Politics Foley: Booze & Boys
posted by on October 6 at 12:23 PM
The debate over the Mark Foley scandal has boiled down to just two questions: Bad for Republicans? Or bad for the gays?
It’s seems to me that it could wind up being bad for Republicans and bad for gays—including all you gay Republicans. (Hey there, Ken Mehlman!) The Republican leadership and right-wing Christian nutters in their base, like the Catholic hierarchy before them, desperately want to pin the blame on homos—as if we created and enforced the culture of the closet, a culture that creates, protects, and rewards men like Mark Foley.
But the average American could, after this is all over, trust Republicans less and fear homos more. We can head that off if out homos and sensible heteros keep hammering home the one thing that distinguishes the Mark Foleys of the world, e.g. the gays you should fear, from the gays you should not fear: being out. Yes, yes: out folks have done and do shitty things, of course. (Hey there, Andrew Cunanan!). But out folks generally do not have are sex lives warped by shame and secrecy—the kind of sex life, in other words, that lends itself to desperate, abusive behavior.
Shame and fear of discovery dominates the psyche of a Mark Foley, making any and all attempts to obtain sexual release fraught with panic. You can’t sustain a relationship inside the closet, in part because so few gay men are willing to settle for that kind of relationship anymore. So what are your sexual options if you’re a Mark Foley? Cruisy parks, booking a rentboy, slipping into a bathhouse—all risky activities, and not something you’re likely to do unless you can find a way to, you know, lower your inhibitions somehow. Which brings us to…
Booze.
Some people doubt that Foley is actually a drunk. I don’t doubt it—most closet cases are.
While some out gay men have serious substance abuse problems, Lord knows, the closet and the bottle were made for each other. I’ll go farther than that: The culture of the closet wouldn’t survive ten freakin’ minutes without booze. When you’re not particularly horny, just miserably lonely, booze numbs the pain. When you’re horny, booze is the only thing that allows you to suppress your fear and shame long enough to finally go out there and get some. What an incentive to drink! Which brings us to…
Boys.
A lot of closet cases go in for boys. And why not? Hot fucking boys—and when I say “boys” I mean “guys anywhere from the age of consent to extremely well-preserved 35 year-olds”—are, you know, fucking hot. And America, despite the impression you may have gotten over the last few days, absolutely loves boys. Most of the male sex symbols of the past twenty or thirty years have been men with boyish looks, bodies, or both. David Cassidy, Joey Lawrence, Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio circa Titanic, Ashton Kutcher, Brad Pitt circa Thelma and Louise, Jake Gyllenhall.
But closeted boys, particularly the ones under 21, bring something else to the table besides the reigning male beauty ideal and, absurdly enough, some of the same signifiers of fertility that attract straight men to teenage women. For the closet case boys are appealing because, often, they’re not all that bright. They’re easily impressed by even a modicum of power and money. And if they’re gay and closeted too, which some of Foley’s crushes appear to have been, they have shame and fear issues of their own, which makes them extremely easy to manipulate.
For the closet cases, a sex partner that is every bit as fearful of disclosure as they themselves are is an attractive thing. But for an older closet case to attract younger closet cases he has to be successful—he has to have power, money, status.
When two deeply closeted men—whatever their ages—sleep together, it’s like some gay version of M.A.D., or “mutual assured destruction,” the balance of terror that got us through the worst of Cold War. He’s not going to reveal your secret because you would, in turn, reveal his. You both have the power to destroy each other. An adult in Foley’s position—a closeted congressman—may objectively have more to lose if his secret is revealed, but a closeted, fearful, easily manipulated gay teenager is likelier to feel more vulnerable. While the closeted adult might “just” lose his job, the closeted teenager fears losing his parents, the financial support they provide him, his home, his siblings, his friends. His whole world, really, is at risk.
And younger closeted gay teens are often attracted to older male closet cases for a reason that’s as depressing as it thankfully is fleeting. A lot of gay teenagers—particularly ones with conservative and/or religious parents—in despair decide that they’re never going to come out. To most openly gay men a closet case is a pathetic relic from another age, but to a gay teen still bargaining with fate, an older, successful, wealthy, powerful and closeted gay man is a role model. The older closet case shows the younger one that he can have it all—power, money, status, a straight-identified life, and lots of gay sex.
Most gay teens who mess around with older closet cases quickly come to their senses—nothing cures a desire to remain closeted more than hanging out with some depressing, fearful, drunken old closet case—but the old closet cases stumble on until booze gets the better of them and they do something so stupid and risky that they finally manage to out themselves.
