LA Times Explores Being Gay at Morehouse

by Latoya Peterson

A while back, I read Beyond the Down Low: Sex, Lies, and Denial in Black America. Written by Keith Boykin, the book is an answer to J.L. King’s On the Down Low: A Journey into the Lives of “Straight” Black Men Who Sleep with Men. Boykin sets out to debunk a lot of the myths about the down low as put forward in King’s piece, but one part of his argument stands out in my mind.

In analyzing what makes a good black man, he poses multiple scenarios about men, their community contributions and their personal lives. In one synopsis, Boykin seemingly describes the perfect, community involved black man with one catch – he’s gay.

Does his sexual orientation disqualify him from being “a good black man?”

I’ve been puzzling over that question for two years now. While it would make sense that a man’s deeds, not his choice of partner, should determine his standing in the black community, it is obvious that the ideal we would like to get to is far from reality as it stands today.

So, when reader Jafari sent in an article from the LA Times about being gay at Morehouse, I hoped that the article would lead me to some answers.

The piece begins with a tantalizing tagline:

The ‘Morehouse man’ is a paragon of virtue and strength, a leader destined for great things. But can he also be gay?

The article revolves around Michael Brewer, a Morehouse senior who spends his time advocating for gay rights on campus.

“Morehouse is like this enclave where Stonewall never happened,” Brewer said, referring to the 1969 New York protest that galvanized the gay rights movement. “It just doesn’t exist in this realm of reality.”

Brewer, 22, didn’t come to Morehouse with the intent of changing it. But he found that he had no choice. He had arrived here from Oklahoma City pretty comfortable with himself: outspoken, proudly smart and, at 5 foot 9 and 300 pounds, hard to miss.

Early on, he decided he wouldn’t water down his gay identity.

And that, historically, has been a problematic strategy at Morehouse. The 141-year-old college has played a key role in defining black manhood in America. But with a past steeped in religion, tradition and machismo, it has struggled to determine how homosexuality fits within that definition.

The author of the piece, Richard Fausset, takes pains to paint a picture of the expectations of Morehouse College:

Over the years, it became famous for turning out the vaunted “Morehouse man” — a paragon of virtue and strength in a society that once institutionalized the destruction of the black nuclear family.

Traditionally, its students have been expected to follow a well-worn path: They were to choose ambitious wives, preferably from Spelman College next door, a historically black school for women. They were to become captains of industry, leaders of men, saviors of a race.

But now, more than ever, students like Brewer are forcing the school to confront a vexing question: Can the Morehouse man be gay?

Like many African-Americans who head to an HBCU for their higher learning, Brewer initially considered Morehouse for the kind of experiences you cannot have in a white-majority college setting:

In Oklahoma City, Brewer attended an arts-intensive magnet high school, where his best friends were white girls and being gay wasn’t that big of a deal. His senior year, a recruiter persuaded him to apply to Morehouse.

Despite its mystique — as the school that had produced King, filmmaker Spike Lee and NAACP leader Julian Bond — Brewer hadn’t given Morehouse much thought. But the college offered him a full scholarship, and he grew intrigued by the idea of joining a brotherhood.

“I thought it was time that I started to kind of commune with my kinfolk, with guys who look like me,” he said. “And the very second I saw Morehouse and stepped on campus, it was this sense of belonging. . . . I felt that I was home.”

Unfortunately, finding a home that meshes with your culture is not the same as finding a home that accepts or embraces your sexuality:

It was also difficult to ignore the fact that he had stepped into a place that had not come to terms with the presence of gay men on campus. There were the casually cruel statements from some of the straight guys and the tortuous code of silence from the guys on the down low. There were ministers-in-training who tried to convert Brewer’s gay friends with prayer. There were gay seniors who advised him to tone it down.

Brewer soon realized that the campus was in a profound state of soul-searching and flux on the issue of homosexuality. For decades, he learned, Morehouse had lived with a schizophrenic reputation. The school, unfairly or not, was known for harboring a large number of gay men. “Morehouse takes your money and makes you funny,” an old saying went.

Yet throughout the 1990s the Princeton Review regularly listed Morehouse among its top 20 homophobic campuses, based on student surveys. Aaron Parker, a veteran Morehouse religion professor, thinks some of that had to do with straight students being sensitive to the slights about Morehouse being a “gay” school.

Many of these views are still pervasive both in the black community and in mainstream society. And so, the article then explores the darker side of homophobic sentiment. Jafari Sinclaire Allen was a Morehouse student over a decade ago who found himself forced to leave campus after coming out. And in 2002, a Morehouse sophomore resorted to violence, beating another student with a baseball bat because he thought the other student was making a sexual advance.

The College grappled with what to do, with some alumni asking them to “screen out gay applicants.”

Instead, the school held diversity seminars — an odd concept, perhaps, at a school that has only a few students who aren’t black. But some faculty and staff members said the efforts encouraged students to take a more civil tone when discussing gay rights.

Meanwhile, another dynamic was also altering the climate: Students of Brewer’s generation were showing up at Morehouse more comfortable with being openly gay. Parker, the religion professor, has been discussing gay rights issues in his classes for years, but it was only four years ago, he said, that a student spoke up and identified himself as gay. Now, he said, it is a regular occurrence.

The result has been a small groundswell of activity. After the beating, gay students formed a support group, Safe Space, which Brewer joined. The president of Brewer’s freshman class, Jameel Smith, caused a stir when he came out soon after his election. Last year, students at Spelman produced a documentary that took a frank look at the gay and lesbian experiences on the two campuses. And a Morehouse political science major recently chose to do his senior thesis on “queer studies” — hardly a radical move at most campuses but a bit of a shock at Morehouse.

Morehouse is still grappling with how to reconcile black masculinity and homosexuality, much like many other segments of society. However, it is refreshing to note that the conversation has at least started and is becoming more open.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Truth/Reconciliation: Morehouse on My Mind at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 16 Jul 2008 at 8:53 am

    [...] Congratulations, Michael Brewer. [...]

  2. Gay Morehouse Men / Stereohyped on 16 Jul 2008 at 8:59 am

    [...] The violence is therefore instructive, dramatic and sad, but not rare in our world.” More at Racialicious. Jul 16, 2008 · posted by Lauren Williams, Stereohyped · Link · Respond [...]

Comments

  1. atlasien wrote:

    We once overheard a woman in the supermarket saying that she didn’t want her son going to Morehouse because “Morehouse made you gay”. Whoah…

    I remember hearing about that horrifying beating episode. Yes, it’s really good to know about the gay civil rights education going on there now.

  2. Temo wrote:

    This is what stands out to me:

    “The school held diversity seminars — an odd concept, perhaps, at a school that has only a few students who aren’t black.”

