Okay, first, my boyfriend and I were flipping through the channels last week and settled with Seinfeld, oddly enough, it was the episode Becker talks about! Since I watched it before, I just kind of thought about "How Gay Stays White..." and then just let my brain rest and watched. Anyway, just one of those coincidences. :-)
Back to the article. So I found it pretty interesting, at times I got confused but I tried really hard and I think I did a good job of keeping my mind on track haha. One of the things that jumped out at me was toward the end when Becker said, "Being gay-friendly could give Slumpies the thrill of edginess precisely because it involves transgressing social norms; accepting homosexuality implied that there was something that needed to be accepted." I feel like this happens a lot with anything controversial. I am not trying to down-play any kind of issue, but sometimes I feel like people, whether they truly agree on a "political" issue or not, want to express that they are advocates because it's "the cool thing to do." I remember being in middle school (granted this was in the year 2002) but it was a really big issue growing up to "be unique," and this carried on all throughout high-school (until I became the weird home-schooled freak). And sometimes, even I was guilty, of siding with a political stance because 1) I honestly didn't have an opinion, probably due to lack of knowledge on the subject and 2) I didn't want to admit that I didn't have knowledge, or "didn't care" because that wasn't cool. So I ended up going with what society told me was "cool." (Whatever that was) Kind of like on page 200, first sentence in the paragraph "Despite.... was still a relatively exceptional marker of just how open-minded one was." So it's like, it's "cool" to be open-minded. I don't know, maybe I'm way off. But it's just something I've thought about before and the end of this article turned on that lightbulb again. Anyways.... I know this article was more in depth than that, but being that this quote was toward the end (page 202), it kind of stuck with me and my brain started to wander off again... oops. And I really hope I am not offending anyone, or anyone thinks I am an idiot. Maybe there is a better way to explain it. Or maybe I'm just fake. But I think sometimes when you're in middle school and the popular people decide that they care about something like recycling, or being nice to the not-so-popular-kid (i know that's not political, but you know) and even though I thought they were dumb, I made my own "unpopular" group of friends, so I was seen as cool and nice and open just like the popular kids. (Society) .... I'm starting to confuse/lose myself here. Shoot. I feel like Laura can understand that :-)
Anyway, when Ron talked about "Queer Straights" and that whole bit, it made me think of the term "metrosexual." And that is my discussion question. (Sorry this blog is on two totally different sides of the spectrum) Where does "metrosexual" stand with "Queer-Straights"? Are "metrosexuals" then "Straight-Queers?" Just a silly thought, maybe?