AFriendlyFace

The answer to that is simple: it's not about straight people. Also, there is a time and place for everything. There is a time and place to be respectable and well-behaved, and there is a time and place to indulge the wilder aspects of one's personality. IMO, "Pride" is more about the wilder than the well-behaved, and it doesn't really matter WHAT the straight people think about Pride because Pride happens to be about GAY people, NOT straight people. I don't know about you, but I'm not out to prove anything. That's actually exactly the point I'm trying to make. Event's like the Day of Silence, and National Coming out Day, etc. ARE more about gay/straight relations and they ARE about being respectable and showing a more positive, 'straight friendly' aspect of the community. 'Pride' as it is traditionally understood is not as focused on this, and in my opinion that's fine. Excellent points, for all it's 'infamy' the truth is that Pride parades DO run the gamut from boring and respectable to outlandish and decadent. Just as gay people do. Just as STRAIGHT people do. I'm very much against the notion of altering Pride to suit other's people's sensibilities, especially when those sensibilities ARE reflected in various aspects of the event to begin with. It might sound rude or harsh, but my opinion tends to be if you don't like pride, gay or straight, all you have to do is not go. Right exactly, and PFLAG is another example of a 'respectable' organization. It's all about what people choose to focus on, but regardless of what people choose to focus on I think they only have the right to make their own decisions about what they want to do and whether or not they want to participate in Pride. I don't think it's anyone else's business to decide that we should conform or be concerned about straight people when straight people, while welcome, are really not the 'point' or 'emphasis' of pride at all.

So David Cook is the winner then?

Well this sounds complicated. There's nothing worse than when two people are looking for two completely different things. It sounds to me like Aaron wants something light, casual, fun, and sexual that will physically and emotionally get him away from Jeremy, and personally I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It sounds like you want something serious, intimate, slower, and more meaningful, obviously there's nothing wrong with that either. However, it does look as though you're both looking in the wrong place. If I were you I'd evaluate whether or not you're able AND WANTING to give him what he's after. If you're not, then perhaps he'll adjust to what you want, or maybe you guys can meet in the middle, but my advice would be to not build up very much hopes or emotional investment in this. Certainly not until you do work out an effective dynamic. Regarding the specific sex/top oriented/friction/rubbing/whatever, well the key to good sex is always more about communication, knowing what you are and aren't comfortable with, and being willing to try new things when you are comfortable. I'm sure you could work out a very satisfying sexual arrangement with him. The big question is whether you SHOULD and whether you WANT to? Just my take on it, Good luck and take care! Kevin

Aww, thanks Gary

I'm sure I'll have a good summer one way or the other. I'm pretty resilient that way. Besides now that that ironing is out of the way for now I'm still riding the high

Actually I don't eat a whole lot of fruit. I eat TONS of vegetables, but even though I really really like fruit I seldom have it on hand. LOL and it's not because I keep eating it every time I get it, I just don't tend to buy it for some reason.

Thanks James I explained this to Scott because I knew he'd understand. I don't think Luke would have, but that sorta worked out anyway. With William things are just always simpler and easier, and don't require the same degree of explanation.

Thanks for the advice. I sorta did that and sorta didn't. The weekend trip got cancelled anyway. Then I had car trouble on my way to going clubbing, then the next day I did hang out with Scott. I did catch up on my rest though...mostly

WOW! What a thought provoking story! I certainly hope you are right that I've managed to help him in some way. I'm looking forward to finding out how his rehab is going, but unfortunately I've been unable to get updates.

LOL, well I suppose that makes sense. I've often managed to loose my keys in just my pocket (they tend to slip down below the cell phone and wallet), so I can see how they might get away if they were in a purse

