Freedom to Kiss

[Daniel]

I recently was kissed by a straight colleague at work, in rehearsals for a Gilbert and Sullvan operetta. The director asked this friend of mine- a guy who recently got married - and who is a Christian- to give me a big smooch on the cheek- with a loud smack- all in jest of course. The problem was, my friend was so embarrassed that the director had to give the 'bit' to another colleague, also straight and married- he just thought it was hystercial. Funny what a little kiss can do.

This made me think about the lastest bruhaha over the snickers commercial and how kissing by same-sex partners in public is still a big ol' no-no.

My guy and I kiss when we are going different directions when about town. But there is still that moment- at least for me anyway- where I think- this is not just a kiss- this is a declaration of independence.

Here's an article on the whole matter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/fashion/18affection.html

February 18, 2007
A Kiss Too Far?

By GUY TREBAY
THE spot was only 30 seconds, almost a blur amid the action at the Super Bowl. Yet the hubbub after a recent commercial showing two auto mechanics accidentally falling into lip-lock while eating the same Snickers bar went a long way toward showing how powerfully charged a public kiss between two men remains.

Football is probably as good a place as any to look for the limits of social tolerance. And the Snickers commercial — amusing to some, appalling to others and ultimately withdrawn by the company that makes the candy — had the inadvertent effect of revealing how a simple display of affection grows in complexity as soon as one considers who gets to demonstrate it in public, and who, very often, does not.

The demarcation seemed particularly stark during the week of Valentine’s Day, when the aura of love cast its rosy Hallmark glow over card-store cash registers and anyone with a pulse. Where, one wondered, were all the same-sex lovers making out on street corners, or in comedy clubs, performance spaces, flower shops or restaurants?

“There’s really a kind of Potemkin village quality to the tolerance and acceptance” of gay people in America, said Clarence Patton, a spokesman for the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project. “The idea of it is O.K., but the reality falls short.”

Provided gay people agree to “play a very tightly scripted and choreographed role in society, putting your wedding together or what have you, we’re not threatening,” Mr. Patton said. “But people are still verbally harassed and physically attacked daily for engaging in simple displays of affection in public. Everything changes the minute we kiss.”

The lugs in the Snickers commercial recoiled in shock at their smooch, resorting to “manly” behavior like tearing out their chest hair in clumps. Alternate endings to the commercial on a Snickers Web site showed the two clobbering each other, and related video clips featured players from the Super Bowl teams reacting, not unexpectedly, with squeamish distaste. The outrage voiced by gay rights groups similarly held little surprise.

“This type of jeering from professional sports figures at the sight of two men kissing fuels the kind of anti-gay bullying that haunts countless gay and lesbian schoolchildren on playgrounds across the country,” Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement. A spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation condemned the advertisement as “inexcusable.” Masterfoods USA, a division of Mars and the maker of Snickers, withdrew the offending ads.

But for some the commercial left the lingering question of who owns the kiss? How is it that a simple affectionate gesture can be so loaded? Why is it that behavioral latitudes permit couples of one sort to indulge freely in public displays lusty enough to suggest short-term motel stays, while entire populations, albeit minority ones, live real-time versions of the early motion picture Hays Code: a peck on the cheek in public, one foot squarely planted on the floor?

The freedom to kiss in public is hardly the most compelling issue for most gay rights advocates, or perhaps even in the minds of many gay Americans. Yet the symbolic weight of simple gestures remains potent, a point easy to observe wherever on the sexual spectrum one falls. “Whose issue is it? Why is it only a gay issue?” said Robert Morea, a fitness consultant in New York.

Although Mr. Morea is heterosexual, his client list has long included a number of high-profile professionals, the majority of them gay women and men. “The issue is there because for so many years, people got beaten up, followed or yelled at,” he said. “Even for me as a straight man, it’s obvious how social conditioning makes it hard for people to take back the public space.”

After considering herself exclusively lesbian for decades, Sarah Van Arsdale, a novelist, not long ago found, to her surprise, that she had fallen in love with a man. At first, as she wrote last week in an e-mail message from a writer’s colony in Oaxaca, Mexico, “ Whenever we would hold hands in public, I felt a frisson of fear, waiting for the customary dirty looks or at least for the customary looking-away.”

In place of revulsion, Ms. Van Arsdale was startled to discover that, having adjusted her sexual identity, she was now greeted by strangers with approving smiles. “I felt suddenly acceptable and accepted and cute, as opposed to queer,” she said.

While few are likely to have shared Ms. Van Arsdale’s singular perspective, her experience is far from exceptional. “I’m a very openly gay man,” said Dane Clark, who manages rental properties and flies a rainbow flag from his house in Kansas City, Kan. “My partner and I don’t go kissing in public. I live in probably the most liberal part of the State of Kansas, but it’s not exactly liberal. If I was to go to a nice restaurant nearby and kiss my partner, I don’t think that would go over very well.”

