09/24/2007
Chris Crocker: "I'm the Key to World Peace"
TMZ ran into Chris Crocker emerging from Mr. Chow on Saturday night. Crocker appears to be thoroughly enjoying the temporary window of fame his wailing rant about Britney Spears has afforded him.
Crocker also gets a profile treatment from the Associated Press:
"It's tough to be openly gay in a conservative Southern town, he says. There have always been death threats, bullying and glares at his clothes and makeup. Oh, and he's always pushing someone's buttons. 'My grandparents can't go to their church any more,' said Crocker, his spunk clouded momentarily with genuine concern. He's fiercely protective of his grandparents, Pentecostal Christians who took over raising him when his teenage parents couldn't. Crocker said his outrageous behavior, a stark contrast to the rest of the family, started when he was in kindergarten. He raised eyebrows that year for bringing Barbie dolls to class for show-and-tell. 'What I do affects them, and I feel bad for that,' he said of his family. Crocker's grandmother, who declined to be interviewed, is seen in a handful of his videos, appearing as an uncomfortable bystander. In one, Crocker is imitating a Christian woman interviewing his grandmother, who says she loves her grandson. In another, his grandmother is patiently arguing with him over his attitude. Crocker said that when she agreed to be taped, 'she didn't really grasp the size of the audience.'"
Has Andy Warhol's "15 minutes" quote ever seemed more prescient?
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 10:04 AM EST by Andy in Britney Spears, Chris Crocker, Internet Celebs, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Good for him?
Posted by: Rob (lrdarystar) | Sep 24, 2007 10:17:10 AM
How long do you think it will be until he has his own show on Bravo or VH1? This kid's star is going to sky rocket. If we've learned one thing from "mainstream" America is that it prefers its homos to be silly, effeminite and stereotypical. That way they can laugh at us and not feel threatened by us.
Posted by: mark m | Sep 24, 2007 10:24:40 AM
...fifteen THOUSAND minutes..."sigh"
Posted by: yeahisaidit | Sep 24, 2007 10:28:10 AM
Andy, you a wonderful purveyor of hot gay info -- but given the context, you REALLY have to watch your descriptions. I actually did a double-take at "said Crocker, his spunk clouded momentarily"
:-O
Posted by: Strepsi | Sep 24, 2007 10:29:06 AM
Well, if he was some hyper-masculine butch creature, many wouldn't have trouble with this young person. Yes, he is selfish and narcissistic, just like so many folks his age. When queens are young, we tend to be self-absorbed, vain, annoying. When we get old we're self-deprecating, humble, and lovable--if we keep our teeth & hair. If we loose those two essentials, you got an evil old bitch from hell--justa flaming!
He ought to get out of Tennessee though. He belongs in San Francisco, New York, LA or Pittsburg.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Sep 24, 2007 10:44:31 AM
I never want to see another article about this guy. Please?
14:58... 14:59... time's up.
Posted by: Roy | Sep 24, 2007 10:45:32 AM
Someone PLEASE stop him. I can see the clock of progress screaming back to 1950 with this thing representing gay people.
Posted by: MT | Sep 24, 2007 10:51:23 AM
i'd advice all those who don't like this kid to stop whining and i'd definitely ask them to stop trotting out that tired 15 minutes bit. for people who think themselves above some queeny kid who's having some fun and not hurting anyone, take another look in the mirror.
Posted by: brad | Sep 24, 2007 10:59:44 AM
advise...advise...gah.
Posted by: brad | Sep 24, 2007 11:00:19 AM
Is it just me or is this girl in denial about her transgender status? She may represent one facet of the LGBT community but I just don't see her as a gay male. I wish her luck and happiness when she comes to that conclusion.
Posted by: Winston | Sep 24, 2007 11:08:52 AM
"He belongs in San Francisco, New York, LA or Pittsburg."
WRONG. He belongs in a specimen jar in a carny freak show.
Will someone please give him a hummer? The kind with four wheels and poor gas mileage? But please back up and run over him a second time. Egomaniacs this self-serving are hard to kill.
Posted by: Blanche | Sep 24, 2007 11:10:20 AM
Actually, Brad, I would say the he's hurting a whole lot of gay people out there by reinforcing the stereotype in America's collective mind that we are a bunch of screaming, self serving, good for nothing, mincing flamers. Once again the silent majority is being hurt by some extreme example who won't shut up.
Posted by: MT | Sep 24, 2007 11:17:58 AM
The key to world peace? The key to more Matthew Shepards, Michael Sandys, and Gwen Araujos would be more accurate.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 24, 2007 11:20:08 AM
Who is using my name in vain?
