BijouBlog

Now, at one point in the movie, Reverend Mother guilt-trips the girls into entertaining one day during the holiday season the residents of what appears to be a women-only old folks home with “refreshments, songs, and readings.” Hayley aka Mary Clancy and her partner in mayhem Rachel are actually cooperating for a change. 

Then Mary sees Mother Superior comforting an elderly woman who is weeping. Her family will not be able to come to see her for Christmas. The woman feels slighted, perhaps because she gave them everything when they were young (nothing was too much), why can't they come see her? I have gifts for them she laments. But it's not just that she is laying on selfish guilt. She feels unwanted, useless. Why? Because she can't give to them. 
 

The Mother Superior perhaps senses this feeling. But she challenges the woman to give her family one more gift. “Be happy!” she gently commands. “Put on a pretty face and come down to the party!” 

Now, I think there's more going on here then that old trope of the clown smiling through the tears like Pagliacci, which could be tied into that stereotype of the closeted gay man “covering” because of individual and social rejection. The flamboyance and the wit and the camp supposedly conceal a deep hurt and self-hate. 
 

For the holy haters, being gay means not being happy or even capable of happiness. That a gay person is somehow broken or incomplete. Some like the British romance novelist Norah Lofts in her book Queens of England have even claimed that the word gay, which can still mean happy, “has been debased” (how ironic, given the title of her book). 

Now that gays are out and proud and can “come down to the party” without hiding, both stereotypes are offensive and insulting. But when you hear Mary Clancy's angry response (she, like many others, misses the point) to the scene, “I hope I die wealthy!” I wonder if there's something here that a gay person (or any person) can connect to. 

Giving is not just giving gifts or money or affection or prayers as objects. Giving is giving the self as a subject, without expecting an object in return. The total person, gay or straight or transgender or bi-curious ad infinitum is a gift, and by simply gifting himself to others (coming down to the party), he loses his feeling of being unwanted; his sense of self is no longer determined by what he quantitatively does for others or by what others do to him. Voila! Happiness. 

So be happy and be gay! Live, live, live! Life's a banquet, and too many poor suckers are starving to death! (Well, Auntie Mame was wealthy, but that's beside the point here!) 
 

 

 

I was in grade school and then high school for the last four years of the decade, pretty much insulated in the segregated Western suburbs of Chicago from the “big bad city” where undesirables (anyone not white, straight, or Catholic) preyed on young white Catholic school kids. 

Little did I know (and this is mostly anecdotal evidence) that guys in the burgeoning “gay ghettos” at that time were enjoying lots of sex, and not just inside, but outside. Now, they had been having public sex from some time, and the risks of arrest were still there, but … One person I know told me about several encounters between men that inevitably resulted in sex. A glance … a look at the crotch … constant cruising. My friend made it seem that these “quick tricks” were par for the course. I've heard stories about sex in and on trucks, sex in hardware stores, sex at the YMCA (all you needed to do was leave your door open) … was life really like a porn movie at that time? 
 

Not that sexual liberation was confined to the gay community or other countercultural movements. The Baby Boomers who were gradually settling down in the suburban subdivisions (mostly white upper middle class couples with money and leisure time) were experimenting with “swinging.” I read recently on the Huffington Post about swinging parties: 

Long before car keys were collected at parties from those who drank too much, suburban swingers in the 1970s collected them for a different reason. As they entered the party, the men would deposit their car keys in a bowl by the front door. On the way out, the women would fish a set of keys from the bowl and that's who they'd go home with. 

(Not exactly, it seems, an even power exchange; why are the women “fishing out” the men's keys, and not vice versa?) 

Everyone, it seems, was looking for Mr. Goodbar, but Mr. Goodbar wasn't necessarily someone you would marry and procreate with. 
 

And now that the gay community was evolving socially into something close to what people like me who came out later became, social structures resembling a heterosexual norm (such as marriage) were not just questioned, but even rejected. In fact, the leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, "We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression.” 
 

