“Caution: Extremely gross and disgusting.” Are these words of warning or enticement? When that’s the disclaimer on sexually explicit gay-related material posted on right-wing websites, it’s hard to know for sure.
GLBT activists have long complained that anti-gay forces sensationalize gay sexuality in an attempt to horrify Middle America into believing that gay people are nothing more than a bunch of depraved pervs unable to curb their “unnatural” sexual impulses, thus unworthy of anything approaching civil rights.
And how do they accomplish this? Like any good “researchers” these folks spend an awful lot of time with their subject matter, from attending pride parades, to scrutinizing safer-sex materials, exploring the depths of the kinkier corners of gay subculture, surfing gay websites, and, apparently, watching an awful lot of gay porn, much of which they simply copy and paste onto their own websites or reproduce in their own promotional materials. But what’s billed as “research” looks suspiciously like obsession. It’s hard not to wonder if some of right-wing activists working to turn back the clock on rights for GLBT people think more about gay sex than most gay people. Take the website amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com, which purports to inject “empirical evidence” into the debate on gay rights. The site, run by Erik Holland, a University of Florida graduate with a background in physiology who self-published a book called The Nature of Homosexuality in November 2004, actually informs visitors that it “is neither a wank site nor a joke.” Indeed, one need not peruse the site for long to see why Holland felt the need to warn off the wankers. In addition to quoting from books like Stephen Goldstone’s The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex: A Medical Handbook For Men (“Some homosexuals put perfume on their anus to make it smell better, but the alcohol may sting. Others try massage-oils, but such oils can taste bad, weaken condoms, or even irritate the anus”), he also posts stills from a porn flick called Faust3, complete with short descriptions of what’s happening in each frame. Clearly, the man has done his homework. Another example of a homophobe-turned-porn-peddler comes from the American Family Association (AFA). Jim Buzinski of Outsports.com, a website for GLBT sports enthusiasts, recently pointed out that in an effort to whip up controversy over Kraft Foods’ sponsorship of the 2006 Chicago Gay Games, the AFA has posted on its website photos of scantily clad muscle-men taken at a party held in connection with the 2002 games in Sydney, Australia. One of the photos depicts two men baring their naked butts. The photos are accompanied by the disclaimer that they are for “informational purposes only” but as Buzinski observes in his post, “I wonder who at the AFA was tasked with finding these images and whether he (I bet it wasn’t a she) immediately deleted the links from his browser history, or forwarded them to his private e-mail account.” But the best example of this research fetish involving gay sex comes from Wade Richards, a former ex-gay who once worked with Peter LaBarbera of the Illinois Family Institute. Recalling his first meeting with LaBarbera, Richards says he met him at his offices and asked for a tour. LaBarbera took him to a room that was “filled with gay porn.” It also had two “leather daddy” outfits on the wall customized with hidden cameras so when LaBarbera wore them undercover at gay S&M events, he could snap photos unnoticed. “He, from what I understood, was a heterosexual man, he never struggled with same-sex attractions,” says Richards. “What was his deal with all of this stuff? He was fanatical about it, absolutely fanatical about it. In my mind this is what I think of, these poor senior citizen women living off their social security checks sending organizations like this money for them to purchase porn as research. Absolutely crazy.” One has to ask: Who are the perverts here? From the Rev. Fred Phelps’ anti-gay protest fliers decrying “feces eating (‘scat’), anus licking (‘rimming’), anal-copulating, semen drinking” pro-gay governments to a garden-variety hate letter recently sent to Bay Windows that begins with an observation about “women who lick each other’s privates,” it seems that many of the most strident opponents of gay rights have an insatiable need to reduce debate on the issue to potty talk worthy of a seventh grader. Buzinski may be on to something when he suggests that anti-gay zealots who are overly preoccupied with homosexual sexual activities may be harboring homoerotic desires of their own. While psychologists with expertise in the area of sexuality interviewed for this piece generally agree that anti-gay organizations and individuals use the supposed sexual practices of gay people to arouse anger and action among their supporters, they also suggest there may be other things that are aroused by their use of such sexually explicit material. Given the continued forward push by the GLBT rights movement it’s unlikely that right-wing extremists will abandon their use of sex as a weapon anytime soon. Columnist Dan Savage suggests that the best defense is to turn the tables. He points to the closeted West’s public opposition to gay rights legislation as an example of fodder that can be used to quell the right-wing sex panic. “It gives us an opening to say that anybody who opposes gay rights measures is secretly a closeted homosexual who’s cruising online for eighteen-year-old boys. And we should do that. ‘Got a problem with homosexuality? Oh, that’s proof that you’re gay.’ We should promote the hell out of that. It’s like owning a poodle or wearing lavender trousers—it’s just a sign that you’re a homo.” Laura Kiritsy is associate editor of Bay Windows, Boston’s weekly GLBT newspaper. A longer version of this piece first appeared in that publication on June 30, 2005.
