Gay People Need to Stop Having Sex with Republican Homophobes, No Matter How Hot They Are

Steve Locke, with a passionate rant about guys who “can’t come out.”

It’s my experience that a guy will say anything to get laid. I include myself in that. But these people go far beyond the art of seduction. This is about perpetuating a self-hating ethos, and gay men need to stop playing into it.

Paul Babeu, George Rekers, Troy King, Richard Curtis and the beat goes on. These men aren’t worthy of being called gay. They’re cowards. I’m tired of hearing about people who “can’t come out.” No one ever said it was easy being gay. There are lots of people like myself who could never pass for being straight and moreover, we never wanted to. We got the shit beaten out of us. We fought back. We marched. We got in people’s faces. We fought for our jobs and our rights. We advocated when we started to die from a plague and with the help of the many lesbians who went into the healing professions, a lot of us survived to today. So don’t tell me about how hard it is to come out. And don’t call these men gay. They aren’t gay. They are liars and cowards. They haven’t earned the right to be called gay.

The thing that makes sick bastards like this come–the thing that really gets them off–is the knowledge that they are doing something dirty. It’s so much hotter for them if it’s a secret. So that’s what sex with men is to them, a dirty little secret. That’s not what gay people are and that’s not what we deserve from someone who says that they love you, but they won’t be seen in public with you. Or worse yet, someone that will sleep with you on Sunday night and then advocate for the removal of your rights and humanity on Monday morning.

In addition, men like Babeu think that they are better than other gay people. They aren’t really gay. They aren’t like the homos that they see on TV or make jokes about. They “wear the uniform.” They are real men, not faggots. They are “straight acting,” not flamboyant or queeny. The existence of the effete and very heterosexual Tony Randall destroys this notion. It’s homophobic self-hatred that fuels a hyper macho ideal of the masculine and hatred of all things remotely feminine. That kind of macho posturing isn’t hot and it isn’t sexy. It’s sad and untrue.

If it’s a uniform thing, there are plenty of gay members of the armed services (thank you Mr. President) and believe me, you’ll never feel safer than when you fall asleep in the arms of an out and proud United States Marine.

So it’s past time to stop fucking these guys. And don’t believe the crap they tell you. They hate you almost as much as they hate themselves, and they’ll discard you like a used condom when they are done with you.

It’s truly sickmaking to see Babeu with John McCain in a video to “build the danged fence.” Babeu was in a relationship with an illegal Mexican immigrant and is advocating building a fence to keep out illegals. How does he square that with the man he has waiting for him at home? (He threatened his ex with deportation when the story began to break.)

At one point he says to the Senator, “you’re one of us.”

By “one of us” does he mean one of the closeted who loves sex with Mexican men he can threaten with deportation?

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Steve Locke

Steve Locke is a visual artist and Associate Professor at Massachusetts College of Art and Design, living in Boston, Massachusetts. Find him at www.stevelocke.com

Comments

  1. Gay men should simply institute a ‘relationship strike’ of refusing to date any Republican legislators. Talk about sleeping with the REAL enemy….

  2. Ha, you think there are no gay Republicans?
    *Or* they’re not *real* gays unless they believe the same as you…
    psst!… your intolerance is showing…

  3. Gay “people?” Try gay “MEN.” Let’s be specific here mmkay?

    • It is the Good Men Project. I am addressing men so I factored that audience into my comments. I take your point, though. These stories and my response are about men. I in no way am construing that gay people are only men, or that women cannot be gay people.

  4. I agree with this wholeheartedly. I have real sympathy for anyone who feels the need to be closeted…but that goes right out the door the moment they start advocating against LGBT rights.

  5. Jim Grinchis says:

    Nice piece! Spot on Steve.

  6. http://topconservativeblogs.com/2012/02/18/gay-hating-progressives-out-congressional-candidate-sheriff-paul-babeu/

    What the what? Gay-hating liberals? I’d just like to add that I’m personally tired of this aspect of the whole debate too. Being made to feel guilty for ‘outing’ some gay-hating Republican and thus ruining his career. You know what, if we were equal…he could be out and still have a career as a Republican. And we would be closer to being equal if a$$holes like him weren’t advocating against our rights.

