Art and Design | Mexico | Mexico City | News | Photography

Mexico City Metro Stop Features Look at Same-Sex Relationships

Familias

The subway in Mexico City at Metro Centro Medico has an exhibit of photographer Oscar Sanchez on display called "Familias Mexicanas," featuring depictions of different types of same-sex couples in their domestic spaces.

According to blogger Daniel Hernandez, who documented the show, the photo above features Alfonso and Ruben, who met when they were 11 and 18-years-old, respectively. They became a couple seven years later and they're in an open relationship. The guy in the middle, apparently, is their guest.

Same-sex couples on display in Mexico City metro [intersections]

(via queerty)

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I love the last few photos, not keen on the first. If you can bring another person into your relationship and make it work, great. But me personally, I'd rather a guy broke up with me than propose having a threesome or making our duet a trio.

    Posted by: Chas | Jun 19, 2008 4:11:29 PM


  2. How funny to put this article next to a story about how an Oregon politician is being criticized for linking gay marriage to polygamy.

    Andy, interesting editorial choice! Are you trying to say something?

    Posted by: Marc in Chicago | Jun 19, 2008 4:42:58 PM


  3. Yes, that's brilliant...in a time of trying to teach society that homosexuals desire and deserve the benefits and legal rights of marriage, this guy gives us a couple who met when one of them was eleven years old and now they make three. What the *uck? Grow up, folks, the time for dancing in the sexual playground ended a while ago. This doesn't help the battle one bit...it just shows how immature so many men are, especially sexually...

    Posted by: bryand | Jun 19, 2008 4:52:42 PM


  4. It's a very weird story. You hint at pedophilia by giving the ages when they met, then say "Oh, but they didn't fuck until the kid was 18 and the other guy was 25."

    If that's the case, why the lurid lead-in presenting one partner as an 11-year-old? It's just being creepy for no reason.

    Posted by: thin mint | Jun 19, 2008 5:18:23 PM


  5. BryanD, it's completely useless to tell an 18 year old to grow up. It's like telling a tree to grow faster. You can't expect people that young, whether gay or straight, to not explore their sexuality.

    And anyways, it doesn't hurt the fight for gay marriage. Even if every gay person on earth conformed to an ideal, monogamous relationship, it wouldn't sway the naysayers all that much, since most of them have their head stuck in the sand.

    Posted by: anon | Jun 19, 2008 5:33:22 PM


  6. Yes, let's not say anything that hurts the fight for gay marriage!

    Posted by: borut | Jun 19, 2008 5:56:44 PM


  7. Hey thanks for the link. And guys, relax. Liberation is the freedom to do anything you want, remember?

    Posted by: Daniel H. | Jun 19, 2008 6:00:32 PM


  8. What's the point of the picture in such a prominent public place, to reinforce how UNDESERVING gay men are of being considered a family??

    I don't get it? What the hell were they thinking? And finally, where's the picture of the nuns in drag on roller skates? - that'll help pave the way to acceptance, I'm sure

    Posted by: David B. | Jun 19, 2008 6:05:40 PM


  9. "Liberation is the freedom to do anything you want, remember?"

    Oh, now I remember. Thanks for the wise words.

    CAN YOU HEAR MY EYES ROLLING?

    Posted by: thin mint | Jun 19, 2008 6:31:02 PM


  10. I think it's actually great that the Mexico City government sponsors an exhibition in such a public space about how diverse the concept of family can be. If you go to the link and see the other pictures it's pretty clear that the message here is that a marriage is not necesarily between a man and a woman.

    Posted by: william campari | Jun 19, 2008 7:39:38 PM


  11. As a gay man, I find it offensive that a threesome is being depicted as a gay rights issue. This is the type of stuff that invites justifiable criticism of our community.

    If you want to have threesomes, fine. Just don't use the gay rights banner to justify it.

    Posted by: jason | Jun 19, 2008 8:16:21 PM


  12. There is no such thing as an open relationship. An open arrangement, yes. An open relationship, no.

    Personally, I'm fed up with sleazy gay men who use the gay rights banner to indulge their fetishes, such as threesomes. Grow up, guys.

    Posted by: adam | Jun 19, 2008 8:19:39 PM


  13. "There is no such thing as an open relationship. An open arrangement, yes. An open relationship, no."

    There is no such thing as gay people either. Just confused people who are a little curious, and haven't met the right woman.

