Warning, I would be completely unsurprised if many of you who come here for political griping find this completely uninteresting.
Matthew Yglesias has an interesting post going about masculinity, femininity and what people want in a mate. This reminded me of something I had been thinking about a while back regarding gay culture and socialization. Please remember that I speaking generally and about things which come on a continuum. That said, I find the phenomenon of acting like a queen kind of odd. A large majority of gay men seem to be attracted to what Matthew is talking about as masculinity (some taking it to almost parodic extremes). Despite that fact, many gay men cultivate a set of mannerisms which are often refered to as 'queeny' or 'flamboyent' which are almost the opposite of what is typically thought of as masculine. A huge percentage of these men will admit to being more attracted to masculine men than their fellow queeny men. But most of them weren't queeny themselves when they came out, so I'm not really sure why they cultivated mannerisms that they profess to dislike and which they suspect that many (and possibly most) gay men find annoying. I have a couple of hypotheses, but I'm not sure if I'm covering all the likely ground.
A) They think masculine men are going to be attracted to someone who is somewhat woman-like.
B) Initially they aren't sure how to signal that they are gay to other gay men. As a result, they only have sexual success when they signal very openly--which for many means using queeny mannerisms. Therefore, even if they are shutting out a lot of prospective mates in the long run, their short term success is reinforcing enough to encourage the mannerisms.
C) They secretly like queeny men but don't want to admit it for some reason.
That is all I could think of, but I bet I'm missing something.
And yes, I'm aware that some 'masculine' men like queeny men and that some queeny men like each other. I'm dealing with the broadest brush on something which I have no trouble admitting has many variations.
I thought that part of the reason for general mannerisms/accents/styles was to emphasize group identity, promote group cohesion, and act as a focus for pride. Anyone not acting in group-mode might be seen as trying to pass as a majority member, providing a feedback mechanism.
Maybe not the smartest way to look at this, but from an evolutionary perspective I think one could consider Stonewall etc. as opening a whole lot of niches - lifestyles/ways of being/whatever - and nature abhors a vacuum. So I wonder what the pre-gay-rights situation was like relative to today - to some degree those niches were available before.
Fwiw, my gay family members/friends/colleagues are not "queeny", except maybe for a couple of up-and-coming rock stars, nor are they hyper-masculine (another niche) or bearish - perhaps different from straight men but not trying to be more so?
Another question I have related to this subject is whether gay men and women will continue to contribute so exceptionally to poetry, literature, culture etc as our society matures and accepts a range of sexual identity as normal.
Posted by: rilkefan | January 11, 2005 at 02:38 AM
I think you might be right about group emphasis (it is related to my number 2 by might be its own point). But that raises the question of why the group would choose to express mannerisms which the group also (typically) claims to dislike.
The art question is interesting. The part that is informed by sublimated desire is likely to decrease as homosexuality becomes more accepted. I won't offer any guess as to how big a part of artistic expression that is.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | January 11, 2005 at 02:44 AM
"whether gay men and women will continue to contribute so exceptionally to poetry, literature, culture"
what is this, the suffering artist theorey? Excluded or alienated people gravitate to where, like they are less excluded and can make a living. Jews went to Hollywood cause they weren't allowed on Wall Street.
As soon as I understand why crossdressers enjoy their hobby, I'll answer the question about queens. Everyone is wearing a mask, and underneath that, another mask. The queens may just be aware of theirs, and challenging others, not to remove the mask, but to be responsible for it. Maybe you should read some Butler. Or Eddie Izzard.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | January 11, 2005 at 03:02 AM
Re dislike - I assume that anything too far from human norm behavior is unattractive/uncomfortable - that most groups enforce some unnatural behaviors (or too-rigid adherence thereto) - that otherness itself is a source of pain which gets associated with the group behaviors in a love/hate way.
Note that it's claimed that a lot of parameters of one's sexual attraction are set very early by the local family and group - one looks for someone who looks/acts like (but not exactly like) those in one's early milieu - and that for lesbians and gays (esp. in a closeted world) is an esp. complicated matter.
I don't know about sublimated desire - I assumed that exclusion/suppression/sense-of-otherness was good for art and probably many other things that require striving.
Posted by: rilkefan | January 11, 2005 at 03:07 AM
I have a friend whom I've known since he was not-quite 18 - nearly 20 years now. We met at the same youth group for young lesbians and gay men - he was just coming out, and I had been out for much longer - well over a year.
