Real Gay Self-Hatred
I don’t remember when I first heard a gay leftist dismiss gay Republicans as self-loathing. It must have been about the time I first became active in Log Cabin when I lived in the Washington, D.C.-area in the mid-1990s. I do recall some activist badmouthing me for my allegedly hypocritical and closeted life about the same time I would be addressing a large public gathering of Northern Virginia Republicans as an openly gay man.
These angry critics don’t even consider the facts before leveling their accusations. When Bruce broke the news of Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon’s meeting with presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, we were subject yet again to the charge, with no less than a Professor of Psychology calling “self-loathing” any gay person who votes Republican. Seems like someone needs his head — and prejudices — examined.
I wonder if that professor ever met a gay Republican or even bothered to consider why someone might cast a ballot for a candidate (or party) he doesn’t support. He never explained why he finds us “self-loathing.” None of them do, but they hurl the insult so readily as if by rote. But, I digress.
Recently, on a date gone awry, I was exposed to real gay self-hatred. We had met for lunch at a public place, a more relaxed setting, I thought. A mid-day meeting would make clear this was about getting acquainted and not about getting laid.
While he was a nice enough guy, we really didn’t connect on a deep level and he kept insisting we return to my car so we could drive to some secluded place and “get it on.” I refused to even tell him where I parked. As we concluded our time together, I moved to give him a hug good-bye. He pushed me away, whispering “not in a public place.”
As i drove away, it struck me that there was an example of real gay self-hatred, someone eager to fill the gaps in a first meeting with sex, yet unwilling to acknowledge publicly the nature of his feelings for men.
Sometimes, I wonder if it’s more than that, that self-hatred is not just limited to people who would publicly deny their feelings. It also includes those who see their sex partners as nothing more that objects to help them fulfill their desires, refusing to look beyond the surface attraction to discover the human being beneath.
Real gay self-hatred is thus not being able to connect one’s deeper feelings to one’s identity as a human being.
40 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
As far as politics goes… I think anyone who keeps blindly voting for the same old same old Democrat patronizing is self-loathing. I prefer someone who has a honest difference with me over someone who just uses me for a vote.
Comment by KevinQC — July 2, 2008 @ 2:56 am - July 2, 2008
As for the “self loathing” epithet… It’s the only brick they have to throw.
Comment by KevinQC — July 2, 2008 @ 3:01 am - July 2, 2008
Silly Dan! Just shut up and look pretty.
What more could one want out of life?
Comment by Jeremayakovka — July 2, 2008 @ 7:10 am - July 2, 2008
Kevin: I don’t think someone who is opposed to gay rights and gay marriage and happily uses those as wedge issues by inciting hatred has an “honest” difference with me. As a gay liberal, I think the self-loathing epithet is hurled because while very few people I’ve ever met are one-issue voters (on any issue), there are some things that go beyond being philosophical issues and that should preclude supporting that candidate. For example, I might disagree with the illusion of small government or with the idea that everyone should pay for their own goddamned health care, but these are issues I can at least discuss and respect as issues. Sure, the Democrats are not able to truly come down as strongly for gay rights as I’d like thanks to the bias of our citizenry, but when an entire party’s stranglehold on power for the past several years has been fueled by (#1, holding terrorism over our heads and #2) by beating the bushes to scare the homophobes, I think that is where gay liberals can’t understand why gay conservatives could, in good conscience, vote Republican. (PS: From the story of the self-loathing date, was he a Democrat or a Republican? Because in truth, that brand of self-loathing affects both sides.)
[Mathew, the issue of politics barely came up. --Dan]
Comment by Matthew Rettenmund — July 2, 2008 @ 9:07 am - July 2, 2008
Sure, the epithet “self-hatred” is overused quite a bit, that it loses meaning. As, it seems to me, that Dan does not overuse that term, it’s worth analyzing.
As for your date, Dan, I don’t know if the hug thing revealed any gay self-hatred. It depends on a few things. Like, was the date at a gay or gay-friendly place. Maybe he is uncomfortable with any PDAs, whether he was straight or gay. Maybe he believes that people should never PDA period.
As for him trying to seek sex under the guise of having a real date. Maybe. But again, it’s hard to say without more information.
