"Out" Everythingians
157 gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered/questioning noders!
Updated 23 March 2011

256
United Kingdom (1987)
409
(bi) Aberdeen, UK (1981)
aeschylus
Raleigh/Chapel Hill, North Carolina (1984)
agentz_osX
Livingston, UK (1975)
ameriwire
(bi) College Park, Maryland
ammie
Oakland, CA (1978)
Anacreon
Tel Aviv, Israel (1976)
Angela
Weymouth, Massachusetts
anonamyst
·
Any
Dorchester, Massachusetts(1979)
Ariamaki
(bi) Mogadore, Ohio (1987)
arrowfall
Seattle, Washington (1973)
avalyn
(bi) Detroit, Michigan (1976)
Avis Rapax
Glasgow, UK (1985)
banjax
Manchester, UK (1970)
Beanie127
UK (1991)
bender
Seattle, Washington (1984)
Bill Dauterive
Ohio (1974)
boi_toi
(bi) Cary, North Carolina (1984)
bookw56
(bi) New Jersey
BurningTongues
Quartz Hill, California (1980)
CamTarn
Glasgow, UK (1984)
cerberus
Edinburgh, UK (1979)
C-Dawg
Santa Barbara, California (1960)
chaotic_poet
Chicago, Illinois (1983)
Chris-O
(bi) New York
cruxfau
(bi) Omaha, Nebraska (1991)
Danneeness
(1990)
DaveQat
Milwaukee, Wisconsin (1980)
dazey
Edinburgh, UK (1976)
deeahblita
(polyamorous pansexual) New York City (1976)
dichotomyboi
Bryan, Texas (1984)
Digital Goblin
Chichester, UK
Dimview
(unspecified) Copenhagen, Denmark (1959)
drummergrrl
(bi) Washington, DC
eien_meru
Ada, Ohio (1985)
eliserh
Cincinnati, Ohio (1979)
*emma*
(bi) Placerville, California (1962)
endotoxin
Albuquerque, New Mexico (1977)
eponymous
(bi) Minnesota (1968)
Error404
(bi) British Columbia, Canada (1983)
etoile
Washington, DC (1981)
Evil Catullus
Denver, Colorado (1976)
Excalibre
East Lansing, Michigan (1983)
fnordian
(bi/trans)
fuzzie
(bi/trans) Wiltshire, UK (1984)
fuzzy and blue
(1979)
Geekachu
Owensboro, Kentucky (1975)
gleeme
(pansexual) Chicago, Illinois
Grae
New York City (1978)
greth
(trans-bi) Middletown, Ohio (1987)
grundoon
(bi) Davis, California
Herewiss
·
hunt05
Olney, Illinois
ideath
Portland, Oregon (1976)
illuvator
San Francisco, California (1984)
I'm The Pumpkin King
Los Angeles, California (1980)
indigoe
(bi, poly) Fort Worth, Texas (1985)
Infinite Burn
New York (1981)
izubachi
Chicago, Illinois (1985)
Jarviz
Linköping, Sweden (1981)
jasonm
(bi) (only out on E2)
J-bdy
Chicago, Illinois (1985)
jeff.covey
·
Jethro
Evansville, Indiana (1965)
JDWActor
Kansas City, Missouri (1978)
John Ennion
(bi) Kansas City, Missouri (1984)
Johnsince77
New York City (1977)
katanil
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1986)
kidcharlemagne
Texas (1984)
Kinney
Manchester, UK (1975)
Kit
Moscow, Idaho (1984)
knarph
(bi, maybe) Baltimore, Maryland
labrys edge
Chattanooga, Tennessee (1983)
Lady_Day
Birmingham, UK (1983)
Lamed-Ah-Zohar
·
LaylaLeigh
(bi) Birkenhead, UK (1984)
liminal
(1975)

Luquid
Prince Edward Island, Canada (1981)
MacArthur Parker
Denver, Colorado (1980)
Magenta
(trans online) Las Cruces, New Mexico (1978)
melodrame
(bi) British Columbia, Canada
Meena
San Diego, California
MizerieRose
Boston, Massachusetts (1982)
Monalisa
Sydney, Australia (1975)
Montag
Glasgow, Scotland (1989)
moosemanmoo
Newport News, Virginia (1990)
morven
(bi) Anaheim, California (1973)
neil
Lexington, Kentucky (1981)
nmx
(bi) Massachusetts (1981)
NothingLasts4ever
(bi) Mainz, Germany (1972)
novalis
(bi) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1980)
oakling
(bi/trans) Oakland, California
ocelotbob
Albuquerque, New Mexico (1979)
Oolong
(bi) Edinburgh, Scotland (1978)
Oslo
Lincoln, Nebraska (1978)
panamaus
Santa Barbara, California (1968)
Phyre
Raleigh, North Carolina (1985)
purple_curtain
Birmingham, UK (1985)
qousqous
(bi) Portland, Oregon (1982)
QuMa
The Netherlands (1982)
rad
·
randir
Cambridge/Somerville, Massachusetts (1977)
Randofu
Maryland (1983)
Real World
Los Angeles, California (1982)
rgladwell
London, UK (1976)
Ryan Dallion
(bi) Vancouver, Canada (1982)
Saige
(trans) Seattle, Washington
saul s
Wisconsin (1985)
SB5
(bi) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1983)
scarf
Birmingham, UK (1986)
scunner
Leicester, UK (1989)
seaya
Baltimore, Maryland (1977)
seb
Seattle, Washington
Shanoyu
·
shaogo
(bi) West Hartford, CT (1956)
shifted
Lexington, Kentucky (1981)
Shoegazer
Little Rock, Arkansas (1985)
snakeboy
Los Angeles, California (1976)
Sofacoin
(asexual) Rhyl, UK (1986)
Sondheim
Brooklyn, New York (1977)
so save me
Birmingham, UK (1986)
Speck
(bi) Texas (1981)
Splunge
Boston, Massachusetts (1977)
stupot
Birmingham, UK (1975)
tandex
Columbus, Ohio (1968)
Tato
San Francisco, California
teleny
·
tentative
(bi) Australia (1992)
TheChronicler
Sacramento, California (1986)
TheLady
(bi) Dublin, Ireland
TheSoko
Holland, Michigan (1987)
Thumper
(bi) Walnut Creek, California (1971)
Tiefling
(bi) United Kingdom
tkeiser
New Jersey (1984)
Tlachtga
(bi) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1979)
Tlogmer
(bi) (only out on E2) Ann Arbor, Michigan (1982)
transform
Spokane, Washington (1980)
treker
·
TTkp
Centreville, VA (1984)
Ubiquity
(bi) Toronto, Canada (1974)
Wazzer
Newcastle, UK
Whiptail
·
Whiskeydaemon
(bi) Seattle, Washington
Wiccanpiper
Heyworth, Illinois (1957)
WickerNipple
(gender neutral) Brooklyn, New York (1977)
winged
Madison, Wisconsin (1976)
WolfDaddy
Houston, Texas (1965)
WoodenRobot
(bi) Wales, UK (1979)
woodie
Texas
wordnerd
Denver, Colorado (1979)
Wuukiee
(bi)
WWWWolf
Oulu, Finland (1979)
Xeger
Santa Barbara, California (1978)
Xydexx Squeakypony
·
XWiz
Norfolk, UK (1974)
Zxaos
Ontario, Canada (1985)

