quote:
Originally posted by Billy 9:
I've been spending way too much time reading the posts in this forum. It seems there is one side that dislikes the way gay people were portrayed: cottaging, drug abuse, cheating etc. And then there is another side that insists that it is wrong to condemn them. Even worse, expressing disapproval is a sign of hetero-normative pretension.
I think this oversimplifies things. The responses here cannot fit into two distinct categories.
Many people didn't like Clapham Junction because of they way that many of the characters were depicted. Some people didn't like Clapham Junction because they felt it didn't represent them. Some were concerned that people who didn't know better would think that they behaved in the same way as the characters in the film. These are all valid arguments to which there are equally many valid counter-arguments.
Some people didn't like Clapham Junction because it portrayed gay sex.
The difference between expressing disapproval and outright condemnation is a difficult one. The problem with expressing disapproval is not that it is hetero-normative but that it is all too easy for one's remarks to appear to be a personal condemnation of individuals who happen to fall into that group. In situations where such people are doing no harm to the rest of us I feel that condemnation is simply persecution of those who are different.
That doesn't stop any of us, if we feel the need, to state that we would not behave in the same way.
quote:
They have two arguments for their position. The first one is that these behaviors exist in the straight world as well, and therefore they are okay. If we see ourselves as equals, why do we defer to heterosexuals when it comes to setting behaviorial standards?
I've already responded on this point to correct a misunderstanding. However, realistically, since society sets our behavioural standards and since society is predominantly heterosexual, it is inevitable that heterosexuals will set the behavioural standards. The important thing is to ensure that these standards are expected of everybody equally and that we do not have a situation where one section of society must maintain 'higher' (for want of a better word) standards of behaviour in order to be allowed to exist.
I think this is one of the things that Clapham Junction tried to address. Does that disparity exist? I think it does.
quote:
The second argument seems to be that since we want tolerance from the society, we should also be tolerant to others, regardless of what they do.
I don't think the need to be tolerant has anything to do with requiring it from others. It just makes life so much easier for everyone. Nobody would suggest that we should be tolerant 'regardless of what they do'. There are clearly things that nobody would tolerate. I do think that if somebody is doing no harm then there is no need to condemn them.
quote:
However, this approach of indiscriminant tolerance forces gay men to take the most permissive position in every issue, thus limiting our ability to participate fully and equally in debates that shape our social norms.
Again, being gay doesn't really come into it for me, being tolerant is more about being human. It is not the case that anybody is forced to take the permissive view on every issue. The important thing to consider is whether it does any harm and if one feels that it does then it is right to take the opposing view.
quote:
This approach to "tolerance" will only confine us to "behavioral ghettos" and does not offer true equality.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.
quote:
As a gay men, I can understand that the oppression in the past forced the previous generations to live in a secretive underworld, and certain behaviors developed from that environment. Anonymous encounters, lack of emotional commitment and living only for today were the tools that helped generations of gay men survive. We can embrace them as our history However, we don't need to embrace them as our future. If we are ready to be accepted as equals, we need to start behaving as equals.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that this is not already the case.
The thing to remember about Clapham Junction is that it sought to explore why people behave in the way depicted. It didn't seek to promote it. Nobody truly believes that the characters are representative of the gay community, or any other come to that.
