Thursday, October 21, 2010

Heterophobia?

It’s quiet after the gays go home.

Early Sunday morning finds me at work at my job as a waiter in a small “family” run 24-hour diner in the heart of San Francisco’s famous Castro district, a position I have held long enough to see the neighborhood slowly evolve from being 100 percent gay male to being what it is now, a historic district and tourist destination as well as the home of a few long term gay residents and many more newly arrived, young, privileged, white, mostly heterosexual couples with strollers and children. My first table this Sunday morning is a couple, a black man and a white woman, both young, they sport a hip look, he with short cropped dread-locks, her wearing crystals and amulets along with her diaphanous silk pastels. Approaching their table, I great them with my standard, “Good morning, how are you today?” The man looks at me, smiles broadly, and replies, “Great, I love Sunday mornings, it’s always so quiet after all the gays go home.”

Now, I am sure I am not “straight acting,” to use the parlance of homosexuals who seek a certain “type” of masculine male. I, who sport a shaved head, a full grown long beard, a rather large septum piercing, three-quarter inch earplugs, and always wear a kilt or skirt and a phallic crystal around my neck, could never be mistaken for an assimilationist nor, I think, a heterosexual. I just do not pass. And I do consider “the Castro” my home, having migrated here over three decades ago in an attempt to locate a Queer community, a Queer safe space I could call home. This man’s statement, then, as to why he loved Sunday mornings so much sent me off into an exploration a series of events which occurred over the course of the previous few weeks, events which by themselves had caused me some caution, some reflection, some despair.

Being called a faggot in my own neighborhood

One of the people I have become since my migration to the Castro is a nudist activist. As a nudist, I believe that our bodies are gifts, aspects of our humanness, which we have managed to lose touch with, not something to be seen as obscene or shameful. Our bodies are our primal connection to nature and an important aspect of what should be part of our social dialogue with all of nature, with the living biosphere, which we have managed to shut ourselves away from with the compulsive wearing of clothing. To be ashamed of our bodies, to insist on the mandatory covering of our bodies, is the height of self-hatred. So I have begun to go about naked, as there is no law in San Francisco banning public nudity. When the weather is nice, I will remove my clothing when leaving work and walk home naked, or when I have errands to run in the neighborhood, I will do them naked. I, and others like me, have managed to overcome initial police resistance and seem to have managed to educate them to the fact that being naked is not illegal and, in fact, a citation will not result in a prosecution by the district attorney’s office. Of course I receive a wide range of reactions when I go about naked, most of which I am happy to say are positive. It is the negative that always stand out, however.

I was walking home from work on the Saturday prior to hearing this black man’s statement about why he loved Sunday mornings so much, naked, when I heard “Faggot,” yelled at me from a car traveling down Castro Street. As I reached the corner, a gay man walked by me and exclaimed, “That’s disgusting.” I think I am safe in assuming a heterosexual yelled, “faggot”. I have encountered this reaction in the past. Initially I thought how funny that simple nudity would be a signifier of gayness for some heterosexual body-phobic. On further examination I arrived at the conclusion that in actuality what was being addressed with the epithet “faggot” was my deviation from the perceived normative path. By walking down the street naked, I was queering what it meant to be a citizen in public on the sidewalk. Nevertheless, the violence inherent in the epithet did not go unnoticed. But the remark from the gay man saddened me in a way the violence of the word “faggot” could not. For a gay man to be so challenged by Queerness speaks volumes to the state of disarray I perceive in the LGBTQ community today.

Queer bashing in the news

That week’s news had been filled with articles stressing the grief, horror, and outrage over the recent spate of teen suicides by LGBTQ youth as a direct result of bullying and heterosexist attacks. I use the term heterosexist rather than homophobic, as a phobia is defined as an irrational fear of something. I do not believe these attacks and violence are motivated by irrational fear as much as by disgust as well as being a method of policing behaviors. Following these reports come news of a man beaten during a heterosexist attack in the restroom of the Stonewall Inn by two men and finally, nine men kidnap, torture, and sodomize three men because they assume they are gay. As much as I empathize with the pain and the outrage being felt over these deaths and attacks, the historian in me must articulate the long history of LGBTQ youth bullying, violence, and suicide which has been largely ignored by the media until now and I must ask myself why? Where was the concern, the media attention before?