Posted by: CLOUDY SPUNK | Sep 24, 2007 11:22:09 AM
Bring him on. He's self-absorbed and craving attention; welcome to Hollywood, son. You've got plenty of company. The more effeminate flamers we've got flouncing around to twist the panties of the uptight gays the better. Let 'em clutch their pearls. The sooner we stop expecting every new homo who shows up in front of the cameras to look like Reichen or Gyllenhaal, the faster we stop expecting them to represent ALL of us, the sooner we stop worrying about what straight people are going to think about us if his wrist happens to flap a little, the happier we'll all be. Get the hell out of that little town, Chris, and grab what you can.
Posted by: Turtle | Sep 24, 2007 11:28:37 AM
I love that he says that what he does affects his family and he feels bad for it. Except that he actually doesn't. If he did feel bad for them, he'd stop.
What a self-serving queen. Can we please start ignoring him now? I can't stand him.
Posted by: boombastic | Sep 24, 2007 11:30:12 AM
Derrick, once again I bow before your wisdom. Love your post. As for Chris, I love him, what a fabulous queen. I recognize a lot of myself in him and, yes, as Derrick pointed out, time (and meds) does eventually mellow out a crazy bitch. In fact Chris reminds me of the kind of wild ballbusting queen I hung out with in my old drag days of yore. Keep on rockin!
Posted by: the queen | Sep 24, 2007 11:30:58 AM
Brad & Turtle, finally some sense in those weirdly hateful comments. Crocker is a funny queen and has is place in the gay community like we all do. You don't have to be a straight-alike. It's called DIVERSITY.
Posted by: no-no | Sep 24, 2007 11:37:42 AM
Anybody who would think he represents the very diverse gay world probably hates gay people from the gitgo, or they're just too plain ignorant to know better.
If it weren't for the so-called stereotypical gay folk, gay people would be as boring as straight people. I've met gay men who thought of themselves as "masculine"--hell, the only thing masculine about them was their shoe size. Now, run off to your therapist Mr. "I'm Just Like Any Other Guy, Just My Sex Life Is Different".
Insurance companies shouldn't pay for no damn therapy...talk to one of your 5 cats.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Sep 24, 2007 11:42:39 AM
I love Chris too. Wouldn't have sex with him or date him but that's not the point. He's pushing people buttons and even gay people seem to love him or hate him. We have become such a friggin' conservative society. where even gay people can't handle the extremes. That's sad to me. We use to embrace it. Everybody ought to be able to be who they want to be. Period.
Posted by: Pugzz | Sep 24, 2007 11:48:43 AM
Why is it that gay people can't stand a guy that acts feminine any more than straight people? I think you're forgetting that it was the Queens that started the Stonewall riot. Seems like something y'all might wanna think about...
Posted by: Pierre | Sep 24, 2007 11:49:00 AM
His 15 minutes was over last week, the last time your posted this same increasingly tired story.
Posted by: Pained | Sep 24, 2007 11:49:11 AM
I love Chris too. Wouldn't have sex with him or date him but that's not the point. He's pushing people buttons and even gay people seem to love him or hate him. We have become such a friggin' conservative society. where even gay people can't handle the extremes. That's sad to me. We use to embrace it. Everybody ought to be able to be who they want to be. Period.
Posted by: Pugzz | Sep 24, 2007 11:51:20 AM
It's not the fact that he's flaming that unnerves me. I just hate looking at headlines and seeing reflected our society's preference for the inane over actual news. Just like Brit and Paris, Chris represents our obsession for sleazy news about people we can collectively chide.
Posted by: Henry | Sep 24, 2007 11:58:15 AM
I have never commented on a Chris Crocker story because I don't find it all that amusing. But the notion that he is miss representing the LGBT community is completely absurd. Our cause should embrace the diverse nature of our community and further portray its individuals not diminish them or impart on them the very attitudes we say to stand against. When we accept each other for our differences we shall then demand acceptance by those who farther differentiate from us.
Posted by: Rafael | Sep 24, 2007 12:08:15 PM
There's much more to him than just a screaming queen. He's quite ignorant, but not stupid & has insight. He's almost a performative artist. He has irony & presents a public persona.
He's not representing anyone but himself.
And, finally, do you have a problem because he's effeminate? We all are, honey. Gender is a construction.
Posted by: Paul | Sep 24, 2007 12:13:22 PM
"And, finally, do you have a problem because he's effeminate? We all are, honey. Gender is a construction."
I could care less if he was the most flaming person on Earth. I just despise the celebration of obnoxious naiveté.
Posted by: RP | Sep 24, 2007 12:19:32 PM
maybe he's making the haters more visible, but they're going to exist whether the talking gay is chris crocker, or, what, who else. gee, there aren't many, are there - how about that. andrew sullivan? tom fucking ford? i'd rather know who hates me than not knowing who's hiding it.