Blab to Wiccanpiper (below) if you have questions/corrections, or want on/off the list
(include your city of residence and year of birth, if you'd like)
You don't have to belong to the Outies usergroup to get your name up here, by the way.



About Outies

Outies is a social usergroup for noders who identify themselves as homosexual, bisexual, transgendered or just differently gendered. We also welcome those who are questioning their developing sexuality and feel they may identify with our group, but basically we\'re "Queers Only" here.

If you\'d like to join, you should know that the message traffic in this usergroup can sometimes be very high (as in edev-level). However, at other times there is no traffic for days. We\'re either flooding each other\'s message inboxes, or half-forgetting that we\'re even in the group. Note that as of March 2004, this usergroup is no longer moderated! Lots of off-topic prattle and inane ranting may and does occur. If the idea of logging on to find 150+ group messages within 24 hours really bothers you, Outies might not be your cup of tea.

If you do decide to join, we also add your name to the list of "Out" Everythingians (above). You don\'t have to be "out" in real life, just online. If you are "out" in real life, that\'s great! But we won\'t treat you any differently if you\'re not.

To join or leave this usergroup, message Wiccanpiper.


Venerable members of this group:

Evil Catullus, panamaus$, ideath, fuzzy and blue, Oslo, Xeger, ocelotbob, Error404, boi_toi, tandex, eponymous, CamTarn, nmx, kidcharlemagne, Ubiquity, Excalibur, Splunge, MizerieRose, Sofacoin, Giosue, MacArthur Parker, Grae, Tlogmer, aeschylus, Tlachtga, oakling, XWiz, TheSoko, 256, Avis Rapax, J-bdy, Zxaos, eliserh, bookw56, scarf, Kit, wordnerd, katanil, dichotomyboi, Tato, eien_meru, TTkp, greth, WoodenRobot, tkeiser, indigoe, Tiefling, banjax, Ariamaki, chaotic_poet, moosemanmoo, Danneeness, shaogo, scunner, Beanie127, Whiskeydaemon, cruxfau, Oolong@+, tentative, Wiccanpiper, Hopeless.Dreamer., Chord, Dom Coyote, Estelore
This group of 64 members is led by Evil Catullus

-she-
lithe and slender
petite
long-haired blonde

-he-
tall
broad and plump
short curls

-she-
tiny hands
seeksearching
exploring

-he-
gorilla hands but softpillowy
caressing
pretend-knowing but tentative

-she-
hungry mouth
kissbiting
gobbling me up

-he-
likes my kisses because they are soft but firm
(I don't tell him that his are slobbery)

-she-
too rough
nails too long
bites too hard
leaves hickies

-he-
a hard and soft pressure
a heat not my own
slow but quickly finished

“Imagine that after working your tail off all day, your boss springs a last-minute meeting just when you're on your way out the door. Of course, it has to start right away, which doesn't give you time to call home to your partner to tell her you're running late. It's really no surprise to you that the meeting runs a half-hour longer than it's supposed to, and the boss wants to chit-chat on the way to the parking lot. By the time you get in your car and on the road, it's nearly 7:00. Your heart rate quickens and your palms smooth over with dampness. You recite how you will explain your late arrival over and over in your head until you start doubting reality yourself. As you pull up the driveway, a dark, sinking feeling pulls deep in your gut, and you somehow try to prepare yourself for the wrath that awaits you. You sheepishly walk in the front door, and your heart stops when you see her sitting in the living room--waiting. Everything about her demeanor indicates that tonight isn't going to be any different than last night--or the night before. Before words of explanation can pass through your lips, your lover is out of her chair and stomping toward you in one swift motion. With one hand she grasps your throat, pushing your already bruised, sore body hard against the door, and with the other she cracks you across your face. But it doesn't stop there. She wants to know who you've been fucking and for how long. She wants to know one good reason she should keep a slut like you in her life. She wants to know why she shouldn't just snap your neck right now. And you don't know the answers to any of her questions--or if you ever will” (Hwing, 2001).
Domestic abuse has been a growing issue in the fields of sociology, psychology, and criminology in the past few decades. Recent statistics show that nearly 1.5 million women and 830,000 men are the victims of physical domestic abuse every year (Berlinger, 2004). Even more cases of physical abuse go unreported, and these numbers don’t take into account any cases of non-physical violence that occurs.