  7. Mark Kelly says:

    As always, Steve calls it as it is – without cultural baggage, or ideological baggage – just straight up common sense. This is why I love him. And I’m straight. But I still love him. And I’m posting it here for all to see.

  8. Very well said. Clear, concise and well written. Good job.

  9. M. Bergeron says:

    The common tactic of a “conservative” is to try to play criticism as ad hominem attacks, like the commenter above. your rant wasn’t an attack on “gay republicans” but a plea to your own out-gay, and yes liberal (hey, why are most gays liberals? I wonder. I know it sucks to be the minority of the minority, but please.) brethren to tell these “straight acting” closet cases no thanks to the sexing. How straight acting are you in bed?, ’cause yawn.

    • Steve Locke says:

      If you are curious about what I’m like in bed, M. Bergeron, have the stones to ask me out. And you won’t be acting straight or yawning, that’s for damn sure.

  10. curiousidle says:

    Until a man or woman can be discovered by the public to be gay and not be required to have to make statements to the media clarifying their circumstances, gay rights have not come far enough. Until a man or woman can be gay without feeling an obligation to discuss their love life up front, gay rights have not come far enough. While men and women are still being castigated by other gays for being able to “pass” for straight, gay rights have not come far enough. While men and women continue to be condemned by progressives and liberals for being gay while being conservative or even narrow minded, gay rights have not come far enough. Support Paul Babeu’s right to the conscience of his choice, and then let’s fight him at the polls so that we don’t get another radical right republican in office. Amen.

    • Oh for crying out loud. Paul Babeu, and the others, aren’t being condemned for being conservative. Steve’s calling them out on their support for anti-gay legislation and candidates. Babeu could have been in the closet all he wanted…but that changes the moment he joined the Romney campaign, and the moment he started supporting laws that would have kicked his own lover out of the country. That is not okay.

      • Thanks Heather. Your comments are spot on. I appreciate them.

      • curiousidle says:

        You’re right about his support of Romney being problematic, but not everyone is a single issue voter. He may feel too strongly about other issues. That’s his right.

        According to what I’ve read, his lover is on a 10 year multi-entry tourist visa and he’s legal in this country. So, Babeu’s support for tough immigration laws are not an issue here, whether I agree with them or not. (Although, the possibility that he was using the power of his office to deport or blackmail a legal alien would be an issue … for the district attorney, if proof is available)

        Self hatred is such a complex thing. Is Babeu self hating because he doesn’t categorically reject a candidate who obstructs marriage equality? I don’t know. Is a teacher self hating if he votes for Obama in 2012? I guess it depends on what he thinks is most important. Anyway, there are all kinds of ways to practice self hatred. For instance, a rhetoric about not looking or acting gay being somehow subtly a form of elitism.. or the assumption that some gays think they’re better than other gays because they are not identifiable just looking at them or listening to them or watching them walk across the street. Why should Babeu need to make some sort of public proclamation of his gayness in order to be gay enough? Maybe he should have worn a pink triangle? These kind of remarks don’t support an assertion of a reasoned or fair argument. They have the scent of bias like a diatribe against high yellows for not being dark enough. We haven’t come far enough in society when we tell other members of a community how to be a member of the community.

        • Alright I’m going to try to take my sarcasm/annoyed level down a notch, as much as I really don’t want to. So here it goes:

          Babeu did not need to make some sort of public announcement about his sexuality. He does not need to act “gay enough,” or something. Steve’s article is not condemning Babeu (or the others) for not fitting a stereotype. When Steve says they “wear the uniform,” he’s talking about actively making sure you don’t appear to be gay. My personal appearance, for example, is something of a mix between feminine and masculine…I’ve gone more masculine (like my avatar there), and I’ve gone more feminine. Sometimes I look more stereotypically lesbian, and sometimes I don’t. Neither one is the issue…the issue would be if I were to do everything I could to appear feminine as an attempt to make sure I didn’t “look gay.”