Posted by: brad | Sep 24, 2007 12:24:09 PM
"His grandparents...took over raising him when his teenage parents couldn't." Well if Chris Crocker isn't the poster child for giving teens access to birth control (or retroactive abortions), I don't know who is.
Posted by: Mark | Sep 24, 2007 12:40:50 PM
Thanks, The Queen: You know, Queen, (if you don't mind me getting familiar by shortening your title)it's been one of the greatest disappointments of my life to see prejudice within the gay world. As an earlier poster said, some gay men hate effeminate males as much as straight guys. When I was in twelth grade there was a group of younger gay guys who I noticed were starting to hang together as a group. I was so glad to see them, wanted to make friends with them. Then I discovered that they considered me too "sissified" to be around. Don't put on the maudlin violins, I aint startin' to cry or nothin'--it just made me realize that every gay man aint your friend, especially if you had a fabulous Joan Crawford walk! Some of the ones who hate "queens" are some of the nastiest, meanest bitches to ever put on a pair of Timberlands. The AIDS Epidemic changed a lot of that mutual animosity (at least for our generation) Unfortunately, AIDS was the great equalizer: it humbled many a gay man who thought he was superior to the "silly, stereotypical queens".
Look, fems go back thousands of years in every culture on this Earth. We used to be called eunuchs and catamites, etc. Nobody knows how we or why we occur. Our desire to be feminine is stronger than our homosexuality...has to be, we're told often that if we acted more masculine it would increase our sexual comodity in the gay world. Our answer to that is, "fuck off".
If I were younger, I might be concerned about how difficult it is to date, make friends, be respected if you are seen as too effeminate. But at my age, these wannabe masculine gay guys (who look down on fems) can go sit down on the Washington Monument--with enough KY Jelly most of them could.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Sep 24, 2007 12:44:24 PM
Wow, for a second there I thought I was reading the comments of the bigots on youtube that are calling for this little queens death. Crocker does not represent the way I act, talk, or dress but I will defend this human being and his right to be fabulous or at least his version of it, with all my heart.
Posted by: JZN | Sep 24, 2007 12:45:53 PM
It was the nelly weird queens who helped to kick-start the whole GLBT rights movement, so let's not get too snippy about this kid. He's a small town sissy who is having his 15 minutes on youtube... he's not molding public policy or anything. Anyone who would see this kid's behavior and generalize it to our entire community is a person who's already so bigoted that they're beyond help.
I like sissies. I also like butch masculine guys. And I like everything in between. The one thing I insist on is that the person in question is completely 100% authentic. Can you imagine the balls it takes to be that nelly in rural Tennessee? Give the kid a break and let him fly his freak flag as high as he can. That's what America is all about. His 15 minutes will be over soon, and we can all go back to watching Project Runway.
Posted by: Brian | Sep 24, 2007 12:58:07 PM
A little sad that even on this site, we get some comments similar to the hate spewed towards this kid on Youtube. Calling him a "thing"? Violent fantasies about running over him with a Hummer? WTF!!!
Why are some of you so afraid of this kid (those kinds of hateful comments just stink of fear and self-hatred)?
Why does this have to be about someone "representing" you? F that! Chris Crocker represents Chris Crocker. You worry about representing your own self.
Posted by: darb | Sep 24, 2007 1:38:02 PM
crumbs like him are why i hate You-Tube.
Posted by: A.J | Sep 24, 2007 1:44:00 PM
Crocker is the gay Paris Hilton: vapid, pointless, bitchy, and only famous for being vapid, pointless and bitch.
Posted by: givemeabreak | Sep 24, 2007 1:54:49 PM
I feel like the only one who thinks he's an actor. He wasn't crying really during his Britney rant: no tears! And his character breaks at times, especially when he's on talk shows. I dunno guys, I'm actually quite entertained by him, although I do have to watch some of his videos through my hand-telescope so I can look away if I have to.
And in any case... I contend that intolerance of any sort is the seed of bigotry.
Posted by: justincredible | Sep 24, 2007 1:57:16 PM
Jesus, i'm appalled at the comments I see here regarding Chris. Admittedly, yes, he's a very colorful character, but you guys sound no better than anything the straight population are saying about him...way to stick up for your fellow gay man, jerks. WHO FUCKING CARES how he acts? He seems like a character with a lot of camera presence, which is what people look for on TV anyway. Christ, I'd rather watch him than some fucking boring "super macho" homo on the TV. :-/
Posted by: adam | Sep 24, 2007 2:02:56 PM
Oh, I would pay to see a Celebrity Death Match between Chris Crocker and William Sledd. Eyes would get scratched out, don't you know.
