Gay Patriot Header Image

Gay Cowboy Roundup

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 10:44 pm - December 15, 2005.
Filed under: Gay America

Um… is there some movie coming out (no pun intended) about gay cowboys or something?

Chad thinks so….

And there’s this funny Letterman “Top Ten” list from Wednesday. Thanks for this from our other blog-ally in the Big Apple, The Party Crasher.

Thanks, Neil… by the way, you need to be blogging more!!

Top Ten Signs You’re A Gay Cowboy

10. “Your saddle is Versace”
9. “Instead of ‘Home On The Range’, you sing ‘It’s Raining Men'”
8. “You enjoy ridin’, ropin’, and redecoratin'”
7. “Sold your livestock to buy tickets to ‘Mamma Mia'”
6. “After watching reruns of ‘Gunsmoke’, you have to take a cold shower”
5. “Native Americans refer to you as ‘Dances With Men'”
4. “You’ve been lassoed more times than most steers”
3. “You’re wearing chaps, yet your ‘ranch’ is in Chelsea”
2. “Instead of a saloon you prefer a salon”
1. “You love riding, but you don’t have a horse”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

48 Comments

  1. I don’t think it’s a funny list. It perpetuates too many stereotypes. It reminds me of the reaction my boyfriend had when we saw an episode of “Queer Eye.” He said, “Those gays are trying too hard to be gay.” “Queer Eye” puts gay stereotypes on parade to amuse and entertain straight people. This top ten list does the same.

    “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil” is another example. The homosexual characters who looked and acted too much like straight men had to die because society doesn’t want them in its midst. If those guys could be gay, then heck, anybody could. But The Lady Chablis survives at the end because the straights think she’s not threatening in the same way.

    Straight America doesn’t want gay cowboys to be like other cowboys except for being homosexual. Straight America wants its gay cowboys in Versace saddles, singing disco tunes, redecorating, and heading to the salon. That way they’re not only easy to spot but they can continue to be objects of ridicule.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — December 16, 2005 @ 12:16 am - December 16, 2005

  2. I totally, totally agree, Conservative Guy. I AM a gay cowboy, and those aren’t anything like me (well, #8 and #4 are negotiable).

    I blogged about something similar a few months ago….the love-hate relationship that we have with gay stereotypes.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 16, 2005 @ 1:34 am - December 16, 2005

  3. Not too funny. Not because it’s “offensive” or somesuch, but because it’s kinda boring and predictable. Yawnish.

    The characters in the story and in the movie are not.

    Comment by EssEm — December 16, 2005 @ 3:40 am - December 16, 2005

  4. There’s pudding in there somewhere, right?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 16, 2005 @ 6:01 am - December 16, 2005

  5. Aw, come on. You can’t say none of it’s funny. Especially #1.

    Comment by Hello Moto — December 16, 2005 @ 6:21 am - December 16, 2005

  6. The list is kind of funny, but I’ve seen funnier stuff elsewhere. Knowledge Is Power, The Jawa Report, and Ace of Spades HQ have all had really funny stuff about the movie. The blogosphere is free to get edgier than a TV show that has to worry about boycotts and offending the Professionally Aggrieved.

    Comment by V the K — December 16, 2005 @ 8:05 am - December 16, 2005

  7. #5 got me to laugh out loud. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Comment by Calarato — December 16, 2005 @ 10:22 am - December 16, 2005

  8. Sigh…..Hello Moto, it’s not that it isn’t humorous. I laughed when I read it, too. Nor do I think that the intent of it is necessarily to ridicule people, or that it’s something we should be protesting.

    What tempers its entertainment value to me is the fact that I’m still not convinced people recognize that those are stereotypes and stereotypical behavior. When the separation can be made between the typical gay and the stereotypical gay, then I’ll feel better.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 16, 2005 @ 10:36 am - December 16, 2005

  9. NDT, what makes Top 10 lists funny is that the stereotypes do have a grain of truth. The stereotypes are ridiculed and exploited, at the same time. I can’t see a need to feel heavy about it.