Blah, so for some silly reason I thought it'd be fun, or therapeutic, or interesting, or...something to write a blog entry in that style. Probably because I have a lot on my mind, I'm tired, and my thoughts aren't well organized. Anyway: Good: I up staying in town this weekend and did catch up on my rest. Bad: Major, expensive car trouble. Random: It sorta sounds like I'm driving a racecar now...I like it. Good: I thought on it awhile and decided to take the plunge. Sunday I 'officially' became a member of my church. It was really wonderful! Everyone was so positive and friendly, and it's a really cool church. I was joining with my two best friends and I guess I was standing too closely to one of them, because one of the ministers asked, "Are you joining together?" As in, like a couple, like several of the straight couples. LOL, the answer was no, but I got a kick out of it. Bad: (well sorta) After joining I promptly made several commitments to my young adults/discussion group. Nothing too major, but I'm taking on more responsibilities...don't know what I was thinking considering I already have no time to begin with. Random: I think I suck at being a part of the background, regardless of what group, organization, gathering, party, whatever I'm at. I think it's some sort of weird social pressure I feel. If things get uncomfortable, people get bored, or something needs to be done, and no one else says or does anything I feel compelled to hurl myself into the mix and take care of the matter. Good: I have a date Friday Bad: Just when I thought things were quieting down with my friends Luke had a MAJOR emotional breakdown, and now we're all afraid to leave him alone Random: Why does everything happen while I'm asleep and then get reported to me in a load of vague but foreboding text messages? Good: I'm about to begin posting my new story!! It's a serial, and it's COMPLETE. I'm going to release (at least) one chapter a week until it's done. Bad: I haven't actually been able to write anything in the last several weeks since I finished it Random: If I can save the Oxford Coma from extinction I wonder if they'd rename it "The Houston Coma" or perhaps given my SN they'd call it "The Friendly Coma"...I'd like that; I think writing is much friendlier with it. Good: I've been doing a lot more reading lately Bad: My eyesight seems to be getting much worse Random: I refuse to wear glasses, Donald. (Okay, I know it's unlikely that any of you are named 'Donald', but I didn't think that was a sufficiently random comment given the good and bad, so I thought by adding 'Donald' to the statement it'd bump up the weird/random quotient a good bit) Good: Whole wheat spaghetti Bad: Attending a dinner event with VERY little vegetarian food Random: "Do you remember checks?" This question was posed by one of my instructors today. The very sweet, very adorable (but very straight ) boy sitting next me got very confused, glanced at the bag of Check's mix he was eating, and inquired if that's what the professor meant. Turns out he was actually referring to 'checks' as in 'cash, check, credit, or debit', apparently he thought they might have become so archaic that a classroom of young twenty-somethings might literally not remember them...considering the boy's initial reaction this suspicion doesn't seem completely groundless. Good: Falling asleep to the sound of the rain on the roof Bad: Waking up to the sound of someone walking on the roof and misinterpreting it as someone walking in the hallway outside your room. (I live alone) Random: Lucky likes to sit on the window sill and meow at birds. Good: Chatting until early into the morning with friends Bad: Doing so because one of them is afraid to be alone Random: I love being alone! But then I also love heights and confined spaces, so I guess I'm just fond of all sorts of things which freak other people out. Good: The internet Bad: Keeps going down Random: I called and complained that my dishwasher wasn't working... Yeah it wasn't either and a call to maintenance was next on my list, unfortunately I was on hold so long, and spent more time thinking about the dishwasher, so when the tech guy asked what wrong...

Oh Jamie, I know you don't want to be touched, but I'd still really like to give you a big hug and hold you after reading that. It is most important that you love yourself, and those other things can wait, BUT you can still cry and mourn for them now. That's allowed, and it's very healthy. You're very beautiful, inside and out, and if people don't see it...well they're just blind and stupid. Take care, Kevin

*whispers in Steph's ear* Don't tell the author that Just out of curiosity, Joe, how does one tell rat droppings from hamster droppings? Are rat droppings just much larger?