Posted by: Matilda | Sep 24, 2007 2:22:50 PM
"when we get old we're self-deprecating, humble, and lovable..."
While I agree that younger gays are often as you described (it's the Paris Hilton virus), I know enough older gays to disagree emphatically with the above characterization. Some older gays acquire (or already had) lovability, humility, et cetera... Others just become the most bitter, unpleasant people you've ever, ever met.
Posted by: Kyle | Sep 24, 2007 2:26:24 PM
Whatever one thinks of Cracker, er Crocker, misrepresenting history serves no one. Does no one read anymore?
"It was the nelly weird queens who helped to kick-start the whole GLBT rights movement" — uh, no, it wasn't, not by any stretch of historical imagination.
The first significant public movement towards gay equality was begun in Germany by Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld who published his first pamphlet on the subject in 1896. Whereas, he apparently was privately a cross-dresser and is credited with coining the term “transvestism,” his public persona was far from "nelly weird queen" as evident to anyone who has seen his appearance in the surviving parts of the pioneering 1919 film "Anders als die Andern" ("Different From the Others").
Hirschfeld inspired a German immigrant to the US, Henry Gerber, to start the first known American homosexual rights group in Chicago in 1924, though it lasted only a few months before being shut down by police. His subsequent writing, usually under a pseudonym, influenced others who later created more successful organizations such as Harry Hay. Those who knew Gerber describe him as odd in some ways but not in the same way as Fraulein Crocker. True, Hay would later help found Radical Faeries but is best remembered for the Mattachine Society which would have shuddered at Crocker’s self-serving exhibitionism. [At the same time, most like to forget Hay’s support of NAMBLA.]
While some “queens” were AMONG those who fought back at Stonewall, there is no consensus among people who were there, including them, about who did what first. There is no disagreement that they were not the ones who made it famous in the ensuing years, and, in fact, no substantive progress from the decriminalization of sodomy to anti job discrimination legislation to marriage in Massachusetts and domestic partnerships in other states can be attributed to people like Crocker. In fact, there is, empirically, the converse, such as the damage Stonewall vet Sylvia Rivera did to the early efforts to pass a gay rights bill in NYC.
It’s one thing to respect, even celebrate, individuals for being who they are. It is quite another to assert they are something they are not.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 24, 2007 2:45:14 PM
I think it's positively hysterical he's chowin' with Bret Michael's Rock of Love trainwreck (and porn star) Brandi C. They each in great company, no doubt.
Posted by: fivefathoms | Sep 24, 2007 3:23:45 PM
It should be "it's tough to be effeminate," and he obviously doesn't represent the "gay communities." Effeminate and gay should be independent, because there are also effeminate straight guys. He is promoting the indifference.
Posted by: rdiazsi | Sep 24, 2007 3:29:30 PM
I respect what you're saying, Leland. As usual, you're knowledge of gay history is second to nobody or no one (you know I aint fond of Standard English). The only question I have is that before Dr. Hirschfeld, weren't there homosexual sub-cultures that existed in metropolitan areas for centuries from ancient times to the red-light districts of New York, London, Paris, etc. Were not the people who populated these "bohemian" neighborhoods the foundation of what we now call "gay"? They weren't the homosexuals who just came to party on a Saturday night then went back to the straight world on Sunday morning. They were the effeminate homosexuals who couldn't hide, couldn't pass for straight even if they tried, a la', Ms Crocker. Look, queens are not known for being politically active, but couldn't the very existence of a drag queen in 1920 be seen as an act of valient disobedience against a repressive society? Or were we just trying to be a bunch of Theda Baras and Mamie Smiths?
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Sep 24, 2007 3:35:50 PM
For God's sake, "your" in sentence #2, and "valiant" in my grand finale. I know one damn thing, queens sure have trouble spelling, but we're good at math...well, the butch queens are.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Sep 24, 2007 3:41:13 PM
You know the haters are the ones at home singing Kelly Clarkson songs clutching their remotes so they won't miss the VMA's and worried if their new Alain Mikel sunglasses are going to be hip enough for Fire Island this year.
The mainstreamifcation of the gay community is the most repugnant thing about this post. This is the person that made it safe for you to leave your home and wear pink . . . Oh wait! You wouldn't be caught dead in pink! A nice shade of boring would be perfect.
Broaden your minds and wake up.
Posted by: Br!on | Sep 24, 2007 3:43:01 PM
Leland, the history lesson is appreciated. But surely your point isn't to rationalize hating on effeminate gay men because, as you interpret history, they weren't REALLY the driving force behind the modern drive for equal rights for gays? C'mon already.
Posted by: Turtle | Sep 24, 2007 3:46:18 PM
LEAVE CHRIS ALONE!!!!