Gay pride parades resembled militant marches. Life in the urban gay communities was focused on bathhouses, at that time veritable “sex palaces,” bars, adult movie theaters, discos, campy cabarets, and a handful of accepting churches and community organizations. Gay macho (think the Brawny paper towel guy) was in. The total look was big, in your face and in your crotch: big boots, big hair, big moustaches. Out, loud, and proud! 
 

But outside these islands of what seemed to be nonstop partying, just blocks away from the long lines to get into the Bijou Theater in Chicago, one could still be fired for being gay. Gay sex between consenting adults was still a criminal offense in many states. The American Psychiatric Association's proclamation that homosexuality was not an illness was still comparatively new and not generally accepted by large segments of the population. The holy haters like Anita Bryant and others in what would become the Religious Right Movement were slowly gaining political and social power. 
 

 

Being out, loud, and proud outside of the urban gay enclaves could mean social rejection and even death. 

And in the next decade, gay sex itself became a death sentence as the AIDS epidemic swept over these communities still fighting for survival.

Thus, in 1955, Mattachine Review, published by The Mattachine Society, was the only gay rights, or “homophile,” magazine in the country. In those days there existed physique magazines like Bob Mizer's Physique Pictorial, but these homoerotic publications had to “cover” as bodybuilding manuals to avoid censorship by the United States Post Office. 
 

The Mattachine Society, founded in 1950 by Harry Hay and a group of friends in Los Angeles, was one of the earliest gay rights groups in the United States. 

The primary goals of the society were, according to the group's mission statement found in many of the group's publications: 

“1. Unify homosexuals isolated from their own kind; 

2. Educate homosexuals and heterosexuals toward an ethical homosexual culture paralleling the cultures of the Negro, Mexican and Jewish peoples; 

3. Lead the more socially conscious homosexual to provide leadership to the whole mass of social variants; and 

4. Assist gays who are victimized daily as a result of oppression.” 

This was the era of McCarthyism and, as it turned out, most of the founders of Mattachine were affiliated with Communism. As the McCarthy persecution of Communists progressed, the association of Mattachine founders with Communism concerned some of its members as well as supporters. Hay, a member of the Communist Party for 15 years, stepped down as the society's leader. The new leadership structure became influenced less by Communism and more by a liberal ideology similar to that espoused that by the African-American civil rights organizations. 
 

What does the word Mattachine mean? According to Jonathan Katz in his book Gay American History, Harry Hay claimed: 

“One masque group was known as the 'Société Mattachine.' These societies, lifelong secret fraternities of unmarried townsmen who never performed in public unmasked, were dedicated to going out into the countryside and conducting dances and rituals during the Feast of Fools, at the Vernal Equinox. Sometimes these dance rituals, or masques, were peasant protests against oppression—with the maskers, in the people’s name, receiving the brunt of a given lord’s vicious retaliation. So we took the name Mattachine because we felt that we 1950s Gays were also a masked people, unknown and anonymous, who might become engaged in morale building and helping ourselves and others, through struggle, to move toward total redress and change.” 

A brief perusal of some of the articles in the September/October 1955 issue shows not only how attitudes about homosexuality have changed drastically today, but also how some of the issues are still relevant today as the “culture wars” continue to erupt over the legalization of same-sex marriage. 

The newsletter features articles entitled “The Liberal Mind,” “Culture and Sexuality,” and “The Importance of Being Honest.” The last article emphasizes the importance of historic research on homosexuality and claims, though somewhat gently, that one should not make the assumption that homosexuality has always been a dangerous perversion and threat to society. Gays are still fighting this assumption, much more overtly of course today than in 1955. 
 

There is also a short article on Havelock Ellis and his views on homosexuality. Havelock Ellis, a British doctor and psychologist, coauthored the first medical textbook on homosexuality in 1897. He also studied what today are called transgender phenomena. Together with Magnus Hirschfeld, Ellis is considered a major figure in the history of sexology to establish a new category that was separate and distinct from homosexuality. 

Albert Ellis contributes a piece entitled “The Influence of Heterosexual Culture on Homosexual Attitudes,” significantly, romance and marriage. Yet nowadays, one could make a case for the opposite in a culture which produced Queer Eye for the Straight Guy! 