While these statistics are disturbing, they beg the question: what, precisely, constitutes domestic abuse? In a paper from the University of Miami, it is defined as “a pattern of violent or coercive behaviors whereby a lesbian or gay man seeks to control the thoughts, beliefs, or conduct of an intimate partner or to punish the intimate for resisting the perpetrator’s control (Potoczniak, 2003).” Domestic abuse can be further divided into two major subsets: physical and non-physical.

Physical domestic violence includes sexual and non-sexual assault, and normally follows three predictable phases. Though the names for the phases vary between researchers, the behaviors are similar. The first phase, tension building, involves the abuser becoming moody or critical. Threats are often made toward the intimate partner, their children, or pets. The victim will often attempt to calm the abuser down. The second phase, the event, involves actual physical battery which can include pushing, slapping, punching, kicking, or assault with a weapon. This phase tends to increase in severity as the abusive relationship progresses. Frequently, the victim will fight back or attempt to contact authorities. The third phase, calm, occurs after the physical abuse has finished. The abuser will often apologize profusely, promise to never repeat his/her actions, and even offer gifts or sex to the victim (Berlinger, 2004).

Non-physical violence is not nearly as predictable as physical violence. Just like physical violence, it is an attempt by the abuser to control the victim, though in this instance through non-physical coercion. This sort of abuse is subdivided into many different categories. Emotional and verbal abuse involves harsh insulting and criticism of the victim. Sometimes the abuser will make the victim feel guilty or humiliate him/her. Finally, the abuser might threaten to leave the victim or even to commit suicide, effectively trapping the victim in a dependent role.

Abusers can keep their victims dependent in other ways as well. Financial abuse occurs when the abuser prevents the victim from getting a job, or somehow gets the victim fired from a current job. The abuser might also take or otherwise control the victim’s money, thereby strongly restricting their social contact. Another route that abusers pursue is to control with whom the victim interacts within the community. Threats against the victim’s family, property, and pets are also common methods of non-physical abuse (Peterman, 2003). One method of abuse that is unique to the homosexual community is the threat of revealing a victim’s homosexuality or, in some cases, HIV infection to family, friends, or employers (Burke, 2006).

In a recent issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, it was estimated that 22.1% of women and 7.4% of men experience some sort of domestic violence during their lifetime, while the factsheet on domestic violence from the Center for Disease Control placed the numbers higher at 29% and 22%, respectively (Domestic, 2005; Intimate, 2006). While these numbers are representative of both homosexual and heterosexual people, a study by Stephen S. Owen and Tod W. Burke specifically focusing on self-identified homosexuals revealed that 56.1% of the respondents had been the victims in some sort of domestic violence. When they compared these findings to a representative group of heterosexuals, they found that “intimate partner assault may be more prevalent against gay men than against heterosexual men, but there was no significant difference between lesbians and heterosexual females” (129). Due to the highly controlling nature of the abuser in domestic violence situations, however, it tends to be a crime that is grossly underreported, and in cases of non-physical abuse, can be difficult to prove. Also, reporting domestic violence does not necessarily stop an abuser’s ability to “out” his/her partner, or an abuser’s final and possibly lethal session of battering.

Domestic violence remains a huge problem in our modern American society, but it is one that is receiving increasing attention from the media, law enforcement, and various support organizations. One aspect of domestic violence that is frequently overlooked, however, is its occurrence in the homosexual community. Because various sociological trends are currently rendering our society unable to adequately address the problem of same-sex domestic violence (SSDV), many homosexuals have nowhere to turn for support and inadequate legal protection if they become victims of domestic abuse.

One of the major problems that face homosexual abuse victims in our modern society is the lack of protection within the criminal justice system. A victim of opposite-sex domestic violence (OSDV) can report an incident, and have it judged as a felony in many states. However, victims of SSDV are not always this lucky. In fact, the only state in the USA that explicitly guarantees homosexual victims protection under domestic violence laws is Vermont. The states of Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Washington use heterosexual-specific language, thus excluding homosexual victims from legal defense (Potoczniak, 2003). Problems in the legal system, however, can arise even before the case reaches the courts. In order to even receive consideration by courts, a victim of domestic violence must first convince a local prosecutor’s office to officially file the charge. Potoczniak claims can be an incredibly difficult task, considering that “police response to same-sex domestic violence has been called ‘misguided at best and homophobic at worst’” (2003).

Once a SSDV case does go to court, there are other complications. The opinions of judges and juries really determine what sort of action will be taken against the abuser. In one case, a judge reduced the restraining orderprotecting a homosexual male from his abusive partner from one year to three months after learning that the victim was a black belt in karate, stating that “the victim could ‘take care of himself’” (Burke, 2006). This sort of attitude completely disregards the psychological effects that abuse can have on a victim in addition to being sexist and insensitive.

More problems arise from homophobic juries and the myth that much of homosexual domestic abuse takes the form of “mutual abuse.” This is the idea that abuse within homosexual relationships often flows both ways; both partners fill the role of abuser and victim (Peterman, 2003; Potoczniak, 2003). This thinking tends to disregard the severity of the violence by making no difference between abusive violence and self-defense. Studies have shown that lesbian women are more likely to fight back than women who are battered by men. This could perhaps occur “because self-defense courses are more widespread in the feminist/lesbian community…Also, same-sex partners can more easily fight back because their physical size tends to be closer to that of their partners’ size” (Peterman, 2003). The lack of informed, sensitive police, judges, and juries makes receiving legal protection incredibly difficult for a victim of SSDV.