Posted by: Jordan | Sep 24, 2007 3:56:10 PM
His/her/its fifteen minutes of fame is certainly over by now, right? Shim needs to move on and shut the hell up now.
Posted by: aw! | Sep 24, 2007 4:17:39 PM
guys, he's only 19.
seriously --relaaaax.
Posted by: ghostfacemillah | Sep 24, 2007 4:23:14 PM
Derrick from Philly: "He ought to get out of Tennessee though. He belongs in San Francisco, New York, LA or Pittsburg."
Pittsburg? Really? As far as gayborhoods go, I think Chicago and Miami (D.C.? Atlanta? Boston?) have a little room on Pittsburg. Just sayin', is all.
Sincerely,
lovin' life in Boystown, CHICAGO
Posted by: Boyztown Boy | Sep 24, 2007 4:25:23 PM
The one good thing about Chris is that he's opened up this topic of conversation. It seems the community has always been up in arms about how we define ourselves and how we are defined by the rest of society (or don't care about the rest of society).
I agree that we shouldn't hate Chris, as that's a form of hipocrisy, but I'm constantly amazed by how vapid our media has become. Also, that Derrick can generalize us by age is ridiculous. To say that we are defined solely by our sexuality is to say that because I'm Asian I'm great at math and love classical music. These are stereotypes we are reinforcing. Yes, some of us are more 'flaming' than others, and that's fine, in fact that's great. But when we say that that is all being gay is, we close ourselves in. Same with those who would deny those of us that are more effeminate. The thing is, there is a gigantic spectrum of personalities in our community and we do ourselves a great disservice when we attempt to define ourselves in such general terms. I'm 23 and I do not believe I am vain or narcissistic, despite whatever labels may apply to me.
We are so quick to dismiss each other as "queens". How can we hope for respect from society when we deny it to each other?
Posted by: Henry | Sep 24, 2007 4:53:29 PM
Henry:
I don't get the feeling you would ever refer to yourself as a "queen"--and if that's the case, then I never would refer to you as that either. Most gay men are not "queens", and it is wrong to use that word as an insult to describe any gay man who makes you angry or disappointed. But, Henry, there are those of us who do call ourselves "queens". We are defiant in our effeminacy. When all the gay world is telling us to "butch it up", we refuse. When I talked about vanity, narcissism, and being annoying, I'm talking about those of us who fulfill certain stereotypes (on the outside), we often joke with (or "read") each other that way. I'm not talking about serious young gay men (traditionally masculine, or not) who don't want to be called "queens".
And Henry, your response was very reponsibly written and appreciated. We need to hear the opinions of more young people... besides Chris Crocker, of course.
Posted by: Derrick from PHilly | Sep 24, 2007 5:11:57 PM
If you're going to be a Queen In the Public Eye why not be a Queen like Divine or like Quentin Crisp? Be a ground breaker, a true orginal, be sassy AND smart. Be a Leigh Bowery, really just go all the way out there and FUCK SHIT UP with style. Chris Crocker is a vapid, self-absorbed kid acting out stereotypes that have been conditioned in him. He doesn't do gay men any favors, QUEENS or no Queens.
Posted by: Adam | Sep 24, 2007 6:21:38 PM
Love him!
He has star written all over him...look at the amount of comments he gets on this blog...I wonder what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thinks about Chris Crocker....??
Posted by: Jorge Florez | Sep 24, 2007 6:30:20 PM
First, the easy question. I am absolutely not saying that “effeminate” gays should be “hated on” for ANY reason simply because they’re effeminate.
Consciously “selling” that effeminacy [“real” or “pretend”] is, on the other hand, fair game for criticism because anyone with an IQ above 5 knows that the “buyer” is only interested because of his/her homophobic attitudes. Crocker, William Sledd, Ross the Intern, et al., despite any bon mots that might pass their lipssss, are primarily of interest as fey buffoons for those who DO think they are inferior per se. And, damn me if you will, but I think it’s wrong to take money to feed bigots.
White guys in blackface for minstrel shows served a similar purpose, as did the white guys who created “Amos & Andy” on radio, played the characters in blackface for a feature film, and posed for publicity photos also corked up. Efforts to get the radio show, wildly popular for years, cancelled because of the stereotypes it fed, failed.
It was only in a less forgiving time years later that television cast actual men of color to play the roles, however much they stayed on racist tune, and it took the NAACP five years to succeed in getting it cancelled [by then appearing solely in syndication reruns]. Is one to believe that the NAACP was saying that any Black men actually like them were to be “hated”?
And what of the diametrically opposite positions of Black lesbian writer Jasmyne Cannick [hates] and Black entertainer RuPaul [luvs] on a white man playing a stereotypical woman of color, “Shirley Liquor,” in blackface?