Within six months of joining the group and discovering other gay men, my friend had suddenly acquired the whole set of standard "queeny" mannerisms, which he could put on or off at will, but also which he switched into and switched out of when socially appropriate. It was the best lesson I could ever had had that behaving like a queen is entirely socially learned: young gay men learn it to be part of the group, to signal who they are.
(Twenty years later, he uses the queeny mannerisms far less often, but still drops into them occasionally when talking with gay male friends from that era.)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | January 11, 2005 at 03:41 AM
lets try this again, shall we?
I'm wondering if anyone has considered this in regard to other cultures. I know that there is some arguing over the fact of the acceptability of homosexuality in the classical world. (This link to a review of a Greek book seemed vaguely reasonable at first glance, but going up the url to this link is reveals a lot more than anyone would really want to know about the author's biases) and from Dover's matter of fact presentation in _Greek Homosexuality_, there seems to have been those that have glorified Greek acceptance of it and those who have argued that this is a myth, but is there a 'swishyness' associated with homosexuals in classic times?
The other two examples which I only know a little about are the phenomenon of berdache and in pre-Meiji Japan. The former seems to reflect the behavior that Sebstian talks about, but the latter doesn't, but I haven't really researched either of them well enough to know. However, the Greek and Japanese examples hold that the object of an older man's attraction should be a younger (preferably beardless) boy, so there's a power differential at the root of it.
Googling this turned up this speech by Mark Merlis about what sounds like a very interesting novel (excerpts here) which sounds like a very creative take on the myth of Philoctetes and Pyrrhus, Achilles' son. Anyone read it?
And thanks for the change of pace, Sebastian.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 11, 2005 at 06:01 AM
My only 'expertise' is a little life experience and a human resourses management background that I've taken pretty seriously over the years. I'm guessing that gay isn't just gay any more than life is just life. I've been pursuaded over the years that we are a lot of what we are early in life, lifes experiences has some impact on the cards we are dealt. A person's relationship with their parents and immediate family, their early social experiences, any tramatic events at crucial developmental times. Some folks seem very secure, many extremely insecure - gay or otherwise. I imagine there are folks that have a propensity for being gay that never consumate it and I have a thought there are those that might not have those feelings, or are neutral, that find their way into gay relationships. So wouldn't how these feelings are manifested along some spectrum of 'queenie' to 'masculine' have much to do with what they've gathered in their life's bag of experiences and how they've interpreted the rejection/reinforcement moments of their lives?
Posted by: blogbudsman | January 11, 2005 at 07:24 AM
I'm guessing that gay isn't just gay any more than life is just life.
Great insight.
Posted by: Anarch | January 11, 2005 at 09:03 AM
regarding "masculine" gay men who become increasingly queenie after coming out, I've noticed that as well and think a large part of it may simply be that after they come out they stop trying to pass (which was the main reason they looked as "masculine" as they did before they came out). There's also, as rilkefan pointed out, definitely some pressure to behave in a way that "emphasize[s] group identity, promote[s] group cohesion, and act[s] as a focus for pride."
There's also a very large comfort zone issue. At a party with a lot of new gay people, I tend to revert into my Midwestern, closeted self, unable to compete with all the fabulousness. At home, alone with my partner, however, I'm comfortable camping it up a bit. Of course, I look ridiculous because I'm not very good at it, which amuses my partner, which is mostly the point.
I recalled first realizing how so much of what we consider "masculine" behavior is codified among young boys at an early age when I say a friend of mine, who is straight, have his wrist slapped by his mother because he was letting his hand drop while talking to someone. I then grew up with this friend and shared an apartment with him in college and know only too well that he's very heterosexual (let's just say his girlfriend was not the quiet type), but in his younger days letting his hand drop from his wrist was a natural pose for him. It didn't mean he was gay or at all feminine (he was quite big and butch), but it was just part of his mannerisms that made him the individual he was...and he had it beaten out of him.
Then there's the way that being "queer" or "gay" is the very worst thing you can be, even before most children understand what it means, they understand that it's the lowest. This too, I believe, adds to the "masculine" pose that gay men adopt (I won't pretend to understand how it affects women). And it's not until a gay man comes out and finds a support network in which he's comfortable being himself that often he'll let his inner diva show through.
What confuses me is why many gay men can't understand that diva-ness is as much of a learned pose as their earlier pretend masculinity.