    Posted by: anon | Jun 19, 2008 9:12:33 PM


  14. Geez! When did gay men get so prudishly puritanical? One of the greatest assets of the gay community has been its frank recognition of different expressions of sexuality and love, and we should not compromise this simply because we also want social acceptance. Nearly every gay couple I know is open to a threesome and the earth has not come to a screeching halt as a result, nor has their love for each other. Eschew open relationships if they're not for you but, please, save the sermonizing for Sunday services.

    Posted by: GBM | Jun 19, 2008 9:41:34 PM


  15. If you want a threesome, go right ahead. But don't do it under the gay rights banner. Do it under your own banner.

    Just as I don't accept threesomes in the heterosexual world as being reprentative of heterosexual rights, I don't accept threesomes in the gay world as being representative of gay rights.

    The strength of the gay rights movement comes from the notion of "equality". We should never confuse this with the right to sleaze/fetish.

    I am personally sick of gay men who can't tell the difference.

    Posted by: jason | Jun 19, 2008 11:04:27 PM


  16. Jason, you hit the nail on the head and so well said my friend. It's encouraging to know there's people like yourself in the community. Those who think rationally and have a moral compass.

    Have threesomes, be into the leather scene, be into sleeping around with everyone in sight...but don't drag every single one of us and pigeon hole us with you in fighting as one battle. Just because we're gay does not mean every single one of our causes has to be under one umbrella, especially when some of us don't agree or want to fight for what you are suggesting. I feel like we're finally making progress, doing good, active and all of a sudden...opportunists from left, right and center with a completely different agenda are hoping on this 'equality' bandwagon and completely defeating the whole purpose of our frontier. It's about equality...it is NOT about saying "ANYTHING GOES...Let's all (gays) join together now...ANYTHING GOES!"...if anything goes for you in your personal life...good for you, make it happen, and own it...but don't use the gay rights disclaimer to get there. We worked to hard to show our own families we're not sexual freaks of nature who want to jump the first thing we see in the morning.

    Some of us gay men want the "normalcy" of a stable life, with a loving partner (one), even kids...AND with acceptance. It's not right for us to be slumped in with a horndog who has a sexual appetite for 16 partners to get off with and wants the world to embrace his lifestyle. Our lifestyle is (barely) being grasped now, and yours and mine are polar opposites...even if we happen to be gay.

    Posted by: Bobby | Jun 20, 2008 5:02:44 AM


  17. Ah, but you are distorting history, Bobby. What you seem to think of as "your" gay rights movement began with those brave souls who couldn't or didn't "pass" as normal. It is only after the decades of work by politically motivated trannies, drag queens, butch dykes, radical fairies, leathermen, etc., that the gay rights movement made any traction or any difference, and finally gave you the presumption to claim it for yourself. Now you blame such queers for co-opting "your" movement because you can finally taste the possibility of acceptance and legitimacy through marriage, so why not throw those licentious, amoral freaks under the bus? Or at least tell them to do what they like but hands off "your" gay rights movement. You've worked so hard! Well, but so have many, many others, and we could only get to this moment of ho-hum gay normality because of the efforts of non-normals, so you would do well to think about it each time you condemn them like a Baptist preacher condemning sodomites. Of course there should be a rainbow of what it means to be gay, and it should not be assumed that you like drag or leather or threesomes or Judy Garland just because you happen to be gay. However, you don't own the gay movement and if anyone is doing a hijacking it is the wannabe normals.

    Also, if you want a rational and sound moral discussion, here's my addition: nothing good will come of demonizing sexuality in the way you are doing in this post, except perhaps that your marriages become as unhappy and broken as those of many straight marriages. It is one thing to choose monogamy with your partner, but it is another to wholly (and unreasonably) equate sex with love like other straight people. Marriage is a practical arrangement that, despite what every romance tells you, is not a fairytale of bliss but often comes with hard times and the reality of infidelities, emotional or sexual. Of course you know that, but then you should know that a healthy acceptance of sex and sexuality (not a demonization of all sex that is not equated with fairy tale love), as well as the ability to communicate about it with you partner is truly an asset for gay and straight couples alike. Sure you can have your bachelor's parties, register at Barney's and pretend you're a princess for a day, but that doesn't mean it would also be wise to build your castle on the sand like too many straight couples. Sure it can work out for a few but all too many replace the foundation with lies and distance, and then all comes tumbling down.

