I think this sums it up pretty well:

Why I hate 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy'
And how camp became outdated


You can catch a great TV double-bill this Saturday night. First up there's Black Eye for the White Guy, in which a gang of black people teach a hapless white guy how to acquire a sense of rhythm and greater sexual proficiency. It's followed by How Jewish Are You?, in which viewers will be quizzed about how cunning, persuasive and good with money they are.

Wait, there's something wrong here. Those shows would - quite rightly - be howled off the screen as peddling obnoxious stereotypes. Yet both Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and How Gay Are You? have been lauded as examples of how laid-back and accepting our society has become towards gay people.

In Queer Eye, a group of five gay men enter the lives of a badly-dressed straight guy. They gasp and tut their way around his flat and wardrobe, gaping at the ways of the mysterious heterosexual. He is then taken in hand: they ensure he is plucked, deodorised, and re-dressed, before being presented to a cheering girlfriend and mother. The show is a cult hit in the US, and a British version launched last week on UK Living.

The show is the straightforward peddling of prejudice. It is all the more aggravating that the producers no doubt consider themselves terribly radical and right-on, rather than manufacturers of a latter-day Black and White Minstrel Show. Queer Eye is based on a myth: the idea that gay men are somehow more stylish.

I am tragic and irrefutable proof that this is untrue. I realised something was wrong with the way I dress when my friends started buying clothes and throwing them into my washing basket, in the hope I would unwittingly wear something decent. Even my own grandmother looked at me in horror when I visited her last week in an ancient "Free Nelson Mandela" T-shirt and Marks and Spencer jeans. "Oh Johann, why can't you dress like those nice gay boys on television?" she asked with tears in her eyes.

Yet the Queer Eye caricature seems like a flattering myth at first. Isn't it nice to be considered stylish and fun? Perhaps; but is this lie any more positive than the belief that black men are well-endowed? Both contain a fetid underside - black men are big below but not very bright up here, it implies, while gay men are good at clothes but when it comes to politics, the Army or sport, leave it to the real men.

I know this sounds churlish. Isn't it better to have openly gay men on television - and being cuddled by straight guys! - than to go back to the dark ages of underground clubs and gay people trapped in heterosexual marriages? Sure. It was progress to have real black people in 1940s movies playing the a-whoopin'-and-a-hollerin' slaves rather than blacked-up actors too. But isn't it better to have neither?

Some people might imagine that camp behaviour is an inherent part of being a gay man. Aren't we somehow - perhaps genetically - more feminine? Aren't camp and gay basically the same thing? It's only if you look at the history of camp that you understand how flawed this belief is. Camp behaviour evolved among gay men during the 18th and 19th centuries for a good reason. Gay men couldn't be open about their sexuality, so they developed a shared way of behaving. Only by acting and dressing in a certain way could they send signals to each other and find sexual partners.

So camp behaviour represents the values of the 19th-century closet. To survive and to retain any sense of self-esteem, the gay men of that generation developed a camp outlook on life. Its main features were irony, theatrical frivolity, an aristocratic detachment from the worries of straight people, parody, and an emphasis on style over substance. It made sense then. But I've got news for you: the closet is broken, and we're never going back - yet too many gay people are still trapped on an outmoded camp-site.

The persistence of campery long after it has fulfilled its historical function seems, initially, quite harmless. The Queer Eye team seem to be likeable, happy men, after all. For every miserable, self-hating camp man - Kenneth Williams or the characters from the famous 1970s movie The Boys in the Band - there is a jolly Mr Humphries or a manic Graham Norton. But camp presents two big problems.

At university, I got to know a very butch, very male, very hairy rugby player. I'll call him Mark. He was the least camp person I have ever known. He drank a pint of real ale over breakfast and burped, it seemed, at 15-minute intervals. The closest he got to elegance and style was when he vomited in the bin instead of on the carpet. Yet I discovered, gradually, that he was gay.

The dominance of camp behaviour in the gay world massively increased his confusion. "How can I be gay," he asked one day, "when I can't stand Abba, I hated Muriel's Wedding, and I'd rather be shot than wear a wig?" On How Gay Are You? - the new Sky One quiz show - Mark would be judged to be heterosexual, because he does not conform to any of their "gay" characteristics. There's just one snag: he's attracted to men.

Camp has become an inaccurate and misleading label. By preserving and re-enacting the rituals of 19th century gay men, we make it harder for masculine 21st century gay men to understand their sexuality. Mark dreaded being seen as camp; he is still closeted, in part because he does not want to be seen as a Queer Eye queen.