As many gay men have before him, Mr. Clark chose to live in a city rather than the sort of small town where he was raised in the hope that Kansas City would provide a greater margin of tolerance and also of safety. Even in nearby Independence, Mo., he said, “if you kiss your partner in a restaurant, you could find somebody waiting for you outside when you went to the car.”

But haven’t things changed radically from the days when lesbians and gay men were considered pariahs, before gay marriage initiatives became ballot issues, before Ellen DeGeneres was picked to host the Oscars, and cable TV staples like “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” made a competitive sport of group hugs?

In some senses and in certain places, apparently, they have. The landscape of acceptance, as the Snickers commercial inadvertently illustrated, is constantly shifting — broadening in one place and contracting somewhere else. The country in which anti-gay advocates like the Rev. Fred Phelps once drew headlines for picketing Matthew Shepard’s funeral and preaching what was called “a Day-Glo vision of hatred” can seem very far away at times from the laissez-faire place in which an estimated 70 percent of Americans say they know someone who is gay.

“We don’t administrate public displays of affection,” said Andrew Shields, World Church Secretary of the Community of Christ, a Christian evangelical church with headquarters in Independence. “Homosexuality is still in discussion in our church. But our denominational point of view is that we uphold the worth of all persons, and there is no controversy on whether people have a right to express themselves.”

The tectonics of attitude are shifting in subtle ways that are geographic, psychic and also generational, suggested Katherine M. Franke, a lesbian who teaches law and is a director of the Center for the Study of Law and Culture at Columbia University. “I’ve been attacked on the street and called all sorts of names” for kissing a female partner in public, Professor Franke said. “The reception our affection used to generate was violence and hatred,” she added. “What I’ve found in the last five years is that my girlfriend and I get smiles from straight couples, especially younger people. Now there’s almost this aggressive sense of ‘Let me tell you how terrific we think that is.’ ”

Yet gay-bashing still occurs routinely, Mr. Patton of the Anti-Violence Project said, even in neighborhoods like Chelsea in Manhattan, where the sight of two men kissing on the street can hardly be considered a frighten-the-horses proposition. “In January some men were leaving a bar in Chelsea,” saying goodbye with a kiss, Mr. Patton said. “One friend got into a taxi and then a car behind the taxi stopped and some guys jumped out and beat up the other two.” One victim of the attack, which is under investigation by the police department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, was bruised and shaken. The second had a broken jaw.

“The last time I was called a faggot was on Eighth Avenue,” said Joe Windish, a longtime New Yorker who now lives in Milledgeville, Ga., with his partner of many years. “I don’t have that here, and I’m an out gay man,” said Mr. Windish, whose neighbors in what he termed “the reddest of the red states” may be fundamentalist Christians who oppose gay marriages and even civil unions, but “who all like me personally.”

Tolerance has its limits, though, as Mr. Windish found when he and his partner took a vacation on a sleepy island off the coast of Georgia. “I became aware that if I held my partner’s hand, or kissed him in public, the friendliness would stop,” he said.

What Mr. Windish calls a level of peril is possibly always in play, and this no doubt has something to do with the easily observed reality that a public kiss between two people of the same sex remains an unusual occurrence, and probably not because most are holding out for the chance to lock lips over a hunk of milk chocolate, roasted peanuts and caramel.

“We forget here, because New York has been relatively safe for a while, that hate is a problem,” said Roger Padilha, an owner of MAO public relations in New York. The reminders surface in everyday settings, he said, and in ordinary ways.

“My boyfriend and I always hold hands and, when we feel like it, we kiss,” Mr. Padilha said. Yet some weeks back, at a late movie in a Times Square theater, as Mr. Padilha went to rest his hand on his partner’s leg — a gesture it would seem that movie theaters were invented to facilitate — he recoiled as sharply as had one of the Snickers ad guys.

“He was like: ‘Don’t do that. It’s too dangerous,’ ” Mr. Padilha said. “And afterward I thought, you know, my dad isn’t super into P.D.A.’s, but nobody’s ever going to beat him up because he’s kissing my mom at a movie. I kept thinking: What if my boyfriend got hit by a car tomorrow? When I had the chance to kiss him, why didn’t I?”

[Zerbie]

Thanks for this topic, Daniel. It's multi-layered.

I recognize my own experience described by that novelist who identified as lesbian then fell for a man. Lemme tell ya, it's a really different feeling when everyone reacts approvingly, strangers smiling, etc, when you are cuddling with a partner in public - having been a bit used to looking over my shoulder, living in TX and dating other girls before then. I really notice the straight privilege all the time.

Also the stage issues. . . remind me, I need to PM you. ;)

[andrewlittle]

This is just a short reply as I digest and think about the whole issue.

The lugs in the Snickers commercial recoiled in shock at their smooch, resorting to “manly” behavior like tearing out their chest hair in clumps. Alternate endings to the commercial on a Snickers Web site showed the two clobbering each other, and related video clips featured players from the Super Bowl teams reacting, not unexpectedly, with squeamish distaste.

