Integrate The Straights

About this integration bit — homosexuals and straight society scene. The idea needs turning inside out. Heterosexuals should integrate into homosexual society — not the other way round. I am not saying the whole of straight society should integrate for obvious reasons of dispersing the minority society – just little bundles of het individuals.

Homosexuals are already integrated into society within the personal limitations we all know about.

When declared straights and declared gays get together in discussion groups or larger forums, everyone expounds on the similarities. The more reasoned the discussion the wider the separation. No matter whether the topic is garden committees, ornithology or the price of wheat, – the ONE AND ONLY THING that heterosexuals want to know – balk at – think about is HOMOSEX.

Don’t let’s mess about – this is and always will be the great divider. I can sense the straights’ suspended anticipation until sex is mentioned. When it arises their conditioning scatters in chaotic internal confusion. Their prejudices boil up to the surface and retreat in humourless disorder without leaving the room. Those who wish genuinely to understand gays, in reality wish to understand how and WHY physical love with someone of the same sex.

It is their obsession, not ours. It can never be said enough. There won’t be any integration ever, until this hangup is realised and acknowledged and said by both gays and straights. When Jews or blacks – to use the tired old minority bit – declare themselves in society the argument is usually on religious, ethnic and social discrimination – BUT when a Jewish or black homosexual declare themselves, it’s their sex they are forced to defend. Have any of us heard a gay person ask of a straight “What exactly do you do?” Why don’t we ask? Because we already know and aren’t interested. If we don’t know in detail, we can find out from any movie, play or book. Obviously one of the ways for heterosexual integration is that homosexual films, plays and books are as commonplace as heterosexual ones.

Does any heterosexual have to define or defend their sexuality in public? Does any heterosexual have to make a demonstration about kissing in public, thereby being unnaturally aggressive? Or suppress all need to, in order to pass as a pseud-gay? Can there ever be easy male chat about sex between gay and straight men? To a great many gay men cunt is repellant and the female body distasteful. The straight male rarely appreciates enthusiastic descriptions of blowing and rimming and fellation with a fella. Can you see a straight father discussing children’s upbringing with male-pairbond-parents in the natural way of things? Few gay women will take a straight woman’s description, for any length of time, of being screwed by her old man, without nightmarish, incomprehension as to why the het she puts up with it; or be deeply disturbed it could happen to their partners.

Unbothered by the Balls and Breasts Brigade, gay minds and energy can and do apply themselves to just about anything in society.

What is homosexual society? First of all it is not a child-based society, although there are homosexual parents with children within it.

Secondly there is a far greater dependence and need for social contact with adults which makes for the pubs and bars scene being so essentially gay. Thirdly the conversation content and language is different and distinctive, and the humour is full of visual images and send-up. Fourthly the gender roles between male and female, female and female, male and male gays, bear no relation to the stereotyped images straight society believes to be true. Nor is there any similarity in role-playing to the male and female straight stereotypes.

Unable to be gay by day, the social scene is heaviest in the evenings and at weekends, outside work and the family if it is straight. Holidays are spent in predominantly gay places and the behaviour patterns remain the same, no matter the country or nationality.

Were heterosexuals to stand out as freaks in a gay community, they would do one of two things: find a straight society in which they could be themselves, or become pseud-gays. Until a heterosexual experiences the lack of signals being recognised and/or being acknowledged by the opposite sex because they are gay, they can never begin to understand the isolation within society which is experienced every day as a part of a gay’s life in straight society.

Until the sexual divide disappears, we are living in fairy tales about integration. Social, intellectual and moral grounds are no substitute. In the present male-structured society the lesbian does have the edge over queens. She and the straight fellas have a big thing in common – they both go for girls!

Who’s Kidding Who Episode 2: The Kids

In these enlightened times of Conservative Parliamentary democracy, and entry into Europe, you’d think peoples’ attitudes were changing. After all, you’ve only got to walk down the High Street on a Saturday morning to see some of those massive changes, like the communal knees up going on outside Boots. The “TV Times”, organ of the IBA reflects the blatant hypocrisy of our times admirably.

Under the title “Not just a pretty face,” it announced recently in large type that “more and more actors are taking parts that present them as pretty.” I pinch myself. No, I’m not reading “Jeffrey” or an early edition of “Films and Filming”. There on the facing page are photographs of David Essex, Murray Head, Brian Deacon and Bjorn Andresen (Death In Venice) looking provocatively sexual.

David Essex – Is he just a pretty face? The one-time Jesus consistently says he is married. [Photograph: R.I. Poff]
Interview one, and did you know, back-stage at “Godspell” you can’t tell the difference between the young men and women prancing around with make up on. “A young man hugged and kissed a woman with the words, “Mind my make up darling.” David Essex, as Jesus, accompanied by his much stressed wife, apparently giggling, thinks, “pretty boys are doing well, because young girls have loud voices and seem to be carrying all the weight at the moment.”

Well let’s face it, they are a big giggle aren’t they, these instant exposé interviews on the permissive society of theatre and films, where everyone pretends to be just that teeny weeny bit perverse, but where they’re really happily married. It’s all one big blue joke really.

A bit further down the page our hack feature writer gets to Murray Head, and the elegant prose gets still more disturbing. Head, we are told, lives chain smoking hand rolled cigarettes, with his wife, in a Chelsea flat that looks like a ‘set for Scheherezade’, just like the flat the character he played in Sunday Bloody Sunday lived in, in fact. Arrogantly, he informs our heroic interviewer that personally he doesn’t care if the public consider him to be bi-sexual. “But it may have prevented him from getting other parts. Directors have said they don’t want someone like that in their films.” Poor Murray, he goes on to say that he had to suppress so much of himself to play the part in Sunday Bloody Sunday, that after the strain he had to find himself again.

If I was John Schlesinger and I read that interview, I would plunge into something rather worse than a sea of despair. Surely the crux of Sunday Bloody Sunday lay in exposing the madness of preserving an outer crust of middle-class respectability, while leading a completely contrary private life. It set out to show as ridiculous the whole concept of attaching importance to appearance and reputation and success, that ultimately, it is our relationships with others, homosexua heterosexual or bisexual that bring real despair, or real happiness. Without questioning Murray Head’s aggressive heterosexuality, it seems very disappointing that working with one of the world’s greatest directors in a film that has done more to put peoples’ minds straight about their sexuality and nonsensical life-style, than almost any other book or film, none of the ideas in it even pierced Mr Head’s seemingly very thick skin. Perhaps that’s why he was chosen “from 2000” to play the character he did play.

In conclusion, did you know that Dirk Bogarde had “early problems because of his good looks,” and Tony Curtis “faced similar difficulties”.