Well, Martin, that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it; I just happen to disagree. Also, I said nothing about the celebrities not having the same rights or freedoms or protection under the law as anyone else. Nor did I support or praise, in fact I specifically condemned, people who out other people. It is their own business and no one else's and no one else has the right to out them. Nevertheless, my opinion is that when they can come out safely and comfortably it's the socially responsible thing to do. They may not like it, but the fact is that with fame comes the greater potential for doing good, and with great potential comes great responsibility (I feel like I'm quoting Spiderman here!). IF they decide not to do anything about it then fine, that's their prerogative, but it's also my prerogative to disapprove of their decision and even to not support people who easily could, but don't, support (and often times harm) a cause that's important to me. I never meant to marginalize straight celebrities who support the gay cause. Indeed, I have the utmost respect for celebrities like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie who not only support GLBT rights, but really go the extra mile when it comes to humanitarian efforts in general. I think Christina Aguilera and Pink rock because they've made music, and official statements in support of social acceptance. I think it's wonderful how Oprah (and many other talk show hosts) have used their power of media to support peace and justice (for all, not just GLBT people). This list goes on and on. Believe me, I didn't mean to downplay their support and ability at all, but the truth is in most of these cases apart from the fact that they're human beings and such causes should be important to all human beings, it really isn't directly their fight. I appreciate it them fighting it on our behalf, but what does it say when our own people won't stand up for themselves and for us when they easily could? Being a 'celebrity' is practically tantamount for being liked as a 'personality'. Isn't it my prerogative to decide I don't like 'personalities' that exhibit the characteristics these closeted celebrities exhibit? Isn't it might right to not aid in their fame, success, and wealth if I don't approve of the way they conduct themselves? The 'family values' people certainly haveno problem boycotting affirming celebrities, media, and corporations. Nor is their any lack of people ready to condemn a celebrity for drinking too much and showing a little skin. The anti-war celebrities have taken heat. So have the gun toting celebrities. There's really no shortage of people ready to condemn and 'black list' celebrities because their behaviour isn't in line with said person's personal morals and values. It's ashame, but I guess I'm just another amongst this group. Anyway, when you get right down to it I really don't do much except castigate them for their lack of courage and, in my opinion, responsibility...but I suppose that says something about my own laziness and hypocrisy. Anyway, they're welcome to parade around and, again in my opinion, make jokes of us all with their insults to our intelligence and sheer 'obviousness'. They're welcome to react as though being gay is unimaginable to them and get irritated at the mere suggestion (and remember I'm talking about celebrities who really are gay getting annoyed at this, not straight celebs). They're welcome to ignore our cause and generally bury their heads in the sand about what's going on. They're welcome to do all these things and more...but I'm also welcome to turn them off, tune them out, and generally view them as pathetic. -Kevin

Does that mean he won?

I definitely agree that's it wrong to out someone against their will, and I will respect someone's wishes to remain private about it, but I have to admit it really irks me when people who are so obvious, and so not fooling anyone, do that. This very much ties in with the discussion we've been having in the "Coming out as a Bisexual" thread. If people are in the position to come out without it seriously and negatively affecting them (and the assumption is that they are in that position if they're already pretty obvious to everyone and nothing is happening), then I really think the right thing to do is to come out. Celebrities and other well-known figures have this responsibility to an even greater degree in my opinion because they are so much more visible and because they can and do send a more powerful message. To use your example when Neil Patrick Harris came out it had a very positive impact on the gay community and meant a lot to young, closeted gay people (I know this because I've heard and read the evidence). He wasn't even one of the 'worst' examples, because for the most part everyone, or most people, weren't already assuming he was gay, so theoretically his life could have changed significantly after he came out. Lance Bass is another example of this, he's been lauded by the gay community and it seems he's had a very positive impact on a lot of people, especially a lot of vulnerable people. In my opinion the only thing that's really likely to change for people who are just kind of insulting everyone's intelligence about it is that people will respect them more for finally telling the truth. Personally speaking I even have more trouble respecting and taking seriously people who are just THAT obvious and still openly deny it. It's one thing if they just adamantly refuse to comment either way (like Mika for example). I still think society and the GLBT community would likely benefit by them coming out, but I can respect that a lot more. Indeed, I can actually see that as doing some good because it's sending the message, "this shouldn't be an issue and I refuse to make it one by confirming or denying it". Those people don't really bother me at all, it's the people who spend all this time openly denying it and getting angry about it that irritate me. They're sending a very bad message by doing that in my opinion. They're saying that being gay is not only something shameful which must be hidden, but something to get angry and defensive about if someone even speculates if you might be. Conversely there are a lot of straight celebrities out there about whom such rumours occasionally circulate and I really like and respect it when they react with something along the lines of, "Well I'd certainly be fine with it and admit it if I were, but I'm not." I may be wrong but I think Richard Gere, Oprah, Paul Newman, and Brad Pitt fall into this category (as I said I could be wrong though). That sends a great message IMO. Further, when these obviously gay celebrities finally do come out, I admit that I personally tend to be so frustrated with them that I'm lukewarm about it. It's like, "Oh, so you're finally telling us something we've known and you've been denying for years, and now you want a big a hug and pat on the back about it" A good example of this is Clay Aiken (these are all just my opinions and speculation about him, nothing I mean to indicate as having been substantiated). He's just a big joke to me on the whole issue now, and I don't think anything he could do would really satisfy me. Even if he came out now and started waving a big pride flag I'd still consider him a hypocrite and a coward and it would take years for me to respect any positive impact he makes or any good work he might do. Rosie O'Donnell is another good example of this IMO. At least to me it was painfully obvious that she was a lesbian for years before she finally came out, there was a ton of speculation, and as I remember (forgive me if I'm wrong) she kept denying it. As a result it's only been in the last couple of years that she's gotten 'on my good side' (she is now though) for all her outspoken, activism nowadays. Conversely, I don't remember a great deal of speculation about Ellen and I don't remember her publicly denying it, so when she came out (like Harris and Bass) I respected and approved and reacted in a supportive way right away. * I readily admit this isn't a very nice or supportive way of thinking, and as I said, I do respect the wishes of those who want to remain in the closet - in the end it's definitely their decision and no one else's. I just tend to feel in the way I explained above about it, particularly when it comes to celebrities. -Kevin *I was quite young when Rosie and Ellen came out and in the time period immediately preceding and following it, so forgive me if I've messed up the details or misremembered. Edited to add: This opinion is in regard to contemporary celebrities (and to that same lesser extent contemporary gay people). I know, accept, respect, and empathize with the fact that it was much more difficult and dangerous to be gay, say, before the late 80s/early 90s. To that extent even older celebrities who are still denying it have more sympathy from me and less a lot less contempt. It's primarily the younger generation, the ones who came of age, and gained notoriety in in the 90s and 00's that I'm primarily referring to in my posts.