Makes me wish I wasn't saddled with being a "man". While this pitiful commercial played on the absolute lowest common cultural denominator, it says a damn sight more about the general perception that men are still neanderthals who need to prove their manliness by wreaking violence on others or even themselves. I am so damn tired of this bullshit I could scream.

What was really ridiculed (unintentionally I am sure) is the fear of "real men" that their masculinity is so fragile - so tenuous - that an inadvertant kiss could strip it away, rendering them void of testosterone and gonads.

Real men don't equate their masculinity with chest hair or the ability to pound another into a bloody pulp. And, I would hope, real men would rather die than ever eat another Snickers bar, or any other product put out by Mars.

F--k them. My masculinity is found in what is in my heart, not what I can hold in my right hand.

[suzer1013]

I encounter this all the time, as I'm sure most GLBT people do.

I made a reservation at a restaurant last night for our Valentine's dinner. (We decided to go out to dinner this weekend, instead of in the middle of the week.)

The guy taking the reservation asked: "is this for a special occasion?"

I would have liked to have said "yes, this is for Valentine's Day." But I couldn't, because when two women show up and the restaurant has some special "treat" (or even worse, the waiters come surprise us with a song) ready, well, it just wouldn't go over well here in what is one of the most conservative counties in Georgia. If I were taking a boyfriend or husband, there would be no questions asked.

I know it's just a small thing, but in some ways, it feels huge. I'd love someday to have the opportunity to just be open about our relationship, without having to worry about the range of reaction -- which could be anything from acceptance to disapproval to violence -- from other people.

Susan

[BenL]

http://thepaintedturtle.blogspot.com/2005/03/heterosexual-privilege-checklist.html

Daily effects of straight privilege

This article is based on Peggy McIntosh’s article on white privilege and was written by a number of straight-identified students at Earlham College who got together to look at some examples of straight privilege. These dynamics are but a few examples of the privilege which straight people have. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer-identified folk have a range of different experiences, but cannot count on most of these conditions in their lives.

On a daily basis as a straight person…


- I can be pretty sure that my roomate, hallmates and classmates will be comfortable with my sexual orientation.
- If I pick up a magazine, watch TV, or play music, I can be certain my sexual orientation will be represented.
- When I talk about my heterosexuality (such as in a joke or talking about my relationships), I will not be accused of pushing my sexual orientation onto others.
- I do not have to fear that if my family or friends find out about my sexual orientation there will be economic, emotional, physical or psychological consequences.
- I did not grow up with games that attack my sexual orientation (IE fag tag or smear the queer).
- I am not accused of being abused, warped or psychologically confused because of my sexual orientation.
- I can go home from most meetings, classes, and conversations without feeling excluded, fearful, attacked, isolated, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, stereotyped or feared because of my sexual orientation.
- I am never asked to speak for everyone who is heterosexual.
- I can be sure that my classes will require curricular materials that testify to the existence of people with my sexual orientation.
- People don't ask why I made my choice of sexual orientation.
- People don't ask why I made my choice to be public about my sexual orientation.
- I do not have to fear revealing my sexual orientation to friends or family. It's assumed.
- My sexual orientation was never associated with a closet.
- People of my gender do not try to convince me to change my sexual orientation.
- I don't have to defend my heterosexuality.
- I can easily find a religious community that will not exclude me for being heterosexual.
- I can count on finding a therapist or doctor willing and able to talk about my sexuality.
- I am guaranteed to find sex education literature for couples with my sexual orientation.
- Because of my sexual orientation, I do not need to worry that people will harass me.
- I have no need to qualify my straight identity.
- My masculinity/femininity is not challenged because of my sexual orientation.
- I am not identified by my sexual orientation.
- I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help my sexual orientation will not work against me.
- If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has sexual orientation overtones.
- Whether I rent or I go to a theater, Blockbuster, an EFS or TOFS movie, I can be sure I will not have trouble finding my sexual orientation represented.
- I am guaranteed to find people of my sexual orientation represented in the Earlham curriculum, faculty, and administration.
- I can walk in public with my significant other and not have people double-take or stare.
- I can choose to not think politically about my sexual orientation.
- I do not have to worry about telling my roommate about my sexuality. It is assumed I am a heterosexual.
- I can remain oblivious of the language and culture of LGBTQ folk without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
- I can go for months without being called straight.
- I'm not grouped because of my sexual orientation.
- My individual behavior does not reflect on people who identity as heterosexual.
- In everyday conversation, the language my friends and I use generally assumes my sexual orientation. For example, sex inappropriately referring to only heterosexual sex or family meaning heterosexual relationships with kids.
- People do not assume I am experienced in sex (or that I even have it!) merely because of my sexual orientation.
- I can kiss a person of the opposite gender on the heart or in the cafeteria without being watched and stared at.
- Nobody calls me straight with maliciousness.
- People can use terms that describe my sexual orientation and mean positive things (IE "straight as an arrow", "standing up straight" or "straightened out" ) instead of demeaning terms (IE "ewww, that's gay" or being "queer" ) .
- I am not asked to think about why I am straight.
- I can be open about my sexual orientation without worrying about my job.

