More Countries Accepting Gay Lifestyle: Study

[LeCharivari]

There was a scale of stages I read about somewhere once in which the author was trying to determine what really defined 'gay' in its modern English usage. His conclusion was that it wasn't just about physical activities or attractions; it required a substantial and self-conscious emotional identity to be formed. Let me see if I can find a link to something of the sort:

from "The Ecological Model of Gay Identity":

'(1) awareness of homosexual feelings; (2) testing and exploration without self-identification as gay; (3) adoption of a gay identity (i.e., identity acceptance); and (4) identity integration.'

By this formulation, even in this contemporary period many of the MSM (men who have sex with men) are still not technically 'gay', nor would many people from other cultures and time periods have been.

There is also a comparative discussion with bibliography of various models of identity formation for homosexual individuals here.

Two very interesting and thought provoking links, IJWT.

The quote you give, though, refers to the models in your second link which your first goes on to criticize for exactly the reasons you give, so it could be misleading for anyone who does not read the link in detail.

Key points of the criticism are that:

"(1) the models are based on White gay men and then overgeneralized to other minority gays, lesbians, and bisexuals; and (2) the models have only one ending: "a fixed, integrated gay or lesbian identity across all situations" .... Research suggests that there are a number of pathways to developing a gay identity (Dworkin, 2000)".

" ...they ignore the bigger picture (i.e., the sociohistorical context). Furthermore, they "tend to 'minoritize' sexual identities"..., the models are typically based on small sample sizes, most are linear, and the models are overly focused on sexuality. .... there is not one history of homosexuality, but many according to the poststructuralists. Further, there is not just one gay identity: it is fluid and ever-changing.(Eliason, 1996)"

Personally, as a "white gay man", I would tend to agree with the second link, as I think the first puts far too much emphasis on ".... a gradual adoption of the norms, values, and ideals of the larger gay community (i.e., social identity). Self-esteem is largely contingent upon the second process (i.e., social comparison) hypothesized in the social identity theory. Once individuals label themselves as gay, they are motivated to perceive the homosexual group they align themselves with in a positive light. As contrasted to developmental theories that emphasize content of each stage, social identity theory focuses on the process of identity acquisition."

I disagree very strongly with the idea that in order to be "gay" I should slavishly "adopt the norms, values, and ideals of the larger gay community" . Why should someone else's values and ideals take priority over my own? Far from my "self-esteem" being "contingent" on that, my self-esteem could not be lower if I sacrificed my own values and ideals. Just because I was (and to a limited extent still am) in the military that does not mean that I perceive everything the military does in a "positive light" - why on earth should I have to do so to be considered gay??

Edited June 22, 2011 by LeCharivari

[tombkk]

What you call it doesn't interest me. However, I think that if you are gay, it permeates your whole life, more or less according to your own personality. ( As we might say, some are sexpats, others are just expats.)

I agree. I like being gay, and I sometimes feel sorry for the straight guys. But that's just me. I know gay guys who would like to be straight, I know straight guys who like the gay lifestyle and would like to be gay (but aren't), and I know straight guys who are happy with being straight.

And I know guys who have found their eternal love (male or female) in Thailand, and I know guys who enjoy their lives as "sexpats" ( to borrow your word).

That's all within my circle of friends. Who is to judge?

[tombkk]

There was a scale of stages I read about somewhere once in which the author was trying to determine what really defined 'gay' in its modern English usage. His conclusion was that it wasn't just about physical activities or attractions; it required a substantial and self-conscious emotional identity to be formed. Let me see if I can find a link to something of the sort:

from "The Ecological Model of Gay Identity":

'(1) awareness of homosexual feelings; (2) testing and exploration without self-identification as gay; (3) adoption of a gay identity (i.e., identity acceptance); and (4) identity integration.'

By this formulation, even in this contemporary period many of the MSM (men who have sex with men) are still not technically 'gay', nor would many people from other cultures and time periods have been.