But the persistence of camp has also led to a dysfunctional gay culture. Susan Sontag wrote a famous essay defining camp in 1964, where she explained, "It is a way of seeing the world as an aesthetic phenomenon. It goes without saying this is disengaged, depoliticised - or at least apolitical."

In a camp world, it doesn't matter what you do so long as you do it with style. This explains the camp man's admiration (and staggering willingness to vote for) Margaret Thatcher. Sure, she introduced the most explicitly homophobic piece of legislation in decades with Section 28, but, darling, did you see her boots?

The moral emptiness of the Queer Eye mentality is summarised in Oscar Wilde's play Lady Windemere's Fan, when a character says, "It's absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious." This way of thinking is a key factor in the current gay scene, drained of solidarity with the gay people who are viciously oppressed across the world. That's all terribly earnest, dear; we'd rather talk about Kylie's latest frock. Irony and narcissism have captured and crippled gay politics.

Beyond Queer Eye, the truth about gay people - as we finally shuffle past the twitching, ball-gowned corpse of camp - must be dull, dull, dull. In reality, we are not gifted stylists and geniuses with eye-liner. We are just as likely to be mediocre - or brilliant - as our straight brothers.

Being welcomed as performing chimps for the straight folks does not mean we've won the battle for cultural acceptance. No, it will come when we are (rightly) seen to be as boring and lacking in style as everybody else.

j.hari@independent.co.uk

^ The great Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was an early critic of "Queer Eye."  While the media was pushing the show as demonstrative of the superior capabilities of gay men, Mr. Frank commented on the dumb stereotypes the show perpetuated.  He said basically, "you know, that's not what we're all about.  We don't all fuss over clothes, grooming, and interior decorating. Most of us lead the same kind of day-to-day lives as everybody else."
::)

And it's true.  There are some gay guys who fit whatever stereotype, but most of the gays you see, you wouldn't even know it.  Far from being gay-friendly, I thought "Queer Eye" served to maintain the image of gay men as "different from the other guys," and that does them no favors, especially when gay couples are fighting for the right to marry and adopt children.  What do you think, a gay man is going to love his hair and his knick-knack collection more than his kid?  I mean, WTF?

Hmm....I'll just add a note so I don't seem like a hypocrite:

I AM CAMPY. But I'm that way naturally, it's just my way of being. I've loved Madonna since I was 8 and I used to idolize Elvira, Mistress of the Dark in 2nd grade. I love ABBA, John Waters, Muriel's Wedding, I've considered doing drag, groups like Erasure and the Pet Shop Boys, disco, and The Golden Girls. I'm not a flamer and I'm not a materialistic airhead, and I care next to nothing about my personal style. I think the author is a little too hard on camp, though.

QEFTS is equivalent to a show in which Irish-Americans drink and fight. Or Jewish people compete in being vulgar, making jokes, and being stingy. It's ridiculous.

Hmm....I'll just add a note so I don't seem like a hypocrite:

I AM CAMPY. But I'm that way naturally, it's just my way of being. I've loved Madonna since I was 8 and I used to idolize Elvira, Mistress of the Dark in 2nd grade. I love ABBA, John Waters, Muriel's Wedding, I've considered doing drag, groups like Erasure and the Pet Shop Boys, disco, and The Golden Girls. I'm not a flamer and I'm not a materialistic airhead, and I care next to nothing about my personal style. I think the author is a little too hard on camp, though.

QEFTS is equivalent to a show in which Irish-Americans drink and fight. Or Jewish people compete in being vulgar, making jokes, and being stingy. It's ridiculous.

I always say, most of my favorite artists/composers happened to be gay.  Then again, a lot of them happened to be straight.  And who cares?  The only question is, "Is the music good?"  A person's sexual orientation doesn't make or break my friendship with him or her.  Sometimes the subject arises for one or other reasons and we talk about it just like anything else.  The impression I've gotten from the gay people I have known, the mature ones, is they don't want privilege any more than discrimination.  They just want to be treated like anybody else.  The truth is, I'm afraid, homophobia is still rampant.  It's easier to identify as "queer" in the urbane and liberal areas of the country, but out there in red state cow country, it's going to take a lot longer for the folks not to get freaked out by homosexuality.  The last thing we need is the bigots in the Bush administration, and the religious Right hatemongers scapegoating the gay population for this and that.
::)