[Daniel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/nyregion/19civil.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin

I identify with these guys- cobbling together a modicum of rights. Let's just call marriage for what it is and be done with it! Whether it is a kiss at the altar or a kiss at City Hall, it means that these two guys are in it for the long haul.

May they be kissed by angels.


By JOHN HOLL
Published: February 19, 2007
TEANECK, N.J., Feb. 19 — Just after the stroke of midnight, Steven Goldstein and Daniel Gross reaffirmed their civil union vows here and ushered in a new era for same-sex couples in New Jersey.

The brief ceremony officiated by State Senator Loretta Weinberg and attended by family, friends and a crush of news media was believed to have been the first after civil unions for gay couples were permitted under state law.

“It’s a bittersweet moment because it is not a marriage ceremony, but it is a step forward,” said Mr. Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, a gay rights group.

Mr. Goldstein joined into a civil union with Mr. Gross in Vermont in 2002. The couple, who met in 1992 and now live in Teaneck, were also married in Canada.

Couples around the state have been waiting with a New Year’s Eve like anticipation for 12:01 a.m. Monday since Gov. Jon S. Corzine signed the law allowing civil unions, though many were still disappointed with the term, preferring “same-sex marriage” or “spousal union.”

[NathanATX]

Man, I'm so emotional lately. That picture got me choked up instantly. :love: :'( :)

[tlchris]

i can certainly relate to this topic, and i appreciate the article. my girlfriend and i were recently out with my gay aunt and her wife of 30 years. we were shocked to discover they were embarassed by our public affection - a pop kiss and holding hands- nothing obscene. this generated a host of uneasy feelings. i think it is ironic that the gay community is so torn over this topic.

-tara

[kimmyd]

Thanks for this topic, Daniel. It's multi-layered.

I recognize my own experience described by that novelist who identified as lesbian then fell for a man. Lemme tell ya, it's a really different feeling when everyone reacts approvingly, strangers smiling, etc, when you are cuddling with a partner in public - having been a bit used to looking over my shoulder, living in TX and dating other girls before then. I really notice the straight privilege all the time.

Also the stage issues. . . remind me, I need to PM you. ;)

I think it's sad that same-sex couples STILL cannot do what everyone else does and not be judged for it.

[kimmyd]

Man, I'm so emotional lately. That picture got me choked up instantly. :love: :'( :)

That picture was BEAUTIFUL.

[Zerbie]

I think it's sad that same-sex couples STILL cannot do what everyone else does and not be judged for it.

Oh absolutely!

It puts couples in a position of wondering if they should self-censor, which I think many do out of long years of habit, or if they can go ahead with a simple act like hand-holding without being blindsided by verbal violence, or worse.

[Sokrates]

I recognise that last image so well! I just saw it on the news I think... something about New Jersey (I think it was) allowing gay couples to adopt and stuff. (Yay for them. :P )

And about this kiss thing... I mean... I live in a small town. And when my boyfriend was here to visit last summer, I felt awkward to even hold his hand while walking on the street. Each time there was a car or such, we let go of eachothers hands. As I read in that add (or what you call it) its really a loaded message... for some reason. And the fact that I live in a small town also complicates things a bit, seeing that almost everyone know's everyone. Anyhow, it was good that you brought it up Daniel. Atleast I think so... gives you something to ponder about.

//Christian

[Jennifer5]

To me this whole topic always feels just completely ridiculous, personally it makes me happy when I see any two people kiss.. as long as they have that look of being in love, nothing else really matters. Just the whole idea of this being an issue seems crazy. :o The things people worry about:rolleyes:.. there are so many better things to worry about.

*and thank you for the pictures...:love: (that could be a fun thread someone could start... kissing pictures.. maybe odd, but I bet some really adorable pictures show up)

[Alecto]

"- I can choose to not think politically about my sexual orientation. "
That kind of sums up what I was going to say. Whether you think it's a big deal or not, whether you choose to kiss in public or not, it is and will continue to be a political action. Hopefully, that's not all it is, but ...yeah. We do need to think about physical safety; we do need to be brave just to kiss someone we love.

[cew]

My best public kiss was on the steps of the Supreme Court in D.C.
Definitely an effort to claim some very important public space.

[Daniel]

As I write this post, it is the morning of Gay Pride here in NYC. And what do I find in the middle of Metro section of the New York Times on page 26? This article.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/education/24yearbook.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

NEWARK, June 23 — It started with a kiss.


A black-marker splotch covered the photo, above, in students' yearbooks.
Andre Jackson, a senior at East Side High School, leaned over his boyfriend’s shoulder one day several months ago and kissed him on the lips. He took a picture of the smooch with his digital camera.