There is also a comparative discussion with bibliography of various models of identity formation for homosexual individuals here.

I never heard about this before. I do know that (back in my teens and twens) I had sex with guys who identified themselves as straight, and I assured them they weren't gay. I only heard the term MSM a few years ago. It's all so difficult, all my category drawers are being messed up...

[LeCharivari]

Everybody is different, but men have more in common with other men (straight or gay) than with women. I'm sorry to burst your theory (which will get you into heaven), but it's just not reality.

Sorry too, Tom, but its not a theory at all but personal experience. It may not be reality under normal circumstances when social conditioning applies (IJWT's example of the "macho" American male is a perfect example of the sort of thing I am talking about), but it frequently becomes reality when the same social conditions apply to everyone - they seldom do, but things are changing.

[LeCharivari]

.... I think that if you are gay, it permeates your whole life, more or less according to your own personality. ...

Interesting ....

According to IJWT's link , which I tend to agree with, both you and JT (who sees being gay as a "core" part of his persona) still have one stage to go before you have fully accepted being "gay" and you are still at the "gay pride" level and have yet to move on to a stage where there is " a diminishment of centrality of homosexuality in self-concept and social relations" and "Sexual orientation no longer is the main determinant of one’s identity. Homosexuality is viewed as one part of a multifaceted self. There is an ongoing reevaluation of keeping a homosexual/gay identity separated from the other segments of one’s identity. This is when the individual fully accepts the homosexual/gay identity."

Very interesting ....

[Jingthing]

<deleted>. Please stop with the dime story psychology, dude. I said A core, not THE core, as in ONLY. I never said it was the MAIN part of my identity. For me, it is not. For some gay men, it probably is. Let's make a deal, I won't try to psychobabble-analyze you either. Fairsies?

To quote you, did you even realize the gross distortion you were making --

Homosexuality is viewed as one part of a multifaceted self.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

In what is perhaps an American, or Anglo-Puritan, perspective- adopting a gay identity is also socially important as a matter of 'opting out' of the prevailing models of masculinity in that kind of background. I think we Anglo Saxons are particularly bad culturally about requiring men to be emotionally constipated, socially distant creatures who are unable and unwilling to connect to ourselves or each other. This hurts both gay and straight men in all kinds of ways, making the default LESS social support in our lives even from males who are or could be close friends (never mind any romantic attachment). Thankfully, it seems to me most Asian populations never developed this kind of problem to such a neurotic, self-conscious and widespread degree.

For example, the closeness which even straight Thai men can attain to their 'brothers' is something which doesn't have much of an analogue in Anglo Saxon culture, even considering the concept of 'mates' or 'buds'. I would imagine that the existence of such a social model helps gay men here to adapt more easily to a cooperative domestic stance with each other in close relationships; whereas American men would have to struggle somewhat with the stereotypes of what BOTH being males (who must be macho; dominant, etc.) implied in terms of power negotiations within the relationship much more.

I'd have to agree with you there, particularly from what I have seen of Americans - its probably why a "Western" gay couple has traditionally been considered "King and Queen" whereas there is no real equivalent to that in the East.

A direct "analogue" to Thai " ' brothers' " are Western homies (which doesn't necessarily mean someone who is in a street gang). Things may be different in the States, but in the UK amongst the static working class (and the equally static upper class!) I'd say that these close bonds were not unusual, although they have become less so as people have become more "mobile". Look at the "Pals Battalions" formed in WWI for example, when infantry battalions were not just raised locally but included the Public Schools Battalion, the Stockbrokers' Battalion and two Football Battalions.

[LeCharivari]

<deleted>. Please stop with the dime story psychology, dude. I said A core, not THE core ....

So did I, dude ....

[Jingthing]

I'd have to agree with you there, particularly from what I have seen of Americans - its probably why a "Western" gay couple has traditionally been considered "King and Queen" whereas there is no real equivalent to that in the East.