    Why is it an odd concept? We all need to work on our concepts of, response and responsiblity to diversity…obviously, as this article shows.

  3. wendi muse wrote:

    a bit of a side note, but it’s funny to me how the topic of black men in the closet is still such a huge issue of controversy and they are so demonized when they are zillion of men of any other ethnic and/or racial group who have not come out either. i think it just goes to show that even in terms of the coming out process, black men are marginalized and scapegoated (you know, the usually “this is why i can’t find a husband” or “this is why AIDS is so prevalent in the black community” BS) in a way that makes it all the more difficult.

    it’s unfortunate that schools like morehouse have not worked even harder to make their environment more accepting of black young men from all walks of life.

  4. DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

    I agree with Wendi Muse. the fact is that there’s so much homophobia in ALL minority groups (whether racial or ethnic) in this country.

    Like, for instance, let’s say that an Indian American gay man would be too scared to come out to his conservative Indian family here in this country, even though it’s “safer” to be gay in USA.

    But if he lives in Delhi or Mumbai, his ethnic background won’t be such a huge deal if he comes out as gay and his parents wouldn’t be all like “but you’re Indian! you have to act Indian!”

    (if anybody rememebrs that scene in Bend it like Beckham where Jess’s gay best friend comes out to her, where she shockedly exclaims, “but you’re Indian! you can’t be gay!”)

  5. shah8 wrote:

    Morehouse *is* shock full of gays. Best friend there was gay, gay roommates, etc…

    And contrary to what people say, Morehouse doesn’t make people gay, it’s more that Morehouse was an place acceptable to both gay students (a frickin huge closet), and to their homophobic parents (manliness), plus it was far away from many said parents.

    Atlanta, in general, is also seen as a gay friendly city.

    The controversy is more about tearing down the closet and the end of preserving appearances by administration and students. The LA Times hyped it up a little, but this is just one of those good things that are painfull. On the plus side, it could make black families less homophobic in the long run.

  6. Sewere wrote:

    Coming from a fairly conservative Nigerian upbringing, I often find myself thinking why some of us were fortunate to see the effects of the homophobia that was so deeply ingrained in our lives. This is not to say we escaped it or that we don’t need to work on our own homophobic prejudices but that shit is just sad especially given how we are often taught about the effects of colonialism. Another shit is the fucking hypocrisy of men who enjoy lesbianism when it serves their own sexist needs but not when it involves actual lives of women and men when it turns violent… Sorry, I’m just rambling because I’m too angry.

    I think a lot of the homophobia that black lesbians, gays, bi-sexual and trans-genders face is primarily from the influence of religion particularly the strong influence of christianity. Another major contributor is the mindset that marginalized groups don’t want to be identified with class that is identified as weak by the dominant paradigm AND want to have the air of the downtrodden but righteous aka “paragon of virtue and strength”

    I’m going to end my rambling by saying I am encouraged that leaders and influential figures are speaking out against homophobia – there was a NYT article on a pastor who spoke to his church, shit even Kanye had something to say during an interview. This is one of the reasons why younger folks are coming up with a little less homophobia cause god knows how unhelpful the idea of leaving change to the next generations is…

    ok this is the last thing,

    you know, the usually “this is why i can’t find a husband” or “this is why AIDS is so prevalent in the black community” BS

    Even speaking out against homophobia gets shit like that thrown at you.

  7. Cara wrote:

    just one thing….i agree w/ wendi. why is it that when black men are gay (but passing) it’s called being “on the down low”, but when whites are gay (but passing) it’s called being “in the closet”? That’s extremely racist.

    Has anyone else seen similar occurances within non-black and non-white communities? Like, different sayings for Asian or Latin gay males?

  8. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @ Sewere –

    This is not to say we escaped it or that we don’t need to work on our own homophobic prejudices [...]

    Yes, that. A lot of us, somewhere along the line got reinforcement that homophobia is ok, encouraged even.

    I talk to some of my friends about gay issues and I started to notice a pattern – some things are ok, but then we hit a block. For example, I recently caught up on Penn and Teller’s Bullshit Season 4 and they had a section on the boy scouts – specifically boy scouts and homosexuality. And the person I was watching it with was so disgusted. Now he could agree that gay people are like other people, and he agreed that gay people are not pedophiles and he agreed that sexuality is mostly something you are born with and not a choice – and yet he still had a problem with gays in the scouts. Nothing rational about it – it was just a block of bigotry.

    I think that a lot of these things take time to work through and work out. And I think people are afraid to confront their own prejudices and really examine them. I had a “friend for a season” who was gay and back when we were cool, we used to have conversations about being queer in the black community. I think I had offhandedly said something about not wanting to date a guy who was bi, and he pressed me about it. He then informed me that I was holding a prejudice against bisexual men, because I was interpreting their actions as something that made them less than men, in my eyes.

    I was upset at his characterization then, but I realize now he is correct. It’s not really an active bias on my part – its one of those passive things you absorb.

    And while I am fine with participating in Days of Silence, showing up at Pride parades, sending emails or dropping phone calls to city council and my state representatives, while I have and adore my gay friends, while I think marriage laws should be for protection and not exclusion, and while I don’t even think I would bat an eyelash if one of future children came out to me, I still hold that prejudice.

    These issues have deep roots. So as I said, I’m glad the process is beginning.

    Here’s something that is currently interesting me. A lot of the more outspoken regulars seemed to have skipped commenting on this thread.

    I wonder why…?

  9. Lyonside wrote:

    >I think a lot of the homophobia [snip] is primarily from the influence of religion particularly the strong influence of christianity. Another major contributor is the mindset that marginalized groups don’t want to be identified with class that is identified as weak by the dominant paradigm AND want to have the air of the downtrodden but righteous aka “paragon of virtue and strength”

    Sewere, I agree but I would flip your rankings – There is too much homophobia within the black community, even among people who have no church affiliation. Some may unofficially have some Christian background (from childhood, or from family), but the numbers of people of all types going to services once a week (or at least frequently) regardless of faith I suspect is overreported in nat’l polls. Because “going to church” is seen as the “right thing to do,” unless someone has strong convictions otherwise.

    And Christians of course have no monopoly on homophobia (not saying you said that, but it bears mentioning).

    I think a lot has to do with the cultural image of the black American male – it seems that there can only be one stereotypical image held at one time. Currently it’s the urban, street-smart, hip, lothario (even if he is monogamous, he COULD become one at any moment), and that idea seems to hold sway over different socioeconomic levels. Any other image is first seen as “white,” [geeks, CEOs, suburbanite, or yes, gay] and therefore black men defying any stereotype are often seen as “acting white” or vulnerable having their black cred challenged.