Personally, I prefer someone who simply 'is.' Using my partner as an example...he totally runs the gamut, being hilariously queenie and bitchy at one moment and a virtual Charles Bronson the next. In other words, a three-dimensional human.
Posted by: Edward | January 11, 2005 at 09:40 AM
re-reading, I realize there's a contradiction in my last statement
What confuses me is why many gay men can't understand that diva-ness is as much of a learned pose as their earlier pretend masculinity.
This should be qualified to "many aspects of 'diva-ness' are as much a learned pose"; clearly if someone has an inner diva, not all of it is learned.
Posted by: Edward | January 11, 2005 at 09:45 AM
I think, and have nothing much to back this up with, but I think anyway, that it is more about gender roles, and freedom, than it is about orientation.
Posted by: votermom | January 11, 2005 at 10:32 AM
"I think, and have nothing much to back this up with, but I think anyway, that it is more about gender roles, and freedom, than it is about orientation."
Maybe, but that raises the question of why so many gay men adopt such mannerisms when they first start coming out.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | January 11, 2005 at 11:14 AM
Maybe, but that raises the question of why so many gay men adopt such mannerisms when they first start coming out.
Maybe because part of discovering/creating a new identity usually involves questioning one's previous identity, and initially rejecting a lot of the old, as well as exploring much of the new.
Who was that straight female Victorian author who insisted on dressing as a man?
Posted by: votermom | January 11, 2005 at 11:24 AM
Are you thinking of George Sand, Chopin's lover?
Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 11, 2005 at 11:28 AM
Ooooh. Liszt AND Chopin. I guess she's all about musical complexity.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | January 11, 2005 at 11:33 AM
Yes, George Sand, thanks, I alwatys get her mixed up with George Eliot, for no reason then thay have the same first pseudonym. (With apologies to Eliot's shade.)
Posted by: votermom | January 11, 2005 at 11:38 AM
"Maybe because part of discovering/creating a new identity usually involves questioning one's previous identity, and initially rejecting a lot of the old, as well as exploring much of the new."
This actually leads into my explanation for a truly pernicious problem in the gay world (at least in the big cities that I have experience with). Compared to my college experience (which I would have thought would the uhem 'high' point in my exposure to drug-using acquaintances, the number of people who adopt a hard-core drug lifestyle is even higher among those who have recently come out. I suspect (but obviously don't know for sure) that it involves a dynamic of rejecting the old morality which kept them in the closet without exploring an otherwise steady moral understanding which could keep them grounded enough to avoid the lure of out-of-control drug use.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | January 11, 2005 at 11:40 AM
Hopelessly confused vanilla het here. What behaviours do you define as "queenie"? I'm assuming that you mean someone who is highly theatrical in their behaviour, with the current quintessential pop culture queen being Jack from Will & Grace. If that's what you mean, then yeah, even though some gay men have that inner diva flourishing from birth, it seems plausible that a lot of that associated behaviour seems to be amplified after coming out or when they're in certain environments.
But do you think this holds for more subtle markers that many people use to consciously or unconsciously classify others as gay (or likely to be gay)? My personal markers, which I realize are fallible and can yield false positives, include more highly inflected and expressive vocal tones (compared to more typical het male patterns that are closer to monotone), more precise enunciation, and more expressive body language.
I realize that there are a lot of gay men out there who don't show even these more subtle markers, but with very few exceptions that I can think of in my social circle and in the media, the men who do show these markers are generally out and gay. I know a couple of exceptions -- men displaying these markers who I believe are straight, based on their own words and actions -- but these exceptions generally come in for a lot of speculation and teasing from other people.
(Digression: I used to think people who mocked other men for being "closet cases" were your garden variety homophobes with limited education and limited exposure to a variety of people and cultures. Lately I've come to think that a lot of smart, cosmopolitan people engage in the same behaviour, maybe because they think they're so smart, with so many gay friends, that their gaydar is infallible. It's as if they must take any chance they have to show their superior powers of discernment and avoid looking like a fool by taking some guy at his word just in case he does come out later.)
So if there's any validity whatsoever to these subtle markers, does anyone else think that they're innate or learned? If they're innate, why do only some gay men seem to display them, and why do even fewer straight men display them? If they're learned, why do some straight men display them, given the social costs?
Posted by: Mary | January 11, 2005 at 11:54 AM
"If they're innate, why do only some gay men seem to display them, and why do even fewer straight men display them? If they're learned, why do some straight men display them, given the social costs?"