Like other students, Mr. Jackson later paid $150 to have his own special page of photos in the school yearbook. He decided to include the picture of the kiss, to make not a political statement, but a personal one.

“I didn’t intend to say, ‘Oh hey, look at me, I’m gay,’ ” said Mr. Jackson, 18. “It was just a picture showing my emotion, saying that I’m happy, you know, whatever. It was to look back on as a memory.”

On Thursday evening, when the seniors gathered at a restaurant here for the Senior Banquet, students received the yearbooks they had bought for around $85. But the picture of Mr. Jackson kissing his boyfriend was gone. School officials had blacked it out. Roughly 250 yearbooks were distributed, and all of them had a black-marker splotch covering every inch of the photo.

“I was upset,” Mr. Jackson said. “I was hurt. I felt embarrassed and abused.”

He and another student said the photo was blacked out at the restaurant by several teachers and the principal, Mario Santos, as the yearbooks were being handed out to the seniors when they entered. The other student, Benilde Barroqueiro, said a teacher told her: “It’s not that we want to do this. It’s that we have to do this.”

Saturday, after The Newark Star-Ledger published an article about the controversy, Mr. Jackson’s blacked-out kiss became the subject of debate, outrage and inquiry.

The decision to blot out the photo was made by Marion A. Bolden, the Newark Public Schools superintendent. Ms. Bolden said that an assistant superintendent had alerted her to the picture on Thursday afternoon. “I thought that the photo was suggestive,” Ms. Bolden said.

She said she made her decision without seeing the entire yearbook, and looked at only the one page.

The thin, hardcover yearbook, titled “Take Another Look,” features many pictures of the Class of 2007, including several of heterosexual couples embracing and kissing. On the page immediately opposite Mr. Jackson’s, a young man and a young woman kiss on a couch, his hand on her leg as she sits on his lap.

A New Jersey gay rights group, Garden State Equality, demanded that Ms. Bolden publicly apologize to Mr. Jackson and his boyfriend, David Escobales, 19, of Allentown, Pa. The group is also calling on Ms. Bolden to redistribute the yearbooks with the photo of the kiss included, describing the decision to black out the picture as “homophobic” and “unlawful.”

“The school district’s erasure of this student and his boyfriend is a tragic metaphor of the school district trying to erase the lesbian and gay community from its schools, and we won’t stand for it,” said Steven Goldstein, the chairman and chief executive of Garden State Equality.

Ms. Bolden said she did not intend for the officials’ actions to be taken as anti-gay. “I’m a superintendent that talks about tolerance,” she said. “I don’t have a problem at all.”

She said she felt that the photo was provocative for a high school yearbook, regardless of whether it showed heterosexual or homosexual kissing. But she said it was a decision that was made too quickly and without taking into consideration other couples’ pictures. She said she was told on Thursday that neither of the men were students, adding that she would have been more hesitant to black out a picture of a student.

“It looked like two men kissing,” she said. “To me, it looked fairly illicit. It was pointed out as problematic, so maybe I read more into it.”

Ms. Bolden said she wanted to meet with Mr. Jackson and apologize if necessary. “He was personally hurt,” she said. “That bothers me very much.”

Mr. Jackson said he came out when he was 16 and that he and Mr. Escobales have been together since October. Mr. Jackson is graduating on Wednesday, and he plans to attend Berkeley College here.

It was unclear Saturday if the school would redistribute the yearbooks.

Mr. Jackson said he threw away his in disgust. “I didn’t feel right,” he said. “What I wanted to see wasn’t there.”

[ladyinred]

Ok we know heterosexuals can be real uptight about affection, if it in anyway seems gay or makes them look that way..GOOD grief. They need to take a chill pill and relax. Is that some sort of neurosis with them? (Well now lets clobber each other to prove we aren't gay? ) It does seem pathetic doesn't it?LOL
They would really flip if they knew in other cultures men hold hands and actually kiss each other on the cheek.(Ever see Bush hold the hand of the sheik by the way?)

[ladyinred]

This is just a short reply as I digest and think about the whole issue.



Makes me wish I wasn't saddled with being a "man". While this pitiful commercial played on the absolute lowest common cultural denominator, it says a damn sight more about the general perception that men are still neanderthals who need to prove their manliness by wreaking violence on others or even themselves. I am so damn tired of this bullshit I could scream.

What was really ridiculed (unintentionally I am sure) is the fear of "real men" that their masculinity is so fragile - so tenuous - that an inadvertant kiss could strip it away, rendering them void of testosterone and gonads.

Real men don't equate their masculinity with chest hair or the ability to pound another into a bloody pulp. And, I would hope, real men would rather die than ever eat another Snickers bar, or any other product put out by Mars.

F--k them. My masculinity is found in what is in my heart, not what I can hold in my right hand.
Andrew but you are a real man and not like those brute maniacs who have to act like idiots. If we had more like you it would be a much better world and a much nicer place.If more heterosexual men were like you ,I'd have alot more respect for them as a woman.