Hmm. Good question. I think short term might be bad, medium term will be good, long term won't really matter.
Nicely stated
Well said, Dan.
i don't know what pisses me off about this whole foley thing more--
1. the fact that people knew he was abusing his power and manipulating young boys, but did nothing to stop it
2. the fact that this giant closet case belongs to the party most in-step with denying closet cases (and out and proud gays) their equal rights
3. the fact that we live in a culture which so sexualizes young men and boys, but then becomes so reactive when people internalize this messaging and act on it
what a country we live in.
wow, thanks for that.
i've already read some of the bad-for-gays backlash of the "see? keep the gays out of our schools, and away from our children" variety.
it will indeed be interesting to see how this shakes out.
Well stated Dan.
Any chance of such thoughts making their way to a larger venue, like those NYT editorials you've had in the past?
I still fear that the net result of all this will be a big loss for gay rights.
Good post, Dan.
I'm w/ the NYT editorials hopefuls... this piece (is a blog-writing a 'piece'?) is extremely insightful and rational... it is begging for a much broader audience than SLOG.
I don't get the gay Republican thing. Like a Jewish Nazi or a black Klansman, it just don't compute.
yeah, I knew it and a few commenters last week predictied it too. It didn't take long for the right to begin to imply that "this is what the gays do." It is such a cheap shot. It shouldn't be a surprise that they play to the most ignorant and xenophobic part of the population.
THANK YOU, Dan, for saying this in such a concise, thoughtful manner. It sums up nearly everything I've been thinking.
I tried to say something along the same lines (but admitedly not nearly as well) in the comments on AmericaBlog, but got shouted down - and accused of being a pedophile - by all the "liberaler-than-thou's" over there
The only thing wrong with your argument is the notion that only closeted gays have "sex lives warped by shame and secrecy". Shame and secrecy are core white male Republican values, and are regarded as absolute positives, ESPECIALLY in the area of sex.
The average "values" Republican hearing you say the words "closeted gay" is going to hear instead "dogfucker, dogfucker, suck your son's cock", a la Senator Santorum, and when you say "shame and secrecy" they hear "the foundation of our civilization's march of progress".
Man, that was a lot of words, Dan!
God DAMN, Dan! My thoughts have mostly mirrored this, but I've been unable to express it any where near as well as you did. So frustrating. Your writing is inspired. This is why we love you.
I sent a snippy note to CNN suggesting that John Roberts(a Canadian, who should therefore know better)et al
stop using the words pedophile and pedophilia in relation to the Mark Foley "discussion". They, and others, should also look up the words "pubescent, postpubescent and prepubescent". Most of these discussions generate more heat than light. (Nancy Grace ipsa loquitur.) When I told a gay friend with a philosophy background, he said I was wasting my energy because most of the cable news shows merely seek to pander, to get ratings points.
Thank you, Dan.
Very eloquent and well said. This is exactly the kind of forceful rebuke the public needs to hear. In fact, it should be coming from the damn Democrats!
Catalina, sweetheart, me again. Sounds like you've had a change of heart from earlier this week, when you told me to grow a pair when I expressed concern over this exact problem. Remember you of the "I don't care what they think" set? http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/10/weve_only_just_begun.php (see comments). Thanks, Dan, for expressing the underlying rationale so succinctly.
In other news, how sad am I that this will be the last year of my life as a "hot fucking boy"?
Well, next year you can be a hot boy fucker.
Doug:
Godwin's Law anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
That's not a Godwin. To be a Godwin you have to compare your debating opponent to Hitler or a Nazi.
Dan Savage for President.
Yes, Dan's essay is insightful and poignant. Being closeted is terribly destructive to the soul and body. No doubt that the Republican party has been hostile to gays and some in the party will continue to take on aggressive gay bashing.
But all of American society is becoming more accepting of gays, year after year. Just as consistent as a growth in gay acceptance in society is the fact that the barking by Republican homophobes is always worse than their bite. Remember the fear we had in the 80's of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? So too, the Republican party is becoming more accepting of gays -- as is our society.
Oh yes, you can point me to facts and anecdotes to point how things are scary for gays today. But the indisputable fact is that it is getting better.
