Martin, you can be a homosexual without ever engaging in sex.
  
  Do you doubt this? Assume you never had sex again in your life. Would
  you stop being a <mumble>sexual? Your orientation is much more than
  the physical act of sex. I suspect you really know this and are just
  being disingenuous.
  
  To change a well known aphorism:
  
  "Am I heterosexual when I'm not having sex?"
  
  	-- Charles

    In reply to 51., which was replying to 32. (this sounds like a chain
    letter!!!).
    
    The reference, for those that got lost in the meanders (which I
    do frequently when reading notes), I was doubting that 3/4 of all
    men were behaving badly towards 3/4 of all women.
    
    The context was:			was not:
    
    women vs. man			humanity as a whole
    Europe and America			the world as a whole
    here and now			the dawn of civilization up
    					to the middle of the 20th century
    sexual abuse			any sort of abuse
                                                     
    
    If one takes your context + mine, yes, I do agree with you. In fact,
    I would even go further: I strongly believe that 95% of all the
    humanity of all times has been, is being and will be abused in any
    way by the remaining 5%. The figures could even be higher, something
    like a 98% - 2% ratio. 
    
    However, to me, this is NOT a men vs. women thing.
    
    I hope I have made myself clearer now.
    
    Joana

    re .57:
    
    >  "Am I heterosexual when I'm not having sex?"
     
    Might it not be nice if everyone could answer "no" to this?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I think you caught Martin out, Charles.  He has often demonstrated
    that he can say the most outrageous things with a perfectly straight
    face <npi>.                                        
    
    <snicker>
    
    						=maggie

Actually, I was being relatively serious: what I intended to say
was "could I be a homosexual if all of my sexual experiences were
heterosexual."

I suppose, the answer is still yes.  Sort of blurs the definitions,
though.

Onward?

Martin.

Note 416.56      

>Umm, I'm confused.  Are you suggesting you can live a homosexual
>life[style] without engaging in homosexual activity?  I am aware that
>some psychological profiles (such as MMPI) attempt to predict
>"orientation" by examining lifestyle.  ("Ballet" is feminine, for
>example.)  However, that particular MMPI scale isn't taken very
>seriously -- by itself -- by anyone, so I'm wondering what you mean.

Yes, yes, yes, yes....you can be homosexual (goddess I hate that word!)
without being sexual.

A short story..

When I first "came out" after 3 years of living with another women
and constantly saying to myself "It's the person I love, not that
I'm gay", I found a lesbian support group.  When I attended
the first meeting one of the women talked about being a lesbian
and NEVER experiencing a sexual encounter with another women.
My socks were blown off!  I didn't understand.  After eleven years
of being out..I understand.  

For fourteen years I was married.  I had two sons from that marriage.
Pete and I had a great relationship, and we are still friends.  When
I met the woman that I eventually lived with for 10 years...there was
not doubt in my mind that I had to be with her.  The relationship was
awful!  It was destructive in every possible way.  However, and this 
is the part to pay great attention to, It was inherently right.  Even 
though the marriage to Pete was good - sexually, emotionally, 
intellectually - it was NOT right.  It was not WHO I was.  The sexual 
activity didn't matter...still doesn't really matter.  I am a woman 
identified woman. It is where I belong...I am at home within myself.
If I were not in a relationship, and never was *with* another woman,
I would always be a lesbian.

Now, there are a lot of other pieces about being lesbian or gay that,
again, have nothing to do with the act of sex.  The creative ways of
dealing with a homophobic society, parenting children, political
activity, creating communities of support, etc.. 

Your next note said something about the "definitions" then being
somewhat skewed.  They certainly are.  My sexuality is only a part
of my whole.  The whole is lesbian....with or without "sex".

Flora

    There are  all kinds of lines that can be drawn between people. Some of
    them can be drawn based on a personal set of beliefs of what's right or
    wrong. Every time we draw one, we're individually diminished. Now there
    are times we want to remove ourselves from others. The question is, are
    there  lines  we  draw  that  have  a  negative  rather than a positive
    diminution?

    If love  is  one  of the most precious gifts we can share with another,
    and  that love is kind and fulfilling, then that in itself is reason to
    rejoice. For those who believe in a god, love shared is an extension of
    the positive power of that god.

    In loving  another, we're opening that aspect of self that's in need of
    connection  with  a  larger  part  of  the  whole. This can be god, the
    universe,  or  whatever term one uses to express this concept. We're so
    many  of us hungering for a more complete self, a greater understanding
    of  life,  existence, god. Philosophically, of course, we're ultimately
    alone  because  a  true  union  of two isn't possible. But that doesn't
    diminish  the  need  we  have to reach out and become part of something
    bigger than one self.

    This leads  me to not only understand the concept of homosexuality, but
    to  celebrate  the  love  two people share. As with any friends I love,
    their  happiness  extends  to  me. Love is a circle that expands, whose
    power  radiates, whose presence makes life worth living.

    Sex is  a  mechanism  for getting closer to someone. We stand naked and
    are not ashamed. We revel, we delight, we give.

    Life is  hard  or life is easy - depending on an individual and a given
    situation.  One  can't (or perhaps I should say I don't think it's fair
    to)  advise  another  to avoid a situation just because it's possibly a
    rough road or because society disapproves. There've been unconventional
    choices  I've  made  that  I  was  advised against. No regrets. I would
    advise  anyone  asking  me to go for the love. That's where we grow and
    thrive.

    Flora, and others, 
    
    I've spent the last hour reading the notes on this topic, at
    times understanding fully what is being said, at other times
    getting confused about what the author is saying. 
    
    I'm trying to understand how, if you leave sexual activity out
    of defining what a lesbian is (or a homosexual male), then what
    does determine how a person defines herself as being a lesbian?
    
    You used the term, woman identified woman, in your explanation.
    I guess I'm not exactly sure what that means. Could you help
    me to get a clearer grasp of that concept?
    
      Alan
      

    For one thing, Alan, a lesbian is attracted to women as companions
    sexually, socially, emotionally.  JimB may not be sexual with anyone
    but his wife, and if she somehow lost the ability to be sexual he
    probably would never have sex with anyone again, but he would still
    be heterosexual (thanks, Jim.  I use your name because it is well-known
    that you are heterosexual and monogamous).  I may feel an emotional,
    sexual, and social attraction to women, but may be celibate for
    some reason, and this would not make me any less lesbian.  Although
    I have many male friends (some of my best friends are ;-)), I still
    feel more comfortable around women.  In this way I am able to be
    lesbian even if I never sleep with a woman.
    
    Incidentally, just as there are many degrees of being sexual, there
    are many degrees of one's need for members of a particular sex.
    Some heterosexual women also prefer the company of women.  This
    may or may not mean anything.
                                   Carol
    
    

    
    Note 416.64     

     
>    I'm trying to understand how, if you leave sexual activity out
>    of defining what a lesbian is (or a homosexual male), then what
>    does determine how a person defines herself as being a lesbian?
    
>    You used the term, woman identified woman, in your explanation.
>    I guess I'm not exactly sure what that means. Could you help
>    me to get a clearer grasp of that concept?
    
 
In one sense this is easy and in another sense...how is defining self
easy.

Woman identified woman. 