Society never changes quickly, however, and one phenomenon that sways the public’s views on SSDV is the social construct of gender roles. These templates provide a norm for the behaviors and mindsets for males and females. For example, a “typical male” is someone who enjoys sports, cars, and women. A “typical female” is nurturing, enjoys shopping, and is generally non-aggressive. When these norms are disrupted through exceptions to the expected “rules” (homosexuals are an excellent example of this), society has a difficult time realigning itself to accommodate for these exceptions. In the case of homosexuals and domestic violence, this difficulty has manifested itself as a reduced ability to give adequate social support to both abusers and victims. In modern American, men are should supposed to be physically powerful, and thus able to take care of themselves. Therefore, one could reason that a man would not allow himself to become the victim of domestic violence. If he were to become a victim, it would devalue him as a male and put him in a subordinate “feminine” role where he would face not only abuse, but also societal sanctions. Conversely, women are traditionally seen as non-aggressive and nurturing. While it would be possible for a woman to be abused by a male, a woman physically battering a man, or even another woman seems inconceivable (Potoczniak, 2003). Reality has shown, however, that these assumptions are simply not true.

As the modern North American society is still generally negative (if not actively hostile) toward homosexuals, another problem springs to the forefront. Homosexuals tend to live in tight, non-blood related communities of “kin.” These networks form a large portion of social and emotional support for homosexuals, who often face ostracism from their childhood families, communities, and religious circles. The relative isolation that this produces can be a major barrier for a victim attempting to escape from SSDV. The victim may decide to protect their partner and him/herself from embarrassment by refusing help from any outside sources, thus making the abuse into a shared, binding, and guilty secret. There is also the possibility for a lesbian who accuses her partner of domestic abuse to be labeled as a “traitor to lesbianism or feminism” (Peterman, 2003), thus estranging her from her community.

This acute isolation has also begun to have an effect on the elderly homosexual population. In years past, homosexuals have faced harsher societal sanctions, providing incentive for homosexuals to turn inward to themselves as individuals as opposed to communities. This move toward independence has left many elder homosexuals unable to adequately deal with abusive situations. They often feel that society has changed little in the past years, making them fearful of reaching out to official sources of relief (law enforcement, shelters, etc.). Due to their old age, there is also a fear that they will not find another partner if they leave a long-standing relationship. As members of longer-standing relationships, the elderly homosexual couple would also likely have various funds and assets in joint accounts to which their legal claim would be tenuous at best if it were to go to the courts. Thus, the possibility of financial instability is another hurdle that they must face (Peterman 2003).

The overwhelming presence of society’s general ignorance of the problem of SSDV, in addition to causing difficulties within the legal system, has also brought about difficulties for homosexual abuse victims post-incident. If a victim wishes to leave an abusive relationship, they must first deal with all sorts of emotional barricades: fear of retaliatory violence, lack support from family and law enforcement, and feelings of guilt (Peterman, 2003). Of course, there are also logistical barriers to their leaving. One of the most difficult is the lack of suitable abuse shelters (especially for men). According to an article by Pam Huwing, “in the entire United States, there's only something like 25 agencies specifically devoted to LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transsexual) domestic violence. Knowing that, people are understandably going to be hesitant to seek services" (2001). Also, there is also the possibility of a lesbian abuser posing as an abused victim in order to enter a shelter and find her partner. Yet another tactic that has been used includes an abuser calling a shelter before a victim in an attempt to prevent them from receiving assistance (Peterman, 2003).

While it seems that the state of SSDV in today’s society is grim, the question must be raised: what can be done to better address these problems in the future? The first advances must be made in the political arena. Domestic violence laws must be addressed nationwide. They must first be made applicable to any sort of domestic pairing, whether it is hetero- or homosexual. The changes must make the laws more quickly and effectively enforceable, thus making the legal reporting of cases a more desirable and effective solution for both OSDV and SSDV.

The next change that must occur is much more difficult: work must be done to educate society about the full range of the domestic violence spectrum. In addition, the battle against homophobia and homonegativity must be constantly advanced. The societal changes necessary to defeat this problem will not come about unless homosexuals receive the same equality that every other American citizen receives. This includes equal protection under the law and freedom from fear of governmental institutions. In order to achieve this, new sensitivity training must be seriously administered to law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The creation of more organizations to provide shelter and support for homosexual abuse victims and to increase awareness of the issue must take place.

Though our society is currently unprepared to adequately deal with the problems that SSDV presents, the education and increasing sensitivity of the public coupled with an increasingly effective judicial and legal system will eventually be the key to bringing this epidemic to an end. Only when homosexual community feels that it can begin to trust law enforcement and integrate into the larger body of society will we be able to start working earnestly at the problem of same-sex domestic violence.


Works Cited

Berlinger, J. (2004, October ). Taking an intimate look at domestic violence. Nursing, 34(10). Retrieved March 21, 2006, from Academic Search Premier.

Burke, T. W., & Owen, S. S. (2006, January ). Same-sex domestic violence: is anyone listening?. Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 13(1). Retrieved Mar 22, 2006, from Academic Search Premier.

Center for Disease Control, (2006). Intimate partner violence prevention, facts - ncipc. Retrieved Mar. 23, 2006, from National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm.

Domestic violence awareness month -- october 2005. (2005). MMRW: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54(41), 1041. Retrieved Mar 23, 2006, from Academic Search Premier.

Hwing, P. (2001, March ). A look at lesbian domestic violence. Lesbian News, 26(8). Retrieved March 21, 2006, from Academic Search Premier.

Owen, S. S., & Burke, T. W. (2004). An exploration of prevalence of domestic violence in same-sex relationships. Psychological Reports, 95(1), 129-132.

Peterman, L. M., & Dixon, C. G. (2003). Domestic violence between same-sex partners: implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81(1). Retrieved Mar 22, 2006, from Academic Search Premier.