    Comment by Calarato — December 16, 2005 @ 10:51 am - December 16, 2005

  10. There’s a certain schizophrenia about stereotypes. On the one hand, people denounce stereotypes for portraying a negative, caricatured image. On the other hand, if you defy the stereotype, you’re called a sell-out

    But, hey, all I really meant to say is… my top ten list would have been funnier.

    Comment by V the K — December 16, 2005 @ 10:53 am - December 16, 2005

  11. By the way, first there’s this movie about gay cowboys eating pudding. Now, there’s this new movie The Ringer, that appears to be about a normal guy who pretends to be mentally challenged so he can enter the Special Olympics.

    Is Hollywood getting all of its ideas from South Park?

    Comment by V the K — December 16, 2005 @ 11:52 am - December 16, 2005

  12. Sorry to put a damper on the discussion, but one thing about this movie makes me far uneasier than any stereotypes. Why is it that their being gay gives them a pass on fidelity? Sure, you can do a movie with straight characters and romanticize adultery, but you have to overcome the moral issue somehow. Yet, if the characters are gay, bingo, morals no longer apply to them.

    They’re married. Leaving their families is wrong. Period. I don’t care why they did it. It’s wrong. It’s irresponsible. It’s immoral.

    Comment by rightwingprof — December 16, 2005 @ 11:56 am - December 16, 2005

  13. Excellent point, rightwingprof. When a man ditches his wife and family to take up with another man, he’s treated as brave and heroic in some parts of our culture, and nobody cares how his family suffers.

    Unfortunately, our media-driven culture prizes self-gratification above all else (because it’s easy to commercialize), even if you have to hurt other people to do it.

    Comment by V the K — December 16, 2005 @ 12:04 pm - December 16, 2005

  14. Just to add my .02 to the stereotypes sub-discussion….
    If there wasn’t some truth in a stereotype, any stereotype, it wouldn’t exist in the first place.
    We may not like them, they may not all apply in every case, but if you pick a stereotype you’ll probably find you know someone it applies too.

    Comment by JonInAtlanta — December 16, 2005 @ 12:51 pm - December 16, 2005

  15. I haven’t seen the movie – do they leave their wives?

    Western culture has an interesting, tortured relationship with the concept of fidelity.

    To the Greeks and Romans (our ancestors), marriage was about property and children, and fidelity was strictly female-only. Females had to be faithful, because otherwise you couldn’t know “who fathered what” children. But male infidelity, especially if homosexual, did not matter. Marriage wasn’t about passionate love, or obligations of passionate love between equals.

    Western culture changed over the centuries. Christianity gradually knocked out the tolerance of homosexual affairs (not right away – per Boswell, it took 13 centuries or so). Simultaneously, passionate Love arose as an ideal and eventually ‘took over’ marriage.

    One key marker or symptom (not cause) of the change is Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Its attitude toward Love is quintessentially Western (and modern).

    Also, in the recent West, we have the additional idea that men and women are equal, and whatever expectations of fidelity are on the woman should automatically be on the man.

    But all of that creates a strange twist for gay relationships. The underlying moral message of Western culture (its emphasis on personal love and passion in marriage) is: if you can’t LOVE your spouse, honestly and passionately, Get Out. “It is more moral to admit the truth so you can both have another chance at true love.”

    I support that view, with a huge exception made for children. I believe that if you have children, they have to come first. You put them first, period, until they are 18.

    Life is full of complications, however.

    If you love your wife in a “friends” way and a “mother of my kids” way (though not sexually or passionately), and stay with her for those reaons, but you have a previous great “love of your life” that you MUST honor in SOME fashion or else you will suffer tremendous despair (making you really no good to your wife or kids), that’s a legitimate dilemma.

    I’m not saying it is right to cheat. I’m not saying how you should solve the dilemma. I am saying, it is a huge, legitimate dilemma – the stuff movies are made of. ๐Ÿ˜‰ And that I personally won’t judge someone for choosing what might be a second-rate solution, as long as the kids are still being honored. Because when such a dilemma is authentically present, no solution will be perfect.

    Comment by Calarato — December 16, 2005 @ 12:54 pm - December 16, 2005

  16. The problem is, our culture doesn’t treat it as a dillemma, or at least not one with any more depth than “ditch the b*tch and make the switch.”