A woman who enjoys the company, support, caring, love, femaleness, 
strength, nurturing, depth, gentleness, commitment, understanding,
politicalness, questioning, spirituality - the list is forever for 
me - of other women.  A woman who enjoys giving and receiving on a 
totally equal plane. A woman who understands the very depths of 
another women with the total empathy of womanhood.  I can commune 
with my whole being with a woman, and never be sexual.  Straight women, 
or lesbians..doesn't matter.  I find great rapport with women who can 
share of themselves, and allow me to share of myself.  I do find that 
the majority of women who fall into this category are lesbians.  SOME
are straight women or bisexual women.

		***** Disclaimer *****

I do not dislike men - you have two sons and dislike men! - Some 
friends are men -), and some very strong political allies of mine
are men.  I PREFER women, and prefer to spend my time and energy
with women.  

                  - A Question -

Since I really don't know...is this how straight women view being
with men?  I would presume so, but I really don't have any idea.
I somehow would venture to say that being straight must be something
that satisfies all of the above in straight people.  But, it is not 
within me to know - since I don't experience it.

    re sexuality and sexual practices
    
    I always loved the part in _The_Cider_House_Rules_ where one of
    the board members is trying to pin something on the doctor, decides
    since he isn't fooling around with women or married, he must be
    homosexual, but he isn't fooling around with men either, so he must
    be a "non-practicing homosexual", which is somehow, in her mind,
    worse.
    
    re A Question in .-1
    
    Most of the reading I've done suggests that women are conditioned
    to not relate well to women--that being around men is more important.
    Heterosexual women are primed for being in constant competition
    with other women: to be the best looking is the most important.
    Fairy tales rarely depicts any female bonding, it's usually
    competition against step-mothers or step-sisters or evil queens;
    this might not be so bad, except you're not encouraged to go out
    and have adventures either.  Fiction isn't much better.  Too little
    literature has any female protagnists, and romances are predominated
    with competition for some hulk.  The paucity of female protagnists
    in stories spotlights the female characters that do appear: consider
    an example from a different area, television, in which you rarely
    see a black character without there being some message; in other
    words, in the realm of stories or tv, normal people aren't black
    or female, or at least, heroes aren't, just the fringe people.
    Since as a woman, you don't do anything, you want to associate with
    (white) men, since that way you might be dragged (or is it drugged
    :-) ) along in his wake into something with life in it.
    So, no, heterosexual women aren't supposed to find rapport with
    men, they're supposed to feel their strength, their superiority.
    
    That's my superficial summary of several books.  I have noticed
    in myself, at certain times, a general distrust of an unknown woman;
    looking for the sources of this led me eventually to some reading.
    Being more aware of the distrust has also helped me in overcoming it.

    re 416.66
    
    Most of the attributes you list... well they sound just right to
    me.  If the loved one is a man, replace femaleness with maleness.
    I disagree with Lisa [CHABOT]; I look for strength in both men and
    women -- the inner strength of a woman is just as evident and wonderful
    as that in a man.  They are often _very_ different *kinds* of strength,
    (which in my experience _do_ seem to follow gender divisions to
    a suprising extent) but I find both to be very attractive.
    
    From what I've seen, some people meet a woman, and react, "oh isn't
    she ***female***" <see appropriate shudders going up and down spine>.
    Some people meet a man and react "oh isn't he ***male***" <appropriate
    shudders>.  Some people react that way to either sex.  Some may
    not react that way to either sex (I've never met anyone who didn't,
    but maybe they exist...). 
    
    While understanding someone who is different with all the "mystery"
    of a different gender is important and very fulfilling, I think
    both genders have emotional needs which can only be satisfied by
    others of the same gender.  "In the olden days" (some of them anyway)
    when women were learning this deadly "competition for men," they
    still had all-women groups, best friends of the XX varety, etc,
    etc.  While men were cutting each other's throats business- and
    war- wise, they still had all-men's clubs, friends of the XY variety,
    etc, etc.
    
    At a certain level the different sexes need each other, if only
    for reproduction (tho I wouldn't be suprised if that wasn't true
    in the next century or so).  While there are moments most any woman
    would wish men didn't exist (and vice verse), even if _all_ of us
    were primarily same_gender_bonded we would still want and need the
    other gender to exist.  [disclaimer: I am a middle_of_the_roader
    and liking both sexes, I don't see how anyone could **really** want
    to eliminate either one, biological purposes aside.]
    
    Lee

    I don't understand the shuddes , Lee. I *like* 'female' females
    and 'male' males. Or maybe I'm too dense to appreciate the finer
    nuances of androgyny ? :-) 

    re .69:
    
    Perhaps those were shudders of excitement, not disgust.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Around the terms "maleness" and "femaleness", there is another
    question as it relates to homophobia: Is there more acceptance
    by "straight" society of female homosexuality than there is of
    male homosexuality?
    
    I'm not quite sure where I saw this, but I remember reading  
    something that had, as its point of view, that women together
    sexually was more acceptable to society than men having sex
    with other men because (and I'm paraphrasing), "Two women
    together make them *more* female whereas two men together make
    them *less* male".
    
    Another point made by this author was that the reason male 
    homosexuality was considered more "wrong" than female homo- 
    sexuality in the eyes of society had to do with the bible's reference 
    to Onan (a male wastefully spilling his seed), whereas there
    were no explicit references enjoining females from being together.
    
    Off this subject, but related to homophobia (or lack of it), I
    happened to see on cable last week a movie called "Desert Heart".
    It is a very sensitive portrayal of a younger woman's falling in
    love with a woman in her mid-thirties, who has come to Reno for
    a divorce, and who finally comes to accept (and rejoice in) the 
    feelings for another woman that she had always supressed.
    
    I believe that the movie was expressing the concept of woman
    identified woman. It was very sympathetic to the feelings of
    the characters in the film; I know I was touched by it.
    
      Alan
     
                               
       

    RE .71 > Two women together makes them *more* female whereas
    two men together makes them *less* male.
    
    Now *there* is a double standard if ever I heard one. A man is more
    'manly' because he is attracted to women. A woman is more 'womanly'
    because she is attracted to women. What does that make a woman who
    is attracted to men ? A dyke ? :-)/2  There is a serious non sequiter
    buried in here. And it smells.

    This makes as much sense as me, a man saying "I understand
    lesbians, I like women too." 

	The question in .71 came up near the end, my last entry in the
	conference (a mere hours before it disappeared) was on that
	subject, more or less as follows:
	
	I attended a folk music concert featuring several woman
	performers (Tracy Chapman, Shawn Colvin, Patty Larkin, and I
	think one other I don't remember). A pair of women sat
	directly in front of me and they were hugging, kissing,
	caressing through the whole show. I wasn't offended or
	anything like that, mainly a bit amused (as I would be at any
	couple putting on a public display like that) and surprised
	that a homosexual couple would take the chance of homophobic
	feedback (even in such a "liberal" atmosphere and a crowd that
	was more than half women). It occurred to me later, however,
	that if it had been two men I would have been, not really
	offended, but certainly embarrassed and uncomfortable. So,
	yes, although I do believe that there is nothing "wrong" with
	homosexuality or homosexuals, emotionally male homosexuality
	still "rubs me the wrong way" (yes, I agree it shouldn't).
	
	One reason I think it's easier for me to emotionally accept
	female homosexuality is simply that, as a heterosexual male,
	it is much easier for me to understand sexual attraction to
	women than sexual attraction to men. This may be another
	factor, in addition to those mentioned in .71.