Oy vey, you're talking about the 1950's. Not today.

Not in the east huh? What's all this Thai talk about Gay Kings and Gay Queenes all about then, mate?

[tombkk]

Everybody is different, but men have more in common with other men (straight or gay) than with women. I'm sorry to burst your theory (which will get you into heaven), but it's just not reality.

Sorry too, Tom, but its not a theory at all but personal experience. It may not be reality under normal circumstances when social conditioning applies (IJWT's example of the "macho" American male is a perfect example of the sort of thing I am talking about), but it frequently becomes reality when the same social conditions apply to everyone - they seldom do, but things are changing.

Let's just agree to disagree then.

[LeCharivari]

Let's just agree to disagree then.

Agreed, Tom. We all have different experiences, after all, and that's what most of us base our views on rather than any "dime story".

As for this Forum being "the bitchiest", as one poster put it recently, it looks like a Mutual Admiration Society compared to some of the posts in the Biker's and Motoring Forums! I may not agree with everything that Tom and Isanbirder say for example, although I find that I often do, but I respect their views and their integrity and take anything they may say about me as informed observation rather than criticism (and I hope they take my posts in the same vein).

Edited June 23, 2011 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

Oy vey, you're talking about the 1950's. Not today.

That could be why I said "traditionally" .....

Not in the east huh? What's all this Thai talk about Gay Kings and Gay Queenes all about then, mate?

Well, mate, dude, its "Thai talk" that you'll find in places like Pattaya and Patpong being used by the working Thais to farangs so that the farangs will know what they're buying; its not "Thai talk" that Thais will use generally or to each other and is not part of Thai culture, language or tradition (as IJWT correctly said).

[Jingthing]

I don't accept your concept of traditionally as applied to American culture even one little bit. The 1950's were just one very odd point in time in gay American culture. Gays at that time were following the conformity culture that was being strongly pushed after the war. I seriously doubt decades earlier there were the same role models in gay relationships. However, that is somewhat difficult to say as so much of our history was not really recorded.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Sorry, I am not really up on American culture or history; while rightly important to Americans both are relatively limited in comparison to so many other countries.

[Jingthing]

Sorry, I am not really up on American culture or history ...

On this we have discovered a strong area of agreement.

[Ijustwannateach]

Oy vey, you're talking about the 1950's. Not today.

That could be why I said "traditionally" .....

Not in the east huh? What's all this Thai talk about Gay Kings and Gay Queenes all about then, mate?

Well, mate, dude, its "Thai talk" that you'll find in places like Pattaya and Patpong being used by the working Thais to farangs so that the farangs will know what they're buying; its not "Thai talk" that Thais will use generally or to each other and is not part of Thai culture, language or tradition (as IJWT correctly said).

I would have to agree that this type of talk is not really Thai talk except in commercially oriented, touristy areas. Or, one could say, it forms part of Thai tourist English gay argot. If most of the Thais around you are talking in this manner, you probably only meet Thais on the tourist scene.

Thais sometimes do discuss sexual practice preferences (top/bottom, etc.) using the relevant Thai vocabulary, but I don't see much of Thai couples dividing themselves into social divisions of role using words/concepts like 'king/queen'.

[Ijustwannateach]

There was a scale of stages I read about somewhere once in which the author was trying to determine what really defined 'gay' in its modern English usage. His conclusion was that it wasn't just about physical activities or attractions; it required a substantial and self-conscious emotional identity to be formed. Let me see if I can find a link to something of the sort:

from "The Ecological Model of Gay Identity":

'(1) awareness of homosexual feelings; (2) testing and exploration without self-identification as gay; (3) adoption of a gay identity (i.e., identity acceptance); and (4) identity integration.'

By this formulation, even in this contemporary period many of the MSM (men who have sex with men) are still not technically 'gay', nor would many people from other cultures and time periods have been.