    And it’s not just gay culture. I feel exactly the same way about straight men and women who ditch their commitments for someone of the opposite sex.

    Comment by V the K — December 16, 2005 @ 12:58 pm - December 16, 2005

  17. Excellent point, rightwingprof. When a man ditches his wife and family to take up with another man, heโ€™s treated as brave and heroic in some parts of our culture, and nobody cares how his family suffers.

    Whoa there boy. I would like to point out that members of the “ex-gay” movement, even some who freely admit that they still have homosexual feelings, are still lauded has heroes and proper examples of heterosexual fidelity when they marry a person of the opposite sex. However those marriages are not based in truth, and they also do not truly fit the Christian theological standard of the “two made one-flesh” either. It seems to me that there is plenty of a loose and all-to-convenient kind of immorality to go around on all sides of the question.

    I also want to point out that the list stereotypes not only gays, but cowboys as well.

    Incidentally, how many here know the two-step?

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 16, 2005 @ 1:16 pm - December 16, 2005

  18. #1- Lighten up. People know stereotypes are silly and overexaggerated. That’s what makes them funny.

    Also, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil was based on a true story. Chablis(sp?) even played herself in the movie. She survives because… well… she survived. The other guy died because he was killed, for real. Don’t read too much into it.

    This notion that gay men are a certain way, i.e. effiminate, is I think, a notion put out by the gay world. Those are the out, proud, and loud (not that there’s anything wrong with that) people that create the image of gay that the world sees. The quiet gay cowboys and conservatives are not as visible BECAUSE we’re not that different from the general population, and there’s nothing wrong with that either.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — December 16, 2005 @ 2:04 pm - December 16, 2005

  19. Dale… couldn’t agree more ๐Ÿ™‚

    Comment by JonInAtlanta — December 16, 2005 @ 2:22 pm - December 16, 2005

  20. #18 I majored in English Literature and studied narrative theory. No element in a narrative is there by accident,and everything has significance. The tellers of tales, even those based on real happenings, pick their starting and ending points and decide which supporting characters to include. The narrative tension of “Midnight in the Garden” is resolved and the story ends precisely at the time when the characters put the death of Jim behind them. There are no “straight acting” guys left on stage by that time, just one lone transvestite. Somebody made that decision and it has significance to the structure of the narrative.

    Stereotypes need an element of reality to be funny. As both a gay man and possibly the only one on this thread who actually deals with horses every single day, I find that list is so divorced from reality that it isn’t funny. Maybe you urban and suburban types think it’s hysterical, but I’d also ask that you respect my right to find it not funny.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — December 16, 2005 @ 2:43 pm - December 16, 2005

  21. This notion that gay men are a certain way, i.e. effeminate, is I think, a notion put out by the gay world. Those are the out, proud, and loud (not that thereโ€™s anything wrong with that) people that create the image of gay that the world sees. The quiet gay cowboys and conservatives are not as visible BECAUSE weโ€™re not that different from the general population, and thereโ€™s nothing wrong with that either.

    Just to shoot off into the stratosphere on a wild tangent, but I seem to have missed the memo from the Homosexual Agenda that said gays were effeminate. Care to provide proof of this? Better yet, care to define what acting “effeminate” actually is? Specifically? Do you consider a man wearing a kilt to be masculine? If so, why? Isn’t he wearing a dress? Girls play with dolls but somehow boys play with “action figures”, and if a boy likes to play with dolls it’s not generally thought of as masculine behavior. But aren’t they all dolls? Exactly what is the difference and why should it matter? And I’m curious, what makes you think that those “The quiet gay cowboys and conservatives….” are not the same ones dancing on the float at the CSW parade? You seem to be making a great deal of assumptions based on questionable reasoning. You may want to examine them yourself in greater detail before us militant (and apparently effeminate) homos catch you and sentence you to a Militant Feminist Separatist Re-Education Camp. Mwua-hahahahhahah.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 16, 2005 @ 3:19 pm - December 16, 2005

  22. Let me get this straight, if you’re gay and Conservative, you’re not effeminate. Those flaming Liberals are ruining our image.
    By the way, I didn’t find the list funny either. Especially number five.