	On the other hand, in my lonely and frustrated days in
	college, it occurred to me that male homosexuality is
	objectively a good thing for heterosexual males (cuts down the
	competition:-).

	Mike

	.73 snuck in while I was writing .74... Since it seems to be
	saying sarcastically something I said seriously, maybe I
	should be defending myself.... But, I've got to get back to
	work, maybe next week...
	
	Mike

    re:.71
    >Is there more acceptance by "straight" society of female homosexuality
    than there is of male homosexuality?
    
    From a purely subjective point of view "acceptance"
    of either group by the larger society is non-existent.  In my
    experience I find that a lot of folks can utter the words "gay" and
    "homosexual" but have a difficult time saying "lesbian"....and I
    think that may give you some clue as to where lesbians stand in this
    misogynistic and homo/lesbophobic  world.
    
    What do you  think??
    
    Ann Marie
    

    RE: relative acceptance of male/female gays
    
    First, difficulty in using the word "lesbian".....maybe due to the
    non-existence of women in general, and (as per H.M. Queen Victoria)
    women who would "do THAT".
    
    The theory I heard about lesbian women being more accepted than
    gay men was in the nature of connecting homophobia and sexism. 
    Since (sexist society believes) that in having sex, there must be
    a ..ahem... f***ER and a f***EE, so to speak. And the one who
    *receives* the action is female, or feminine, then a gay man is
    *giving up* his masculinity to be f***ed, whereas the lesbian takes
    on the more masculine role of f***ER.
    
    Since the masculine role is more prized than the feminine role,
    the person taking that role is more accepted.
    
    Dawn
    

    RE: .72
    
    I'm not saying I agree with the statements I quoted in my original
    note, .71, or that the statements are necessarily logical. I was
    citing something I had read as a basis for my question - if "society"
    felt that male/male or female/female relationships were equally
    (un)acceptable, or was one perceived to be "better/worse" than the
    other.
    
    I'm not sure that the corollary you derived from the original author's
    statement can be deduced.
    
    
    RE: .73
    
    I'm not certain what the statement "This makes as much sense....."
    is referring to.
    
    
    RE: .74
    
    When I saw the movies "Kiss of the Spider Woman" and "After Hours",
    there were scenes in each of males kissing males in a "sexual" way
    (not father/son or teammate/teammate after winning the World Series).
    During these scenes the reaction of the audience, both male and
    female, were very audible and.........for want of a better word,
    negative (ugh, yechh, gross).
    
    Yet, during other movies, where there are scenes of females kissing
    females, as part of their lovemaking, I've very rarely heard a 
    similar reaction from either gender in the theater.
    
    This reaction/non-reaction is a part of my reason for asking the original
    question, vis-a-vis, is there more of a bias against one type
    of "homosexual" pairing.
    
    
    RE: .76
    
    Ann Marie, when I was younger (in my teens), I would use the
    word "homosexual" to refer to male/male relationships and "lesbian"
    to refer to female/female, not that I knew of anybody back then of
    whom I was certain was either.
    
    Lately, however, I guess I've followed what seems to be the "popular"
    media terms for single-gender-set relationships: "gay" for males
    and "lesbian" for females. Perhaps the media has done this because
    the groups themselves describe certain coalitions or events such as
    the "Gay/Lesbian" Alliance.
    
    I've found the word "homosexual" beginning to be used as a gender-
    neutral word (at least that's my perception), and I've evolved 
    to using it to refer to either single-gender relationship, when
    I want to include both "gays" and "lesbian" into a collective term. 
    I'm not sure, however, this is the preference. 
                          
         Alan
    
                                                          

    RE .72,.73  RE.71    I didn't think you bought it either :-)
    Friday and my sense of humor got out of the cage, nasty little
    beast with a taste for absurdity. Dana

    I have also noticed a difference in reaction from straights to gay
    men and lesbians.  It does indeed seem easier for people to view
    women being affectionate (in general) than men, whether with the
    same sex or the opposite sex.  With heterosexual love-making (kissing,
    etc) it is still "okay" since a woman is involved and "we all know
    how women need that kind of stuff".  In addition, some men find
    watching lesbians kissing easier than watching men kissing because
    A) men kissing is a direct or indirect threat to their own sexuality
    and B) they view lesbians as having only temporary homosexuality,
    as in "all they need is a good..." (of course, with them).
    
    When it comes to employment and housing discrimination, I don't
    see any difference in the way gay men and lesbians are treated.
    Both are treated shabbily by many.
    
                    Carol

Hi. Sorry I'm coming into the conversation so late, but I thought 
that I might be able to provide some interesting food for thought.  
My name is Gerry Fisher.  I've been an openly gay man at 
DEC for approximately 3 years.

RE: "I like you as a friend, but I find your judgement/behavior/sin to 
be repugnant/sinful/wrong/misguided."

I agree with Flora.  A person who says this is no friend of mine, 
because, obviously, she/he is not really interested in my total welfare. 
As mentioned already, you can't separate a person from her/his 
sexuality; you can't hate the sexuality and like the person.  You end 
up liking half a person (arguably, less than half).

I agree that apologizing for offending people, and then going ahead and
doing it anyway, is unacceptable.  For the record, this behavior is a
hot-button for gay people.  It is a well-documented technique used by
Jerry Falwell in his attacks against us (Anita Bryant used it, too).
The person maintains his/her integrity by apologizing, but
readers/listeners remember the offensive remarks, anyway. (I am _not_ 
saying that anyone in this note has expressed the opinions of Falwell; 
I'm saying that people have used his technique of "apologizing and 
then offending.")

In general, I agree that the biggest problem gay people face is our 
own silence and "invisibility."  I agree that gay people must come out 
to show everyone our numbers and our diversity.  People need to see 
the gay, professional football players alongside the gay hair 
stylists.  They need to see the lesbian nurses next to the lesbian 
mechanics.  There is no other way to break down the harmful 
stereotypes.

But then it is a Catch-22.  Lesbians and gay people are afraid to come 
out for fear of losing their friends, losing their homes, losing their jobs, 
and, in some areas of the country, losing their lives.  It involves 
risk, but I strongly believe that gays and lesbians will not make 
progress until they come out in larger numbers.

RE: Lesbians being more "acceptable" than gay men.

Note .77 hit the nail right on the head.  Large :{).  It all comes
down to f**king and power.  Gay men throw a monkey-wrench into the
power structure by f**king each other (men are supposed to be the
powerful ones, expressed by f**king women during the sex act, _not_ by
f**king each other!); women loving women don't threaten that structure as
much.  I think that general society finds us (lesbians and gay men)
equally "unacceptable," but I think that there is an extra level of
"repugnance" shown towards gay men. We threaten powerful, white males
more than lesbians; we hit closer to home. 

As a final note, I always get a kick out of straight people who say,
"I find gay people repulsive.  Just _imagine_ what they do in bed!"
Really!  I hear and read this quote quite often!!! I don't know about
anyone else, but I don't spend the least amount of time wondering what
straights do in bed.  I was always taught that that was _private_. 

I have a fantasy.  I dream that someday I'll be walking down the 
street and I'll hear an old woman say to her husband, "Look at those 
two men walking down the street.  Don't they make such a handsome 
couple?"  