“Stepin’ Fetchit,” AKA ”the laziest man on in the world,” appeared in 54 films mostly playing the shiftless, servile, inherently stupid Black stereotype that white producers and audiences preferred for decades. In fact, his real name was Lincoln Perry and he was quite intelligent, but playing for racist laughs made him rich, making, some say, as much as a million dollars over his career. Resented by civil rights leaders for decades, a revisionist view that HE was in control by “putting on old massa,” has sprung up. It seems everything will eventually be given a revisionist treatment. I'm hoping for one by the hot guy in my high school PE class on my wet dreams about him. Alas, it would come, as it were, a bit past the rose's first blush.
Derrick’s points are still more complicated to address concisely which I do always try contrary to impressions my lengthy posts sometimes leave. Contrary to absurd "constructionist" theory, I totally agree that men and women who were sexually AND emotionally attracted to the same gender have existed throughout time. While I don't equate "atypical” gender behaviors with homosexuality [as mentioned, some sincerely straight men are also sincerely “fem”], documentation on the totality of the lives of gay men too fem to pass over the centuries is very limited. That is, what were there lives like when they weren’t being arrested or blackmailed or frequenting cruising areas and, at least in 19th century England, places like “molly houses,” the closest thing then, apparently, to our gay bars. Did they fight with their families and friends over their foppery, or were such “feminine” forms of dress accepted and not, per se, associated with homosexuality as seemingly they were in the time of Marie Antoinette?
For most of the documentation of gay men’s lives, of any kind, butch/fem/in-between, prior to the 20th century is limited to records of their run ins with the Church, civil law [driven by Church], private correspondence, and private and sometimes published poetry. Interpretation of written expressions of affection for other men is problematic because of the acceptance at various times of same gender “romantic friendship.” It was acceptable, variously, for men and women to say/write the most passionate things to same gender friends and not have any sexual drive or connotation behind it. Things that, read today, can result in severe cognitively dissonant headaches when one realizes much of such purple prose about hugging and kissing might did not involve eros at all. Even gay icon Walt Whitman sometimes changed pronouns in his poetry and diaries, or denied that there was anything actual sexual intended or recorded.
For outsiders, disagreements in interpretation continue today regarding, e.g., First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Some insist that when she wrote, "I want to put my arms around you, I ache to hold you close,” or “I wish I could lie down beside you tonight & take you in my arms” or “I remember ... the feeling of that soft spot just north-east of the corner of your mouth against my lips” to her close friend and definite lesbian, journalist Lorena Hickok, that she was expressing romantic/sexual feelings for her, not just passionate friendship. Others disagree, but Hickok’s sister burned original versions of letters she found after her death—what were left of those Hickok had not burned herself.
And, just by viewing the photos alone, one could go mad trying to guess the exact nature of the relationships between the men in the historic photos in, “Affectionate Men: A Photographic History of a Century of Male Couples, 1850-1950.”
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ISBN=0312242859&pdf=y&z=y
Perhaps I can give a more detailed answer after finishing reading the marvelous research of Riktor Norton on “molly houses” and other manifestations of homosexuality in 18th and 19th century England. Much is available at the first link below. The second is to his apparently updated version of his book, “Mother Claps Molly House: The Gay Subculture in England 1700-1830” coming out this month.
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/eighteen.htm
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1845883446?tag=gayhistoryand-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1845883446&adid=0E3J44TATT9V3KT6XPX2&
Everybody read something—other than each other—and let's revisit.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 24, 2007 6:34:38 PM
Nelly queens are responsible for the murders of Shepard, Sandy, and Araujo? Drag queens played no part in the gay civil rights quest? Male embryos with an effeminate gene--whatever the fuck that is--should be aborted?
Is this Towleroad or God Hates Fags?
Posted by: Gary | Sep 24, 2007 6:40:08 PM
Mr. Frances is feeling conciliatory so we should all take a time out to go tome diving.
I notice also that Frances permits himself allusions to the black civil rights struggle which he denies others.
Were we speaking of laughable queers?
Posted by: Gary | Sep 24, 2007 6:49:08 PM
Where, pray tell, Gary have you ever seen me say that, "Drag queens played no part in the gay civil rights quest" or deny anyone "allusions to the black [sic] civil rights struggle"?
And if you don't already get how stereotypes contribute to the attitudes of those who verbally and physically attack gays then it's too late for anyone to explain it to you.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 24, 2007 7:50:54 PM
In reverse order: It is the HOLDERS of stereotypical views that contribute to anti-gay violence. Mr. Crocker is not a stereotype. You have stereotyped him.
You responded angrily , and with typical hyperbole, at this website to a post of mine referencing 'Letter from the Birmingham Jail.'