[Jennifer5]

Andrew but you are a real man and not like those brute maniacs who have to act like idiots. If we had more like you it would be a much better world and a much nicer place.If more heterosexual men were like you ,I'd have alot more respect for them as a woman.
I think that part is very true.... there are sooooo many things along similar to this that cause men/women relationships to fall apart. I'm not saying that the men being secure with men thing particuarly but just the overall thing about not letting your gaurd down and what-not....

[ladyinred]

The tragedy is from day one boys are told that having emotions is wrong and being a man is often equated with brutishness. But why on earth are parents trying to mold their children into unfeeling robots? I think this gay thing is carried a little too far. Any boy is is sensitive or "different" somehow gets trashed by our society because he doesn't fit into our society's bullshit as to what a man is supposed to be. I think maybe gay men are actually more normal in that they do express their feelings and they are not trying to fit some cultural box. The commercial just shows me how paranoid society is over what is in their conception of manhood which is often equated with sexual prowess and being rough, and tough or something demeaning like being a brute or a jerk. They probably should have put monkey suits on those guys in the commercial , had them walking around saying ME man OGGGG. If you really think about it is really stupid. When we look at all the domestic violence and rape and stuff in our society , this seems to me part of the symptom of the be "a man" thing.
I have alot more respect for men like Andrew because they respect women and don't have to prove shit about their manhood.They know who they are . It's refreshing to see someone who can think outside the box .

[u-dog]

My wife and I went downtown on Friday, had dinner, took a long bike ride, went to Border's for a cold frappacino and to browse, walked around the circle at the center of the city. We held hands and smooched occasionally as did many other mixed gender couples (Our city's downtown is a very lively place in the evening). We saw many same sex couples walking whom we assumed to be GLBT who were NOT holding hands or smooching. It made me so ANGRY that it is OK for straight people to show affection but NOT for LGBT people. My wife and I got pleasant approving glances from others for our obvious affection, but had she been my boyfriend and not my wife, it would have been scowls, curses, or concievably worse. It is just SO WRONG. When will the world learn to celebrate love in all of its forms?

[Zerbie]

My wife and I went downtown on Friday, had dinner, took a long bike ride, went to Border's for a cold frappacino and to browse, walked around the circle at the center of the city. We held hands and smooched occasionally as did many other mixed gender couples (Our city's downtown is a very lively place in the evening). We saw many same sex couples walking whom we assumed to be GLBT who were NOT holding hands or smooching. It made me so ANGRY that it is OK for straight people to show affection but NOT for LGBT people. My wife and I got pleasant approving glances from others for our obvious affection, but had she been my boyfriend and not my wife, it would have been scowls, curses, or concievably worse. It is just SO WRONG. When will the world learn to celebrate love in all of its forms?

I think about this all the time too!! Hubby & I are just about always holding hands. It will be lovely when we get to a time when gay couples can do the same without thinking twice or looking over their shoulders, too. The world will feel much more normal once we get there.

Meanwhile, it's still Pride month - go out and celebrate!

Love to all!
Zerbie
:rainbow::love::rainbow::love::rainbow:

[tdogg]

It's a homophobic knee-jerk panic reaction without any thought or consideration. The only right thing to do is make a public apology to the student and redistribute the yearbooks with the picture intact. If the super wanted to really do it right, she would refund the student's money for the yearbook, so he could receive it free.

Then, they can all do some readin', researchin' and talkin' and get over their fears and false ideas.

[Daniel]

Pick up the phone Ms. Bolden. What's it gonna cost ya?

The defense that the district is using sounds like pure bulls**t.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/06/062507yearbook.htm
School Board Apologizes For Censoring Gay Kiss Photo In Yearbook
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: June 25, 2007 - 11:00 am ET, Updated 12:50 pm ET, 2: 40 pm ET

(Trenton, New Jersey) The Newark School District Monday said that it had made a mistake when it censored a photograph of a gay kiss in the 2007 yearbook at East Side High School.

In a statement the district said that Superintendent Marion A. Bolden has apologized to student Andre Jackson, 18, and would reissue an ``un-redacted version'' of the yearbook to any student at the school who wants one.

"Superintendent Marion A. Bolden personally apologizes to Mr. Jackson and regrets and embarrassment and unwanted attention the matter has brought to him,'' according to the statement.

But the teen told a Newark news conference that he is not satisfied.

At no point before issuing the press statement did Bolden or other school district officials speak to him Jackson told reporters and said he is "deeply hurt" by having had to learn of the apology through a press release.

Jackson said it was "ridiculous" that Bolden had not called him beforehand and said that he continues to feel humiliated by the school district's redaction of the photo of him kissing boyfriend David Escobales,19.

The district's explanation for blacking out the pictures also has left him dissatisfied.

"The decision was based, in part, on misinformation that Mr. Jackson was not one of our students and our review simply focused on the suggestive nature of the photograph,'' the district said in its statement.