Potoczniak, M. J., Mourot J. E., Crosbie-Burnett M., and Potoczniak, D. J. (2003, June ). Legal and psychological perspectives on same-sex domestic violence : a multisystemic approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(2). Retrieved Mar 21, 2006, from PsychARTICLES.

Node your home-work! The following was a research paper i turned in for a high school Modern European AP class. It is rather cursory, covers only Britain and France (although i did find some bits of material on Holland that i didn't use) and is serverely marked by my frantic efforts to make the final product fall under the 1500 word limit (which i overshot by 700 words anyway) : i have two more paragraphs that were nearly finished, on the special cases of homosexuality in the British Theatre and the British Navy and how they are examples of how certain conductive environments would form their own little gay subcultures blah blah blah, that were just thrown out altogether (although if anyone really cares, /msg me and i'll try to stick them in somewhere); paragraph three, and half of paragraph six in this version were omitted in the version i turned in; and the paper completely ignores altogether both lesbianism and the weird little issues of pederasty (ugh) and how homosexuality was different in the nobility (basically, they would bugger people just for the feeling of power), each of which could fill a paper all by themselves. Basically, what i suggest you do is ignore the paper below, skip to the bibliography, and try to see if you can find copies of the sources used for this paper, which were mostly excellent. (Especially the Rictor Norton stuff.)

With the revolution in moral standards that has come with the twentieth century, a great many things have become open and acceptable in ways that were unthinkable just a few generations before. Nowhere are the changes more evident than in western culture's view of homosexuality; a thing which was for over a thousand years a capital crime has in the last 50 years become a relatively accepted part of society. The most obvious evidence of this which springs to mind is the visibility of well-defined gay and lesbian communities in larger cities. Such communities, it would seem, are a recent development, a product of new social worldviews; however, this is not the case, as the phenomenon is itself more than three hundred years old, and seems to have first emerged at the height of public stigma against homosexuality. By the eighteenth century, homosexual subcultures in Europe had emerged as clearly defined social entities with clear cultural identities of their own.

If a definite cause for the phenomenon of the gay subcultures in the eighteenth century exists, it would most likely be the urbanisation process which accompanied the beginnings of the industrial revolution and restructured the nature of how European cultures were put together. Small towns became more and more rare, larger towns became commonplace and the already large towns where the most thriving homosexual communities tended to develop simply exploded; London went from a population of about 200,000 in 1600 to nearly a million by the end of the eighteenth century, while Paris went from a sparse 70,000 in 1600 to a count of 713,966 in the same period1. The relatively huge population and geographic size of the new cities not only meant the relatively small percentage of gays in the total population could still form a sizable group, but the new cities also-- as a result of the fact that one could simply walk a short distance across town and reach a place where they would be completely unrecognized-- provided an unparalleled sort of quasi-anonymity, allowing people to go and engage in the kind of behavior the homosexual subculture consisted of without it necessarily consuming the rest of their daily lives. As such homosexuals, long prohibited by their cultures from expressing their sexual identities, began (as soon as the city environment grew conveniently large enough to make such a thing physically possible) to construct their own cultural infrastructure and support networks in order to go around the societal constraints applied to them.

The historical sociology of homosexuality is a subject which received no serious attention until 1976, and is one that is extremely difficult to get hard data on. Beyond the ordinary difficulties of distinguishing the differences in the lives of normal minority groups within a society, the social stigma that was tacked on to the subject for over fifteen hundred years effectively blotted out any relevant information from the vast majority of accounts. The Christian orthodoxy sought not only to repress homosexuality, but to erase all evidence that it even existed, using its influence to ensure those sources that were most visible-- those which would be of most use to historians-- censored any mention of "that most horrible sin which must never be named"2. While decent amounts of information do exist on the more solid subcultures that began to appear on the record with the eighteenth century, the essence of an individual life is almost impossible to grasp: even those few who at the time were committing details of daily lives to paper at that point in history left out anything directly referencing homosexuality as it affected them for fear of public disgrace, or that what they wrote could be used against them legally. What information is left is often infuriatingly vague, leaving historians to read between the lines on near everything-- meaning that almost certainly a certain amount of meaning that was never meant to be there at all is occasionally read into original texts by overzealous revisionist historians. On lesbianism the texts offer nothing but silence, partly due to the tendency of the (male) primary documenters to consider the doings of women so unimportant as to not merit comment, and partially due to the strategy taken by the authorities of refusing to outlaw or otherwise acknowledge the existence of lesbians in hopes that women simply wouldn't realize that lesbianism was an option unless it was specifically suggested to them (Basically a Lets Pretend they Don't Exist and Hope they Go Away thing.)3. As a result of all of this, the most tangible and extensive source of information historians have, somewhat ironically, is police reports2. The only people really interested in keeping hard records on the activity of the homosexual subculture, as it happens, were those who wanted to see it destroyed. As a result, the best data on the nature of the subculture is available for those periods in which repression of it was most intense; in fact, it is quite possible that these subcultures existed prior to 1700, and their apparent "appearance" at that time is solely a result of the documentation created by a resurgence in repression.

A good example of this phenomenon would be in Paris, where the police from the beginning of the eighteenth century on consistently produced detailed documentation of their war on the (male) homosexual subculture. Because the population of Parisians with homosexual tendencies was (while relative to the rest of the population small) so large as to make direct prosecution unrealistic, the authorities chose instead to pursue a policy of a kind of psychological terrorism; it was infrequent that prosecutions were carried through with completely, but those that did were done publicly and very bloodily4. In an attempt to remove any sense of security gays may have had, a system of entrapment was implemented whereby violators were picked up by special police agents commonly called Mouches (apparently French for "fly"), who would actually pose as gay men and attempt to entrap others into soliciting sodomy5. While the efforts of the police do not seem to have been very effective at all in their purpose of dispersing the subculture, the nature of the Mouches-- who would solicit personal information from their targets and come as close as possible to the actual act of sodomy itself in order to secure a conviction-- meant that historians were left with an unparalleled amount of information on the workings of the gay culture, which was in and of itself quite developed.