James Phelan contributes an article on the treatment of sex offenders: gays are lumped together with child molesters and rapists as “sexual psychopaths,” all of whom need rehabilitation through an experimental group that uses the Alcoholics Anonymous model, called ESP, Sex Psychopaths Anonymous. Today, many right wing extremists, such as the husband of Michelle Bachman, would still concur with this notion, but incorporate it into the therapeutic model “praying away the gay.” 

What is also interesting is a response to someone asking to be taken off the magazine's mailing list. The response from the editors is that The Mattachine Society is “NOT an organization of homosexuals, but of people interested in human sex problems, especially those of the homosexual and sex variant.” Such was the danger of being raided and arrested and censored and thrown in prison as a “sexual psychopath” that the editors felt it necessary to hammer home this point (and others points about the Society not being secret) in what was a real climate of fear in the 1950s. 

Yet a selection from a book entitled Sex and the Law by a Judge Ploscowe printed in this issue does indicate the seeds of a shift in attitudes, calling for a repeal of heterosexual anti-sodomy statutes, which would also hinge on decriminalizing private homosexual conduct. Stay in the closet, ye homosexuals, the author seems to be saying, for what you are doing sexually is fine privately, not publicly, because it accords with your essential nature. One can't totally repress “unconventional” sexual behavior, either homosexual or heterosexual. The law (arrests, imprisonment) cannot change “scandalous,” that is publicly deviant, homosexual behavior but psychiatry and science can change behavior. Still, there seems to be the assumption that homosexuals can and should change for the good of society. But the author also decries heterosexual sexual crimes (again, lumping together homosexuality with criminal acts as noted in the Albert Ellis article described above), including child molestation and male prostitution. Thus, perhaps, the homosexuals shouldn't take all the blame for deviances from the heterosexual norm. 

Now, as the United States nears the end of 2014, some LGBT people are fearful, not because of who they are and certainly not because of the enormous strides in the legalization of same-sex marriage, but because many politicians and religious leaders on the far right seek to return to the fearful isolationism and xenophobia of the 1950s. Harry Hay and the members of the Mattachine Society showed remarkable courage in beginning the fight against gay invisibility; now that gays are so powerful and visible, we are perhaps even more vulnerable. Since those days in the 1950s, LBGT people have dropped their masks; now their only protection is the truth of their stature as loving, just persons. 

If you like our blogs, please reblog or retweet or email them on to a friend.

Also, please support Bijou during this holiday season by going to our website and purchasing an item or two of vintage gay sexuality for yourself or as a unique gift for a friend. 

But gays serving in the military isn't exactly a newfangled development. In ancient Greece and Rome, soldiers who were also sexual partners served together, died together in battle, and in this case, were martyred for being Christian, not because they were gay. Shocking, and, as you will see, rather hypocritical, isn't it, given the polarization on the gay marriage issue still prevalent in some areas of the the United States, with the Catholic Church vowing never to change its position against any form of gay/lesbian union. 

The saints' story is told in the text known as The Passion of Sergius and Bacchus. The story is ostensibly set during the reign of the emperor Galerius (305-311 A.C.E.), though the work itself may date to the mid-5th century. According to the text, Sergius and Bacchus were Roman citizens and high-ranking officers of the Roman Army, but their conversion to Christianity was discovered when they attempted to avoid accompanying a Roman official into a pagan temple.

After they refused to offer sacrifice to the god Jupiter in front of the emperor, they were publicly humiliated by being dressed in female clothing and paraded around town. Galerius then sent them to another province in the East, Mesopotomia, to be tried by Antiochus, the military commander there and an old friend of Sergius. Antiochus could not convince them to give up their faith, however Bacchus was beaten to death with whips. The next day Bacchus' spirit appeared to Sergius, encouraging him to remain strong so they could be together forever in heaven. With Jesus, definitely, but together!   