Theoretically it could be because the markers aren't that closely linked with the actuality. But you can't write a book on that. ;)
My guess is that some of them are innate propensities which are somewhat linked, while others are merely trappings which have accrued to the idea of 'gayness' over time. Which are which? I have no idea.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | January 11, 2005 at 12:18 PM
I've always been interested in this topic - having a couple of gay friends who are pretty masculine, I've always wondered about the whole flomboyant thing. Also, I've observed that the flamboyant aspect of gay men seems to have diminished over time. That's my observation, although my experience is limited.
I've wondered more about the mores in relationship, especially for gay men. The moral ideal is to be in a committed, monogamous sexual relationship, for life. There seems to be only a small subset of gay men that are able to accept this moral ideal.
What's the old joke?
What do gay men do on their second date?
What second date?
What do gay women do on their second date?
Bring the moving van.
Here in San Francisco, when all the weddings were happening, I went and observed the festivities one day - it was deeply inspiring and touching to watch the happy couples - but the unspoken story (at least I didn't hear it spoken) was just how many women were getting married. Many of the female couples had been together, easily over 15 years.
But the male couples were considerably younger, for the most past. (As Sebastian says, this is on a continuum, or percentage. There is no one-size-fits-all).
Also, of my gay male friends and acquaintances, I would ask, "Do you want to get married one day?", and I would, too often, get a "are you out of your mind?" look.
I think american society can fairly easily (but with some bumps, of course) accept gay couples that embrace the moral values and ideals of american society.
Get a good job, take care of yourself financially.
Contribute to your community.
Have a stable, enduring home life, with partner and family.
Do your duty to God and country.
Those 4 above are, in a sense, moral ideals that do not depend on straightness or gayness. These moral ideals are both color-blind and sexual-preference blind.
But I don't think the multiple partners aspect of gay men, (again NOT ALL) will ever be accepted as any type of moral ideal.
Posted by: JC | January 11, 2005 at 01:25 PM
I can't speak for other gay/bi folk, only for myself. For me, "queening" was always purely social and environmental. When I spend more time around queeny fags or even just kinkier folk, the flames come on, though nowhere near as much as they did when I was a young buck. When I'm in straight company, people are rarely the wiser, although I do have a certain delicacy to my walk at times.
I suspect strongly that in addition to the social/learned aspect of it, a good portion of how much I flamed when I was younger was simply being out-and-in-your-face to the world. Remember, this was the 90's.
Posted by: Catsy | January 11, 2005 at 02:43 PM
I agree, to the extent that I'm qualified to have an opinion, with those who suggest flaming is about subculture identification, not mate selection (directly. mate selection is an important second-order effect of subculture identification. People want mates from the same subculture). I think flaming evolved into a set of subculture marking behaviors out of rebellion.
One of the fundamental traits of straight masculinity is the repression of feminine behavior. Serious, neurosis-inspiring repression. Guys who wear dresses, watch romantic comedies, enjoy Streisand, etc are aggressively ridiculed because messing with gender roles is threatening to people who lean on them to try to make sense out of life. Since gay men have already broken those typical gender roles in the most substantive way (by having relationships with men), many therefore feel like there's nothing to lose in breaking the others and even flaunting it, to show they're not afraid of the ridicule.
That is, I think, where flaming/queening comes from. And I say what the hell. Though the big queens at the club fashion shows scare me.
Posted by: sidereal | January 11, 2005 at 03:16 PM
Sebastian, would you or Edward post about the sexual mores of gay men, in some post? Is what I glean to be the case - multiple partners is fine, morally speaking - accurate?
By the way, I'm liberal- but always fairly moderate, which is why I have no problem with gay partnerships, but don't think that the multiple partners thing is commendable.
As a straight guy, I definitely UNDERSTAND it. Understand it quite a bit, actually.
Here's a story from a former (female, straight) roommate who was going to San Francisco State University. On a beautiful spring day, 4 people (2 straight females, one straight guy, one gay guy) are driving near the campus, radio going, having fun.
At a stoplight, another car pulls up, two gay guys in it. Talk commences between the two cars - laughing, joking, etc.
After a bit, the two gays guys say to the other, basically, hey, come with us, hang out, we're going to go home, have some fun. The gay guy in my roomate's car, gets up, out of the car, and goes off with the two other guys!