What is clear to me, is that this person was not right for you, and perhaps not right for anyone at this time. Perhaps he was just trying to find the quickest way to have sex with someone else. If your having a second date was contingent on having sex, then he definitely was not right for you.
Real gay self-hatred is thus not being able to connect one’s deeper feelings to one’s identity as a human being.
I don’t know if this has anything to do with being gay. Sure, there are many gay people who cannot connect. But I’ve seen plenty of straight men who are like that with women. It never occurred to me that this was straight self-hatred. But maybe you’re on to something here.
Comment by Pat — July 2, 2008 @ 9:49 am - July 2, 2008
Just out of curiosity, if there were a genetic splice that would eliminate same sex preferences and replace it with heterosexual preferences, would only “self-loathing” gays sign up?
Comment by heliotrope — July 2, 2008 @ 11:01 am - July 2, 2008
#6 - Good question, helio. It’s important on a couple of levels:
a) It would definitely answer the “nature vs nurture” argument that has been around since homosexuality has been studied.
b) It would also force a lot of gays and lesbians to reconsider abortion and “right to life” issues if a gay gene could be isolated and therefore “correct” homosexuality.
Of course, a lot of people who are against eugenics in the first place would have plenty to say about this. But that’s besides the point.
My own take? I really can’t say. I’ve been gay since I was old enough to talk. It may have made my maturation a lot easier if I were straight in a straight world, but then again I would have lost out on a lot of experiences that have contributed to who I am today.
Anyone else?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 2, 2008 @ 11:18 am - July 2, 2008
As I’ve said before, I don’t particularly care what others think of me. That hasn’t been a priority since high school. Nor do I care whether “I was born this way”. I’m fairly certain that I wasn’t, but I don’t spend that much time pondering it.
If somebody announced a “gay gene” tomorrow, I would probably say “that’s nice” and move on to the next item on Drudge. It’s just not that important to me. Is that self-hatred?
I’ve gotten the impression that if being gay isn’t the number one thing in your life and you don’t tell everybody you meet that you’re gay, that makes you self-loathing.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 2, 2008 @ 11:36 am - July 2, 2008
I wonder, would blacks who were registered Democrats in the 1950’s and 60’s also be classified as “self haters”?
Comment by sonicfrog — July 2, 2008 @ 12:04 pm - July 2, 2008
Interesting post, Dan. As a straight guy, I have to agree with Pat that it works the same way for heteros as well, seeing the other as merely a convenient vessel to relieve a moment’s horniness - actually, that seemed to be “Sex And The City”’s entire premise!
Have you looked into any of Pope John Paul II’s writings on the “Theology of the Body”? He’s got quite a lot to say about “seeing sex partners as nothing more than objects.” Worth a look, even if you’re not Catholic.
Comment by Christopher — July 2, 2008 @ 12:55 pm - July 2, 2008
Speaking as someone who used to hurl it (as a liberal in the 1990s), here is the thinking:
1) They identify with/as Republicans.
2) Republicans hate gays.
3) Therefore, they identify with/as people who hate what they are.
The first weakness is at point 2. Most Republicans don’t hate gays. People who still think “Republicans hate gays” are stuck in a time warp with outdated information, and really need to get out more.
Another weakness is the fact that Democrats often hate gays. Fred Phelps is a Democrat. Democrats gave us DADT and signed DOMA.
Another weakness is the fact that, to the extent a few Republicans do still hate gays (and there are a few), Democrats are soft on a far more important group - a group that hates gays in far more real and important ways than any Republicans ever have, or will: the Islamists.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 2, 2008 @ 2:20 pm - July 2, 2008
(”they” in 1 and 3 being, gay Republicans)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 2, 2008 @ 2:20 pm - July 2, 2008
Interesting post. Honestly, I was a bit uncomfortable with “pubic hugs” before I moved to Sedona, a town where hugging friends and strangers alike is pretty much the norm. The first time one of my good-looking-but-straight friends here stood up and gave me a hug in the middle of a bar, I was less than enthusiastic. I’ve come to appreciate the brief but intimate connection that a simple hug conveys, but it took time. Habit. Personality. A history of having to protect one’s image. I don’t think these issues necessarily indicate “self-hatred,” but rather “the necessary habit of caution.”