Media coverage, media outrage springs from acceptance

An indifferent media was not the only problem in the past. An indifferent police force existed as well. We have witnessed a very gradual, decades long shift of police tactics away from raiding LGBTQ spaces to one of responding to violence directed at LGBTQ people. This shift in the institutional treatment of LGBTQ people came about only after resistance from LGTBQ people along with a demand for acceptance by LGTBQ people, a resistance and demand that are still occurring. Along with this resistance and demanding came visibility and knowing. Heterosexuals came to know LGBTQ people, and with that knowing came gradual acceptance, and progress. Over the past few decades, there is no question that much progress has been made for LGBTQ people.

But it is an acceptance that is gained on heteronormative terms. An acceptance which demands what Lisa Duggan refers to in her book, The Twilight of Equality?: Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack On Democracy, as “homonormativity, . . . a politics that does not contest dominant heteronormative assumptions and institutions but upholds and sustains them.” It is a homonormativity which demands gay men tell me my naked public body is disgusting; which demands all gays and lesbians support the political movement du jour, marriage and the military; which demands LGBTQ folks become consumers of a corporatized market seemingly tailored for them but which in actuality seeks to reshape the LGBTQ community to a malleable corporate citizen which does not question corporate capitalist violence. It is a homonormativity that has rendered Queer space invisible; destroying once vibrant Queer neighborhoods in favor of bland, touristy neighborhoods of “historical significance” inhabited by young, urban, wealthy, and predominantly white heterosexuals and homonormative homosexuals.

I have witnessed this shift occur in the place I call home, the place which had been my safe Queer space. It has become less tolerant, less a safe space in which to be Queer while it has instituted a capitalist led program of redefining what that space is in an attempt to lure tourist and consumer dollars. Daily sweeps of the new Castro Commons, soon to become the “Jane Warner Plaza,” named after a special patrol officer much beloved by the merchants who was known for bullying Queer homeless youth, clear any persons of questionable desirability from using the tables and chairs placed there for public consumption. A constant struggle is maintained between traditional LGBTQ stores’ rights to display erotic wares in their windows and parents desire to keep such images from their children's sight. The Castro neighborhood has become a “destination” for teenage shoppers with the introduction of corporate anchor stores such as Diesel, Pottery Barn, Levi’s and Sunglass Hut, teenage shoppers who feel the necessity to assert their heterosexuality in the gay Castro with public displays of affection not usually seen in most mainstream malls or shopping districts. These heterosexual youth and adults come to our LGBTQ neighborhood asserting their heterosexual privilege, unaware of its meaning, unaware of the fact that while they are free to assert their sexuality wherever they please, we, as LGBTQ folks, are still not able to do the same.

Accused of heterophobia

I, in the course of my work, find myself waiting on these shopping teens more and more. Some are perfectly fine and friendly, but I have come to be able to identify the ones who seem to not be aware of their privilege. The males usually are silent, sullen, unable to look me in the face, the females overly compensate for the males sullen attitude by being over friendly, smiling, answering for the male. They cling to each other, and usually as soon as my back turns they begin petting and hugging and kissing while making quick glances around the diner to see how they are being received.