At this point, the straight guy in the original car freaks out. "That never happens to me! Never! Do you know just how much I'd like two pretty girls to just "invite me home" to have some fun? Do you know how much b.s. I have to put up with from ONE female to even get to that point? Young decent-looking gay guys are the luckiest guys in the world!!"
The two straight girls in the car (both in relationships - this is a good-looking crowd) are laughing their rear-ends off. "Sorry, that's just how it is."
Clearly this type of thing doesn't happen often, but it is illustrative.
My decent looking gay friends here in S.F. KNOW that if they go out looking to "get some", they will get some that night. It's not even a question.
When I was in my 20's, I would have LOVED that (but straight, of course). In relationship myself now, so doesn't matter so much...
Is this within the realm of blog propriety to discuss?
Posted by: JC | January 11, 2005 at 04:22 PM
I can add pretty much zero to this discussion, save perhaps the following:
One of my old bosses & friends* -- a senior in house counsel at a manufacturing firm -- would come across as straight in pretty much any public business situation. (He was certainly "out," but didn't "act" it.) The exceptions were (a) when hanging out socially or (b) when he perceived that acting like a bit of a queen might gain him a tactical advantage (e.g., shock the locals). Indeed, it was impressive in how he was able to deploy this aspect of himself as another tool in his business toolbox.
I have no idea if that's common; indeed, I rather suspect that it's not.
von
*I say "old friend and boss" not because I've ceased thinking of him as a friend, but because I've moved firms (and states) & haven't had much contact.
Posted by: von | January 11, 2005 at 04:22 PM
Sebastian, would you or Edward post about the sexual mores of gay men, in some post? Is what I glean to be the case - multiple partners is fine, morally speaking - accurate?
I'll take a stab.
Multiple partners are not fine if you're in a monogamous relationship, and more and more gay couples are forming those now that there's more societal support for them. But "open relationships" are still more common among the gay couples I know than the straight ones. Some of the gay couples who have open relationships (I don't) will argue that it's fine because they both understand that they both continue to be attracted to other people, that it's in their genes to want multiple partners, and that their emotional commitment to each other is stronger than their animal desire for others. I've more often than not, however, found these to be very famous last words.
Personally, I think a good monogamous relationship is worth giving up what may or may not be in one's genes (although, I'll admit the feelings don't die easily, so there must be something to that).
Along this line of thought, thought, I'll add that if there's any advantage at all that gay men have compared with straight men in this culture, this is it. It seems to drive straight men insane that gay men who are relatively young and decent looking can go out any night of any week and hook up. My business partner (married, straight) brings up all the time how lucky he thinks his gay friends are on this front. However, given how totally hellish it is to grow up gay in many parts of the world, this is the least God can give us in return. ;-)
Posted by: Edward | January 11, 2005 at 04:57 PM
Clearly this type of thing doesn't happen often, but it is illustrative.
My decent looking gay friends here in S.F. KNOW that if they go out looking to "get some", they will get some that night. It's not even a question.
When I was in my 20's, I would have LOVED that (but straight, of course). In relationship myself now, so doesn't matter so much...
I don't think that is a gay thing, more a male-female thing (and as such might even be culture driven). Most of your decent looking female friends could in all likelyhood 'get some' if they looked for it too. Female homosexuals are (in my limited experience) less likely to engage in random trio's.
As far as the queeny acting goes: I think a lot of that is a mannerism, might originate from a tendens to "really come out" once the decision for that big step is taken
Posted by: dutchmarbel | January 11, 2005 at 05:28 PM
Edward,
Yes, pretty much it does drive single straight guys crazy - as the fantasy is similar to the dorky English guy, in the movie "Love Actually", coming to America, and simply going to a bar, and getting picked up by at least 3 gorgeous females...you guys get to live the fantasy!
Posted by: JC | January 11, 2005 at 08:21 PM
But "open relationships" are still more common among the gay couples I know than the straight ones.
Being in a choir means that I hang out with a lot of gay men. [A sentence I wish weren't almost tautologically true nowadays.] To the best of my knowledge, none of those in relationships are in open relationships; the mere act of being in a relationship means, to them, that they've decided to be monogamous. Those who aren't, however, will pretty much shag anything that moves as long as it's interested.
[I'm told of, and have peripherally witnessed, the awesome power of the internet harnessed for the awesome power of random gay hookups. Truly a sight to behold. Once you've stabbed your eyes out.]
Posted by: Anarch | January 15, 2005 at 06:17 PM