          Now as for different people putting different issues at the forefront, yes that is true. I was just discussing that on another topic earlier. However, LGBT rights aren’t just another issue. I’m loathe to make this comparison because people always get pissed off about it, but it really is on par with African-American civil rights. (They have different histories, yes…but there are a heck of a lot of similarities too). As a political issue, it’s on the same level. I’ll try to explain:

          I am student…and if I were to vote for a candidate that put tighter restrictions on student loans, I would be voting for a candidate that does some harm to me. But would I be able to get by without student loans? Yes. Would not having student loans suddenly make me a second class citizen? No. LGBT rights are about human rights. To vote/support a candidate that is against LGBT rights is to support a candidate whose policies would make you a second class citizen. Until recently I couldn’t serve openly in the military, and I can’t get married. And getting married involves hundreds of other rights, that I do not have access to. To support Romney is to support a candidate that supports institutionalized discrimination, and if you are LGBT and you support him, then you’re supporting someone who will actively discriminate against you.

          Do you see what I’m saying? Also, all the “you’s” in the above paragraph aren’t directed to you specifically….just the general ‘you’ of people who are reading.

          • I’ll just add, I do not envy Log Cabin Republicans. Unfortunately in the US, social and economic conservative issues have been mixed together. The religious right does have quite a bit of influence over the Republican party, which can make it difficult to pick sides (even if you’re not talking about LGBT issues).

            So what do you do if you’re a fiscally conservative gay man? What do you do if you’re a Christian lesbian? Against soft immigration laws and a transman? Or a supporter of traditional values and bi?

            And I would say all of those other issues are about political opinions and social value systems. LGBT rights goes beyond politics and social mores….LGBT rights are about human rights (like I mentioned).

          • curiousidle says:

            Okay. Heather. I hear you. The important issue is whether or not Babeu supports a candidate who opposes equal rights. And you are right. There are some issues that you have take a stand on. The absolutely unimportant issue is whether or not Babeu appears gay enough for the writer, which because of the way the article is written, gets conflated in the argument. In point of fact, none of us has any idea whether Babeu is a poser trying to “pass” or if he is being himself…it’s like being told that you’re acting too white because someone else who doesn’t act that way thinks that black looks like THIS and doesn’t look like THAT.

            • If this article was an unemotional essay, then yes I’d agree with you there…but it’s a “passionate rant,” as the byline says. The point isn’t to make a rational argument with supporting facts….it’s to express the emotion and anger felt when hearing about how there are men out there sleeping with people like Babeu (and others).

              Also, it uses Babeu as an example, but it’s also calling out all the other anti-LGBT legislators and supporters out there who have a “dirty little secret.” These are people who are in sham marriages, who deny their same-sex lovers for as long as they can manage, who do their damndest not to appear gay by conforming to heteronormative standards.

              The author isn’t saying that gay men need to be flamboyant. He’s saying he’s tired of the ones who advocate against LGBT rights, and also try to conform to ‘straight’ stereotypes. Again I think the key to reading this is to realize it’s from an emotional place. To quote Harvey Milk: “I know you’re angry! I’m angry!”

            • curiousidle says:

              Okay, Heather. You’re right again. It’s a rant not a rational argument. Nice talking to you. peace.

            • I wasn’t trying to shut you down, sorry if that’s how it sounded. I was just trying to explain what I thought the author was trying to do, is all.

              I couldn’t tell if you’re comment here is sarcastic or serious.

            • I didn’t call this a rant when I wrote it. That term belongs to the site’s editor. I actually think my reasoning is very clear. My point is that Republican homophobes who have sex with men and then actively or passively try to eliminate or undermine the rights of gay and lesbian people are liars and cowards and that gay people should not have sexual relationships with them. I also submit that these homophobes have not earned the right to be considered gay because of this damaging behavior. I then go on to explain what I think is the reason for homophobic sexual pleasure (the dirty secret) and the cognitive dissonance created by closeted behavior (the hyper macho masquerade). (I need to point out here that I’m not the first person to examine these ideas – they are topics thoroughly investigated in queer theory.)