Additionally, I sense that gay allegience to big-government / Big Brother Democrats is fading fast. With more and more information available about the complexities of both parties, gays who announce knee-jerk opposition to all Republicans are looking more and more naive.
Comment by MikeInSedona — July 2, 2008 @ 2:28 pm - July 2, 2008
Kevin: I don’t think someone who is opposed to gay rights and gay marriage and happily uses those as wedge issues by inciting hatred has an “honest” difference with me.
But that never stops gay liberals from endorsing them as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and giving them tens of millions of dollars, does it?
“Self-loathing” is nothing more than projection. The Democrat Party, as it has demonstrated, only supports gays who do exactly as they’re told and severely punishes gays who criticize them. Since gay Democrats and liberals can’t criticize their massas, they lash out against people who have walked off the plantation.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 2, 2008 @ 2:56 pm - July 2, 2008
Follow-up to #3: I have to admit that the interpersonal angle of this post caught me by surprise. Besides venting my spleen, I’ll add that it brings back difficult memories, esp. when I was younger, of unkind attention that men (and women) showed me.
Sadly, and with consequences, there will always be some who survive the “meat market” only by becoming butchers. Dan does well to document and expose this. His tone is consistent with the one he uses in purely political posts - one that strives for clarity, dignity, respect, love. Good going.
Comment by Jeremayakovka — July 2, 2008 @ 4:12 pm - July 2, 2008
On the political front, it’s not the Gay Republicans who are self loathing, they tend to be pretty sure of who and what they are. On the other hand, when one leaves the conservative side, there may be a lot of self loathing that comes to mind.
I think Sullivan falls into that category, of self hatred. He clearly had some very strong beliefs - that were counter to the prevailing ideology of the gay world. So he gave up his beliefs, and gained acceptance - but an ugly, deranged persona emerged in place of the old rational one.
Comment by Leah — July 2, 2008 @ 4:55 pm - July 2, 2008
Well, you know how it is with dating Larry Craig. He likes it in public bathrooms.
Comment by Pinky Bear — July 2, 2008 @ 6:21 pm - July 2, 2008
#17 - Speaking from personal experience, Yogi?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 2, 2008 @ 6:32 pm - July 2, 2008
Well, *you* might know how it is dating Larry Craig, Pinky Bear. Perhaps you can tell us all about it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 2, 2008 @ 9:15 pm - July 2, 2008
Given how supportive Democrats are to fundamentalist Islamist movements - movements which tend to be somewhat less than supportive of homosexuality or the rights of homosexuals to breath, self-loathing sounds like one of those “Before you accuse me” issues for gay Democrats.
Comment by Saul Wall — July 2, 2008 @ 11:29 pm - July 2, 2008
I just hope Larry and Pinky turn their phones off (or put them on vibrate)! (OK - done with cell phone jokes).
Comment by Robert — July 2, 2008 @ 11:31 pm - July 2, 2008
I’ve been in a relationship with the same guy for 19 years, monogamously, that is–so I wouldn’t be very well versed in men’s room sex like Larry Craig. That is his expertise.
Comment by Pinky Bear — July 3, 2008 @ 12:06 am - July 3, 2008
It’s simple, really.
Republicans very often (not always, I’ll concede that) will ACTIVELY promote / work towards / initiate legislation and policy that is detrimental or outright hostile towards gay people.
Democrats, in contrast, are either truly gay-friendly, or gay-friendly only in words but not deeds, or are gay-hostile by jumping on anti-gay legislation bandwagons THAT ARE INITIATED BY REPUBLICANS.
So ask yourselves the question: Why would you vote for a party that is so often ACTIVELY hostile to you because of WHO YOU ARE? (If anybody here believes in the conservatives’ bullshit lines about hating the sin but loving the sinner, I’d like to sell them a bridge.)
The gay conservatives’ incessant harping on and on about Clinton and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and DOMA conveniently and intentionally forget that: Clinton DID try to let gays serve openly in the military (failed yes, but he did try) and DOMA was hatched in the GOP-controlled legislature. Yes, Clinton didn’t veto it, but then again there never would’ve been something to sign OR veto had the right wingnuts on Capitol Hill not come up with it in the first place.