Over the next few days, Sergius was also brutally tortured. Sergius refused another opportunity to offer sacrifice to the gods, and Antiochus punished him by having nails driven upright through the soles of his boots. He then forced him to run before his carriage for the nine-mile journey to the fort of Tetrapyrgium. That night, an angel healed Sergius' feet. The next morning, Antiochus was astounded at Sergius' rapid recovery and accused him of sorcery. He forced him to endure the same punishment once more, this time during the nine-mile journey to the town of Resapha. He then gave him a final chance to change his mind. But Sergius refused to do so, and Antiochus ordered him to be led away and executed. 

The close friendship between the two is strongly emphasized in the stories told about them and in their cult, making them one of the most famous examples of paired or “twin” saints, like Christian versions of the famous twins Castor and Pollux in Greek mythology. The late gay historian John Boswell argues that Sergius and Bacchus's relationship contained a romantic element; he claims the oldest text of their martyrology describes them as erastai, which can be translated as "lovers". He also suggested that the two were united in a rite known as “brother-making,” oradelphopoiesis, which he argued was a type of early Christian blessing or ceremony for same-sex unions. 
 

Now, even though Boswell's claim is still open to dispute, I would think, given that the two lived together and shared property together, were not married to women (as far as we know), and, in the course of their martyrdom, were made to dress as women in a unique way to humiliate them, these two men's true orientation is indicated. But, most significantly, they weren't being punished for being gay. If that were the case, their genitals would have been mutilated, according to one source by David Woods, “The Origin of the Cult of SS. Sergius and Bacchus.” They were being punished in that manner for being Christians! 

The picture to the right is a 1994 icon of Sergius and Bacchus by the gay iconographer Robert Lentz, a member of the Catholic Franciscan order, first displayed at Chicago's Gay Pride Parade. 

To read John Boswell's views on this subject, see his book, Same-Sex Unions in Pre Modern Europe. 

(And unlike Jewish baby boys, I wasn't the focus of a big bris party with tons of deli. Not that I would have remembered anyway. Oh well...) 
 

Why even circumcise? There's a clear directive in Genesis 17; all male descendants of Abraham on the eight day after birth, require foreskin removal. Thus both Jews and Muslims follow the practice, Muslims because they regard themselves as descendants of Abraham through his first son, Ishmael. 

But though this text, from a source in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) called the “P” or “Priestly” source that concerns itself primarily with rituals and explanations for their origins and practices, seems to imply that the practice began with the ancient Israelites, it actually did not. 

Many of the nations who bordered on Israel practiced it, including the Egyptians, the Moabites, and the Ammonites. The Philistines did not practice it (Judges 14:3 and I Samuel 17:26). Thus, one of the most famous Philistines, the nine-foot tall Goliath, most probably sported a huge uncut cock. 

The Egyptians waited until puberty to perform the ritual; in that culture and in many other cultures, it was a rite of passage for young men. In Genesis 34, after the rape of their sister Dinah by a Canaanite prince, Jacob's sons insist he be circumcised before he can marry her. (Yes, this story is in the Bible. It's quite shocking on many levels. Check it out.) 

Based on the Bible, it's not clear if the Israelites originally performed the ritual at puberty; the “P” sources that claim it should be done on infants are rather late. 
 

Some Jewish athletes around the time of the Maccabees (2nd century B.C.E.), actually underwent an incredibly painful procedure to surgically create a foreskin in order to participate in Greek competitions, which meant they would no longer be Jewish. 

St. Paul in Romans 4:1-12, writing a few decades after the life and death of Jesus (a Jew, and thus he was circumcised; see Luke 2:21), claims that Christians don't need to be circumcised like Jews, as their salvation is not contingent on being physically born of a certain people. 

By the way, someone supposedly saved Jesus' foreskin. It is called the Holy Prepuce. (Ew … ) 
 

Since the 1970s, doctors in the United States have come to realize that removing the foreskin on baby boys is unnecessary, potentially harmful, and possibly unethical, unless some medical emergency or specific condition requires it. 

Check out our titles that feature famous cut and uncut cocks. Cut or uncut, the cock is still a cock.