Martin Duberman’s Stonewall has been a very interesting book to read thus far and has broadened my awareness of the LGBT experience (not to suggest that it is an exclusively collective experience, but rather, at times, a very individual experience). There are a couple of issues regarding the book that my group discussed and I have been thinking about that I am interested in further exploring.

My initial reaction to the book, after reading sections 1 and 2, was that it high action and fairly sexually charged. This made it hard to put down, but also somewhat hard to believe. The stories of people having sex at the age of 7 or going to jazz clubs before they were old enough to drive seemed quite unrealistic. The stories that Duberman chose to portray are, I would guess, some of the more extreme stories of sexual awakening. At first I didn’t understand why he would choose to pick extreme cases and no “average” ones, and although his motivation is not entirely clear to me, I think I am beginning to understand. It seems to me that this was a time of sexual repression, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals (but especially the ladder), so those gays and lesbians who did come out at that time were exceptional and had to be visible to participate in the LGBT movement. Many of them had such confidence in their sexuality as young people that it just carried over and intensified as they grew older. This confidence is what brought their stories together and brought them to the attention of the author, making them interesting and active subjects for such a book, even if they do not express the “average” LGBT experience.

My other main question about the book was, why Foster? At first he seemed quite boring to me, especially after reading the narratives of the others, but he seems to add a very interesting dynamic. Foster is an example of many things in this book. First, he presents a conflict with social class. He came from a wealthy upbringing and was always expected to be a member of the upper class. The others did not have this particular social pressure to deal with during their upbringing. Also, probably because of this upper class upbringing, he grew up internalizing heteronormativity and, maybe more so, homophobia. Many of the others had some specific moment in their life where they realized that homosexuality was “wrong”, but Foster was raised knowing that it wasn’t socially accepted and that played a major role in his own sexual identity. Finally, he is the only character in the book that exemplifies being gay without having sex. It is common in society to directly link being gay with having a lot of sex, even though one doesn’t have to have sex to be considered heterosexual. Foster’s character shows that he can identify as gay without the need to define that sexuality with sex. Overall, he seems to be one of the more complex characters in the book, even though he initially comes off as uninteresting.

Women's Health Focus Group

I got this in an email from NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota and thought I would post it in case anyone is interested:

Maybe you are interested, or please pass this on to anyone you know who might be interested. Thank you.

Seeking women who have sex with women (WSW) for focus group participants!

Focus groups will examine sexual health care for WSW and answers will be used to create improved sexual health care programs for WSW.

All participants will receive a $25 gift certificate to Target
Food and beverages at all groups
All answers confidential
Limited Spots – sign up quickly

October 10th, noon – Downtown YWCA
October 11th, 5:30 pm – Midtown YWCA (Lake Street)
October 13th, 10:30 am – Amazon Bookstore

ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST RSVP TO LEAH AT: 612-332-2311 or development.mhcw@visi.com


Sponsored by:

Thanks! Please call or email me with questions.

Leah J. Hebert
Director of Programs and Development
Midwest Health Center for Women
612-332-2311
www.midwesthealthcenter.org

What's in a word?

So, I'm new to blogging, but I am going to try to embrace this relatively new media form. Any constructive criticism or feedback is welcome.

I have been thinking about the class discussion we had on Monday about proper terminology regarding the LGBT community. We addressed the issues of how to refer to lesbians and gays, but did not say much about heterosexuality. While we did touch on the idea that the term “homosexual” is fairly scientific and removes the human element, we spent little time discussing the scientific nature of “heterosexual”. I know the focus of the class is on LGBT issues, but knowing how to refer to the opposite side of the spectrum is important is well.

I know that there are not nearly as many terms to refer to heterosexuals as there are to refer to homosexuals, but the one that is most commonly used--“straight”-- makes me quite uncomfortable. While some people in the class expressed distain for the term “homosexual” due to its scientific nature, I prefer the term “heterosexual” as a way to refer to men who have sex/relationships with women and visa versa. The reason for this is tied to the other definitions of the word “straight”. Upon thinking about this issue, I looked up the exact definitions as used by many popular resource websites. As I expected, straight was defined in many ways, including “to describe a person who does not participate in "dangerous" activity such as drugs, alcohol, sex or criminal activity. A good girl/guy”. This definition suggests that being straight is “correct” or “good” and not being straight is incorrect and bad. The term straight is also linked with terms such as truthful, honorable, right, and unbroken . Using this term to define heterosexuality reinforces heteronormativity in a subtle and often unthought of way by defining one group of people (those who have sex with people of the opposite gender) as being “right” and everyone else as being “wrong”, thus making me very hesitant to define anyone’s sexuality by such a term. This may seem like a very basic idea, but I think it is one worth pointing out and possibly discussing further.