You did your best to denigrate the contribution of the drag queens in a post above. Sorry if I condensed to the point of distortion--I try not to bloviate.
I'm still comfortable with the term 'black.'
Posted by: Gary | Sep 24, 2007 8:15:19 PM
Derrick:
Thanks for explaining, I suppose that's a part of gay culture I don't know too about. It just seems that sometimes we get bogged down in advising others how they should act, some saying more 'straight' and other more exaggerated. And especially looking at the long list of comments on this post, it seems that sometimes we are more critical of ourselves than the rest of society.
Posted by: Henry | Sep 24, 2007 8:21:24 PM
He's a loser.
that loser bitch from rock of love is there too.
they are both crazy.
Posted by: Cicy | Sep 24, 2007 8:39:57 PM
Avril Lavigne on Testosterone.
Posted by: bedazzler | Sep 24, 2007 8:48:51 PM
In reverse order:
I have no problem, Gary, with the term either, though it's not for me, a Caucasian, to determine what people of color wish to call themselves. The "sic" was referring to your incorrect, lower case "b" in Black.
There is no law that prevents you from continuing to entertain the myth that "drag queens" have played a much more functional role in actual LGBT progress than historical fact reflects. You say "denigrate," right the record. Feel free to document anything to the contrary not written by someone merely echoing that ubiquitous myth. But even in regard to the Stonewall riots, I urge you to read, "Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution," by David Carter; "Stonewall" by Martin Bauml Duberman; "The Gay Militants" by Donn Teal, and "Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities" by John D'Emilio.
In the earlier string you misunderstood if not misrepresent, you referenced Martin Luther King and his letter from the Birmingham Jail in relation to a Rome kiss-in. My commentary on the inappropriateness of comparing what King and others risked and suffered with such a trivial event in no way suggested that you or anyone else can't make comparisons between the movements. I firmly believe some such comparisons exist but the specific one you attempted was ludicrous. You do display a certain consistency, however, in equating the courage that King’s actions took in the early ‘50s South with the exhibitionistic osculation of the privileged in 2007 Italy. Thus you can equate the style of drag queens with the substance of action that rarely involved them in any meaningful way.
Finally, your statement that Crocker is not a stereotype proves that your gift for absurdity is still intact.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 24, 2007 9:10:04 PM
blah de blah blah BLAH
....yawn (boring)
Posted by: Jordan | Sep 24, 2007 10:45:45 PM
TURTLE:
"The sooner we stop expecting every new homo who shows up in front of the cameras to look like Reichen or Gyllenhaal, the faster we stop expecting them to represent ALL of us, the sooner we stop worrying about what straight people are going to think about us if his wrist happens to flap a little, the happier we'll all be."
Hell yes! Thats exactly how I feel these days!
Wtf is up with the idea that every damn gay who steps into the public eye has to be some poster boy for "straight acting, do-no-wrong queers"???!!! He isnt making profound statemets about life, he isnt going to win an academy award and in a few years he will probably be nothing at all. He hasnt been elected "Madame President" of the Homos...did you vote for him??? I dont remember that ballot.
There are PLENTY of annoying, bitchy, self absorbed straight celebs (and regular people) who make a living shoving femininity and machismo down the worlds throat. There are plenty of overbaring males who pound their chests at the mention of football and talk about NOTHING MORE than beer, cars and fucking hot chicks. Its not debated because it is what is expected in society. It isnt the ruler by which all heteros must aspire to.
Using the fact that he is a big flaming attention whore as some kind of excuse for hate crimes is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. With that logic, blacks like myself should be hung for the racist, militant black rappers. If someone can use that as an excuse to attack others, they are a bigot because they CHOSE to apply characteristics of one human being to a totally seperate human being.
Posted by: Toto | Sep 25, 2007 12:14:42 AM
Thanks Leland for making some really intelligent comments in a mostly vapid conversation on a totally vapid person.
Posted by: Adam | Sep 25, 2007 12:25:52 AM
I think it is worth adding that one of the only mass media news networks to give Crocker attention is FOX news, the Republican propaganda channel. That is pretty significant and a clue of how Crocker could be used as a tool for the right in shaping public perception of our ENTIRE community.
Again, I'm all for proud effeminate men but Crocker is not intelligent or mature and is much more invested in himself and his ego to worry about his effect on others in our community (or his family so it seems). His actions and words will, and are, going to be used to make a mockery of our community and that may ultimately have political and personal repercussions for all of us. I know it sucks. It’s not fair and not how things should be but our enemies on the right are not going to take that in to consideration.
I think its best to not give Crocker any more attention. Let him grow up a little out of the public eye. Maybe we'll see a more intelligent version of him down the line, one that is flamboyant but aware of the world outside of himself.