Have you considered dropping hints that you might be GLBT friendly?

Well that's very unfortunate Could still add up if all the internet users in China did it though!!

Thanks, I've opened the page, which means I don't intend to turn my computer off until I've read it (could still be a couple days though ). I'll be sure to post in the discussion thread (I'm assuming there is one, if not I'll create one as well) and let Billy and everyone else know I think

Exactly, she only recently officially came out. Actually I was quite shocked...that it wasn't already official that is, when I heard the news. Not that I mean to dis Jodie (she's a fine actress and I like her work), but that's one of those cases that really annoys me. When a celebrity is so obvious, and most everyone knows or assumes anyway (and in my case even assumed she was out) and it takes them that long to actually to do it!

I think that very often authors clearly prefer one to the other. While I love a good series to follow, I really love an author that's very prolific with regards to short stories (indeed I'm tempted to go check out Billy's work now). I like something shorter and stand alone that I can read and digest all in one sitting. As I said serials are fun too, but I think there's definitely a place for an author who primarily writes shorts.

Wow! Well I'm really glad you've at least gotten to experience it happening in a positive context as well! Try to take heart from the fact that, based on the sound of it, the guy in the first instance just might not have been very likable to begin with so people were using whatever 'ammo' they could on him (which is still very unfortunate ). Also, very often high school in general is a more difficult place to be out and to be out with positive experiences (though it looks like that's starting to change significantly! ) I, myself was in the closet in high school, but I had a couple of friends/acquaintances who were basically out (still not officially though) and they were both still very well-liked and quite popular even. On the other hand there were a couple of instances of people who were obviously gay who were not well liked, but once again that seemed to go back to them personally and related to them generally not being that likable/easy to get along with. I can really identify with what you're saying! Recently I was in a different set of circumstances but in many ways it was similar. One of my good friends had starting dating another guy with whom I'd had a falling out. One of our mutual friends told me. The friend himself waited a very long time to do it and subtly tried to mislead/keep me from finding out. Evidently he thought I just wouldn't be able to handle it and would freak out, or get angry or hurt. Interestingly it was that mutual friend (who ostensibly shouldn't have had any problem with the situation) that was weirded out by it, and that was of course why he'd told me. Personally I was very happy for them both and thought it was a good idea. But I had to keep on acting like I didn't know until he'd finally told me. At which point I told him I was happy for him and thought it was a good idea. It was just irritating that he was treating me like I was made of glass or something and wouldn't be able to handle the situation. That's very much what I think as well! An example: unfortunately I know a few somewhat racist people ( ), but they're only like that privately behind closed doors, they certainly don't go around proclaiming their feelings for everyone to hear. It's unfortunate that they still feel that way in this day and age (well it would be unfortunate in any day and age), but at least they aren't openly mean or offensive to people of other races.