I know.  I know.  :{(  I'll just have to keep dreaming.  :{)



						--Gerry

    <--(.81)
    
    "The person maintains his/her integrity by apologizing, but
     readers/listeners remember the offensive remarks, anyway."
    
    Gerry, I don't want to poke at you too hard for what *must* have
    been a mere slip of the [metaphorical] tongue, but I for one find
    it very hard to associate the concept of integrity with Falwell
    (or indeed most of the "televangelists"). 
    
    I can indeed associate the concept with the person who provoked
    this storm, JimB (and would need some industrial-strength
    persuasion not to do so!); I tend to think of his assertion as
    motivated by a dogged determination to be as fair as humanly
    possible while still doing whatever he has to in order not to be
    a hypocrite or abandon his religious faith in favor of scientific
    theory and comfortless reason.  From whatever I know of him, JimB
    would be equally steadfast as an inquisitor or a bonfire. 
    
    (Doesn't make life any easier for those around him, though  :-)
    
    						=maggie
    

        A couple of small clarifications of what I tried to say in my
        earlier notes. 
        
        First off, since a fair amount has been said about apologizing
        for offending and then doing it anyway, I'd like to say that
        wasn't quite what I was trying to do. Going back and reading it
        certainly comes off that way. 
        
        It was very much my intent to not offend. Since I feel no malice
        towards anyone because of their sexual orientation or behavior
        and do not judge them for it, my hope was that what I had to say
        needn't been hurtful or offensive, and that if I did hurt or
        offend it would only because I did such a bad job of explaining
        that I came off as condescending. 
        
        What I was trying to apologize for in advance was any inability
        to express myself clearly enough resulting in my note appearing
        offensive when it wasn't intended to be so. This is a very hard
        subject to discuss (as we've all seen), and I am accutely aware
        of my own shortcomings as a writer. 
        
        I certainly don't apologize for my beliefs or my values any more
        than I expect any of the gay or lesbian writers to apologize for
        theirs. We each of us make judgements and do the best we can. I
        am terribly sorry if what I believe in causes someone else pain,
        of course, but I am not sorry to have the beliefs and values I
        have. (How could I be sorry and still honestly have them?)
         
        That brings us to what my exact beliefs are. I may have been
        less than clear on that as well. At least one or two people have
        taken my beliefs to be more negative than they actually are. For
        the record, I don't buy EITHER the liberal party line or the
        conservative one. The liberals would have me believe that
        homosexual acts are neither wrong nor a sign of something
        unhealthy. The conservatives believe that they are both.
        
        I remain undecided. I am not convinced by either set of
        arguments. I do not view my conservative friends as bigots
        because they don't accept homosexuality, nor my homosexual
        friends as perverts because they practice it. I am quite firmly
        convinced that some people disapprove of homosexuality without
        being homophobes or bigots. Of course there are many bigots and
        homophobes. I am quite firmly convinced that there are people
        who do practice homosexual sex who are absolutely every bit as
        responsible and admirable as anyone in the entire world. There
        are also some completely despicable homosexuals.
        
        Just hoping to be lynched only for the beliefs I actually hold. 
        
        JimB.

    RE: .78 
    
    When I replied to Anne Marie's question in her .76, I gave what
    I felt to be "my" interpretation of the words "gay", "lesbian",
    and "homosexual".
    
    In reading through Notes .80, .81, and .83, I've noticed the
    authors of these using the definitions in the context that I
    stated.
    
    Do most people use these descriptions in the way I perceived?
    
       Alan
    

    It has been remarked to me, and I agree, that lesbianity is viewed
    with greater acceptance than male homosexuality by all.  One reason
    is perhaps the plethora of female-on-female pictorials in softcore
    porn (hustler, penthouse, etc) often read by males.  Women are often
    thought of as very sensual, and the combination of two women being
    sensual together, two very soft, round, sexual, emotional beings, has 
    become acceptable in this media.  Men, however, who are sometimes
    worried about being "manly enough" or even "macho" are afraid that
    a show of softness, sensuality, and emotion (as in tenderness towards
    another man) would show them up as something less than "manly",
    and they sometimes think those who display these qualities are
    definitely not "manly" (aka "something's wrong with those people").
    Also, men are sometimes very nervous about being approached by
    homosexuals on a sexual level (propositioned), because that would
    mean they "looked like a target for that sort of thing", implying
    they too may not be manly.  Women who may be propositioned may simply
    take it in good grace that someone is, if not complimenting them
    on their attractiveness as females, then at least not insulting
    or offending them.  I've been comfortable seeing men kiss men, and 
    women kiss women, but if it ever got too passionate I'd rather 
    ignore them or excuse myself than ask them to stop - they have 
    as much right to kiss as I.

    -Jody
    

    I just spent a week in Provincetown.  I imagine that most people
    know that a lot of gays and lesbians vacation and work there.  It's
    really normal there to see a lesbian couple or a gay couple openly
    display affection.  But, I never seem to notice this anywhere else
    that I go - Boston, Worcester, Nashua, Providence, Portland, Me.
     
    It seems to me that a big problem a lot of people have is condoning
    behavior that they themselves don't feel like participating in.
     It's so easy to understand what we want to do ourselves.
    
    My feeling is that I can't help being a straight woman.  No matter
    how angry I sometimes get at men, I'm still attracted to some of
    them, and I'd be bored stiff in a world without them.  With the
    exception of my S.O. (a straight male), all of my closest friends
    really are other straight, white women, but I'd love to broaden
    that circle to include more exotic humans.  It just hasn't worked
    out that way yet.  I think the closest I've felt to other women
    has been when myself and other straight women have bitched about
    what rats straight men can be!  I guess what I mean is, I didn't
   *choose* to be a straight woman, I just am, and assume that to be
    true of straight men, gays and lesbians, too.
    
    It sounds pretty naive, but I wish the whole world could be like
    P-town, where you can walk down the street holding hands with whoever
    you choose and nobody bats an eyelash.
    
    Lorna
    

Interesting front-page article in today's Boston Globe on Aids
and "ethnic taboos."

  In contrast to the way that gay white men have mobilized to educate
  each other about AIDS and change risky sexual behavior, homosexual
  and bisexual black and Hispanic men are often reluctant to acknowledge
  their behavior...

  According to those who have studied the phenomenon, most probably
  do not consider thhemselves "gay" -- which several said connotes
  an entire lifestyle rather than a type of behavior that can be
  walled off from the rest of one's life.
 
  Julius Johnson, a san Francisco psychologist who has studied homosexual
  and bisexual behavior among blacks, defines three separate groups:
  black men who identify primarily with the gay community, those who
  consider themselves homosexual, but identify primarily with the black
  community, and those who define themselves as heterosexual but engage
  periodically in homosexual behavior.
  
  Johnson thinks the third group may be twice as large as the other
  two groups combined.  ``These men would die before admitting to
  homosexual behavior,'' he said.  ``They will create intravenous drug
  use histories rather than admit homosexual activity'' to explain how
  they acquired AIDS.
  
  The same picture was painted by health professionals who work with
  and live in Hispanic communities....  Because of this, [Eunice]
  Diaz pleaded with health professionals not to ``label people
  in our community as gay, bisexual, drug users, or promiscuous.''

Martin.

RE: Jim B's notes and "apologizing before offending."