Posted by: Adam | Sep 25, 2007 12:54:23 AM
Wow. Awful lotta nasty 'phobes on this thread. Which is really sad.
I admire this guy tremendously because he's willing to go against the grain and proudly, creatively be himself in a society which more or less hates everything about him. That takes way more strength and confidence than a lot of us show in our daily lives. Good for him.
Posted by: Sportin' Life | Sep 25, 2007 9:02:09 PM
When all the pro's and cons have been sorted through and the dust settles, and although I am just so not sure what I feel about Chris Crocker among this myriad of observations, I find myself agreeing with the delightful Sportin' Life, because s/he is like me, among the 'give 'em a chance' brigade. I like Chris. Sure, he shouldn't represent all gays but he's his own person and gay people should stand up and get counted more, to show that they are as diverse as straights. Chris needn't be a rolemodel or a threat to anyone.
Posted by: EOINM | Sep 29, 2007 3:49:30 PM
Yep, the self-phobia here is pathetic, and typical. Guys, if you don't like the stereotype, get off your ass, go out into the world, out of the gay-ghetto you love to complain about, and change that stereotype BY YOUR OWN ACTIONS. Until you start doing that, shut the fuck up. The stereotype exists for a reason, because most insecure 'butch' fags are usually deeply ashamed closet-cases who tell almost no one outside of their safe little circle that they are gay. Butch queers are often the biggest bitterest most-judgmental "queens" and the skankiest, most wide-open bottoms. Everyone knows that.
Hating on Chris because he's a vapid media-whore is fine. Hating on him because you're scared of what your neighbors will think of his girly ways is just fucking pathetic.
Posted by: Roganic | Sep 29, 2007 5:35:44 PM
i have read a lot of what has been said and looks like a lot of debate within "ourselves"its nothingto do with hate amongst thecommunity..sure some gays dontliek the girly ones or vica versa..thats calle dhuman nature..but to silence anyone just because theyre gay and have an opinion is also wrong..chris cxrocker represents diversity??not at all..the fact that queens kicked started stonewall..right on!yes we bash each other but we as a communityhave always been at odds...again,,human nature but we have to be careful to get too politically corect and acknowledge that we can be negative of others within our community and whether they flame or carry a ticket to macho town..doesnt matter..im talking about the fact..that a gay stereotype is emerging on the media that makes all the lgbt community look like vapid nasty odd vacuous off centre bitchy..its not that im bashing anyone for beingwho they are..kudos to them..except that the mainstream sees us as basically neutered people..i hope someone gets what im saying..the image portrayed right now across the net and media is this..that gay men are self obsessed decorating flamboyant nasty bitchy people..with nothingat all to contribute except be court jesters to the straight community..its scary how anyon ecan be a little bit camp and silly and the world at large laughs heartily...3 examples..perez hilton..started quite middle of the road..now hes a "professional homosexual"with a put on camp voice and demeanour..fake!all he does is bitch and gosip!and hes read by millions..he says...nothing!..chris crocker..loads of self vids..displaying a wit and wisdom of a wind up speed freak barbie with a narcissus complex..not that hes to be lauded for being"out there"hes not..hes just irreverant self obsorbed..straight bashes and hs that dont fuk with me stance..and hides out in his basement!how many times ive read.."oh but hes funny and blah blah..and hes confident..!it takes guts to be yourself.yes not the point..hes reinforcing a stereotype,albeit initself valid for some..not for fodder for the mass media..homophobics everywhere see a gay guy bagging out the hetero sex act and brushing off 9/11 yes he did!and this is what the world sees..its not about gender /individuality its about a mind boggingly fuked up kid..who thinks being pretty and nasty is the way to be.where oh where did that come into play?
3.jeffree star..a punk/drag savvy 21 year old making it large by being a made up queen..again yes hes being himself...he says ..nothing!the fact hes pretty and wears pink eyebrows is not the thing i loathe...for i love pink!ok i digress..he has been seen to laugh at homeless people,hit a straight girl at a concert/and worst of all called soemone on the net"aids face"and these people are the new"breed"its not simple matter of accepting what they wear..its the human being that is projecting..and no amount of preening and flamboyance is gonna hide a nasty person...theres no balance..people dont like seing average gay joe..the soldier.farmer factoryt worker/etc...the mass media dont wanna see ordinary gay people except when theyer lisping and wrist flapping and decorating your home.. a sad reflection of our times...
Posted by: paul | Oct 4, 2007 6:30:09 AM
The only thing I have against Chris Crocker is his 9/11 comment. I have no problem with him being feminine or cross-dressing, etc.
Posted by: Lili | Mar 11, 2008 2:23:16 PM