    Comment by hank — December 16, 2005 @ 3:39 pm - December 16, 2005

  23. I should be more careful how I use the word “conservative” on this site. I wasn’t really using it in a political sense as much as meaning sort of culturally traditional. Every person walking the earth has masculine and feminine traits depending on how a culture defines those traits. We have our natural tendencies and then we all go to some amount of effort either to fit in to a certain group or to stand out. It’s a personal choice.

    The point of my statement is that gay people who to some degree or another, are more flamoyantly non-traditional, usually in a sense of not conforming to traditional gender-associated behavior, maybe even purposefully so out of a sense of rebellion, are the ones people see and recognize and they end up defining the stereotypes. I think it’s a very good thing that gay people are all very different. The rest of the population is quickly coming to realize this. But it’s not that surprising to me that the stereotypes exist. It’s not that big a deal to me. I have a lot of feminine traits myself and I’m not at all ashamed of them.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — December 16, 2005 @ 4:47 pm - December 16, 2005

  24. There is definately a feeling that we ought to be ruled by our emotions rather than by our commitments. And when did the idea of “one true love” come into our culture? Commitment becomes null just as soon as someone thinks, “Oops, guess I didn’t marry the “one”.” Yes, there’s some restriction on heterosexual infidelity in entertainment but that restriction doesn’t count if *love* rather than sex is involved.

    I don’t know that I have *more* sympathy for the gay or lesbian person who enters a heterosexual marriage than I do for my aunts a generation ago who got married because that was expected of women at that time and the man who proposed had good job prospects. That’s not to say I don’t have some sympathy. (What I’ve got *no* sympathy for is the person who stays in the marriage until they find something better. )

    Because the fact is that marriage does not make sexual attraction for other people go away. It doesn’t prevent a person from developing a fondness or love for other people. We aren’t hard-wired like geese to make life long matings. If you don’t form attachments to people other than the person you are married to, it’s because you didn’t allow yourself to form attachments to people other than the person you are married to.

    Nor does a deep relationship have to involve sex. Maybe that’s an additional fault of the “be all and end all” “one true love” mythos… we don’t know how to have deep relationships that *aren’t* sexual.

    Anyhow, I hope the movie was a decent movie. I can’t say I’m interested in seeing it. I’ve just finished reading Suzanne Brockmann’s latest novel (fantastic as usual) and I have to admit that while I found the gay characters compelling and interesting, guys kissing is just gross. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Comment by Synova — December 16, 2005 @ 6:14 pm - December 16, 2005

  25. I think our culture has become too relaxed about the topic of infidelity. Divorce has become too casual and people have unrealistic expectations going into a relationship and don’t try hard enough to make it work, especially when there are kids involved. That said, it seems a rather extreme position to take that a relationship should never be dissolved. Some just aren’t meant to be.

    Once you accept that people have distinct and unchangeable orientations either toward the opposite gender or the same, it’s a logical conclusion that going against that is unnatural. It’s not just sexual. It has to do with forming a connection to one person that extends beyond friendship.

    I haven’t seen the movie yet and I want to, but my impression is that it addresses the tremendous pressure on some people to conform to a behavior that is so unnatural for them that it’s emotionally unhealthy for all involved. That kind of relationship is not the one we should use to make the case for lifetime fidelity.

    Comment by Dale in L.A. — December 16, 2005 @ 8:05 pm - December 16, 2005

  26. I heard Michael Savage refer to the film as “Bareback Mountain.” Now THAT made me laugh out loud. Probably because it’s true.

    And incidentally Griff, here in Texas it is not just “two-step.” You ask a prospective partner (probably at the gay cowboy place here in Houston called The Brazos River Bottom) if they can do THE two-step. Better yet, let’s see if you know the Cotton-Eyed Joe.

    But that’s okay. You are family.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 16, 2005 @ 8:53 pm - December 16, 2005

  27. #26: Apparently you haven’t seen the film referred to as Heath Lecher and Jake Willinghole in Bareback Mountin’ ?