There is also a comparative discussion with bibliography of various models of identity formation for homosexual individuals here.

I never heard about this before. I do know that (back in my teens and twens) I had sex with guys who identified themselves as straight, and I assured them they weren't gay. I only heard the term MSM a few years ago. It's all so difficult, all my category drawers are being messed up...

It's something that I personally like about gay life- as you pointed out in another message, who's to judge what is 'right', if someone wants to have a boyfriend, or do serial monogamy, or sleep around wildly? It's not like we have the centuries of baggage behind us that official traditions and ceremonies around marriage do in so many places. The problem is that politically- and we do have to worry about politics- plurality just isn't very effective. That's where the conservatives, who have their traditions and dogma and apparently monolithic solidarity, have a voting block advantage. That's also why I think so many of us are bristling a little (for sometimes very different reasons) at the use of the phrase in the news article: 'THE' gay lifestyle.

I wouldn't want Asian countries to follow the exact western political models that gay PAC's have chosen; on the other hand, I think that as a group they need more representation and organisation than they have, in order to get their fair share of attention and protection from the public. How to find the happy medium.....

[Jingthing]

I actually agree with the perception that Thais talk gay queen/gay king and Thai words for sex act roles doesn't imply mirroring heterosexual social roles in actual long term relationships.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

I was having a good sleep while you guys were arguing back there. One thing I want to correct, however. When I said that being gay 'permeates' everything we do, I did not mean 'controls' or 'dominates', as someone seemed to think. It's like putting a pint of colouring into a swimming pool; you don't notice it most of the time, but it's there all the same. I also object to being associated with what LeC (I think) called a Gay Pride level; I have always objected to the whole Gay Pride concept, which I think portrays us all as a bunch of exhibitionists.

The discussion seems to have veered towards what Thais say or think about gay affairs. I do not think this is relevant to those of us steeped in Western cultures, particularly as much of it is related to the sex trade where many, if not most, of the boys are, to put it crudely, just holes you pay to put your dick into. (Oh dear, have I upset a moderator?)

Oh yes, Jingthing and anyone else... you mustn't mind if I put a flippant comment into a serious post... it's just the way I am!

[endure]

Oy vey, you're talking about the 1950's. Not today.

That could be why I said "traditionally" .....

Not in the east huh? What's all this Thai talk about Gay Kings and Gay Queenes all about then, mate?

Well, mate, dude, its "Thai talk" that you'll find in places like Pattaya and Patpong being used by the working Thais to farangs so that the farangs will know what they're buying; its not "Thai talk" that Thais will use generally or to each other and is not part of Thai culture, language or tradition (as IJWT correctly said).

I would have to agree that this type of talk is not really Thai talk except in commercially oriented, touristy areas. Or, one could say, it forms part of Thai tourist English gay argot. If most of the Thais around you are talking in this manner, you probably only meet Thais on the tourist scene.

Thais sometimes do discuss sexual practice preferences (top/bottom, etc.) using the relevant Thai vocabulary, but I don't see much of Thai couples dividing themselves into social divisions of role using words/concepts like 'king/queen'.

Peter Jackson of ANU wrote a book in 1989 called 'Male Homosexuality in Thailand' as part of his research from which I quote:

"The English-derived terms 'gay king' and 'king' and their opposites 'gay queen' and 'queen' are extremely common in the colloquial speech of Thai homosexuals. Queen may simply mean an effeminate homosexual , when it is often equated with the Thai term kathoey., but it nearly always also means a 'passive' male homosexual. Unlike a kathoey, however, a gy queen need not have a feminine appearance or be involved in cross-dressing, this being a term descriptive only of sexual and not general behaviour. The 'gay king' is the 'gay queens' opposite pole, the active or dominant male homosexual who by implication is also of masculine appearance. There is no specific word opposite kathoey to describe a gay king in Thai but there is a range of chauvinistic imrovisations such as '100 per cent male (phuu-chay roi poe-sen), 'not open' (mai poet phoey), 'a complete man' (phuu-chaay tem tua) and so on."