GOP power brokers and their talking head pawns on talk radio and Fox TV are all vocally anti-gay. So, yeah, people who call gay GOP’ers self-haters have a point.
Comment by jonesey12 — July 3, 2008 @ 12:59 am - July 3, 2008
BTW, I am very much a conservative when it comes to fiscal/monetary matters. But I am very liberal when it comes to social matters, especially gay equality and the insidious creep of Bible-thumping dogma into the political sphere.
I would love to have a fiscally responsible government (so bring back Clinton’s balanced budget in an era of Bush mega-deficits). I would love to be taxed less on my income. I would love to continue paying only 15% on all my capital gains.
But I shudder at the thought of anti-gay legislation and policy (which ONLY comes from conservatives). I cringe at the thought of America being Bible-thumped to the point that it’s a Christian analog of Saudi Arabian Sharia law. Social matters are more important than money, which is why I refuse to vote Republican.
Comment by jonesey12 — July 3, 2008 @ 1:10 am - July 3, 2008
Democrats, in contrast, are either truly gay-friendly, or gay-friendly only in words but not deeds, or are gay-hostile by jumping on anti-gay legislation bandwagons THAT ARE INITIATED BY REPUBLICANS.
So in other words, Republicans are always to blame for the fact that Democrats are antigay.
I think those two posts of jonesey’s are the best example of gay self-loathing I’ve ever seen. He’s afraid to hold Democrats accountable for their behavior. He admits that he does exactly the opposite of what’s right for him because of his minority status.
This isn’t an adult. This is a confused teenager who hangs around people who pretend to be his friends, then abuse him — and he makes excuses for them. This is a child who’s so desperate to “fit in” that he makes and supports decisions that are completely contrary to what he knows is right.
It’s like every single after-school special ever made went right over their heads.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2008 @ 3:27 am - July 3, 2008
But I am very liberal when it comes to social matters, especially gay equality and the insidious creep of Bible-thumping dogma into the political sphere.
But that never stops gay liberals from supporting it when your Democrat massas do it, right?
Just like, as I pointed out above, Federal and state constitutional amendments and job discrimination are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, worthy of tens of millions of dollars and endorsements, when the Democrat massas do it.
What that makes obvious, jonesey, is that it’s not positions on gay issues or religion that affect gay liberals like you; it’s sheer, blind, partisan adherence. You literally, as shown in these examples, will support and endorse Democrat Party members who do exactly the same thing as the Republicans you deign to hate.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 3, 2008 @ 3:49 am - July 3, 2008
It’s like every single after-school special ever made went right over their heads.
When I was a kid I hated after-school specials because they pre-empted the shows I wanted to watch: mainly, the sitcoms that came on after my mom’s soaps. But even I grew up enough to realize that the Democrats who pay you lip service and do nothing of value are no more your friends than a gay-bashing religious nut. And I didn’t need Scott Baio and Kristy McNichol to show me that.
Comment by Attmay — July 3, 2008 @ 5:19 am - July 3, 2008
Democrat lie #5,674. Sorry Presidents dont write the budget, congress does. That was the Republican balanced budget which Clinton was forced to sign.
Ah yes, “gay equality” — which we already have, but which the left insists must mean that society must value same-sex relationships every bit as much as it does the relationships that bring life into the world and reproduce society. The “equality” that “Bible Thumping” California rejected by 62%. Sorry Jonesey, that isnt “equality”, thats delusion.
last time I checked, it was Liberals telling me where and when i can and cant smoke, whatm, where, when and how, i can and cant drive, what i can and cant eat, who I can and cant associate with, what i can and cant say, read, listen to, think, that I cant defend myself, how I can and cant use my property, who I can and cant associate with…
…and yet you think Republicans are the ones who are dangerous to your liberty because they refuse to go along with your claim that buttsex is as good for society as creating life …not that you cant have a lifelong relationship with whomever you choose, but just that buttses isnt as good for society as creating life
Liberalism truly is a mental disease.
Comment by American Elephant — July 3, 2008 @ 7:46 am - July 3, 2008
And I think the reason so many on the social left object to “Bible-thumping dogma” is because Judeo-Chritian morality teaches that moral behavior is an individual responsibility, not a collective one. There’s no room for situational ethics in “Bible-thumping dogma.” This is anathema to people who just want to satisfy every base urge without consequences.