I wasn't offended by anything Jim wrote in this note.  I also don't
feel that he should apologize to anyone.  Having said that, I also
don't appreciate his description of "friendship."  He certainly is not
an enemy of gays and lesbians, but I'm not convinced that "friend"
would be an appropriate word, and it was that word that Jim used in
several of his notes. 

Jim aside, I was trying to make a comment on _how_ people say things.  
If you apologize profusely before you say anything, you imply that you 
are about to say something offensive (or, at least, irritating).  Gay 
men and lesbians have put up with techniques _similar_ to this 
from people who hate us (ooops, I mean "hate our sins"  :{) ).  We 
don't need to see the same rhetoric from people who claim that we can 
still be "friends" of theirs.  It's a hot button for me, and, I think, 
for many other gays and lesbians.  Just for your information, that's 
all. 

Frankly, Jim.  I think your notes would have read well if you had just
taken out all the apologies at the beginning.  State your peace. 
Period. 

RE:  Lesbian and Gay

In most writing, I see "lesbian" used as an adjective to describe
female homosexuals, "gay" as an adjective to describe male 
homosexuals, and "homosexual" as a noun that is used to describe
either a man or a woman, but only in a clinical or technical context
(impersonal).  The prefered terminology for everyday use is "lesbians
and gay men." 

This issue is still being debated.  It may change sometime in 
the future.  In particular, there is some controversy involved in the 
use of the word "lesbian."  I've heard some people say that they 
prefer "gay men and women."  I've heard some people say that they 
prefer "lesbian" because it implies an identity unique from that of 
gay men.  I dunno.  Stay tuned...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not sure what I want to say to everyone.  I just wish that I
could get you to feel what I am feeling in my heart, to walk in my
shoes for a while.  Many straight people don't seem to have any idea
what it is like for a state to have a law on its books calling a sex
act that is integral to your sexuality "abominable" and "unnatural" 
(like the Georgia Sodomy law).  Many straight people don't seem to
have an idea what it is like to feel "heavy" and "oppressed" just by
loving someone in a way that is unacceptable to society. 

If people like me act aggressively--as if we are being attacked, it's
because we _are_ being attacked.  The very basis of our way of
expressing romantic love is being called unnatural, sinful,
disease-causing, and bad.  It feels as if, for many straight people,
romantic love is only okay if it is between members of the opposite
sex.  I _know_ that love is more flexible than that, and really,
that's what my aggressive "radical" stance is all about: the right to
love.  Much is said about gay and lesbian sex acts, but our detractors
don't seem to want to address the issue of falling in love. 

Look, if all I was doing was fighting for the right to have sex, I'd 
give up.  If I could "love" a woman (romantic "love" like in all the 
movies and songs and books and TV shows), then I think that I could 
give up men.  But I can't.  I love men.  They make me _feel_ special 
and alive (_not_ just in a sexual sense).  

I can't tell you what it was like for me to have my first experience 
with a man.  I had wondered why my experiences with women were so 
bland (they weren't _bad_, they were just passionless).  When I had my 
first gay experience...BANG...instantaneously, I understood all the 
things I had heard about romantic love and sexual attraction.  I had 
found what I had been missing in my life up until age 22: romantic, 
passionate love.  And anyone who has felt passionate love can tell you 
that it is hard to describe but you know when you're in it!

And having been without it for my whole adolescence, I am reluctant to 
give it up without one heck of a fight.  As far as I'm concerned, you 
can hold any opinion you want of "homosexuals," but I'll fight you 
with all my strength if you try to enact laws that will criminalize my 
love.  Would you do any less for your love?


						--Gerry

    Re: homosexuality being unnatural
    
    Saying that homosexuality is unnatural brings to mind the question
    of what really is the nature of man?
    
    It seems to me that most animal behavior is based on instinct. 
    Some animals will die off if the source of their preferred food or
    exact habitat disappears.  They are too tied in by instinct to 
    adapt to new circumstances.
    
    One thing has allowed man to spread until we cover every corner
    of the world, our freedom from instinct.  Because we are free from
    instinct we can adapt to a very wide range of habitats and food
    sources.
    
    In the process of losing our connection to instinct we also lost
    part of the instinct that directs sexual behavior.  Maybe cultural
    taboos were developed to push us back in the direction of the
    original instinct.
    
    There is also the fact that the sexual differentiation between men
    and women is smaller for humans than for many other animals.
    Perhaps the mechanisms that make the external appearance of other
    male and female animals different also embed the changes in the
    instinctual program for males and females.  Since the external 
    differences between men and women are small maybe the internal ones
    are too.
    
    I remember hearing that all people of either sexual orientation will
    occasionally feel a twinge of attraction for the non-identified
    sex.  Some people who are not secure in their sexual orientation
    might be traumatized by such a twinge.  This is what I think is
    the basis of homophobia.  Although I have had a twinge of attraction
    to men in the past, I can't say that they caused me any fear.  I
    am secure enough in my heterosexual orientation that it did not
    cause me any trauma.  I think that the fact that I expect it to
    happen from time also helps.                            
    
    Despite our freedom from instinct, I think that most all people
    are attracted to only one sex.  Just as I think that those
    who think that homosexuals are disfunctional are wrong, I also
    think that those who say that we would all be bi-sexual if it
    weren't for culture, are also wrong.
    
    Re: .88
    
    > And anyone who has felt passionate love can tell you that it is hard to
    > describe but you know when you're in it!
    
    All of the words to the love songs suddenly make sense.
    
    The feelings that Gerry expresses here about loving men are so close to
    my own experience of loving women that I have a to believe that his
    feelings are as natural as mine.
    
    Re: .0
        
    One aspect of homophobia that has not be dicused here is the fear
    of being labled gay.  I know that I have yet to join the GDE notes
    file for fear that doing so will "Set the Gay Bit" in my personnell
    record.  Do you think that any women aviod noting in this file
    for fear of being labled gay?
    
        						MJC O-> 
                  

    RE: Definitions (.76?)
    
    At dinner party given by two lesbian friends of mine, they gave
    me a new definition of 'lesbian' and 'gay' - as far as women are
    concerned, they said:
    
    	"In the gay community in the UK the term 'gay women' is addressed
    	or used by NON-political women, and the term 'lesbians' is
    	addressed or used by POLITICAL"
    
    NON-political - a woman who justs likes sleeping with other women
    POLITIAL      - a woman who likes sleeping with other women but
    		    is also active in feminist/gay/general politics
    		    and campaigns
    
    Hence my friends are 'lesbians'.  It was news to me! ;-}
    
    Janice

    I would imagine that gay women are active politically in the
    same degree as anybody else - all across the spectrum from
    apathetic to officeholder.

The term "homosexual", although correct, is viewed by many in the gay 
community as being a rather clinical and limiting term.  

"Gay" is frequently used to refer to persons of both sexes, but it has 
some of the same problems as words like "mankind".  The gay male 
subculture has tended to be more visible, so sometimes gay means "gay 
men" and other times it intended to be generic.

Lesbians have at least two kinds of oppression they must deal with in 
our society: their oppression as homosexuals and their oppression as 
women.  Using a generic term like "gay" can make lesbians feel invisible 
as women, while "lesbian" conveys the sense of their different 
experience, based as much on gender as on sexual orientation.