  10. summer wrote:

    2 separate things:
    1) regarding latoya’s question “Does sexual orientation disqualify him from being a ‘good black man’”:

    In my experience, that phrase is most often used in reference to a man’s potential as some woman’s husband, and so in that instance, yes, a man’s being gay would preclude him from being a good black man for her.

    As for being a good, black man in general (which, again, I personally never hear used in that sense), I don’t think orientation factors in. I think in such a case, he’s just referred to as a good person.

    2. @ Cara, who said, “why is it that when black men are gay (but passing) it’s called being “on the down low”, but when whites are gay (but passing) it’s called being “in the closet”? ”

    Isn’t that a term originating in the black community and popularized by self-proclaimed “down-lowers” (e.g. J.L. King)? I just don’t know that it’s racist. It’s just a different slang term that signifies more than just “in the closet.” It’s being “in the closet” while still engaging in active sexual relationships with women.

    I think the negative connotations against black men started not with the term itself, but with the way people started throwing around the term, insinuating that a majority of black men were on the down low.

  11. K.Lo wrote:

    Latoya-

    Thank you for posting this. Here are my disjointed thoughts.

    As a graduate of Spelman I found this article fascinating. I wasn’t aware this was going on when I was on campus 10 years ago.

    My study was primarily in the performing arts. My classrooms and activities all involved Men of Morehouse many of whom were gay. All of my friends seemed comfortable with themselves and being gay. We produced fabulous fashion shows and coronations, concerts and plays. We worked in spaces where my Morehouse friends could explore their personal “gay male aesthetic” while being strong, masculine men. There was a definite strong sense of community among my gay male counterparts.

    I watched many peers come into their own sexuality and from my biased point of view gay male ego bruises were no worse than those of hetero students. Perhaps that was just my own point of view because the culture of my major is very excepting lifestyles. Perhaps the students who were business majors and wanted to join frats kept their distance for fear of being lumped in with my group of friends.

    Oh Well.

    Several of my closest friends from undergrad are gay men and I can’t wait to get their feedback on this story.

  12. gatamala wrote:

    Here’s something that is currently interesting me. A lot of the more outspoken regulars seemed to have skipped commenting on this thread.

    *opens door & saunters in*

    I thought about leaving this one alone, as I’ve had some very negative experiences with Morehouse students. I had given up on the thought that this particular discussion would happen (not on this blog…period).

    Another major contributor is the mindset that marginalized groups don’t want to be identified with class that is identified as weak by the dominant paradigm AND want to have the air of the downtrodden but righteous aka “paragon of virtue and strength”

    good point. I think that ties into a lot of the religiousity in the black community and Morehouse man mindset. Being a Spelman grad, I am quite familiar with (and was a victim of) this mindset (on our campus too!). The sexism and homophobia on that campus disgusted me so much that I swore I would not pay tuition if my son wanted to go there. It looks like things are getting better, but if I have a gay son, I would not feel comfortable with him attending that school. Yes, I know there is homophobia everywhere. However, there was no safe haven when I attended. The gay students couldn’t even get a charter for their club. Hopefully they now have a safe haven.

    He then informed me that I was holding a prejudice against bisexual men, because I was interpreting their actions as something that made them less than men, in my eyes.

    I was upset at his characterization then, but I realize now he is correct. It’s not really an active bias on my part – its one of those passive things you absorb.

    Not to go off topic, but can’t one believe that bisexual men are men, yet prefer dating straight men?

  13. gatamala wrote:

    K.Lo when did you graduate?

    I LOVED the fashion show! That was one hell of an event!!

  14. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Gatamala –

    I suppose, but the question he posed to me was something along the lines of “why does it matter who he dated before you?” If I was supposedly cool with the sexuality of others, why was I not interested in engaging with someone exploring their sexuality?

    Like I said, I don’t really have an answer for that one. It’s a preference. It could very well be backed by a prejudice. But I’m not really trying to exert influence on any other dating life outside of my own, so I’m not really all that concerned on that front.

    But it is something to think about.

  15. Jenn wrote:

    I don’t get it, Morehouse has an issue with gay brothers, while a white male becomes the valedictorian? They have bigger fish to fry. They better keeps those gays on campus they probably get the best grades.

  16. Sewere wrote:

    I don’t get it, Morehouse has an issue with gay brothers, while a white male becomes the valedictorian? They have bigger fish to fry. They better keeps those gays on campus they probably get the best grades.

    *head to wall*

    I have to head to a meeting but can someone please help me explain to Jenn that playing pin-the-tail on the victim and stereotyping gay men IS NOT HELPING!!!

  17. bertie wrote:

    This is pretty preplexing. I always thought Morehouse had a pretty firm reputation for having a large gay population (at least it did by the 1990’s when I was looking at colleges). Spike Lee’s School Daze even made a reference to it in the scene between the students of the fictionalized morehouse (his real alma mater) and the “townies.”

    I often think black folks invented the don’t ask don’t tell policy–as long as a person never publically declares their orientation, it seems black folks turn a blind eye. Whether its Luther, Latifah (supposedly) or the choir director at the local baptist church, as long as their sexuality is kept private no one cares. I definitely agree with the previous comment that the latest “problems” probably stem from the student body’s reactions to gay students not keeping their sexuality private and wanting, like any other person, to freely express their complete selves.

  18. jsb16 wrote:

    I, too, thought “on the down low” was a phrase that originated within the black community, rather than being pinned on blacks from the outside. “In the closet” tends to indicate to me a degree of self-delusion (”I’m not really queer, and no one will notice me if I pretend to be straight”), while “on the down low” seems to have more in common with “a bit on the side” in hinting at multiple, simultaneous liasons.

    Then again, I’m hardly an expert. I even admit that most of my knowledge on the subject comes from a section in If They Only Listened to Us: What Women Voters Want Politicians to Hear in which a small number of black women discuss their opposition to gay marriage.

  19. NancyP wrote:

    Isn’t the desire for “respectability” part of black anti-gay prejudice? There have been enough sexual slanders and stereotypes about black men that I would assume that the last thing most middle class and aspiring blacks want is to have the “taint” of non-standard sexuality. Religion is a big part of black anti-gay prejudice, but that’s no different from white anti-gay prejudice.

    OCICBW (of course I could be wrong)

  20. Whitney wrote:

    You know what I think? People should mind their own damn business and stop worrying who sleeps with whom.

    If any man wants to call himself straight, and sleep with women and men, as long as he uses protection, I don’t care. It’s his business and no one else’s.

    I’ve never understood why people seem to care so much about who sleeps with whom.