Two weekends prior to waiting on the table who “liked the Castro after the gays went home,” I waited on such a couple, the sullen man and over eager women. This couple were in their mid to late twenties. The man never did speak to me, nor look at me. As soon as I left them they began the usual routine of displaying their affection. This is a difficult position for me, as I am not one to discourage displays of affection or sexuality. I do not relish the thought of thinking that I can second-guess someone’s motivations either. Perhaps they feel more freedom to do this in Queer space because we have done the work of making Queer space a safe space for such displays. I would truly like to believe this. When I witness it, however, I always end up feeling robbed, feeling like my space is being subverted, taken over, and compromised. Well, this day I had had enough. I went back to this couple and suggested that they should leave and come back when they learned how to treat me like a human being. They asked me what I meant. I replied that they came in here, the man could not even look at me let alone talk to me or answer my questions, and then they have the nerve to shove their heterosexuality in my face. Yes, I had lost it. Years of suppressing my feelings welled up and were vented on this couple, who got up and left the restaurant.

Not surprisingly, I received a phone call from my boss the following day wanting to know what had happened. Apparently the woman had filled a complaint with him, threatening to sue the restaurant for discrimination and heterophobia. I explained as best I could. My boss wanted to know what I thought we should do about it, how in fact, I could explain my actions to this woman. As it turned out, I did not have to, as he never heard anything more from her. I was frightened, by her reaction, by my reaction, but mostly by my confusion and inability to sort and make sense of my feelings. Am I heterophobic? Many young Queer folk have told me over the years that Queer space must be accessible to everyone, that the days of gay bars inhabited by only gay men and lesbian bars inhabited only by women are an anachronism, that the very idea of a gay neighborhood is a thing of the past.

A professor once said something about Black people that rang true for me. “The reason that Black people don’t want white people in their spaces,” she told us, “is not because Black people hate white people, it’s because when ever they let white people in, the white people try to take it over and make it about them.” This is how I feel about heterosexual people invading Queer space. Heterosexuals move into Queer space expecting it to be modified for their comfort. As Sandra Bernhard once said when Times Square was in the process of being made “kid safe,” “Don’t they have the rest of the country?” As the homonormative push for acceptance stresses homosexual acceptability, Queers are expected to become homogenized and accept the status quo, no matter the cost to individuality. I became excited two years ago when I heard a “kiss-in” was being planned for Union Square. I went with very high hopes, fondly dreaming of past days of Queer Nation actions. There might have been a half a dozen LGBT people there, none of which would kiss me (I was too old). One very cute young guy was there offering kisses for a donation to St. James Infirmary. Most of the men said they couldn’t kiss him as they were “married” and their boyfriends wouldn’t like it. Is this what we have “progressed” to? In spite of this homogenization, this acceptance of heteronormative behaviors, we still are being beaten and harassed to the point of killing ourselves. Our president makes promises and then orders his promises to be fought against in courts of law.

And I feel old, and I feel beaten. And I smiled and I served the black man and his white female companion at my job in the “historic gay Castro neighborhood” and they were happy because all the gays had gone home and it was quiet.

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Naked


The weather has been hot for San Francisco, lovely Indian summer weather. Sunday morning I left home at 10:00, heading for the Folsom Street Fair, wearing my boots and my hat. I had a great time at the fair, saw many wonderful sights and many lovely friends. Still in boots and hat, I made my way back to my boyfriend's house. I finally went home Monday morning at 7:00 still wearing only boots and hat.
Monday was a school day, but as soon as I exited the Muni station at Castro and Market Streets, the clothes came off. I spied my friend and fellow nudist activist George Davis sitting at the Castro Commons, so I joined him for a while. Eventually we were joined by a gentleman I had met Saturday at work who was visiting from Boston. He shed his clothes and joined us for a while as well.
Walking towards home, naked , I spied my friend Naked CJ and one other naked man in front of the Starbucks on 18th Street, so I stopped by to say hello. I then proceeded to walk home up 18th Street naked.
This is how life should be.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

In wildness is the preservation of the world.


"We cannot adequately appreciate this aspect of nature if we approach it with any taint of human pretense. It will elude us if we allow artifacts like clothing to intervene between ourselves and this Other. To apprehend it, we cannot be naked enough."
~Henry David Thoreau

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Toxic World

The world I inhabit feels toxic, tastes toxic, smells toxic, it even looks toxic. I no longer feel I fit into this world. It is as though I elicit a toxic reaction to everything I touch, taste, smell, see. Am I toxic, or is it my world which, in becoming no longer MY world, has become toxic to me?