In the community, there tend to be subtle distinctions between women who 
identify themselves as "gay women", "lesbians", or "dykes".  "Gay women" 
are felt to be women who have identified themselves as gay <generic>, 
but their world viewpoint is still being defined in mainstream/male terms; 
they are not particularly "political" with regard to feminism.  They may 
indeed be officeholders of all kinds, but it is within the patriarchal 
context.

Women who make a point of identifying themselves as "lesbians" are 
usually more sensitive to the social/political issues of being women, 
and the term "lesbian feminist" is often something of a redundancy.

"Dykes" are the most radical of all, proud of themselves and flaunting it.
It's a powerful word, and reclaiming what has traditionally been 
considered an insult can be quite liberating.

Most of us have moments of shifting between all these identifications,
and negotiating the bog of politically correct language can be difficult.
I myself have a tendency to use "gay" generically, and "gay man" when I 
want to be gender-specific.  "Gay men and lesbians" is the phrase coming 
into vogue in the press to refer to all of us, although "gay and lesbian"
is often used as well.  I dislike the second, since I don't like to 
consign a good generic term to being only the province of men.  The first, 
although the most politically correct, is cumbersome and in desperation
for a single word to cover everyone some writers are resurrecting
"queer", but there are many of us who get uncomfortable twinges from
that word.  I wouldn't want to hear it from a straight person.

    Could somebody clarify the etymology of the title of this topic for
    me please:
    
    As I understand it the "homo" in "homosexual" comes from a greek root
    meaning "same". Hence if "homophobia" has a similar etymology it means
    "an irrational fear of {becoming | being} the same".
    
    Hence it is not a fear of homosexuals, nor is it a hatred of homosexuals,
    but rather it is an irrational fear that the subject is developing or
    displaying [latent] homosexual behaviour.                 
    
    /. Ian .\

    <--(.94)
    
    I seem to remember from the older [psych] literature that the original
    term was the unpronouncable "homoerotophobia".  Linguistic smoothing
    algorithms [:')] resulted in the current term.
    
    						=maggie

    ..."homophobia" means "an irrational fear of {becoming | being} the 
       same"... the same as the people that society chooses to cast-out. 
       It's the fear of identifying with folks who live outside 
       the (accepted) boundaries of society. 
    
       That's why getting rid of our homophobia is one of the greatest
       revolutionary acts we might do.
    
    

Homophobia appears to be a shortning of "homosexual phobia."

Martin.

    RE: .93
    
    The issue around the use, context, and speaker of various terms 
    mentioned by Catherine, is a touchy one for me and, very likely,
    many others of the "straight" community.
    
    For example, I would never call a lesbian a "dyke", because I've
    always thought that word was considered to be offensive by members
    of the "homosexual" community.
    
    Certainly, the word "queer" would definitely appear to be a pejorative
    term for me to use, and, as Catherine points out, she would not want
    that word to be used by a person in the "straight" community.
    
    That's the problem that I (and probably many other "straights") 
    face. I do not want to offend "non-heterosexuals", and,
    consequently, try to use what *I perceive* to be their most 
    acceptable words or terms. Sometimes they turn out not to be
    the preference.
    
    The aphorism "Stick and Stones May Break My Bones...." is not 
    always true. Words *can* hurt. I am Jewish and know how being
    called a "Kike", "Yid", "Jew-boy" made me feel.
    
        Alan
       

    Thanks for the clarification...
    
    /. Ian .\

The following paragraph is something I posted in another notes file and 
thought it might be *appropriate* here in light of some of the questions
about the *correct* terms for lesbians.  These descriptions are my own,
garnered from many active years in the community.  As with all discriptions,
there are exceptions.



DYKE      - Incredible Amazon Woman.  Strong and proud of reclaiming the word
            Dyke.  Strident, and totally happy with it!  Up until the AIDS 
            crisis, much more of a separatist.  Not politically correct.  
            Usually Radical Feminists or feminists without knowing they're
            feminists - bordering on chauvinism.

LESBIAN   -  Usually identify themselves as Feminists.  Political.  Through
             the mid 70's and early 80's very politically correct - ate tofu!
             Process and more process.  They taught us how to value 
             differences, have patience and grow.  Lesbians give GREAT hugs. 
             They work until they drop - high burn out rate. Usually a high
             level of poverty...but that's changing!

GAY WOMEN -  Not political.  Closeted.  Non-feminists.  Internalized 
             Homophobia, and all that that entails.  Don't give full body hugs.
             Tend to join social groups of other gay women. Tend not to 
             "hang out" or even acknowledge "known lesbians".  More traditional
             lifestyles.  Sometimes a stage to go through, sometimes a place
             to stay.
      
Now...some of us are a combination of all of these, and there are definite
sub-groups to each one.  Remember these are perceptions that I have and
share with some other women.  

Flora 

    I am really trying to understand all this lingo stuff, but I have
    a question about the way "strident" is being applied here.  Re .100
    "DYKE...Strident and totally happy with it!"
    
    According to my Digital-issued Amserican Heritage Dictionary, 
    "strident, adj. - Having a shrill, harsh, or grating sound or effect.
    From the Latin stridere, to make a harsh sound."
    
    That's the only definition.  .100 wasn't the first one to use that
    term.  What, if anything, does that have to do with being "non-
    heterosexual" (I still don't know which term is right when), and
    and WHY would anyone want to be grating?
    
    Lynne
    

    Note 416.101

>    I am really trying to understand all this lingo stuff, but I have
>    a question about the way "strident" is being applied here.  Re .100
>    "DYKE...Strident and totally happy with it!"
    
>    According to my Digital-issued Amserican Heritage Dictionary, 
>    "strident, adj. - Having a shrill, harsh, or grating sound or effect.
>    From the Latin stridere, to make a harsh sound."
    
>    That's the only definition.  .100 wasn't the first one to use that
>    term.  What, if anything, does that have to do with being "non-
>    heterosexual" (I still don't know which term is right when), and
>    and WHY would anyone want to be grating?
    
 First, when referring to Lesbians, the term is Lesbian.  I'm sure that
 the term to use when referring to heterosexuals isn't non-homosexuals,
 but, I could be wrong -).    

 The term strident has been ascribed to women in general who are willing
 to state opinions in a loud clear voice.  To be *un-ladylike* and shout
 it from the mountain tops - as it were.  Men are not strident, only women.
 This word represents one of the double standards for all women.  Men are
 forceful, women are strident. 

 So, if a Lesbian can reclaim DYKE, can the word strident be far behind?

I would like to point out that although a woman may call herself a dyke, 
and the term may be used positively between lesbians, it is still a very 
emotionally charged word that can be heard many ways, depending on 
context.  I don't recommend it as general usage, for this reason.  

Just as members of various ethnic groups can use terms among themselves 
that would be offensive coming from a non-member, lesbians and gay men 
are more senstive about "reclaiming" traditionally pejorative terms when 
they come from straight people.  If you aren't on intimate enough terms 
with your listeners to know how they would react, you shouldn't say it.

No one can go wrong with "lesbians and gay men".  "Homosexual" isn't 
offensive either, although, as mentioned before, considered rather 
clinical.

    FWIW I don't know any man who would use the word 'dyke' in
    any sense except pejorative. If women call themselves 'dyke'
    in another , more positive way, it would be akin to blacks
    calling one another 'nigger' as a token of black pride. Some
    do. 
    

re: .104

Guess you don't know me very well.  Given that one of the replies to
this note has defined dyke and lesbian, am I not permitted to use
those terms in the way they have been defined without being perjorative?