"We're coming to a choice in this country: Boy Scouts or HOMO-sexuals, and which one would you rather have living next to YOU!"
--Pat Robertson

"Clinton wants to put HOMO-sexuals into the White House, and Clinton wants to put HOMO-sexuals int the military!"
--Ibid.

i'll go with either homosexuals or boy scouts or both, just as long as it's not pat robertson living next to me.

i just saw a queer eye under duress the other night! the thing that got me, besides the gratingly overbroad way everybody behaved like caricatures of themselves, was how it's another one of these shows that says you can consume your way to happiness. pretty sad life, if you ask me.

i'll go with either homosexuals or boy scouts or both, just as long as it's not pat robertson living next to me.


;D

i'll go with either homosexuals or boy scouts or both, just as long as it's not pat robertson living next to me.

i just saw a queer eye under duress the other night! the thing that got me, besides the gratingly overbroad way everybody behaved like caricatures of themselves, was how it's another one of these shows that says you can consume your way to happiness. pretty sad life, if you ask me.


Yeah...all reality TV shows seem to be like that. You can consume your way to happiness. And it's something I think gay men with empty lives do, these Chelsea boys. They consume their way to happiness in their Chelsea lofts. Yuck.

I agree totally with your post. I hate Queer Eye and always have. Way too stereotypical.

i'll go with either homosexuals or boy scouts or both, just as long as it's not pat robertson living next to me.

i just saw a queer eye under duress the other night! the thing that got me, besides the gratingly overbroad way everybody behaved like caricatures of themselves, was how it's another one of these shows that says you can consume your way to happiness. pretty sad life, if you ask me.


I can now pick up this show with all the new channels available on tv. Watched it the other week and you're totally right,
the overboard caricatures are so sickly, especially blondy..but what you say, promoting the notion that happiness in life is achieved simply by consuming is totally wrong.
Boys did you cleanse tone and moisture today?

i'll go with either homosexuals or boy scouts or both, just as long as it's not pat robertson living next to me.

i just saw a queer eye under duress the other night! the thing that got me, besides the gratingly overbroad way everybody behaved like caricatures of themselves, was how it's another one of these shows that says you can consume your way to happiness. pretty sad life, if you ask me.

It's not sad, it's the essence television as we know it!

It's not sad, it's the essence television as we know it!
well, just because it's the essence of western culture as we know it.

i dunno, it's got an upside and a (..n admittedly considerable) downside.

^ The great Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was an early critic of "Queer Eye."  While the media was pushing the show as demonstrative of the superior capabilities of gay men, Mr. Frank commented on the dumb stereotypes the show perpetuated.  He said basically, "you know, that's not what we're all about.  We don't all fuss over clothes, grooming, and interior decorating. Most of us lead the same kind of day-to-day lives as everybody else."
::)



I hear you Max, but how to you jive this with the gay pride parades where they have these men wearing feather boas, carry their leather slings over their shoulders, and have giant condooms pulled over their heads, accompanied by men wearing all sorts of women's clothing?

Can't have it both ways... When a segment of the community acts outrageously it can not complain when people take notice that way.

Personally I agree that Queer Eye does a disservice to the homosexual community, at the hands of the homosexual community.  You simply see too many community events where the flamers reign.  And that feeds the perceptions of others.

I hear you Max, but how to you jive this with the gay pride parades where they have these men wearing feather boas, carry their leather slings over their shoulders, and have giant condooms pulled over their heads, accompanied by men wearing all sorts of women's clothing?

Can't have it both ways... When a segment of the community acts outrageously it can not complain when people take notice that way.

Personally I agree that Queer Eye does a disservice to the homosexual community, at the hands of the homosexual community.  You simply see too many community events where the flamers reign.  And that feeds the perceptions of others.


There's nothing wrong with being a flamer...at all. Being a flamer doesn't mean you're materialistic and airheaded and a QETS clone. There's alot of prejudice from "macho" gay men against fems.

Just don't become a stereotype or feel that you are supposed to like certain things because of your sexuality.

I don't listen to much hiphop (though I can appreciate it as a cultural aspect). On a common day, you'll see me rock out to Led Zeppelin or dare I say it, some hair metal. I'm totally against stereotype.

Just don't become a stereotype or feel that you are supposed to like certain things because of your sexuality.