  21. wendi muse wrote:

    re the term “down low”: yes, to my knowledge, it originated in the black community. HOWEVER, being on the DL seems to evoke more menacing characteristics. it’s not about being in denial or ashamed, it’s about testing the boundaires of fidelity, flirting with betrayal, and (so the stereotyped association goes) playing a major role in the proliferation of AIDS in the black american community. it’s meaning is more powerful and dangerous because it’s associated with men who are considered along the same lines. despite being bisexual or gay, their blackness in combination with their sexuality renders them a threat to society and its norms.

    and on male bisexuality, i agree with whitney here. i suppose i can’t hold very much against bisexual men anyway because i am a bisexual woman, but i can safely say that to me it really doesn’t matter. as long as the person dating me is into me at the time and being f aithful, i don’t care which genders the person may have a history with. whenever i am discussing biphobia with straight or gay folks who are afraid to date people like me, usually on the basis of fear of infidelity, i always say…”well, if i were straight, i would like only men, but that doesn’t mean i would have to have sex with more than one at a time to be happy just because i liked them. nor does it mean i would be attracted to every man i saw.”

    people rarely associate straight folks with infiedelity in the same way that they assume it’s inherently connected with being bisexual, even though (as celebrities, politicians, and everyone else and their mother clearly demonstrate) there are just as many straight and gay people who betray their mates on a regular basis.

  22. lori wrote:

    If any man wants to call himself straight, and sleep with women and men, as long as he uses protection, I don’t care. It’s his business and no one else’s.

    I agree, but would only add that if he is in a long-term relationship, it’s also his partner’s business, even assuming the use of protection. (And the same applies to women.) Doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t happen, but it does mean that there’s an ethical obligation to be honest.

  23. Atlgirl wrote:

    Seriously, are these people for real? I moved to Atlanta two years ago and it’s no hyberbole to say that Atlanta is the black gay capital of the world (sorry DC and SF). What, do you think they all come here AFTER they graduate college? Um, yeah, not so much. Chances are that half of the homophobes are Morehouse are in the closet/on the DL themselves. I really wish we Black folks could get over the whole homophobia thing, especially since we all have a friend, family member, co-worker, hair dresser, (and in Atlanta, perhaps an ex-lover) who we know is gay and yet, gasp, still like, maybe even love.

  24. Whitney wrote:

    @lori–Absolutely. If any person decides to engage in extra-marital or extra-relationship risky behavior with anyone, they have the moral obligation to tell their partners, especially because they would be putting their partner at potential risk to contract a disease.

    Oprah actually did a show about this about men having wives and sleeping with other men and contracting various STIs and HIV and then passing it to their wives (most of the women Oprah interviewed were post-menopausal, where the use of birth control would be unnecessary, because who ever thinks that their spouse will give them a disease?).

    I think that if anyone were to cheat on their partner, and do not tell them, it is morally wrong, and especially more if they contract a disease and pass it to them. Although it still is no one’s business but theirs.

    @wendi–”there are just as many straight and gay people who betray their mates on a regular basis.”

    Exactly. And the Spitzer scandal is one of those times where a heterosexual man betrayed his wife. It seems to me, though, it seems more scandalous of a man cheats on his wife (or girlfriend) with another man, but defines himself as straight. I think it’s one of the last taboos, really. I think it really stems from America’s homophobia of gay men. it seems almost socially acceptable for women to experiment with other women, and many boyfriends are OK with it, some even encourage it. And women leaving their husbands for men are seen as slightly comedic, like on “Friends.” But it’s scandalous and shameful if a man leaves his wife for another man, like on “Gossip Girl.” For women, it seems almost as though “becoming” a lesbian is liberating, but if a man “becomes” gay, it’s taboo.

    I partly blame this on porn, and the prevalence of straight women doing lesbian porn, and men fantasizing about it.

    I hate the double standards in our society, how it is more socially acceptable for women to experiment with women, but completely taboo and totally undesirable for men to experiment with other men. I know a lot of people who feel that once a man has sex with another man, he is automatically gay.

    Going off on what Atlgirl said, it seems that it is MORE socially taboo for black men to be gay or even experiment with other men. Is it the same with black women experimenting with other women? Is that just as taboo?

  25. lunanoire wrote:

    Whitney, you are aware that HPV and herpes can be spread even if condoms are properly used, right? Using protection is important, but so is honesty and testing.

  26. G.D. wrote:

    The frequency with which you people beat us to certain topics is mind-boggling.

    Thanks for this post. D, A casual acquaintance of mine once made this point in a conversation we were having about the ‘good black men’ myth — most of us agreed that it was loaded with all kinds of classist implications and seemed to implicitly reference some sort of deviant black male pathology.

    Anyway, the acquaintance is gay, and so he said despite his considerable charm and wit and intelligence and decency, what annoyed him about the idea was that he would never be considered a ‘good black man’ because women didn’t see him as marriageable.

    When Essence mag does its wildly popular ‘good black man’ issue every once in a while, the criteria sort of makes his point: under 50, unmarried, ’successful’ and straight.

    Dudes like D were completely invisible in the heterosexist idea of ‘black male goodness. ‘ I think about that fairly often.

  27. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    “Here’s something that is currently interesting me. A lot of the more outspoken regulars seemed to have skipped commenting on this thread. I wonder why…?”

    ::looks around the monitor::

    Hey Latoya! You talkin’ to me? Friend, I *couldn’t* respond ’cause my computer at work acted the hell up when I tried to click on the Comments Section here. And I was transcribing an interview for my own blog, so Ms. Woman was bizzy. However, since you asked and my computer thought it act right today and the transcription is done for now…

    ::pulls up a chair and crosses her legs::

    I agree with what NancyP said, namely that maintaining the collective image of hetero-only Black sexuality is deeply tied to serving as an active rebuttal against those stereotypes about our “deviant hypersexuality,” namely we’ll f*** anytime and everywhere and anything that moves. By not acknowledging non-hetero sexualities and/or actively policing each other’s sexual attractions and practices (like the parent(s) who say they’ll disown their kid(s) if they came out of the closet), some Black folks can say that whatever else this society thinks of us, “they” can’t hold “deviant” sexuality against the race and they performed their racial duty to make sure that doesn’t happen. Yeah, it seems like there’s a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, but the emphasis is on *don’t tell.*

    Oh! And let’s not forget that, whether some Black people are church-going Christians or not, they can (and do) argue a collective moral rightness, based on religion, in their not tolerating queer sexualities. So, some of the thinking goes, Black folks may not get a fair shake in this world, at least we got the favor of the deities, and the deities are far stronger than white supremacy.

    Also, non-straight sexualities have no place, according to the same group of folks, in furthering the race because there’s no potential to “naturally” reproduce the next generation of Black folks.

    Places like Morehouse and Spelman–regardless of the realities of each institution that gatamala and others have told us–are seen as places to incubate the next generation of “race men and women” who will continue to reproduce (literally and metaphorically) and uplift the race. So, therefore, non-hetero sexualities (both orientations and practices) have no place on these campuses.