The main focus of the police attention was centered on a number of specific established "cruising" routes, in which those looking to engage in "infamous acts" would ramble in an attempt at identifying like-minded individuals. Such routes existed in London as well as Paris, although the English court documents on this subject have unfortunately been so heavily censored as to leave almost no real data as to how the transactions there were conducted6. The cruising routes in both countries, at least the ones targeted by the police, were generally the same areas frequented by prostitutes of both sexes, although Britain appears to have had absolutely minimal gay male prostitution7.

The signals potential partners used to identify each other were quite subtle; generally a participant would begin a conversation on a totally unrelated subject and tentatively move toward a solicitation, aborting if they received indication that the person being talked to was not the type to be interested. The conventions involved in these transactions to ensure only the truly interested became involved were vaguely intricate, and with time began to adapt to the presence of the Mouches; for example, in the later part of the century, the involved parties were expected to at some point before an agreement was met quietly mutually expose themselves-- forcing any police agents to to a degree implicate themselves in order to get their quarry8. Not all propositioners were quite so subtle, of course; many hook-ups in both England and France were procured through rather visible displays of public urination, which was used as a form of self-advertising9. Since relieving oneself in such a public manner was, as it happens, not terribly uncommon at this point in history anyway, taking this method meant both that gays would in the act draw minimal extra attention from those not specifically paying attention, and that innocent people who just happened to be pissing in the streets in the wrong part of town were not infrequently propositioned by accident.

In France, those making unwelcome advances were rebuked, and if someone made a nuisance of themselves in the advance (Although propositioners were apparently rather good at knowing when to leave well enough alone– and interestingly, in every single case of male-on-male sexual assault recorded for this entire period, the aggressor was a member of the aristocracy9.) they would usually be dealt with through the same community-disapproval techniques used to deal with drunkards– drunkenness apparently being a "vice" which most French of the time apparently considered buggery no worse than10.

Britain tended to be societally less tolerant of this kind of behavior, mostly as a result of the public-opinion-shifting efforts of the Society for the Reformation of Manners, a privately-run but government-blessed organisation that arose at the beginning of the 18th century dedicated to resulting in general moral reform. Their main target was to suppress the rowdier bars and public profanity, but they also operated a free-lance network of Mouche-style entrapment operatives who would seek out Molly houses or gays in search of partners and report them to the police11. Despite its best efforts, the Society in the end appears to have mostly fed the Molly subculture, by way of making those with homosexual tendencies realize that they are not alone, and then (by way of their public "condemnations") proceeding to provide lots of free publicity for the best cruising spots12.

Once set up, the act (the act generally being anal sex; in France, there were usually certain distinctly odd conventions of who would be the penetrator-- it was assumed that the older/more senior/more "quality" partner would always be the one buggering, and giving up this privilege was seen as akin to giving up one's manhood13. The English, on the other hand, had no qualms whatsoever about position14.) would actually generally be consummated in any place not clearly in public view-- an alley, a thicket, a ditch, wherever. Such places were actually MORE private than a private living space would be, due to the cramped living quarters and paper-thin walls of the dwellings of the new urbanisation15. Private rooms at taverns were occasionally used, but this sometimes was dangerous as some tavern owners worked with the police.

The apparent emphasis in this entire system on simple anonymous sex rather than lasting relationships is possibly a result of the heavy reliance by historians on the records of the Police, who obviously would have a great deal of trouble finding out and prosecuting cases of people pretending to just be roommates; it is, however, known that long-term homosexual relationships did happen during this period, as several couples did fall into the hands of the police, at least in France16. The more lasting emotional side of the homosexual subculture, however, seems mostly to be found satisfied in the Molly houses.

The English gay community seems to have had less emphasis on cruising grounds than on specific meeting places at taverns– "Molly Houses", the first gay bars. France is documented as having similar designated places, although France's version was more subdued– eight groups of 15-30 people, all from the emerging merchant classes, who would habitually meet at the same tavern evenings with the shutters closed are documented as existing during this period in France17, but their meetings were full of restraint, mainly centers of comradery and places to find partners– any actual acts of sodomy or even serious touching would take place off-premises. The English Molly Houses, meanwhile, were less class-specific, and tended to be homes– often taking on lodgers– specifically intended for gays to meet. These were far more open and rowdy than their french equivalent– Public Displays of Affection were encouraged, and sodomy on-premises was acceptable, although usually taken into a side-room18.

More or less every account of these houses, in both England and France, speaks of the feminine qualities taken on by the attendees; the Mollies would take on the mannerisms and occasionally the accouterments of women. Most interestingly, in many of these accounts are found reports of mimickings of aspects of legal heterosexual unions. In England, multiple accounts survive of those leaving the room for private couplings being given a brief blessing of "marriage" by an attendant18. Some of the French tavern groups brought new members in with an initiation ceremony whereby the new member would be "married" to the entire existing group, dressed and welcomed in as the young "bride" of the brotherhood17. Documentation even exists– including one case where men were actually arrested in the act– of a semi-common English mock-birth ritual, where one member of the group would dress up as a pregnant woman and feign the contractions of birth, after which a "child" made of wood was produced; the group would lavish over their child, and sometimes apparently even go so far as to christen it19. Aside from the sexual or social tensions that such actions were meant to relieve in the members of the group, these accounts speak volumes about the purpose of the Molly-houses themselves. The cruising grounds may have merely been sources of sex partners, but the Molly-houses were there to provide a sense of home and belonging– to provide the analogue within the gay subculture of the Mollies' perception of heterosexual conceptions of love and marriage.