Earlier, when Bolden was questioned about the blacked out picture, she told the Star-Ledger that the photograph was "illicit".

"It looked provocative," she told the paper. "If it was either heterosexual or gay, it should have been blacked out. It's how they posed for the picture."

Bolden ordered staff at the school to use magic markers to obliterate the picture after it was brought to her attention by a board official.

Jackson learned the shot had been blacked out when he picked up his copy.

He, like a number of other students, had bought a page in the yearbook to place pictures of himself and a commemorative message.

Garden State Equality, New Jersey's largest LGBT civil rights organization, demanded the school board redistribute the yearbooks without the photo covered up, and called for Bolden to publicly apologize to the student, his boyfriend and the LGBT community.

The organization said that Bolden's action was "not only homophobic [but] also very likely unlawful."

New Jersey law bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and expression.

In addition, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in February that schools are legally obligated to protect LGBT students from discrimination and bullying in the same way employees are protected in the workplace. (story)

Same-sex relationships also have legal recognition in New Jersey under the state's civil union law.

Jackson paid $150 for the yearbook page and said that the book is filled with pictures of opposite-sex teen couples kissing.

"We were kissing, which everyone does when they're in a relationship," he told the Star-Ledger. " They are expressing happiness and love for the person they care about," he added. "It wasn't that I wanted everyone to see and see I'm gay. I wanted everyone to feel the love I feel."

©365Gay.com 2007

I'd be pissed too, after paying $150 to have my picture blackened out.

[Daniel]

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/06/062607school.htm



School Superintendent Finally Makes Personal Apology To Gay Student
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: June 26, 2007 - 5:00 pm ET

(Newark, New Jersey) A day after taking criticism for issuing a written statement to the press but not making a personal apology to a student after a picture of him kissing his boyfriend was purged from a high school yearbook, Newark School District Superintendent Marion A. Bolden finally met the teen.

Bolden showed up at the graduation rehearsal at East Side High School, was introduced to Andre Jackson, 18, and in front of the graduating class apologized for ordering the picture blacked out.

Monday, in a press release issued to the media but not to Jackson, Bolden said she "personally apologizes to Mr. Jackson and regrets and embarrassment and unwanted attention the matter has brought to him.' (story)

The press statement also said that the school district would reissue an ``un-redacted version'' of the yearbook to any student at the school who wants one.

Following her appearance at East Side High on Tuesday Bolden placed a phone call to Garden State Equality, New Jersey's largest LGBT rights organization.

During the call she agreed to meet on a regular basis, at least four times a year, with a Task Force on LGBT Diversity and Sensitivity in the Newark Schools.

The task force is being formed by Garden State Equality with leaders of Newark's LGBT community.

In the call, Bolden told representatives of Garden State Equality that the yearbook episode was "my lowest moment since I've been Superintendent."


The New York Times deserves credit for covering this story multiple times in the last week. Here is the latest.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Yearbook-Gay-Kiss.html


NJ School Boss Apologizes to Gay Student

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 26, 2007
Filed at 11:19 p.m. ET

NEWARK, N.J. (AP) -- The city schools superintendent apologized to a gay student Tuesday for having staffers black out a picture of the student kissing his boyfriend from the high school yearbook, calling the incident ''a homophobic moment.''

Superintendent Marion A. Bolden said she spoke with senior Andre Jackson, 18, a day after she issued him a written apology that said she regretted the decision to censor his personal page in the East Side High School yearbook.

''We have to own up to the fact that it was a homophobic moment,'' she said. ''That's what everybody's afraid to say. There are sensitivity issues we need to talk about as a result of this.''

Jackson on Monday had refused to accept Bolden's written apology, saying he wanted her to apologize publicly. Bolden said she arrived at the school Tuesday to find him reluctant to speak with her, but that the two spoke after she made a public apology to the assembled students.

''He said he felt a lot better,'' Bolden said. ''He said he's had more issues around his coming out from outside school than in school, so it was particularly hard for him.''

During her public remarks, she said the picture of Jackson kissing his boyfriend was not appropriate for the yearbook and that, if it was to be removed, two pictures of heterosexual couples kissing should have been removed as well.

Jackson, who paid $150 for the page, and others noted that the yearbook was filled with pictures of the heterosexual couples kissing.

The district said it would reissue an uncensored version of the 2007 yearbook to any student who wants one.

Garden State Equality, along with the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, condemned the censorship, saying it violated the state's Law Against Discrimination. Attempts to reach Jackson through Garden State Equality as well as friends were unsuccessful Tuesday night.

One outstanding issue remains to be resolved however: the student and Garden State Equality wanted all the yearbooks reissued.

I'm glad this kid stood up for himself. He's made a difference for the kids in the Newark school system.

[tdogg]

Yeah, Daniel. I read that today and thought, good, doing the right thing. Was impressed!

[Progo35]

Ms. Bolden is trying to cover her ass. SHAME on her.