I think Benji's mention of Mardi Gras is particularly appropriate in this instance. There's a quote I've always liked: "Judging gay people based on a pride parade is like judging straight people based on Mardi Gras" Regardless of what you think of these events in general I think it's important to realize that, while culture and history etc. play a part, much of the point is decadence, and 'inappropriate' behaviour (which begs the question, 'in this context is it inappropriate?'). You get tons of nudity, promiscuity, drinking, scantily clad people, and generally 'debauched' behaviour in both events. Of course it's also worth pointing out that those are the people who take the events to the extreme, another chunk get 'wilder' but not to the same extent, and you can scale it all the way down to very 'respectable' people behaving very normally. You can go to these events without doing anything you wouldn't normally do, but you can't go expecting that no one else will. LOL, I say this as someone who has celebrated both events I think it's interesting that you qualified the question to refer only to our 'cause' with regards to straight observers. There is also extensive debate about whether or not these events are harmful or helpful for gay participants and observers. In either case however, my vote remains the same: "Other" I picked this option because of the choices it best reflects what I think about this question, which is: BOTH In many ways it's very good for straight people to see these events. In other ways it does our cause a lot of harm. In many ways it's good for closeted, or freshly out gay people to see these events. In other ways it does them a lot of harm. In many ways it's good for your 'typical' gay person to see and participate in these events. In other ways it's bad for them. I don't think there's any one answer here, and I'd hate to 'decide' whether the events should be occurring or not. I think the absolute most essential thing for all people of all orientations is that they recognize that this event doesn't reflect the daily lives and activities of the majority of gay people. This is a big party not a peek into people's average, every day lives. At a party I might get drunk and dance on a table, but I'm not going to do that at work, nor am I even going to do it during the average weekend. Apart from the section bolded I'll simply say that those other things are merely apart of the event, a part of the irony, 'show', and extreme behaviour which as I said is for better or worse also a part of this event. Most of the people who do these things do themselves not take it seriously. It is a big joke and in most cases they're the first to recognize and admit that. Now regarding the: really bad cross-dressers who should make any transgendered person angry as heck I think you're blending two very different things that shouldn't be blended. Traditional (I use the word lightly) drag has absolutely nothing to do with gender issues. Most drag shows are a big tongue-in-cheek joke, the drag performers want to look 'glamourous' and 'beautiful', but first and foremost they want to entertain. The 'really bad' aspect of it, the extreme make up, ridiculous hair, and dresses that no real woman would wear all play into this. On the one hand they bump up the 'glamourous' level a bit, but they also purposely tip the hand that it's a joke. These men may be gay, they're definitely divas, and very often they're on the 'femme' side of the spectrum (but NOT always), but they don't actually want to be girls, and they're not doing it for sexual/sexuality/gender reasons. "Cross-dressing" and transvestitism as they're usually understood and defined ARE done for more sexual reasons, and that wearer does get a sexual 'charge' out of it. However, it's the very 'taboo', 'kinky' aspect of it which does this. It's not an attempt to make the man feel natural. It's very very different from your typical 'drag' and drag performers. Both of the above are completely different from trans issues. Someone who is transgendered IS NOT dressing up to entertain and perform, nor are they doing it because they find it exciting and erotic. They're doing it because it feels appropriate and it's a way for them to express how they really view and feel about themselves. A transgendered person may have trouble 'passing' if biologically they look very much like a member of the 'wrong' gender, in that way you may be able to pick them out. But they do not want to be picked out (unlike the average drag queen), they very much want to pass. They're unlikely to take their style of dress, hair, and make up to the extreme because again they want to look like a typical woman (or man). They may indeed march as a group in the pride parade, but they'd really be doing it out of pride and they'd all be attempting to very much look like the gender they identified with. Drag queens want and expect to picked out a mile away. They want to be MORE 'fabulous' than the average woman. A MTF transgendered person just wants to be an average woman. The two groups are unlikely to be marching together. You are right that in many cases transgendered people are annoyed by drag queens, but there are other issues at play there, and in my experience the younger generation of both has more patience and understanding for each other. That certainly makes sense and I'm sure ALOT of other people (gay and straight) feel exactly the same way. A pride parade certainly isn't for everyone. As I said, I think it's most important to recognize that this isn't about daily life, but is instead a big, usually 'out of control' party. As I said, in many ways it's good overall and in many ways it's bad, but in all ways it shouldn't be viewed as 'par for the course'. Just my thoughts on this, Kevin

I'm sorry Well, that's understandable, but just remember, don't be too bitter or no one will want to lick you Well said, Colin!

Sounds like this one moves quickly. That can be a lot of fun so long as you're on board. Good luck -Kevin