I don't listen to much hiphop (though I can appreciate it as a cultural aspect). On a common day, you'll see me rock out to Led Zeppelin or dare I say it, some hair metal. I'm totally against stereotype.


I'm trying to groom all young gay men I meet against the stereotypical QETS mode.

I'm trying to groom all young gay men I meet against the stereotypical QETS mode.


Yay!!! Keep reminding them that there are many facets to gay life.

I hear you Max, but how to you jive this with the gay pride parades where they have these men wearing feather boas, carry their leather slings over their shoulders, and have giant condooms pulled over their heads, accompanied by men wearing all sorts of women's clothing?

Can't have it both ways... When a segment of the community acts outrageously it can not complain when people take notice that way.

Personally I agree that Queer Eye does a disservice to the homosexual community, at the hands of the homosexual community.  You simply see too many community events where the flamers reign.  And that feeds the perceptions of others.

Who "can't have it both ways"?  I didn't say it. Congressman Frank said it.  I'm straight. 
Who is most likely to go to "gay pride" parades?  The more angry and insecure of the gay population.  Some "flamers" swan about Main Street in drag, so the f**k what?  It's any easy scapegoat to blame those street theater-types for tarnishing the name of the gay population at large.  I don't buy that either.  The only reason the right-wing media (and ALL mainstream television is right-wing) is to give the rednecks an excuse to hate gays.  "Oooh, look at those sickos! Right in front of our children!"  Gimme a fogging break!  Discrimination against homosexuals was incalculably worse when theatrical drag queens DID NOT parade the streets.  The Right wants to go back to the good ole days of the 1950s when homosexuality was classified as a mental illness and the cops and rednecks could beat up on gays with impunity.

The "flamers" on the street are just the corollary to the "Fred Phelps" mentality.  The more the "Fred Phelps"* bigotry recedes, the less the in-your-face "Frank-N-Furter" drag queens will feel the need to swagger.

I cannot speak for Mr. Frank, but I'll bet he doesn't care for those bondage guys with the rubber snakes going around at the pride parades any more than Queer Eye.

*Phelps is merely the Christian Right mentality with the mask of civility removed.

There's nothing wrong with being a flamer...at all. Being a flamer doesn't mean you're materialistic and airheaded and a QETS clone. There's alot of prejudice from "macho" gay men against fems.


Perhaps, but the "flamers" largely define the stereotype, and between flamers and femmes that pretty much constitutes the homosexuals you see on TV shows like Queer Guy.

I wonder why they don't run stereotype roles (like in Will and Grace or Queer Guy) for leather-and-slings crowd? ???  I mean, Leather Man (the late Glenn Hughes, guy with that super cool moustache) was a big hit with the Village People.

Perhaps, but the "flamers" largely define the stereotype

Uh, that's not the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of gay people.  I tend to think of the ones I know.  They aren't like those "flamers."

Uh, that's not the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of gay people.  I tend to think of the ones I know.  They aren't like those "flamers."


But you are in the minority. It's the same with racial stereotypes. Most will generalize an entire racial group b/c they've decided to let the media and other forums dictate their experiences with the group, rather than having an actual personal one. I know that the "flamers" are a subgroup within a larger group b/c I have gays in my daily life (e.g. family, friends, coworkers) and I'm happy to have them in my life. Many in the majority not so much.

Uh, that's not the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of gay people.  I tend to think of the ones I know.  They aren't like those "flamers."


I think there's alot of discrimination by macho types on "femmey" guys like myself. Though dividing it into two sides is ridiculous. I'm "femmey", I suppose, but I'm a total slob who would be one of the straight guys on QETS in some ways. The only way in which gay men are to blame for their own negative stereotypes is feeding into them by supporting things like QETS. Power to drag queens!

Uh, that's not the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of gay people.  I tend to think of the ones I know.  They aren't like those "flamers."


I did not mean to say that the stereotype is true... that woul be silly.  I was just referring to the stereotype that is out there, the effette gay who has impeccable fashion sense, the leather/sling guys, or the drag queens.  Of course that is not the case for all gays.