Martin.

    re .105:
    
    Sure, you are, of course, permitted to use them that way, but be warned
    that they may not be _heard_ that way.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    The terms "gay", "lesbian", and "dyke" have been defined by individuals
    as their individual views shared by some of their friends.  They
    are by no means the definitions of the entire gay community.  The
    general consensus has been that if a non-gay person wants to use
    a term, then s/he should use the term "gay" or "lesbian", as has
    been requested earlier.  It is often considered offensive to use
    any other term.
    
                Carol

    Just for grins, my old school dictionary (published in 1865, I had the
    twenty third edition, printed in 1954) gives the following definitions
    
    Gay:
    
    	(a) happy, often excessively and unreasonably so.
    
    	(b) a prostitute, especially a child prostitute. 
    
    Lesbian:
    
    	an inhabitant of the island of Lesbos.
    
        
    Dyke:
    
    	A land drainage dam, used to protect land below sea level.
    
    Seriously what is wrong with using the only unambiguous term: homosexual.
    
    /. Ian .\

    Connotation, Ian.  Connotation.

     Ah!  Connotation: the power of words twisted out of shape by narrow 
     and devious minds!

     As I have said before I once had a girl-friend who called herself a 
     lesbian - she was in fact bi-sexual in most usages of the term, but 
     she, and her friends, including myself, felt that  society  labeled 
     bi-sexuality as aberrant behavior at that time.
     
     The  term  "gay"  was  associated  in  our minds with the "Gay Lib" 
     movement - politically hyperactive, and vociferous beyond what  any 
     of our scene could identify with.
     
     (PS:  Though I have at times lived in societal groupings containing 
     a distinct bias towards homosexual and bi-sexual  orientations,  my 
     own orientation has varied from aesthetic to heterosexual)
                            
     /. Ian .\

    re .110:
    
    >...my own orientation has varied from aesthetic to heterosexual)
                                           ~~~~~~~~~
    
    Really!
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
           

    re .112:
    
    aesthetic/esthetic - (adj) Of, pertaining to, or sensitive to the
    				beautiful; artistic.
    ascetic - (adj) Practicing austere self-discipline.
    
    "ascetic to heterosexual" seemed to represent more of a range than
    "aesthetic to heterosexual"
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

RE: use of the word "dyke"

I'm rather sorry I even brought this term up, and if I could
retroactively edit and rephrase my reply, I would. We have been
discussing these terms in another notes file of which I am a member, and
in echoing here some of what had been said there I feel like I have had
a lapse in judgement.  Perhaps the new openness among the lesbians in 
this file has made me feel more "at home" and consequently less 
thoughtful in choosing my words for a general audience.

After thinking about it, I realize that I don't care to hear the word 
"dyke" except in very specialized circumstances, which certainly do not 
apply here, in the company in general, or in the world at large.  
Even when used in a positive way as an act of gay pride, it is hardly a
neutral word.  I would imagine that few people hear it without some kind 
of reaction, mostly of an uncomfortable variety.

It is important when engaging in productive, rational discourse to avoid 
excessively emotional terms, especially ones that are likely to have 
many unpredictable connotations.  For every woman who has claimed this
word as a badge of pride, there are many more who feel a wound when it
is used.  Sometimes, both reactions occur in the same person.  These
things interfere in the attempt to communicate honestly, share insights,
and understand one another. 

I think one of the most important things about this conference is 
respect for differences: the differences between men and women, and the 
differences between the many varieties of women's experiences.  To
promote this respect, it is important to use respectful terms that all
speakers and listeners can agree on.  With this in mind, I'd like to 
withdraw my flippant comments about "dykes", and leave the readers with 
the perfectly acceptable term "lesbian" as the word of choice.

    RE: 416.114
    
    Catherine...I couldn't agree with you more. 
    
    I think what the "general community" experienced was quite a few
    lesbians feeling "at home".  I definately prefer the term lesbian
    when used by heterosexuals, and dyke when used by other lesbians.

    Catherine, Flora...the idea that lesbians can "feel 'at home'" here
    is very gratifying to me, and I hope to the rest of our community as
    well. I certainly hope that that "at home" feeling doesn't go away
    again.                                                 
    
    						=maggie

 
[Taken from the usenet soc.motss mailing list, sent via another list]:
 
	A horrible event occurred last Sunday, February 14th. in
Pittsburgh. The implications of this article are relavent to all
Americans, not only as a Gay Rights issue but as a fundamental attack on
the Civil Rights of fellow citizens.
 
	At 4:30 am., a raid was conducted on the Travelers Social Club,
in which assistant Fire Chief Kevin Mellot led a group of 17 Liquor
Board agents and Pennsylvania State police. After gaining access through
the club's security door, the agents began to hoard people into a narrow
stairway in order to check the member's identification, after which the
people were forced outside, without coats, in 10 degree cold. After two
hours, the patrons were allowed to re-enter, get their belongings, and
leave.
	The previous paragraph outlines the " official " account. What 
follows are eye witness accounts of coercion, beatings, and illegal
search and seizure tactics reportedly used by Kevin Mellots agents.
 
	" With their pushing they were knocking people down the steps,
and one customer {name}, his leg was caught in the steps and, because he
couldn't move, they said he was resisting arrest, and started beating
him and threw him over the railing to the floor below, about ten feet.
They rushed down, and beat him more and put cuffs on him and kept
beating him all the way to the door."
 
	" I saw a young red-blond haired man being shoved face-first
through the steel club doors, arms handcuffed behind him. He was bounced
off a police van a couple of times and then shoved into {the} back of
{the} van. 'FAGGOT MOTHERFUCKERS' could be heard. Next, {another victim}
was thrown through the steel doors, covered in blood. He fell and was
half-dragged into the van, where he sat bleeding for at least an hour
and a half before the van was moved for medical attention."
 
	" A guy was literally thrown from the back bar entrance and then
shoved again by a cop. The guy came flying towards our table, and two
girls that I was talking to and myself jumped against the wall, so that
we did not get hit by the guy and then {they} threw him towards the door
and against more tables where more glass was broken. They then threw him
out the door and told him he was under arrest."
 
	" I seen three officers beat four customers over the head with
night sticks. They pulled one member by the neck over the railing, blood
went everywhere."
 
	" We had a Valentine's Day massacre. We had one of the most
brutal raids in tne city's history," said Randal Forrester, director of
the Persad counseling center.
 
	" Our people MUST fight this," stated Robert "Lucky" Johns, the
club's steward. " In thirty years of Gay life I've never witnessed such
brutality. If anyone lets this go unanswered, we'll go back to the days
of the tearooms. Do you want to live in fear, for you AND your lover?"
 
	Please, everyone, take time to respond. All your comments and
support are welcome. You can post to this bulletin board, send me E-Mail
directly, or contact "Lucky" at:
					TRAVELERS
				  6525 Hamilton Avenue 
				 Pittsburgh, PA  15206
				   (412) 661-0340
 
" If we won't stand together, we don't stand a chance"
 
					Kevin M. Moore
 
 
 
 
 

more information - FYI
    
[taken from soc.motss via a mailing list]:
 
Here are some press releases from Cry Out!, a gay rights group here
in Pittsburgh.  Read them and try to tell yourself that this is 1988.
 