              Finally, I make the point that Republican homophobes can and will discard gay and lesbian sexual and romantic relationships when they interfere with their political lives, using the sheriff’s alleged threats of deportation of his ex boyfriend should the ex reveal their past relationship as an example. As any moderately pigmented person in Arizona knows, the police have a tremendous amount of power in deciding the fate of immigrants, legal or not.

              If you think the crux of my argument is that Republican homophobes don’t look or act gay enough, I don’t really know what to tell you. I also think the term “high yellow” in reference to African Americans (or anyone, really) is extremely problematic.

            • “If you think the crux of my argument is that Republican homophobes don’t look or act gay enough, I don’t really know what to tell you.”

              I think the way the article is written…it could be difficult to see exactly what you’re trying to say with regards to how internalized self-hatred and homophobia is expressed outwardly, unless you’re already familiar with queer theory.

              And sorry for misrepresenting your article as being from an emotional place. It just read like a bit of a rant to me (due in part to the byline). I think your reasoning is clear, but I think that the way it is written, it doesn’t highlight the reasoning…so much as the reaction. Goodness, not that I’m trying to criticize. I loved the article.

            • Steve Locke says:

              I hear you Heather. I know you aren’t critical of the content. I think the part about the way fear of the feminine is at the core of male homophobia addresses that but there is a lot of queer and feminist discourse that I don’t go into here.
              I also don’t mind that the piece comes from an emotional place. It does. I feel that good writing has both. That’s my aspiration.

            • Julie Gillis says:

              I think its a great piece without that explicit discourse, but I’d love to see more of that too. I appreciate you bringing the piece here.

            • “I also don’t mind that the piece comes from an emotional place. It does. I feel that good writing has both.”

              So very very true. :)

  11. Having been dumped by a guy when I became an inconvenience, when he had to choose between telling his family or keeping his commitment to me taught me a valuable lesson. If he’s not out he’s a coward, and that’s not sexy. If he dosn’t think he deserves to be open about who he is, if he deny’s himself that right he will have no problem denying you those rights too and he can justify it. This sad dude who threatened his BF with deportation is an extreme example of the lengths people will go to to stay in the closet. It’s a manifestation of all the hurt and denial he’s inflicted upon himself. Hopefully, down the road Babau will realize how sad and mean he has been to others and himself and will be able to turn this into a good thing and speak about it. I wish him and his BFall the best.

  12. Brilliantly said! Who is worse – the Republican homophobe or the worm who knowingly betrays his brothers and beds the goon? Now of course the ‘phobe will always find some way to sex it up (Manhunt?). But if we were to shine the spotlight on the men who DO sleep with him what do we find? Is the Mexican guy who sleeps with an anti-immigrant despot not just as hypocritical?

  13. David in SLC says:

    This article makes a few assumption: #1) love is involved; and #2) we (should) think less of ourselves if we have sex with these type of men. On the first issue, I can’t comment since I cannot love someone who doesn’t love himself. On the second, in the absence of the first, I say hell no I will not!

    I for one love to screw the living hell out of these kinds of men, unleashing their pent up desires, help them wallow in their lust and leave them a panting mess on the floor aching for me until – oh, look at the time! Gotta run! Let them keep trying to get with me again and sexting me pics and descriptions of what they want. I might let them if the mood strikes me – and make no mistake it is I who allow THEM access to this gift from heaven. If it tortures their soul or makes their lives infinitely more difficult because of what they can’t live without, the more the merrier.

    Exploitative assholes have been in power since history began and the conservatives who try to keep us down are going to keep trying to keep us down. I see nothing wrong with stoking that self-hate a little more with my own poking stick. If they want to vehemently destroy us from the outside, I see nothing wrong with gleefully helping them destroy themselves from the inside…and waiting patiently for their entire house of cards to come tumbling down.

    No, I will not feel bad about myself for screwing these kinds of men. Nor will I feel bad for men stupid enough to fall in love with asshats like Babau and who contort their very existence to facilitating the lies of another. Nor will I hate men who blather on about how gays are detrimental to life itself are because I know deep down they’d wish nothing more than to be kneeling at my feet feasting on their heart’s desire.

Speak Your Mind

*