But let's look at this a different way.  Can you imagine a "Jewish Pride Day" where a bunch of cheap diamond merchants parade down the street?  Or a "Black Pride Day" where the men go shuffling down the street or ride in purple Cadillacs, wearing full length white fur coats?  Or a Mexican Pride parade where the participants climb walls and flash their everpresent switch blades?  Of course not, that would be silly and none of those groups would want to perpetuate those stereotypes.  But in the gay pride parades this is exactly what you see.  I do not understand it.  :-\\

I'd like to see a Gay Pride Parade where every single participant looks like someone you'd see in line in front of you at Starbucks.  No feather boas, no tiaras, no gossamer angel wings, no hot pants, no leather gear, no dressing up like condoms/penises, no glitter, no gold lame.  Just everyday people in everyday clothes.  Maybe THEN people will accept them as no different than you and me.  As long as even .000001% of the gay community wants to make that the visual people think of when they think "gay", you're going to have people who treat them like they are a different class of people.  There's nothing wrong with camp and effiminate behavior; one of my closest friends in this world is probably the queeniest queen you'll ever meet.  However, maybe it's time for the stereotype to die out. 

I'd like to see a Gay Pride Parade where every single participant looks like someone you'd see in line in front of you at Starbucks. 
That's interesting, 'coz in my town, the line at the local Starbucks is a Gay Pride Parade!
;D


I did not mean to say that the stereotype is true... that woul be silly.  I was just referring to the stereotype that is out there, the effette gay who has impeccable fashion sense, the leather/sling guys, or the drag queens.  Of course that is not the case for all gays.
Don't assume gay "metrosexuals" or drag queens are effete.  It ain't necessarily so, and many a gay-bashing redneck found that out the hard way!

But let's look at this a different way.  Can you imagine a "Jewish Pride Day" where a bunch of cheap diamond merchants parade down the street?
I have a couple of rejoinders here, but they're both in bad taste!
:-X

  Or a "Black Pride Day" where the men go shuffling down the street or ride in purple Cadillacs, wearing full length white fur coats?  Or a Mexican Pride parade where the participants climb walls and flash their everpresent switch blades?  Of course not, that would be silly and none of those groups would want to perpetuate those stereotypes.  But in the gay pride parades this is exactly what you see.  I do not understand it.  :-\\

You remember the "Afro" of course.  Then you've got dreadlocks.  Both of these hairstyles were a statement of militant black pride. Afros and dreadlocks accentuated "blackness."  It was neither crimped close, nor was it processed to look like white people's hair.  A lot of the black fashions that took on a rebel chic in the '60s and '70s, such as the pan-African garb now commonplace, were a statement of identity. They believed it was necessary to be in-your-face because the white establishment had beaten them down for so long.  There's that old song, "If you're white, you're alright, if you're brown stick around, but if you're black GET BACK!"  Activists from Huey Newton to Angela Davis to Bob Marley said, "the hell we will get back!"  That scared the crap out of the white establishment.

The fringe racists, such as the Ku Klux Klan tried to beat back the "Black Pride" with violence.  The racists of Madison Avenue, Hollywood, and Capitol Records had a much more effective strategy: CO-OPT IT!  They did the same thing with hip-hop in the '80s.  When you've got every jive-azz suburban white kid with red hair and freckles growing dreads and saluting his "homies" with, "Say, what's happenin,' mah main mayon!" you can mask racism behind a simulacrum of "diversity."  It's a lot of rubbish. 

I suppose this went on to a lesser degree with the Chicano/Latin-American pop cultures.

As with the drag queens and homophobia, you've still got bigots such as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh  and Uncle Toms such as Bill Cosby and Juan Williams blaming African-American pop culture for the rampant economic racism that still exists in America.  Yeah, if you didn't strut around with that pimp gear, if you didn't listen to gangsta rap, if your names weren't Jamal and Latisha, you'd be living the sweet life in the 'burbs!

Kinda funny about the names thing.  O'Reilly and Cosby both said African-Americans hurt there chances in life with those weird "ghetto" names.  Hmmm...there seem to be an awful lot of white kids from the tony suburbs with names like Piper, Dakota, McKenzie, and Luna Aurora! They don't seem to do too bad in life!
:P

That's interesting, 'coz in my town, the line at the local Starbucks is a Gay Pride Parade!
;D


It's funny you should mention that because when we were in NYC, me and Chris went to several Starbucks and frankly it used to irritate me because all the cute guys would be staring at Chris - not me - it took a while for the penny to drop   ;D

The massive Gay Pride Festival is happening this weekend in Brighton UK

I'd like to see a Gay Pride Parade where every single participant looks like someone you'd see in line in front of you at Starbucks.  No feather boas, no tiaras, no gossamer angel wings, no hot pants, no leather gear, no dressing up like condoms/penises, no glitter, no gold lame.  Just everyday people in everyday clothes.  Maybe THEN people will accept them as no different than you and me.  As long as even .000001% of the gay community wants to make that the visual people think of when they think "gay", you're going to have people who treat them like they are a different class of people.  There's nothing wrong with camp and effiminate behavior; one of my closest friends in this world is probably the queeniest queen you'll ever meet.  However, maybe it's time for the stereotype to die out. 


