Columnist speaks his mind: Are you ‘queer’ or ‘gay’?

by Paul Varnell

There are a few issues of gay orthodoxy and the general U.S. consensus that I dissent from, and it seems worthwhile mentioning those if only to try to provoke some thought. I treat these with uncommon brevity, without pausing to answer every counter objection, just to give readers a taste of my thinking on the issues.

I continue to object to the use of the word “queer” to describe gay people. It reminds me of my youth when “queer” was a saliva spitting term of contempt for gays, if not a prelude to violence. I don’t feel “queer” in any descriptive sense; I feel like a normal guy who likes other normal guys. I dislike these attempts to obsolesce terms of abuse: I notice that African-Americans have not adopted “darkie” and Jews have not adopted “kike”—and rightly so.

For that matter, “queer” is nowadays too inclusive—embracing people who wish to distinguish themselves from the majority in their behavior, dress or other means. If you mean gay, use “gay.”

I am inclined to think the age of consent (to participate in sex)—for males at least—in most states is too high. Seventeen or 18 is higher than most other countries and most cultures historically. Most males 15, 16 and 17 years old are pretty capable of deciding whether to engage in sex and are capable of saying “No” if a prospective partner does no appeal to them.

 I will not try to decide the age of consent for women. For them sex can have significant consequences—pregnancy—so maybe it should be different for men. But I doubt if such laws have much effect, in any case.

I have no quarrel with various sorts of “trans” people and I wish them well. But I cannot see any justifiable grounds for their inclusion in the gay movement or in the acronym LGBT. Transpeople have different issues from gays and it is important to keep those distinctions in mind.

Some transsexual and transgendered people are homosexual, and they are automatically part of our movement on that basis. But a number of others are heterosexual, and I cannot see any reason why we include them. They are welcome to fight their own battles (if any) and not expect us to do it for them.

I am unable to generate any enthusiasm or even interest in contemporary “popular” culture—music, television, movies. To use an old Quaker expression, it does not “speak to my condition.” I am on a listserve that includes some younger people. If something of real merit comes along, I assume they’ll bring it to everyone’s attention. But in general I hope most popular culture is something young people will outgrow.

There are a few hundred years of high quality music, art and many centuries of literature that are waiting to be explored. Anyone would be missing a great deal by failing to explore them.

I do not understand why men engaging in sex for money (“prostitution”) is illegal. I suspect that most commercial sex laws were instituted to prevent the exploitation of women. But I am unaware of any analogous cases of the exploitation of men. It seems to be a law that catches men in its purview as if by accident.

When I was younger (and better looking), I occasionally accepted money for sex. It was a useful income supplement and harmed no one. When I have mentioned this to other gay men, quite a number have said, “Oh yeah, I’ve done that.” One man paid his way through graduate school that way.

Comment to Paul Varnell at out@outpub.com.