    Comment by Conservative Guy — December 16, 2005 @ 11:33 pm - December 16, 2005

  28. Regarding Marriage. This idea of finding your one true love, or its modern, Oprahized equivalent, “soulmate” is at the heart of the problem of fidelity and marriage. So many scorn traditional religious definitions of marriage and believe their happiness is dependent upon the mysterious and sometimes perverse power of fate to find who they really love. They dump “God sanctions this” for “it was meant to be (for me to be happy)”. Even those people who vehemently defend traditional marriage seem to have no problem with this idea, if you look at current divorce rates. Calarato quoted (someone): โ€œIt is more moral to admit the truth so you can both have another chance at true love.โ€. What is the point of making a lifelong commitment in a marriage ceremony? Marriage has no meaning if you can so easily replace the old with something new just because it doesn’t work quite the way you expected it to.

    Comment by John — December 16, 2005 @ 11:50 pm - December 16, 2005

  29. Calarato in #15, of course the kids should come first, but fidelity is key to any lasting relationship as it allows the individuals involved to focus on the relationship rather than to look outside it for sustenance. And it helps keep their focus on the family unit.

    Well said, John in #28. Y’all have raised some really good points in this thread, many of which have made me think.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — December 17, 2005 @ 12:34 am - December 17, 2005

  30. Gryph –

    How many Ex-Gays do you know have abandoned their children, to pursue their love for a woman?

    V the K –

    Your Tops are all Tens. Er, your Top Tens are the tops.

    (Sorry, too much Bacardi. ๐Ÿ™‚ )

    Comment by Frank IBC — December 17, 2005 @ 12:53 am - December 17, 2005

  31. So two people should live lives of misery, because at one point they made a “lifelong commitment”? People change. Circumstances change.

    Comment by hank — December 17, 2005 @ 10:55 am - December 17, 2005

  32. In which case, hank, it’s nothing but staying together until you feel differently. “Do you take this man?” “Oh, sure, for now.”

    Because we define “misery” down, make our partner responsible for our happiness (a burden no one person could possibly carry) and then whine when our “needs aren’t met.” From there on it’s all in the crapper.

    A decent human being with a sense of humor doesn’t *change* no matter that circumstances cause stress, depression, or crankiness. And when life starts to suck, isn’t that when we’re supposed to *love* the other person and support them rather than blame them and fuss and throw tantrums about how unhappy we are?

    Oh, I think that people should be able to get divorces… infidelity can kill you. Abuse shouldn’t be endured in any case. But like my friend said (who takes responsibility for her end of the disaster) “He had a crappy job and a crappy wife. He decided to keep the job and get rid of the wife.” Of the people I know personally well enough to have a clue about their divorces the “live in misery” thing may have been so but it was their *life* not their partner. “I’m unhappy. You’re *supposed* to make me happy.” Funny thing in that equation is that apparently it never occures to people to wonder if they make their partner happy or how they are to live with day to day.

    Comment by Synova — December 17, 2005 @ 12:12 pm - December 17, 2005

  33. #22 – Not surprising Hank since we have yet to see you finding anything funny. Especially not wordplays zinging pompous liberals (Kevin Costner’s patronizing, silly movie being the item 5 reference). ๐Ÿ™‚

    #31 – Then why call it a commitment at all? Why attempt to (mis)appropriate the word?

    Comment by Calarato — December 17, 2005 @ 12:13 pm - December 17, 2005

  34. If we lived in a perfect world I would agree with you. But we don’t. And I think people DO change. We even change at the cellular level.
    By the way , yesterday there was the first divorce between two men (Vermont). I don’t know if there were children involved, I hope not.

    Sorry pal. What one finds funny is subjective. Not everyone has to agree with you all the time:)

    Comment by hank — December 17, 2005 @ 1:38 pm - December 17, 2005

  35. Pardon me, did you say “we”. Do you speak for everyone here? What, is some kind of conference call that I don’t about?

    Comment by hank — December 17, 2005 @ 1:49 pm - December 17, 2005

  36. And incidentally Griff, here in Texas it is not just โ€œtwo-step.โ€ You ask a prospective partner (probably at the gay cowboy place here in Houston called The Brazos River Bottom) if they can do THE two-step. Better yet, letโ€™s see if you know the Cotton-Eyed Joe.