Again, I hope this isn't contradicting my OP...but I think it's totally fine if people want to do that. It's a long tradition in the gay community dating back to the late '60s/early '70s to have parades like that. There was a huge amount of internalized homophobia in the late '70s that led to the "clone look", wherein gay men felt forced to be hypermasculine and wear leather and grow moustaches. I think stopping doing those things would basically be admitting there's something wrong with doing them.

Again, I hope this isn't contradicting my OP...but I think it's totally fine if people want to do that. It's a long tradition in the gay community dating back to the late '60s/early '70s to have parades like that. There was a huge amount of internalized homophobia in the late '70s that led to the "clone look", wherein gay men felt forced to be hypermasculine and wear leather and grow moustaches. I think stopping doing those things would basically be admitting there's something wrong with doing them.


Whatever happened the free country we wanted? Whatever happened to MYOB? Why do rich evangelical bigots get to inform our social policy above everybody else? Those self-appointed other-people's-business-minders practice no social conscience; those morality police in the government and on the Almighty Church of Television turn out to be anti-Christs, the least moral among us!  Sick o'this sh*t!

Whatever happened the free country we wanted? Whatever happened to MYOB? Why do rich evangelical bigots get to inform our social policy above everybody else? Those self-appointed other-people's-business-minders practice no social conscience; those morality police in the government and on the Almighty Church of Television turn out to be anti-Christs, the least moral among us!  Sick o'this sh*t!


Who said it is just evangelicals?  I come from an area that is registered 5-to-1 Democrat and generally speaking not very many evangelicals here (although it is a growing sector), and poll after poll shows opposition to gay marriage and gay adoption.  (Note:  Democrat does not always equal liberal, as this example would indicate...)

Example: Pittsburgh has not had a Republican mayor in my lifetime.  But if you ran a ballot on gay marriage or (another example) abortion rights, the overwhelming vote would be "conservative".  But the Burgh is not an evangelical stronghold by any means.

If you look at the various states that have put referenda on the ballot for anti-gay-marriage laws or constitutional amendments, they have typically passed with margins of 66% or more.  That suggests that Jew, Gentile, Protestant, Evangelical, etc generally are voting against it.  I will refrain from stating my opinion because that is not the point.  Evangelicals are nowhere near 50% of the voting population, and that is what it takes to get these kind of laws passed on the ballot.

I'd like to see a Gay Pride Parade where every single participant looks like someone you'd see in line in front of you at Starbucks.  No feather boas, no tiaras, no gossamer angel wings, no hot pants, no leather gear, no dressing up like condoms/penises, no glitter, no gold lame.  Just everyday people in everyday clothes.  Maybe THEN people will accept them as no different than you and me.  As long as even .000001% of the gay community wants to make that the visual people think of when they think "gay", you're going to have people who treat them like they are a different class of people.  There's nothing wrong with camp and effiminate behavior; one of my closest friends in this world is probably the queeniest queen you'll ever meet.  However, maybe it's time for the stereotype to die out. 


That's what I'm talking about... portray the gay community as "everyday people" instead of like a freak show and more progress would be made.  Kinda like Ellen Degeneres.  Other than her rather public "coming out party", she otherwise comes across as an everyday person.  You do not see her wearing lumberjack shirts or making nonstop gay double entendres, as opposed to the fare on Will and Grace which works more against the community than for it.

Again, I hope this isn't contradicting my OP...but I think it's totally fine if people want to do that. It's a long tradition in the gay community dating back to the late '60s/early '70s to have parades like that. There was a huge amount of internalized homophobia in the late '70s that led to the "clone look", wherein gay men felt forced to be hypermasculine and wear leather and grow moustaches. I think stopping doing those things would basically be admitting there's something wrong with doing them.



I can understand why they do it.  If I was forced to assimilate myself into a community I'm not a member of, if given the chance to do something completely off the wall and show how I am NOT like that, I probably would.  However I don't know how fair it is for them to say they don't want to be treated different, while at least some of them go out of their way to BE different.


I hope that makes sense.  :-\\