Part of the book consists of translations of letters to 'Uncle Go' who used to run 'Dear Abbie' type columns for gay readers in various Thai magazines. Quite a few of the letters ask about 'gay kings' and 'gay queens' so it looks as thought the king/queen thing is not confined to tourist or commercial areas but is in wider use.

[Ijustwannateach]

Endure,

Perhaps very dated, then- haven't heard the 'king/queen' thing from contemporary Thais who aren't in the tourist scene. That source is from 20 years ago, right?

IB,

I'm not upset- I know what a lot of the gay tourists are here for. I'd just rather aim for some discourse in at least one Thai gay-themed forum in English where the *MAIN* focus isn't on interactions with prostitutes, or on attempting to normalise such interactions. Since that's also the overall tone of this forum even for straight folks, I figure this is the right place.

I do find it strange that it seems you don't think that the topic of what actual gay Thais think about gay life to be interesting or pertinent.

[endure]

Endure,

Perhaps very dated, then- haven't heard the 'king/queen' thing from contemporary Thais who aren't in the tourist scene. That source is from 20 years ago, right?

Most of the letters to Uncle Go were from up-country Thais living in Nakhon Nowhere who didn't have the benefit of living in more sophisticated places like BKK and CNX. I suspect that if Uncle Go was still on the go he'd still be getting letters like that today.

[tombkk]

Endure,

Perhaps very dated, then- haven't heard the 'king/queen' thing from contemporary Thais who aren't in the tourist scene. That source is from 20 years ago, right?

Most of the letters to Uncle Go were from up-country Thais living in Nakhon Nowhere who didn't have the benefit of living in more sophisticated places like BKK and CNX. I suspect that if Uncle Go was still on the go he'd still be getting letters like that today.

True. I met Peter Jackson at the time and thought his views about Thai society and gay people were outdated even then - I was in Bangkok and he had gotten all all his knowledge about Thai society and gays from that one column in a magazine that was favoured by up-country people. I concluded (after the personal discussion) that he wasn't a researcher about Thai society and gay acceptance at all. He was just someone who had read Uncle Go.

Edited June 23, 2011 by tombkk

[endure]

Endure,

Perhaps very dated, then- haven't heard the 'king/queen' thing from contemporary Thais who aren't in the tourist scene. That source is from 20 years ago, right?

Most of the letters to Uncle Go were from up-country Thais living in Nakhon Nowhere who didn't have the benefit of living in more sophisticated places like BKK and CNX. I suspect that if Uncle Go was still on the go he'd still be getting letters like that today.

True. I met Peter Jackson at the time and thought his views about Thai society and gay people were outdated even then - I was in Bangkok and he had gotten all all his knowledge about Thai society and gays from that one column in a magazine that was favoured by up-country people. I concluded (after the personal discussion) that he wasn't a researcher about Thai society and gay acceptance at all. He was just someone who had read Uncle Go.

Did you ever read his 'Intrinsic Quality of Skin'? He spent all his time in Thailand shagging around, cottaging and generally being a sexpat then at the end complained that he hadn't made any friends.

[tombkk]

Endure,

Perhaps very dated, then- haven't heard the 'king/queen' thing from contemporary Thais who aren't in the tourist scene. That source is from 20 years ago, right?

Most of the letters to Uncle Go were from up-country Thais living in Nakhon Nowhere who didn't have the benefit of living in more sophisticated places like BKK and CNX. I suspect that if Uncle Go was still on the go he'd still be getting letters like that today.

True. I met Peter Jackson at the time and thought his views about Thai society and gay people were outdated even then - I was in Bangkok and he had gotten all all his knowledge about Thai society and gays from that one column in a magazine that was favoured by up-country people. I concluded (after the personal discussion) that he wasn't a researcher about Thai society and gay acceptance at all. He was just someone who had read Uncle Go.