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Nudity as a public nuisance.

This bulletin is to clarify the requirements for arrest, cite and release of persons violating Penal Codes 314 or 372.


Penal Code 314 states: Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:

  1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby; or,
  1. Procures, counsels, or assists ant person so to expose himself or take part in any model artist exhibition of himself to the public view, or the view of any number of persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

. . . .


When presented with a similar situation where lewd conduct is not an element of the offense, officers should consider Penal Code 372, Public nuisance; maintaing; committing; breach of duty of removal, which states:


Every person who maintains or commits any public nuisance, the punishment for which is not otherwise proscribed, or who willfully omits to perform any legal duty relating to the removal of a public nuisance, is guilty of a misdemeanor.


A public nuisance is defined as:


Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as the interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake . . .


Arresting for PC 372 will require a private persons arrest as detailed in DGO 5.04.


The incident report should describe the following if applicable:

  • The public nuisance
  • The amount of people present and how many of them were children
  • A specific statement (written if possible) from the offended person
  • A description of the location where the public nuisance occurred


This is from the bulletin handed to me today by the LGBT liaison from the Mission Street police station who claimed he was responding to a complaint. I was sitting

in the Castro Commons, naked, reading a book. At first he attempted to inform me that I was guilty of indecent exposure, Penal Code 314, showing me his bulletin and telling me he had received a complaint. I proceeded to inform him that I knew that was not the case, and that it was my understanding that the new police directive advised officers that there must be lewd conduct involved and simple nudity did not co

nstitute lewd conduct according to the California courts rulings. He then pointed out the code stated willfully and lewdly and I was willfully. I cautioned him as to the meaning of the logical conjunction ‘and,’ that in fact it did not say ‘or.’ He then pointed to the part about Penal Code 372, public nuisance. I would have to get dressed or risk arrest.

By this time a slender female officer approached who said she had informed the complainant that in order to be indecent, there had to be lewd conduct; that in fact simple nudity was not against the law. She said the complainant told her he did not know that and would withdraw the complaint. Bless you my dear! I responded with, “Then I guess I am free to get undressed.” The LGBT liaison admitted that technically that was the case, but as soon as he received another complaint he would be back to arrest me. I said that I would just agree to get dressed again. He responded that no I would not, I had already been warned and in fact, the next time there is a compliant about me being naked in public, I would be arrested.

He proceeded to tell me how HE did not have a problem with public nudity, but in fact, the neighborhood had changed since the days it was a gay ghetto. Now there were families who lived here with children. At the monthly public meetings held at the Mission Police Station, he claims they have been receiving dozens of complaints every month from MUMC (Merchants of Upper Market and Castro) as well as people outraged over the naked guys in the Castro, demanding to know why the police do not put a stop to it? He said that those complaints filtered up the chain of command and this new bulletin was the result. He said, “The Castro is not just a gay neighborhood any longer.”

I told him that this was not about being gay, had nothing to do with being gay. He seemed a little surprised by that, asking me how so. I responded that this was about the freedom to not be ashamed of our bodies, that which makes us human. That there was nothing indecent or wrong with our bodies and as nudists we believe that we have the right to appear in our bodies just as others have the right not to.


I wonder if PC 372 is really prosecutable in this instance. It does state, “. . . so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons, . . .” (italics mine). It seems that that would be awfully hard to prove, and seems rather vague. However, I have other priorities at the moment, namely me education, to have to risk arrest and court appearances to challenge this. I truly wish that were not the case.

I often think in terms of religion, as in freedom of. What if we were Jain Digambar monks, who do not wear any clothing? In today’s world the obscenity seems to be the renunciation of our humanness, the hatred of our bodies, the view that our most precious possession is dirty, immoral, and filthy. I truly believe we need to be back in touch with our bodies, our humanness, our nature; it is our only hope for saving ourselves.