    Posted by: GBM | Jun 20, 2008 9:44:26 AM


  18. GBM, I'm not sure why you feel that by speaking up for monogamy, posters in this thread are somehow betraying the "butch dykes" and "drag queens." Are butch dykes and drag queens less likely to be monogamous than femme dykes and butch queens?

    You seem to be reducing the gay community to a very simple binary: "bad, prudish normals" vs. "good, genderqueer sex freaks." This is more than an oversimplification, it ignores the existence of people who don't fit either category -- me, for instance.

    I also don't think that criticizing threesomes can fairly be smeared as "demonizing sexuality" -- for one thing, there's lots of monogamous sexuality out there. And more importantly, it's perfectly possible to criticize and even reject something without "demonizing" it. Please avoid these misleading buzzwords.

    Posted by: thin mint | Jun 20, 2008 2:08:07 PM


  19. Thin Mint: Actually my last comment was directed specifically to Bobby's comment but maybe that was somehow unclear (?). I was responding specifically to phrases such as "We worked to hard to show our own families we're not sexual freaks of nature who want to jump the first thing we see in the morning." The term "sexual freaks of nature" is pretty harsh in itself; if "demonizing" doesn't work for you than would "monstrify" if that is more accurate (even if it isn't a word)? I'll stick with "demonize" myself because I think it captures the element of moral condemnation and shaming that the gay pride movement sought (and hopefully seeks) to counter all along. And if I misleadingly seemed to claim that all butch dykes were non-monogamous, I sincerely apologize; I simply meant to establish that gay histoy is not the history of appearing as equals, but of fighting for equality despite real apparent sexual differences. Now that gays are closer to normal than ever, it seems natural for short-sighted activists to balk at any perceived sexual deviance, but that doesn't mean that it should be forgotten that the movement has been about fighting for the rights of "sexual deviance" all along. I certainly never said monogamy doesn't exist, but I do also think that cetainly you can choose to be monogamous without condemning the people who choose to live differently (and in my mind, more rationally but you can certainly disagee with that!). Oh, and if you happen to know of a group of monogamous drag queens, please let me know; maybe I can set them up with my friends....

    Posted by: GBM | Jun 20, 2008 7:47:27 PM


  20. You're totally right on, GBM. I'm really saddened by the fact that so many gays have such contempt for expressions of sexuality that might make gays "look bad." My partner and I (actually my husband--we got married on Tuesday in San Francisco) sometimes have sex with other guys and maintain very open communication about it. A relationship involves a lot of things that are far more important than sex--planning for the future, dealing with life's struggles and celebrating the successes, compromising and fighting, etc. Occasionally having sex with other guys, more or less for entertainment, has just about nothing to do with our relationship.

    I thought gay liberation was supposed to be about the freedom to have the relationships that you want. What is with all the condemnation of gay couples who have other partners? Why is that inherently immature? My partner and I, I think, are quite mature--we're aware of each other's feelings and desires and concerns and we always practice safe sex. Purely anecdotally, I think that the greater portion of long-term gay couples I know have some form of "openness" to the relationship

    But hey, if a gay couple is happier being monogamous, great for them! I can imagine all kinds of personal or interpersonal reasons for why that might be. But if the reason is that that is what we're supposed to do, that that is the only way to be normal, or moral, or mature, or responsible, then the gay rights movement has achieved a Pyrrhic victory.

    Posted by: wanderink | Jun 20, 2008 10:58:43 PM


  21. who would have thought that queers would take up the puritanical, mainstream beliefs of dogmatic church-goers. the idea behind those photos is that "square" family units do not always fit into societal "round" holes. this is not a case about gay debauchery vs hetero-ideals. hell, the hets can't even live up to their own ideals. why should WE even try?

    what adult human beings want do with their bodies should be of no concern to anyone else, nor should they have to answer to a government entity, unless that behavior affects in a direct way the welfare of innocents.

    to this statement: "There is no such thing as an open relationship. An open arrangement, yes. An open relationship, no", i say, speak for yourself. i can only ask, who are you to determine what is proper? god's avitar? the new gay christ?

    believe me, i am not advocating for one position over another. but this is my question: what gives one person the right to tell another (within this context) what is right and what is wrong?

    as an older queer, i am more than a little ashamed and disappointed of the prissy sissies who surf in our wake adopting heterosexist norms.

    you poor dears. heterosexuals are not yet your friends, not by a long shot. read a newspaper, now and again.

    Posted by: nic | Jun 21, 2008 1:58:56 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «GQ Profiles Gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson« «