    Of course, IMO, we Black folks are doing this policing and maintaining at our our peril. We’re so busy trying to appear “straight” that we (conveniently) forget about some exceptionally powerful queer voices who have helped us along in our struggles: James Baldwin (one of my all-time favorite authors and voices of conscience), Audre Lorde, Bayard Rustin, Alice Walker, Langston Hughes, Octavia Butler….and the many, many queer African Americans who do this work in many, many ways everyday without name recognition. And we’re denying ourselves some possibilities of enjoyable sexual practices that we may think aren’t “straight,” like pegging.

    ::TCS uncrosses her legs, gets up, and puts the chair back::

  28. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @G.D. – Yes, exactly.

    @TCS – I was talking about teh menz. Sewere and GD came through…but it’s looking like crickets for some of the other people who like to jump up and dominate other conversations.

    Wonder how next week’s post will be received…

  29. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ Latoya–oops! My bad (and my guilt) for assuming, Miz Editrix.:-D

    Dunno, friend re: the MIA jump-up-and-dominate fellas. Perhaps some may be dealing with their own discomfort around the issue and don’t want to comment, least they’ll come off as homophobic or otherwise mean-spirited and/or ignorant. Perhaps some know that, if they get on the comments and their argument’s not tight and they don’t come correct, then the Chair Treatment will be applied.:-D

  30. Joseph wrote:

    @Latoya
    “I was talking about teh menz. Sewere and GD came through…but it’s looking like crickets for some of the other people who like to jump up and dominate other conversations.”

    Huh?

    What…is that about? As one of the menz on this site I’m curious: are you pissed that men dominate other discussions? Or aren’t dominating this one? Both? I’m not sure where you are coming from.

    If you have something to say about post-etiquette and gender (on or off the list) I want to hear it…

    As far as me and this post is concerned: I’m not uncomfortable, I just don’t know if I have much to add to the discussion. I didn’t go to an HBC and my experience is limited to watching School Daze on cable 15 years ago. Although I am intrigued the Chair Treatment…

    I thought the Cruel Secretary’s post was a brilliant summary–not only of the homophobia in the black community but in other “ethnic” communities too.

    So, uh…look at what she wrote and picture me nodding my head and murmuring “yes.”

    :: tries to cross legs like TCS, fails, falls off chair::

  31. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @ Joseph –

    Not pissed, more amused that some of the more dominant voices on here aren’t weighing in on this one. I know I’ve seen their opinions elsewhere on parts of the topic.

    I wasn’t thinking of you specifically, more the HBCU demographic. I am wondering if it is that there isn’t much to add, or if they don’t want to talk about it for the same reason my RL friends don’t, or if they do want to speak up and say something, but are worried about being banned. (My clicking/banning finger has been quite itchy lately.)

    And for me, it becomes a strange dynamic here – when I provide something that is requested, but hear a very limited commentary on it. Our discussions and links to GLBT issues tend to be quiet, though they are often requested. (Ken’s piece on IR Dating was a refreshing departure from that trend but still quiet compared to the other posts.) And so I am not sure if people are quiet because they are reading the posts and see nothing to add, quiet because they are thinking on the ideas, or quiet because they skipped reading the post entirely.

    And when the regular, comment on 3 posts out of five people are silent, that’s when I start to wonder about things.

  32. Black Canseco wrote:

    This one’s complicated… As a Black man, you’re taught that being gay not only makes you less of a man–2 strikes, but you’re not taught anything about your sexual identity other than Black men screw everything moving so get to it.

    it’s the whole “dick thing you wouldn’t understand” vibe.

    The flipside is how do you tell people who don’t agree homosexuality as a lifestyle that they’re simply ignorant, bigoted, homophobic and need to be educated?

    I lived in Boys Town in Chicago once it swallowed up my neighborhood in the 90s–upperwardly mobile gay/les whites flooded the spot pushing out ethnic folks.

    When the dust settled the mostly white gay community treated straights and blacks (gay and straight) like crap. You’d get shut out of establishments if you “didn’t fit”, insulted if a guy hit on you and you said “no thanks i’m straight”.

    It even got to the point where gay activist groups on the north side would venture to south side black churches on sundays just to picket black churches they deemed homophobic; this while white gays were treating black gays like 2nd class–sorta like the feminism problems that we frequently discuss out here.

    Funny thing was black churches regardless of their take on gay marraige, etc. don’t drive cross town to picket gay bars and gay-friendly establishments.
    Point is, as much as people say live and let live, we really don’t.

    my point is, there’s just no middle ground for discussion on either side. you’re either an open-minded supporter/embracer or your a “right-wing conservative bigot.”

  33. Black Canseco wrote:

    also,

    I don’t see anymore “homophia” in the black community than i see anywhere else. What i see is people who don’t believe in a certain lifestyle but get written off as homophobes unless they’re jump-up-n-down cheerleaders for GLBT communities. yet Black folks catch this undeserved rap largely from non-blacks about what we are or aren’t.

    Look, if you put 5 straight people of any cultural background in a room and got them to talk openly and honestly about what they need sexually and what they need romantically/relationship-wise, they’d offend and disgust each other inside of 15 minutes.

    But that doesn’t make them bigots or right-wing phobics or liberal loons and amoral sluts either.

    I don’t expect people to co-sign everything i do or how i live; sure it’d be great if they did—we all want to be accepted.

    but short of violence and blatant immoral treatment that you wouldn’t want to subject anyone else to–where do we draw the line in human relations?

  34. Joseph wrote:

    @Latoya
    Ah, okay. (Although you didn’t quite answer my question about men dominating discussions…)

    Hmm. I think a queer perspective on racial issues is really valuable. But it seems to me like this post has less to do with gay folks in the world (or even in the larger Black community) than with the culture of HBCs (and maybe even Morehouse specifically…) So if there are Morehouse grads on the list I guess I’m curious too about why they are keeping silent.

  35. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Black Canseco –

    Thank you for joining the conversation. You were one of the voices I was looking for.

    As a Black man, you’re taught that being gay not only makes you less of a man–2 strikes, but you’re not taught anything about your sexual identity other than Black men screw everything moving so get to it.

    Yes, that. Masculinity was paramount to most of the guys I knew growing up and anything other than blatant promiscuity caused a man to be suspect. I also remember that anything deemed not masculine by the patriarchs of my family was quickly corrected – too much crying, picking on girls, pretending to be gay was swiftly corrected with a punch to the chest. I wasn’t on the receiving end of that, but I still remember how horrible those moments were. There wasn’t even necessarily a denouncement of homosexuality needed – it was just understood that is was not acceptable.

    The flipside is how do you tell people who don’t agree homosexuality as a lifestyle that they’re simply ignorant, bigoted, homophobic and need to be educated?