Despite society's views and attempts to end their actions, homosexual subcultures were able to not only survive in the eighteenth century but to become quite developed and self-defined. As long as the existence of the community was at all possible, the community would find a way to make itself happen.


Citations

  1. Wendell Cox Consultancy, Paris Population History from 1600 and Greater London: Population & Population Density History; available from http://www.demographia.com/; internet
  2. Wayne R. Daynes and Stephen Donaldsen, ed., History of Homosexuality in Europe and America (New York: Garland Publishing, 1992), Introduction, xii.
  3. Discussion of lesbianism has been wholly omitted from this paper, partly because of space considerations. The Rictor Norton book (p. 9, p. 232) states that the lesbians were a bit late in forming independent identities for themselves, and did not begin to form their own subculture until the 1790s in France, the mid 18th century in England, and earlier in Italy.
  4. Wikholm, Andrew. Sodomitical Subcultures Emerge, accessed 2-23-01, available from http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/events/subcultures.htm; internet
  5. Rey, Michael, "Parisian Homosexuals Create a Lifestyle, 1700-1750: The Police Archives," In Robert Purks Maccubbin, ed., Tis Nature's Fault: Unauthorized Sexuality during the enlightenment (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 179
  6. Rictor Norton, Mother Clap's Molly House: The Gay Subculture in England 1700-1830 (London: GMP Publishers Ltd, 1992), 106
  7. For Britain: Norton, 110. For France: Rey, 180
  8. Rey, 196
  9. France: Rey, 182; England: Norton, 107
  10. Rey, 182
  11. Laurence Senelick, "Mollies or Men of Mode? Sodomy and the Eighteenth-Century London Stage," Journal of the History of Sexuality 1 (1990):33-67
  12. Norton, 40
  13. Rey, 182
  14. Norton, 108
  15. Rey, 180
  16. Rey, 185
  17. Rey, 186
  18. Rictor Norton, Ed., "The Trial of Margaret Clap, 1726", Homosexuality in Eighteenth-Century England: A Sourcebook. Updated 14 April 2000, available from http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/clap.htm; internet
  19. Rictor Norton, Ed., "The Mollies Club, 1709-10", Homosexuality in Eighteenth-Century England: A Sourcebook. Updated 1 Dec. 1999, available from http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/nedward.htm; internet

Bibliography

  • Norton, Rictor. Mother Clap's Molly House: The Gay Subculture in England 1700-1830 . London: GMP Publishers Lt., 1992
    Excellent book, source of a great deal of my information on London. The second chapter of this is available at http://www.infopt.demo n.co.uk/molly2.htm (minus spaces)
  • Wayne R. Daynes and Stephen Donaldsen, ed. History of Homosexuality in Europe and America. New York: Garland Publishing, 1992.
    Invaluable compilation of relevant articles from scholarly journals too obscure to be readily accessible; the next three sources listed here were located from this book. Contains an excellent introduction which was, itself, used as a source.
    Rey, Michael. "Parisian Homosexuals Create a Lifestyle, 1700-1750: The Police Archives." in Tis Nature's Fault: Unauthorized Sexuality during the enlightenment, ed. Maccubbin, Robert Purks. New York: Cambrige University Press, 1987: pp. 179-191.
    Source of most of my information on Paris.
    Gilbert, Arthur N. "Buggery and the British Navy, 1700-1861." Journal of Social History 10, 1976. pp. 72-98
    Source of pretty much all information for a paragraph on subcultures within the navy that was mostly written but removed because of lack of space.
    Senelick, Laurence. "Mollies or Men of Mode? Sodomy and the Eighteenth-Century London Stage." Journal of the History of Sexuality 1 (1990):33-67. University of Chicago Press, publisher.
    Contributed information on English Manners Society; Source of pretty much all information for a paragraph on subcultures within the British theatre that was mostly written but removed because of lack of space.
    Wendell Cox Consultancy, Paris Population History from 1600 and Greater London: Population & Population Density History; available from http://www.demographia.com/; internet
    Demographical statistics website; provided figures on growth of European cities in the 18th century.
    Rictor Norton, Ed., "The Trial of Margaret Clap, 1726", Homosexuality in Eighteenth-Century England: A Sourcebook. Updated 14 April 2000, available from http://www.infopt.demo n.co.uk/clap.htm (minus spaces); internet
    Primary source; used in examination of Molly houses
    Rictor Norton, Ed., "The Mollies Club, 1709-10", Homosexuality in Eighteenth-Century England: A Sourcebook. Updated 1 Dec. 1999, available from http://www.infopt.demo n.co.uk/nedward.htm (minus spaces); internet
    Primary source; used for examination of Molly houses
    Wikholm, Andrew. Sodomitical Subcultures Emerge, accessed 2-23-01, available from http://www.gayhis tory.com/rev2/even ts/subcultures.htm (minus spaces); internet
    Source of information on Holland, French police tactics.
    Weeks, Jeffrey. Against nature : essays on history, sexuality and identity. London : Rivers Oram Press, 1991
    Was part of original research; contained useful information relevant to the 19th century. Was dropped as source when I decided to limit the scope of the paper to the 18th century.
    Rabeea Sultan, Lesbianism in the Eighteenth Century. Updated Dec 06, 2000. Available from http://www.cw rl.utexas.ed u/~pasupath i/critical_to ols/e314l_fall_2 000/archives/h istory/lib3/Les bianism_in_the_eigh teenth_centu ry.html (minus spaces); internet
    Was not, in the end, used as a source. Included here only in case it would be of further interest to the reader. Be warned the piece is short and does not document its sources.

1974, written and directed by Larry Cohen
Genre: Horror, Mutant Rampage

{ It's Alive | It Lives Again | Island of the Alive }

The (Entire) Plot

Gays and lesbians know that it's often harder for their parents to “come out” about their child than it was for the child. So you’d think that It’s Alive, a film brave enough to tell the story about one family's coming out process for their special needs son, would have the courage to simply speak truth of their journey and leave it at that. But as you'll see, writer Larry Cohen apparently didn't have the cojones to see his vision to the end.