	   Gays and Lesbians Say "Never Again" to Beatings
			       Cry Out!
			     Feb 24, 1988
			For Immediate Release
 
Today at 8:30am at the City-County Building, members of the Gay and
Lesbian Community and their supporters will demonstrate regarding a
recent raid on a gay nightclub and the way in which city and state
officials conducted the raid.
 
David Stewart, a member of Cry Out, the group that organized the
demonstration said "We believe the raid was simply a pretext for
harassing the Lesbian and Gay Community."
 
"State Police knocked people down steps, called them `Faggots', and
beat them with blackjacks. Two men were beaten so badly that they had
to be hospitalized."
 
Stewart also contends that four patrons, who face a preliminary
hearing today at 11:00 on charges including Obstruction of Justice,
Resisting Arrest and Simple Assault, were arrested falsely, and with
complete disregard for their civil rights.
 
"The message we will deliver to Pittsburgh today is that we will not
tolerate this type of harrassment. We are outraged, as any person, gay
or straight, should be, who believes in civil rights."
 
"This event has galvanized the Pittsburgh Gay and Lesbian Community as
no other has. We have collected money to cover legal fees, and we have
easily filled a petition calling for a public hearing to investigate
the raid."
 
Stewart said that these steps were being taken to ensure that members
of the Lesbian and Gay Community would never again have to suffer
violations of their civil rights.
 
"Cry Out! is also sponsoring a drive for a City Gay Rights Ordinance
prohibiting discrimination against lesbians and gay men."
 
 
	 Additional Information about the Raid on `Travelers'
			       Cry Out!
			For Immediate Release
 
 
How the agents entered the club:
 
    At approximately 4:00 a.m. on February 14, two state agents in
    plain clothing approached the outer door to Travelers Social Club
    and requested entry.  They were told, via an intercom, that the
    club was closed and that they would not be admitted in any case
    without a membership card.  They displayed a card which was not
    issued by the club and were asked to leave.  Several minutes
    later, when a member opened the door to leave the club,
    approximately 18 agents in plain clothes, some wearing badges,
    flooded through the door.
 
Once inside the club:
 
    Upon entering, one of the agents identified himself as a state
    police officer.  The owner of the club stepped forward to
    identify himself and ask what the officers were doing there.  The
    state police officer, in the presence of witnesses, warned the
    owner, "shut the fuck up or you're going to jail."  No warrant
    was presented, and permission to enter the premises was not
    secured. Information received from the Chief of the Pittsburgh
    Fire Dept. indicates that a building inspection may not be
    carried out without either the owner's permission or a warrant.
 
Civil Rights Violations:
 
    The agents dispersed throughout the club and instructed the 185
    patrons present to proceed downstairs, where they would be carded
    and questioned.  Written statements from 26 eyewitnesses describe
    in detail the abusive language and abusive actions of the agents.
    For example, agents referred to the patrons as `faggots', and
    `faggot motherfuckers', and agents struck patrons with
    nightsticks and blackjacks.  One agent, while placing handcuffs
    on a patron, said "what's wrong, I thought you faggots enjoy
    this."
 
Who conducted the raid:
 
    The raid was conducted by a joint task force of agents from the
    State Police, Pgh. Fire Department, and Liquor Control Board.
    Thomas Cangey, who had been an LCB investigator before the bureau
    was dismantled, participated in the raid.  Five years ago, Cangey
    had led five successive raids on Travelers over the course of
    five weeks.  As a result, an injunction was issued to bar the LCB
    and Cangey from futher raids on Travelers.  It is not clear in
    what capacity Cangey participated in the Valentine's Day raid.
 
Possible Connection with Recent Raid on CMU Fraternities:
 
    Some of events of this raid significantly resemble those of a
    recent raid on two Carnegie Mellon fraternities.  Assistant Fire
    Chief Kevin Mellot was present at both raids; unconfirmed reports
    indicate that Mellot organized and directed these raids.  No
    violence was reported at the Carnegie Mellon raid.
 
Charges against the Club:
 
    The nightclub was issued citations by Mellot for the operation of
    a kerosene heater, for faulty wiring and for having a fire door
    locked.  The owner maintains that the latter two charges are
    invalid.  According to the owner, Mellot insisted that the fire
    door be locked when an alarm sounded during the raid, indicating
    that the fire door was open.  Witnesses say that the alarm
    prompted Mellot to scream "they're escaping" and to reach for
    his handgun.
 
Charges Against those Arrested:
 
    The four individuals arrested were charged with simple assault,
    resisting arrest, and obstructing justice.  According to the
    victims, there is no truth to these charges.  Legal observers
    have speculated that the four who were beaten by officers were
    arrested to provide means for the officers to avoid prosecution;
    the arrest of the victims, in effect, gave the officers a (plea-)
    bargaining chip.
 
Beatings: One Victim's Experience:
 
    The following are the words of one of those beaten and arrested.
    The victim's name is withheld because of the pending legal
    actions.
 
    "They were checking I.D.'s at the bottom of the steps... a
    scuffle broke out in front of me... a police officer grabbed
    someone by the neck and threw him against the wall... someone
    struck me on the back of the head; I fell backwards, and my right
    leg got caught between the bars at the side of the steps... I was
    on my back, head first down the steps, with my legs between the
    bars.  People were being pushed down the steps... literally
    trampling me... and this guy was standing above me -- he kept
    hitting me on the head, yelling `faggot' -- I couldn't open my
    eyes because they were full of blood.  I heard my friends
    screaming, `stop, you're killing him' Finally, my leg came loose.
    The pulled me over the banister, threw me to the floor, put cuffs
    on me and arrested me."
 
    This victim was charged with resisting arrest.
 

Subj:	[mf1w+: Pittsburgh Raid: CRY OUT!]
To:   outnews+ext.nn.soc.motss
 
Some of the most severe violations of the civil
rights of gay men and lesbians since the Stonewall
uprising took place during a Valentine's day raid
on a gay and lesbian nightclub in Pittsburgh.
 
At least four people were beaten.  Two were hospitalized.
All 185 patrons were mistreated and harassed.
The agents conducting the raid referred to patrons during the
raid as "faggots", "faggot m*therf***ers", and "c*cks***ers"
 
The four who were severely beaten were arrested.  They
were arrested to provide a (plea-)bargaining chip for the
agents who abused them.  Yesterday (2/24), the prosecuting
attorneys used this bargaining chip in the preliminary
hearing for those arrested.  Charges were reduced from three
criminal charges to a summary offense of disorderly conduct,
which carried a $100 fine and a suspended 1 day sentence.
In exchange for dropping the charges (which were completely
unjustified to begin with), the defendants surrendered their 
right to sue any city officials.  The arrests had just the desired
effect; they protected the agents from legal retribution against
their actions.
 
	*
Without any question, it is a good idea for people from all over
the country to write letters to Pennsylvania officials protesting
against the violations of civil rights of these gay men and lesbians.
The fact that national attention is focused on this politically
embarassing incident in the state of Pennsylvania will certainly
prompt official state action.  
 
Not one state or city official has acknowledged that any of
the agents did anything wrong.  No investigation into the
actions of the agents has begun.  None will take place unless
we all cry out.
 
Write to 
	Governor Robert P. Casey
	Room 225
	Main Capitol Bldg.
	Harrisburg, PA   17120