    Yup, I do know the Cotton-Eyed Joe. Although I usually clog it through it with the double-toe. Former member of the Country Knight Cloggers, don’tcha know. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — December 17, 2005 @ 2:17 pm - December 17, 2005

  37. So, hank is clearly on the side of “Too damn bad for my family, too damn bad for my kids, I’ve changed. And my personal gratification is all that matters.”

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2005 @ 2:17 pm - December 17, 2005

  38. Not at all. But what would do more harm to the kids? Their welfare should come first, which may mean divorce would be the better thing, as terrible as it is in the short term.
    And I resent you reaching a conclusion about me from merely reading a couple of lines

    Comment by hank — December 17, 2005 @ 2:29 pm - December 17, 2005

  39. #36 – Gryph, I stand corrected. If you can clog your way through a kikker dance, you are all right in my books. Dance-wise, that is.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 17, 2005 @ 3:20 pm - December 17, 2005

  40. Adults acting like adults would be best for the kids. People who claim that it’s better for the kids to miss one or the other of their parents are basically claiming that they intend to have public tantrums, act pissy on a regular basis, or hold an ever-living grudge that will drip over everyone in the house. Hey, it’s better for the kids if they aren’t beaten and abused, absolutely. It’s better for the kids if their parents don’t have affairs in front of them (though that goes for after the divorce too). But mostly it’s better for the kids if their parents are grown-ups.

    Comment by Synova — December 17, 2005 @ 9:25 pm - December 17, 2005

  41. they intend to have public tantrums, act pissy on a regular basis, or hold an ever-living grudge that will drip over everyone in the house

    Synova, I didn’t see you at my house when my parents got divorced but you must have been there by that description. It just didn’t drip, it poured. And that was just the beginning. Being gay was the easy part.

    Comment by John — December 18, 2005 @ 1:39 am - December 18, 2005

  42. David Letterman’s been phoning it in the past few years anyway. Him and Leno combined don’t equal half a Johnny Carson (RIP).

    Comment by Attmay — December 18, 2005 @ 11:35 am - December 18, 2005

  43. And if they stay together the kids live in an atmosphere of silent rage?
    Very healthy.
    Smacks of Papism.

    Comment by hank — December 18, 2005 @ 12:05 pm - December 18, 2005

  44. I guess if one thinks of marriage as just a social contract that provides access to a pinata of benefits, then divorce is not a big deal. Others see marriage as a solemn covenant.

    “Silent rage?” How immature. Adults have the responsibility to control their emotions for the benefit of children. Just because a married guy decides he prefers sausage to taco doesn’t give him license to ditch his family, and once you create children, they should be your priority over self-gratification. And, yes, despite the Oprah-fication of the popular culture, there are times and circumstance when you should put your own emotions aside for the greater good of your family.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2005 @ 3:55 pm - December 18, 2005

  45. Hank said to V: “I resent you reaching a conclusion about me from merely reading a couple of lines.”

    Errr, sorry Hank, but he reached a conclusion about your position, not you as a person. And his conclusion was one that you reasonably invited (or set up) with the content of your remarks.

    Comment by Calarato — December 18, 2005 @ 7:09 pm - December 18, 2005

  46. #35 – I can’t believe what elementary stuff has to be explained to you, Hank.

    If you were to post a comment here in which you do find something funny or joyful, rather than your usual fare of nay-saying slams, dour disagreement, etc., that comment would then be seen by more than one of us here who read comments. The subject form of “us” being “we”. Get it?

    Comment by Calarato — December 18, 2005 @ 7:18 pm - December 18, 2005

  47. I agree, people change.

    That said, yeah, any sort of marriage commitment should take the sacrifice to weather the changes. Where the marriage fails is when one doesn’t try, or when both people change too much.

    Oh and as the token straight commenter (is that a word) I found ’em funny.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 18, 2005 @ 7:23 pm - December 18, 2005

  48. No it’s the Royal “WE” your Majesty.

    Comment by hank — December 18, 2005 @ 8:42 pm - December 18, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.