    Yes, that’s hard, especially when religion is in the mix. I referenced this in a post before, where I had friends who would never call themselves allies of GLBT people or supporters of their issues, but still would prefer not to see discriminatory government legislation or GLBT hate crimes. That’s one of those strange middle grounds where the established camps don’t really apply.

    yet Black folks catch this undeserved rap largely from non-blacks about what we are or aren’t. Agreed. But I also think that a large part of that is because we are the most visible “other” in America.

    Look, if you put 5 straight people of any cultural background in a room and got them to talk openly and honestly about what they need sexually and what they need romantically/relationship-wise, they’d offend and disgust each other inside of 15 minutes.

    Were you reading that Feministe post?

    @Joseph –

    Ah, okay. (Although you didn’t quite answer my question about men dominating discussions…)

    To derail a bit – ummm, that’s a tricky one to answer. Here, on the whole, the answer is no. We’re a women run site and we feature a heavily gendered perspective on race. I don’t think a lot of sexist men read here on a regular basis (though I find new surprises in the comments everyday!)

    Do men tend to dominate online and offline discussions? Yes. But as I grow older, I find myself around those kinds of men less and less. In today’s musings I talk wanting to address sexism and men of color – but it doesn’t feel urgent to me because I’m not around it often. The men I associate with and the men who comment here are pretty chill. They may hold some sexist views, but they aren’t invested in that world view. I really have to step out of my immediate circles and routines to remind myself that a lot of the world doesn’t operate this way.

    There are some men who I believe are very sexist, but they don’t last long here – itchy banning finger, remember? And I generally delete anti-woman comments outright. (You have no idea how many comments we get about the various sexual merits of women of different races and ethnicities. Or referrals from porn sites.)

    Some people are very forceful and do tend to dominate the conversation but that is not always a bad thing. The only thing that annoys me is when we feel like we are spinning in circles.

    Did that answer the question, or do I need to expound more on teh menz needing to know their place? ;-)

  36. Joseph wrote:

    @Latoya
    Nope. Speaking as Ambassador for the Menz (you should see our embassy…the bathroom is disgusting) we are satisfied with your answer. However, I have to report that all this talk of dominance, being put in our place and this elusive “Chair Treatment” has us more titillated by this post than we thought we’d be.

    We have a funny feeling in our tummy.

  37. Black Canseco wrote:

    faith–i’m not much for religion–does complicate things. As a Christian, I don’t want to be of the mindset to be disobedient to God. But i see the flipside when you as a gay man/woman are taught that homosexuality is somehow a bigger sin than all the other sins when there’s no sign of that in the either old or new testament.

    who wants to be disobedient to God outside of atheists who chosen logic, science over faith?

    but the prevailing mentality these days is to simply throw the baby with the bath water by saying, “just ignore all the faith-based angles–they’re just their to oppress and excuse bigotry.”

    obviously i don’t agree with that.

    again there’s gotta be a way to handle/have the discussion under the possibility that we all might be a little bit wrong on certain aspects of things.

    as for my “5 people in a room” argument, i didn’t get that from feministe–i got it from my 55 year old sister.

    “I had friends who would never call themselves allies of GLBT people or supporters of their issues, but still would prefer not to see discriminatory government legislation or GLBT hate crimes. That’s one of those strange middle grounds where the established camps don’t really apply.”

    is that really that hard to understand? it goes back to the cheerleader metaphor. I may not want to live how you live or love how you love, but why would i want somebody to be marginalized because they’re different.

    That’s not the same as being a cheerleader for a movement i may not agree with; but for too many it’s an all or nothing proposition:

    You’re either with us (by our definition of “with”) or you’re against us.

  38. Whitney wrote:

    @lunanoire–Of course I know that. Which is why it’s not a good idea to have promiscuous sex in the first place. It is a dangerous lifestyle.

    And as for the whole not agreeing with their lifestyle part, a simple “it’s none of my business” is sufficient enough. People don’t want to hear that you don’t agree with anyone’s lifestyle, and especially theirs, just say it’s not your business.

    @Black Canseco–I was always taught in sunday school (and my Catholic HS) that simply being gay is not wrong, but acting on it is, just as any heterosexual person having premarital sex is wrong.

  39. jvansteppes wrote:

    Black Canseco you do bring up an interesting point- the issue of gay gentrification and the abominable race and class politics held by so many of the gay folks who move into poorer/POC neighborhoods and have no place for analysis of their own privilege. I may have mentioned it on this site before but there’s a film called ‘Flag Wars’ that deals with this very issue somewhere in the States. Those of us in the queer community who take issue with white/rich gay dominance aren’t so visible but we do exist.
    I don’t want to be prescriptive here but next time a guy hits on you you might want to say that you’re simply ‘in a relationship’ or something. The reason I say this is that many heterosexuals who encounter us take great pains to emphasize their heterosexuality because they want to distance themselves from queers, and that’s insulting, so we get annoyed when people assert their heterosexuality as opposed to saying that they aren’t interested. [And some straight men ARE really homophobic when turning guys down]
    The thing about disagreeing with ‘the homosexual lifestyle’ is interesting because sometimes people interpret different things depending on how you word it. When you say you disagree with it, as opposed to saying its not for you, you might give the impression that you disagree with the rights of others or that you’re heterosexist. Also, there isn’t one specific gay lifestyle despite what television would like us to think.

  40. jvansteppes wrote:

    Growing up with a white closeted gay HIV positive father who was married to my mother, I have taken a keen interest in all this down low business and have yet to see a humanizing/accurate analysis in any scientific/sociological journals that accounts for what men who have sex with men as well as women go through and what impacts their choices.
    I guess the term ‘down low’ might have originated with J.L King but like the term Jewish American Princess [which originated with Jews, though it was problematic anyway for evoking the word 'jap'] it has become very popular outside its original intended community. I’m always reminded of Dan Savage, who speaks of black queers and black communities [or shall I say 'the black community' because there's only one and they have an office open 9-5] as if he were a colonial anthropologist.
    This is a term used to demonize men of color [Latino men are included and I would predict that Asian men may one day 'join the club' without volunteering to do so] both for the fact that they are allegedly essentially traitors for having complicated sexualities but also to paint them and their communities as less evolved than their white counterparts who are said to be more open and many of whom see themselves as inherently more liberal.
    Every time I hear the term used seriously I feel like a cat with a curled spine and its fur sticking upright.

  41. Lyonside wrote:

    Not to start a religious discussion of homosexuality, but please be aware that there is not one monolithic interpretation of homosexual acts (or rather, the ones supposedly mentioned in the JudeoChristian scriptures). What it comes down to is whether your faith tradition is literal and static WRT chapter and verse or more interpretive/dynamic. It also depends on which translation you follow, and whether one goes back to original source translations.