[tdogg]

Perhaps, but she no doubt made a public apology and the fact that the yearbooks were offered with the picture uncensored to those who want, that's a big deal. She could and probably will get a lot of flack for that.

She rushed to judgment, made a bad call, hurt people. Now she's trying to make it right. Would have been easier and nicer to do the right thing in the first place, but we are all human after all and that means imperfect.

I'm just not one to hold a grudge really...

[u-dog]

Perhaps, but she no doubt made a public apology and the fact that the yearbooks were offered with the picture uncensored to those who want, that's a big deal. She could and probably will get a lot of flack for that.

She rushed to judgment, made a bad call, hurt people. Now she's trying to make it right. Would have been easier and nicer to do the right thing in the first place, but we are all human after all and that means imperfect.

I'm just not one to hold a grudge really...


I agree T-dogg, our community loses nothing by being gracious and forgiving and gains much.

[Progo35]

True. I'm not saying not to forgive...I'm just saying that in my experience, school personnel will do anything as long as they can get away with it-I've experienced this as a disabled person-as long as they don't get caught. Unfortunately, when I had much more serious issues in high school-like being told that I shoudn't take the SAT because I was LD and therefore not going to college-the school never had to make a public apology. They were called to task, because I filed a complaint with the OCR branch of the United States Department of Education, but if they had been publically exposed, they [MAY] have offered an apology, simply because not doing so makes them look rotten. So, that's what I mean when I say that public apologies are often made to help one's image. But, my above statement is kind of harsh.

[u-dog]

True. I'm not saying not to forgive...I'm just saying that in my experience, school personnel will do anything as long as they can get away with it-I've experienced this as a disabled person-as long as they don't get caught. Unfortunately, when I had much more serious issues in high school-like being told that I shoudn't take the SAT because I was LD and therefore not going to college-the school never had to make a public apology. They were called to task, because I filed a complaint with the OCR branch of the United States Department of Education, but if they had been publically exposed, they [MAY] have offered an apology, simply because not doing so makes them look rotten. So, that's what I mean when I say that public apologies are often made to help one's image. But, my above statement is kind of harsh.

I had to read this about three times before I realized that LD meant learning disabilities and not "later Day" I kept thinking... why shouldn't Mormons take the SAT? duh.

[BrentRichards]

Ms. Bolden is trying to cover her ass. SHAME on her.

Actually, I went to the Newark School District site looking for an email address to thank her. Her response was unusually genuine. Most of the time, people stick with the excuses and defenses posture that she took initially: "I didn't know they were our students ... I didn't know there were other kissing pictures." I applaud her for saying some of the (apparently, based on the frequency with which you hear them) most difficult words in the English language: "I was wrong." She acknowledged that the decision was incorrect, and even that it was motivated by homophobia ... as far as I'm concerned, owning up doesn't get much better.

Now, would I rather she had done the right thing in the first place, sure! But all things considered, I'm honestly impressed with her response.

[keltic63]

I applaud her for saying some of the (apparently, based on the frequency with which you hear them) most difficult words in the English language: "I was wrong." She acknowledged that the decision was incorrect, and even that it was motivated by homophobia ... as far as I'm concerned, owning up doesn't get much better.

Now, would I rather she had done the right thing in the first place, sure! But all things considered, I'm honestly impressed with her response.

I thought the same thing too. At first, I figured they'd say the "right things" and toss out some meaningless apologies as well as excuses, but these words were different. I agree that it shouldn't have happened, but I like the way this woman acknowledged the problem, took some responsibility, and apologized.

[Progo35]

U-Dog-your LD interpretation gave me a big chuckle. It's hard with all those acronyms out there. I always think of "ADA" as referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act, so when my Dad, who's a dentist, mentioned that he had to use a certain type of cleanser now because of regulations from the ADA, I couldn't think of ANY disability that I knew required a special type of mouthwash. :D

That's nice to see that this woman was really being sincere. Forgive me for being cynical, I used to be a lot more "presume the best" about people until I got screwed over a few too many times. But, I do know people who make mistakes and then honestly do their best to make it right. Noone is perfect, and I would think that those on this forum would be very qualified to assess the intent of her apology. There are about 25 authority figures that should have made an apology to me (or been sued) over the years, so I was thinking of those times, not of the times when people have actually given sincere apologies.

I remember once that I was told by another student that people were keeping a log of the accommodations I got in class. He asked why I got them, out of genuine curiosity. I mentioned it in passing to the teacher, and he was so grieved by this that he adressed the class about it after I left early at his request. Two students felt truly convicted after this and both sent me very sincere apology notes. Interestingly, one of these people had already helped me out by sending me her notes when I misplaced mine, so it was ironic that she was one of the people laughing. But, perhaps not that she sent the apology-giving me the notes indicated that she felt compelled to help others and thus it isn't surprising that she would feel guilt about her actions. People can be complicated! But my professor and these students were really sincere, which meant a lot to me. Apologies go a long way toward reconcilliation and healing. Hopefully this is what happened in the story we've been discussing.