Did you ever read his 'Intrinsic Quality of Skin'? He spent all his time in Thailand shagging around, cottaging and generally being a sexpat then at the end complained that he hadn't made any friends.

I think that's the book the reading was about. I had already read it in preparation for the book reading. As I shook my head in disbelief, he may not have liked my questions after the official event, during the casual part.

[isanbirder]

IB,

I'm not upset- I know what a lot of the gay tourists are here for. I'd just rather aim for some discourse in at least one Thai gay-themed forum in English where the *MAIN* focus isn't on interactions with prostitutes, or on attempting to normalise such interactions. Since that's also the overall tone of this forum even for straight folks, I figure this is the right place.

I do find it strange that it seems you don't think that the topic of what actual gay Thais think about gay life to be interesting or pertinent.

I would agree with you on both counts, IJWT, if we had Thais giving their own points of view. I just feel that farangs' views of what Thais think are bound to be distorted.

[LeCharivari]

True. I met Peter Jackson at the time and thought his views about Thai society and gay people were outdated even then - I was in Bangkok and he had gotten all all his knowledge about Thai society and gays from that one column in a magazine that was favoured by up-country people. I concluded (after the personal discussion) that he wasn't a researcher about Thai society and gay acceptance at all. He was just someone who had read Uncle Go.

Did you ever read his 'Intrinsic Quality of Skin'? He spent all his time in Thailand shagging around, cottaging and generally being a sexpat then at the end complained that he hadn't made any friends.

Ditto, in spades! When I ran into him during some of my first visits here it was very clear that his "research" consisted of plagiarising Uncle GO (whose letters were always a bit "National Enquirer" anyway) and carrying out in depth research in Harry's Bar.

[LeCharivari]

..... I also object to being associated with what LeC (I think) called a Gay Pride level; I have always objected to the whole Gay Pride concept, which I think portrays us all as a bunch of exhibitionists. .....

Guilty, but I was just quoting the psycho-babble and the reality is that I couldn't agree with you more.

What they were referring to was really "acceptance" of being gay and a lack of shame rather than "pride" - not the same thing at all. Personally the whole "pride" thing makes me cringe - I'm proud of what I have achieved, not of how I was born or the way I am. Supporting a "Gay Pride" march would to me be the equivalent of supporting the KKK just because I was white - if we want "equal" anything we should be building on what makes us the same as others and play a full part in society, not what makes us different and establishing a separate society..

[Jingthing]

Please, let's not get carried away with excessive hyperbole.

The KKK is a racist/antisemitic extreme far right wing white supremest organization.

Gay Pride parades were originally rather left wing political events to lobby for support against gay oppression. Later, their focus was dealing with the Aids crisis. In more recent years, they have become commercialized celebratory parties with political issues being pushed to the side. However, they are racially inclusive and by no means support an agenda of gay supremacy.

To suggest that the KKK and Gay Pride have anything in common is simply ridiculous, not to mention, offensive.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

..... I also object to being associated with what LeC (I think) called a Gay Pride level; I have always objected to the whole Gay Pride concept, which I think portrays us all as a bunch of exhibitionists. .....

Guilty, but I was just quoting the psycho-babble and the reality is that I couldn't agree with you more.

What they were referring to was really "acceptance" of being gay and a lack of shame rather than "pride" - not the same thing at all. Personally the whole "pride" thing makes me cringe - I'm proud of what I have achieved, not of how I was born or the way I am. Supporting a "Gay Pride" march would to me be the equivalent of supporting the KKK just because I was white - if we want "equal" anything we should be building on what makes us the same as others and play a full part in society, not what makes us different and establishing a separate society..

Yes, I agree entirely... there are far too many gays who cringe at the thought of belonging to society as a whole, and seem to want a separate world of their own. And being proud of being gay is like being proud of being English (or whatever)... we couldn't help it! (Not that we particularly want to).