    For alternate interpretations,check out (or not)http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

  42. Black Canseco wrote:

    I’m from chicago–can’t stand dan savage–he’s so arrogant and condescending towards black gays and far as he’s concerned straight blacks, specifically the black church invented homophobia.

    as for gentrifying, it’s an issue to be sure, i’m just more amused by how gay whites treat gay blacks. in chicgao there are gay white clubs in boys town that kick gay blacks out/ban them and always excuse it by “dress code” or “capacity–even when there is no dress code and the places are half empty.

    the next gay white person that speaks out against the crap in chicago’s gay whites will be the first.

    and for the record gay blacks have written, protested dialoged for years to little effect.

  43. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ Black Canseco–I feel what you’re saying about white (gay) gentrification, friend, but I think you may be conflating that with what this article is about, namely homophobia within some Black communities.

    Having been a Christian most of my life (I’m not anymore) and having queer friends and having been involved in queer activism, I had to square my belief with not wanting to see people whom I love suffering eternal damnation for simply *being* themselves. So, here’s what I said to my staunchly Baptist mom, who loves to use the Bible to justify her homophobia: “I can’t be down with what the Bible says about homosexuality. It was a belief that was held by a particular group of people at a particular time. What concerns me today–and what should concern you–is not what gay people are doing in their bedrooms, but that they are contributing members of *this* society. That they’re paying their taxes, bringing up their children in loving homes, and being good neighbors to you [white gentrification notwithstanding]. That’s should be the baseline criteria for a civil secular society, since we can’t agree on religion. And, to me, members of LGBTIQ communities meet those standards. What they do in their sex lives has no bearing on being able to take care of a house or a child.” My modest, moderate argument toned down her anti-queer rhetoric quite a bit.

    And, honestly, Black Canseco, I don’t think LGBTIQ folks are asking you to cheerlead their “lifestyle” but simply leave them to live their lives with respect, in peace, and without judgement, much in the same way you wish for white folks (and everyone else) to deal with you and Black folks in the same manner. What right-thinking person *isn’t* down for that?

    And I co-sign with jvansteppes re: rejecting same-sex overtures. I’ve had some queer women hit on me during my adult life. Instead of reading the woman the self-righteous homophobic/heterosexist riot act–I wouldn’t want, say, a desi guy giving me a stank-ass response about all Black women as a way of rejecting my individual attention, ya know?–I smiled and simply said that I was really flattered but simply not interested or that I’m not the person she’s looking for and wish her luck in finding the right one. It’s a honest answer without getting ugly.

    @ jvansteppes–I heart you, friend.

  44. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    ::helps Joseph up, dusts him off, blows him a kiss, and walks out the door::

  45. Black Canseco wrote:

    CS,

    I’m not conflating–i’m simply responding to a comment addressed to me regarding white gays and gentrification. perhaps i should’ve clarified that.

    as for the larger issue of “cheerleading”, I’ve see that firsthand on far too many occasions where unless you are a vocal supporter/champion or activist for the GLBT, you’re under suspicion of being against human rights for all.

    I may well be an anti-gay bigot as i’ve been accused of on occassion, but i’d like to think the prerequisite is more substantial than my saying, “you live your life your way, i’ll live mine my way.”

    unfortunately, man would disagree.

    My sister was gay. Until she passed away my mother was never okay with it. She didn’t insult her or ban her from family gatherings… it wasn’t even a topic of discussion much. She simply stated that while Chris was her daughter and she loved her, her she didn’t see being a lesbian as a right/freedom.

    Chris was fine with that. All of Chris’s gfs/friends were welcome in our home free of criticism, etc. However when I hung out with Chris outside our family’s home all her gay friends did was bash my mother as being a bigot, stupid, homophobic, etc.
    These are the same ones who my mother would fix meals for and were welcomed as any of her other children’s friends/companions/dates were.

    Yet because she wasn’t rocking a rainbow bumper sticker, she got ripped.

    Too often I’ve seen straight folks make peace with family members, friends, colleagues, neighbors who are gay, but if they’re not marching lock-step, then they’re in the wrong until they see the light.

  46. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    ::comes back through the door::

    @ Black Canseco–”but i’d like to think the prerequisite is more substantial than my saying, ‘you live your life your way, i’ll live mine my way.’
    unfortunately, man would disagree.”

    Actually, the “prerequisite” is exactly that, friend. If I’m not mistaken, Jesus actually said it best: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Basic civility–no rainbow flags required.

    As for family members, especially for parents of LGBTIQ people: I suspect the your late sister’s social circle’s reaction to the idea of accepting a child but not accepting a basic part of that child’s being like one’s sexual orientation (like your mom saying your sister’s being a lesbian isn’t a right/freedom) comes from hurt. It’s like saying a parent loves her daughter but can’t stand her hair texture or eye color. No matter how civil the interactions with the friends, your mom’s lack of acceptance of such an integral part of your sister leaves a bitter taste in the friend’s mouths. Also, I suspect your sister’s friends may have read your mom’s lack of acceptance of your sister’s orientation as antithetical to what a mom is “supposed” to do, namely love all of her child unconditionally, esp. the parts a child can’t help but be, like being attracted to certain people. It’s that unconditional love–and wanting the world to accept their child as is and fighting for that child to exist in peace, with dignity, and without judgment–is what formed groups like the “rocking a rainbow bumper sticker” P-FLAG.

    I suppose we like to think the one person who’d fight for us would be a parent or a parental figure, ya know? And when some of us see that person not advocating or flatly refusing to do so, we feel the person–a person who tells us s/he loves us–failing us. And that will get seriously read–out of hurt.

  47. Mike wrote:

    “Here’s something that is currently interesting me. A lot of the more outspoken regulars seemed to have skipped commenting on this thread. I wonder why…?”

    Play off basketball.

    *The mod laughs.*

  48. Mike wrote:

    “Does his sexual orientation disqualify him from being “a good black man?”

    That depends on who you are asking.

    I cant imagine a woman under the impression that there are no good black men would find a gay black man as “good”.

    Question for me is what a good black man exactly mean to anybody?

    One who never saw the inside of a jail cell?

    How much he makes, class, education, morals?

    Is Obama better than say 50 cents?

    No one can pin down what a good one is but every one knows what makes him bad.

  49. Black Canseco wrote:

    Cruel Secretary wrote:

    If I’m not mistaken, Jesus actually said it best: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Basic civility–no rainbow flags required.

    Jesus said a lot of things, but people tend to cherry pick what words of his they like/accept based on their respective views and agendas.