Meet the Davies. Perpetually smoking husband Frank, schizotypal pregnant wifey Lenore, and beaver-hybrid son Chris. One night Lenore wakes up with painful contractions. Frank wakes up Chris by sweetly humping his face with their Siamese cat. They drop Chris off in the hands of Uncle Charlie and head to the hospital, where things go pretty much as expected. Frank is sequestered with the other 1950s stereotypes in the Poker and Cigar room while Lenore languishes in her epidural. When “It” arrives, the hospital isn’t quite equipped for Its special needs, there’s a mishap involving some of the hospital staff, and amidst their dying they lose the baby. It’s all long-roll tympani-and-crashing-brass-section accompaniment to low hallway camera work, with Lenore, still strapped in, screaming her post-partem head off. “What’s wrong with my baby? What’s wrong with my baby?” Fortunately cops arrive to secure the hospital, question the parents, and make cracks.

    Overenunciating doctor: “I noticed that you did inquire about abortion eight months ago?”
    Frank: “Doesn’t everybody inquire about it nowadays? It was just a question of convenience but we decided to have the baby.”
    Cop: “We all make mistakes. (Immediately, deadpan:) I apologize for that crack.”

Nice crack. The next morning, confused, scared, and hungry, It kills an extra from Laugh In. It is in this scene that we're introduced to ItCam™. Meanwhile Frank loses his job at We Make Desk Owls, simply because the media now knows his child is different. He brings Lenore home that night. Internalizing the shame, they tell Uncle Charlie to keep Chris an extra week and make sure he hears nothing. Of course It must eat, and the cops find another body. But not without another crack.

    “Hunting and killing babies doesn’t seem to be my specialty”
    “So what do you want, a transfer?”

While Uncle Charlie and Chris go fishing, It tries to get some milk from the back of an open Carnation truck and must defend Itself from the intruding milkman. The Keystone Kops follow the sounds of gurgling only to learn they have cornered an adorable human infant. At home, teleporting university professors arrive and Frank happily signs some standard contract stuff that gives them full legal right to capture and experiment on It. Frank is still in denial, telling them forcefully “that is not my child!” We never see the professors again. It kills some bumbling cops at a school, fingerpaints with the blood, and escapes.

That night Frank can’t sleep. Walking around he finds the freezer, usually full of frozen meat, vacant. (!) He also finds all the bottles of milk he's been hoarding completely empty. (!!) Lenore starts getting weird, and slowly we realize that she’s harboring the child somewhere in the house. (!!!) She, at least, is coming to terms with their unique blessing. The father is always the last to come to terms, and Frank starts to hunt It.

Uncle Charlie and Chris come back from fishing and the kid, tired of obeying his parents, makes a break for it and jogs all the way home. He enters the basement and meets his brother. Chris has no problem immediately accepting It for what It is. Frank finds It and actually wounds It with a gunshot as It escapes the house and kills Uncle Charlie. The cops arrive and they all follow the trail of blood to the sewers. They split up and Frank comes face to face with his son, where Frank has a Moment of Clarity and admits his unconditional love. He swaddles It and tries to run to safety, outrunning a cop car in the tunnels with newfound strength. But out of the sewer Frank is confronted with a line of cops, their revolvers leveled right at the two of them.

Now it’s here in the story where Frank should make some stirring speech that puts the prejudiced, vivicentric world in its place. But no, we’re back to 1940s narrative politics where acceptance and happiness can only come at a dire cost in the end. Sure, the investors are happy, but where’s the truth? Instead of the speech, Frank just hefts It onto an overly Irish cop for Its last meal, and the rest of the squad empties their guns in that direction.

In the end we’re left with a histrionic moral of conformism, yet piqued with the news of another It, born in Seattle, setting up the sequel (The End(?)) and, we hope, a second chance for a happier ending.

The Goods

Scary? Maybe in Its day. The gore isn’t gory, and the deaths are all strikingly similar: a simple scratch across the neck. Oh wait, there was the strawberry milk pouring out of back of the Carnation truck, but that hardly qualifies. The basement and school scenes manage to stir some suspense, but the threat isn't really there to back it up. The sound effects for It are kind of creepy, but you'll have to listen hard to hear it through the orchestra, whose speakers clearly go all the way up to eleven.

As for It, the film adheres to the school of Your Imagination Is Scarier Than Our Special Effects Could Ever Be, so we're only supposed to see It in tiny flashes. In these bits we can make out that It looks like the encephalitic love child of a vampire and a sleestak. Quality, I’m sure, for 1974, but a little yawny for today.

Riffable? Definitely. The costumes and set designs are pure 70s and thereby easy pickins, but the hysterical portrayal of the hysterical Lenore (O, Sharon Farrell, where are you today?) and the questionable paternity of It begs for mockery.

Gore: The neck lacerations are shallow and drizzled with red corn syrup. They don't really make any impact. The movie scores way low on the gore factor.

Science! Half-hearted efforts are made in the script to alternatively blame chemicals, smog, recreational drugs, the media, excess prescription medication, aberrant genetics, and radiation exposure. The plot never commits to any one particular cause. If it’s adhering to franchise rules, it’ll save this for the sequel.

Zombies? It is not undead, but certainly not entirely human, either. It is the only such It in this film, so it’s pretty low on the zombie factor, too.

The Upshot

It’s Alive is an earnest film clearly a product of its own time, middling script, and budget. Lots of fun to make fun of as long as you don’t get your hopes up for terror and can divorce yourself from the prior century’s Come-Uppance morality about diversity.
Adapted from a review I had done for a now-defunct movie blog.