Comment by V the K — July 3, 2008 @ 10:14 am - July 3, 2008
Bible-thumping dogma
Good Lord, the stupidity.
Republicans don’t care what you do in your bedroom — but object to programs like the one in Massachusetts where gay sex activists were teaching 14 year olds about BDSM. This is Bible-thumping dogma?
Republicans don’t care what you do in your bedroom — but think the Folsom Street Fair is disgusting and shouldn’t be held on a public street, nor should young children be exposed to it. This is Bible-thumping dogma?
Republicans don’t care what you do in your bedroom— but object to the enumeration of rights and privileges based precisely on what you do in your bedroom. This is Bible-thumping dogma?
Republicans don’t care about what you do in your bedroom — but object to a media-driven culture of promiscuity that promotes a message that getting laid is all that matters, and if you care about anything other than that, you’re abnormal. Republicans are concerned about the devastating health and social consequences brought on by a culture of promiscuity and irresponsibility. This is Bible-thumping dogma?
Republicans don’t care what you do in your bedroom — but believe people must take responsibility for their actions. Many (not all) Republicans believe it’s wrong to punish (through murder) a baby for the sake of its parent’s convenience. This is Bible-thumping dogma?
At one time, what is now considered “Bible-thumping dogma” was once considered common sense and decency.
Comment by V the K — July 3, 2008 @ 10:17 am - July 3, 2008
Social matters are more important than money, which is why I refuse to vote Republican.
In other words, it’s okay for the country to go bankrupt, and it’s okay to surrender to Islam, as long as I get to stick my willie wherever I damn well please without any consequences.
Comment by V the K — July 3, 2008 @ 10:27 am - July 3, 2008
#31 - V, the juveniles like Pinky Bearster and Jonesy will be in for a rude awakening when shari’a law condemns them to death for the very freedoms they enjoy in this country.
Also, I double-dog-dare those two to name ONE freedom that any Republican administration has ever taken away from them. Just one.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 3, 2008 @ 11:50 am - July 3, 2008
I’m sure the best Pinky and the Brainless would come up with is the tried and true “they may not have *done* anything to hurt gay people, but they are constantly plotting and scheming to.” You know, like Kevin does when confronted with the emptiness of his vapid rhetoric.
Comment by V the K — July 3, 2008 @ 12:02 pm - July 3, 2008
#23 jonesey12, would you kindly explain what “anti-gay” means?
Do you mean “against the agenda of some gays” or do you mean “there’s a gay, I hate him” or do you mean something in between?
Since I seem to fall into the category of homophobe, I would like to know what the 12 jonesey steps for being “anti-gay” are.
Comment by heliotrope — July 3, 2008 @ 12:27 pm - July 3, 2008
#33 - I know what you mean. I’m still waiting for the news of the liberations of those “gay concentration camps” that are supposedly in Wyoming or Montana.
I wonder if either Punky Bearster or Davy Jonesey has a number tattooed on their wrists and if so, who did it to them.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 3, 2008 @ 1:39 pm - July 3, 2008
HAHAHAHA. The wingnuts are all riled up.
You’re all self-loathing fools.
Fun.
Comment by jonesey12 — July 3, 2008 @ 2:00 pm - July 3, 2008
I think we can take that as a “No” in terms of Pinky and the Brainless backing up their rhetoric with facts and example.
Comment by V the K — July 3, 2008 @ 2:37 pm - July 3, 2008
Jonesey,
“Self-Loathing” is a person who needs the government to validate them — people like you.
Comment by American Elephant — July 4, 2008 @ 8:26 am - July 4, 2008
Well said, American Elephant, very well said. There is something in this demand for government validation.
& we gay conservatives just want the state to live us alone. I mean, heck, aren’t we celebrating today a revolution fought for independence from the increasingly encroaching British state?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 4, 2008 @ 11:23 am - July 4, 2008
And no one (jonesey or pinky) answered my question:
I wonder, would blacks who were registered Democrats in the 1950’s and 60’s also be classified as “self haters”?
Comment by sonicfrog — July 9, 2008 @ 7:24 am - July 9, 2008