    As for my sister’s friends–and others like them i’ve met over the years–i get the hurt aspect of it. I’ve never been able to reconcile that mentality. My mom’s love and respect was worthless to them because it was up to their standards. And not that they ever had the decency to say anything to her face–eating her food and accepting her kindness was okay, but ripping when she wasn’t around was “hurt”?

    I guess. And no don’t people reading this would ask me to substitute other groups for GLBTs in this equation to defend it.

    So be it. I get it.

    Still the emerging mentality just seems to be one of “you’re all in or you’re all out.” If you disagree, “have reservations,” are “indifferent” or any phrase that even hints at less than 100% support, then you’re the enemy or at the very least, irrelevant.

    it’ll be interesting to see how things play out going forward.

  50. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ Black Canseco–
    “Still the emerging mentality just seems to be one of ‘you’re all in or you’re all out.’ If you disagree, ‘have reservations,’ are ‘indifferent’ or any phrase that even hints at less than 100% support, then you’re the enemy or at the very least, irrelevant.”

    Hmm…dare I say that this “emerging mentality” that you seem to be observing may not be “the” emerging mentality of LGBTIQ communities–if solely for the fact that there are many, many folks in these communities and they may think differently than the folks you’ve met..like the people that I’ve met and read and listened to at lectures and, yep, sermons? Ten percent of the population didn’t gather and decide “the community’s” talking points and other memes and agendas, friend.:-D

    But I do agree with you on one thing: it’ll indeed be interesting to see how things play out going forward. We’ll definitely see…

  51. Karen wrote:

    -Black Canseco

    I don’t really think it is an all in or out thing. I think it’s really just a reaction to what is hurtful. It hurts when it is said that it’s not right to love who you love.

    Even if you do not hate queer people, saying that it is not right to be queer no matter how much you put it aside, it still is a bit homophobic. I wouldn’t label that person a bigot or insult them because of their belief, as long as they treat me as they treat everyone else, but it still has a bit of a homophobic ring to it.

    Also, you never have to be 100% down with it. I think it is just when people feel that their sexuality has be invalidated or demonized in any way. Saying “I don’t think being gay is a right” versus saying “i dont care” or “i would still love you” would probably get two different reactions, even though that person may fell the same.

  52. Karen wrote:

    dang typos!

    be=been
    fell=feel

  53. natashaelaine wrote:

    @ Latoya –

    This is my first time posting although I read this blog quite often. Not for any particular reason, mainly because a lot of posters hit on my points, and I just nod my head in agreeance. But, your comment regarding bisexuality:

    He then informed me that I was holding a prejudice against bisexual men, because I was interpreting their actions as something that made them less than men, in my eyes.
    These issues have deep roots. So as I said, I’m glad the process is beginning.
    Here’s something that is currently interesting me. A lot of the more outspoken regulars seemed to have skipped commenting on this thread.
    I wonder why…?

    I, too, was upset at his characterization of you, because I agreed with you. Overall, bisexuality is frontier I have shied away from addressing…and so have most of the posters here!

    Actually, let me correct myself, I have addressed my stance, stated it as such, and then have closed the door on further retrospect.

    For women – as I feel they love more deeply and emotionally than men – they can be bisexual. For many women, it is the connectedness which keeps them in a relationship – be it with a male or female. For men, as I feel they love as much physically as emotionally, they cannot be bisexual. I feel with men, bisexuality is “holding stage” until they feel comfortable coming out as gay men. Kind of like a transition point, until they are able to firmly gauge the rate at which they will enter homosexuality or whether they will continue to use the title of bisexuality while preferring men to women at an undocumented ratio.

    Yet, your final question prompted me to further consider my ideals.

    For clarification, my prejudice against bisexual men lies in my lack of complete trust. In a hetero relationship, my enemy is a female. In a room full of people, SHE is the enemy – ready and waiting to tempt my man. I know not to trust her. In a relationship with a bisexual male, THEY are the enemy – both males and females. Without the general life stresses, knowing a person of one sex could tempt my guy is one thing. Two, is one too many for me. It would take more trust than I have to give, to fill comfortable with what I would feel would be constant competition from both sexes.

    I am not really sure if what I am expressing is a double standard or not. Based on the fact that men GENERALLY enjoy the idea of gf\wife with another women, I would agree that I am not fully considering a reverse (male) perspective.

    I have no problems with two males romantically or sexually together, but the idea of MY bf\husband with a man would not be enjoyable. Certainly, not because the other person was a man, but because he was a person I cannot compete with. Physically, romantically and sexually, I would constantly be wondering if a male was his preference; if his enjoyment was being derived from a place where I cannot compete. In order to find security and comfort in myself and the relationship, I would likely need to have a deep well of trust to offer up – and I lack trust in men in general. I suppose I couldn’t fully trust a bisexual man as I feel he has too many options.

    I hope I did not insinuate that bisexual men are not trustworthy. The only one I have ever know was fleeting – it was an in-between stage when my gay BF had a girlfriend! Outside of that passing label, I have never had the opportunity to meet a guy who was bisexual, specifically over a long period time. I am not saying those guys do not exist. I have never had the good fortune to encounter one. (i.e. Not a male on the “down-low.” A bisexual male who regularly and openly dates men and women.)

    With that being said, I have decided my bias with bisexual men lies in my lack of trust or lack of a capacity for complete trust in a man. I feel my bias has more to do with me as person than as a female. Yet, I wonder if there are any other women who feel the same? If so, it would mean we play into the idea that men are generally untrustworthy, with bisexuals, more so than straight men.

    If not, then I rest my case, and blame my personal lacking for my bias – and leave it at that!

    Does this make sense?

  54. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Natasha –

    Yes, it makes total sense. I know many women with your views and have held(hold) some of them at times myself. Your comment makes me think that as we are expanding queer coverage, I need to make sure to pay special attention to bisexuality so we can hopefully have a better conversation specifically on that issue.

    Thanks for commenting!

  55. Juston wrote:

    Let me mention ONE thing about bisexual black men ladies. Many black GAYS first identify as BISEXUAL, thinking it is an easier “lifestyle” to break into rather than being completely honest with being a homosexual. Plenty of gays will tell you, they once told people they were “bi” because they didn’t think it was as bad as being “full blown gay”. It kind of reminds me of the hypothetical situation of telling someone telling you have a common cold..rather than “full blown AIDS”. I know the comparison is much more drastic but it fits in the sense that people see being gay as soooooo much more terrible that being bisexual. I think some people hold the hidden conviction that “at least with bisexual men, there is SOME hope”.**

  56. Mitch wrote:

    Black men have been running the prison industrial complex forever…there’s always been love / sex and romance between black men. Black folks will get lots accomplished when we stop spiritually harming our own people. The explosive homicide we see all the time between black males is related to their being taught to hate gays.
    It festers, then who’s next?
    Can you turn hate off?