So why then, must GLBT folks automatically align themselves with the Democrats? It is, however, becoming more PC in gay circles to say you're a libertarian but gays have to go in the "closet" if they believe in Republican polices and still want to be invited to their friends’ Sunday afternoon Capitol Hill art openings and sip cheap Chardonnay.
Fundamentally, political dispositions and sexual orientations are not and should not be inherently connected.
You know, what the fuck is it with you Gay Republicans and your constant criticism of inexpensive, yet utterly delicious Chardonnay? Those of us on a budget do what we can, sheesh.
Also: I will never, ever fuck you.
Thank you Boomer. I was a little hurt, but I'm actually quite relieved as you're probably used to large garage door openings.
I got to grant you a point on the Chardonnay. You're average $8-15 bottle, not too oaky, will do nicely, as long as it's well chilled.
Gay Republican:
a) Learn the difference between "you're" and "your". Please. It's time.
b) Your statement "Fundamentally, political dispositions and sexual orientations are not and should not be inherently connected" is a true one. But one need only have eyes to see there is a distinct correlation between gays and democrats. The world needs a revolution, a balls out classic revolution for this to ever change. Republicans bark, and bite. Both are destroying us. Your loyalty is depressing and your denial is childish.
You knuckleheads, don’t you see that gay Republicans are ultimately serving your best interest? It’s going to take time, for sure, but in five to ten years wouldn’t it be nice to choose between gay and gay friendly candidates from both parties? And, quite likely, that’s already the case in several races.
What’s really depressing is swallowing your political dispositions and aspirations just to sit comfortably in a party that accepts you but a portion of that acceptance is just lip service.
Yes, there is mostly lip service from the Republicans as well. I don’t pretend to have all this wrapped up with a pretty bow.
And blah. Blah. Blah.
All that verbiage & garbage to put lipstick on a bloated pig of a story about queers being queer.
You have even less of a hook for hanging this hog on blame-shifting rationalizations (closets! hypocrisy! internalized self-hating homophobia! Jewish Nazis!) than you had for hanging gay-pedo priests on the 'conservative' hierarchy of the Church.
Quit being boy-toy coy, Dan. Be loud & be proud. Foley is part of who you are, even if he IMs & you don't.
Bad for Republicans, certainly. But bad for gays? Isn't this about a senator abusing his position to exercise his desire for underage boys? Anyone trying to paint it as bad for gays is drifting too far off the subject.
Dan Savage is no journalist in his "Mark and Me" story: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=84784
This is gay bashing. The Democrats and their buddies in the media are gay bashing. They are trying to disgust values voters with the Republican Party because guys like Foley are in it.
Why does homosexuality have anything to do with the story?
According to Wanda Sykes, Foley is giving alcohol a bad name.
http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2006/10/wanda-sykes-foley-is-giving-alcohol.html
Yo PGR! The Foley scandal will hit two groups hardest: closeted gay Republicans and Proud Gay Republicans. First off, the closet cases will be that much more afraid to come out. Secondly, many out and semi-out gay Republican political staffers and consultants (at least on the D.C. level) will likely be forced out to calm the party's rural Christian base. In fact, many leading lights of the Republican Party have reacted to the Foley scandal by noting that having sex with teenagers is just what gay men do. If you're a proud Republican, the Christian wingnuts are your people, PGR. Cherish them.
Gay Republicans, at all levels of being out, are not going to run out of D.C. or elsewhere just because of some stereotypes by far-right homophobes. Nor will Republicans stay home in November over this and hand Congress over to the Democrats just because they are disillusioned by their party because of one sex scandal. My how we love to take these little nuggets, make broad generalizations, and see if our hype sticks. We ALL love doing that.
Some folks are get so mad over sex scandals, whether it be Foley, Clinton, that they indeed express their vote over it. But most voters vote because of the issues they care about. Still, Congress has lower approval ratings than the president. Anger over inaction over Social Security, immigration, energy, Iraq, etc, hurts incumbents, and Foley added gasoline to the file – but that’s about all.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Daddy didn't love you, and now you're a Republican, whatever.
You're not the voice of reason in the middle of the storm, PGR--you're a cheap mobile home perched on cinderblocks, and the wind's just starting to howl.
OK, so I have some pink flamingos in front, and a transmission in the bathtub. I'm still happy. Go figure.
"nutters in their base" reminds me of a tasty snack!
excellent post, dan.
Hmm. Good question. I think short term might be bad, medium term will be good, long term won't really matter. I disagree go to http://www.apartments.waw.pl/
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).