The new adventures of old gays: Which "gay" are you?

I thought this article was hilarious because it listed my 4 favorite NYC bars along the divisions of "new gay/and new old gay". I go to "new gay" brooklyn bars Metropolitan and Sugarland often, but also love going to "new old gay" Marie's Crisis or Splash for Musical Mondays. just depends on my mood. I guess I'm a "new gay/new old gay" hybrid

I think now you have more flexibility to just like what you like.

I know - I go to all those places with equal enthusiasm as well (well, the Brooklyn places are closer, so that generally does tip the scales). Isn't variety the spice of life? And what about The Eagle, or the Front Runners gay running club, or Snaxx, or Gym, or the Gay Cheerleading Squad? Where do they fit in? The article reminds me of picking your table in the high school cafeteria, as though that one decision determines your social destiny forever...

Someone is either taking too much Geritol or too much Flinstones Vitamins. This has myopic generational warfare written all over it.

Basically, the message is if you don't like everything I like and hate everything I hate, you're too different to communicate with. Creating this hackneyed framework of justification for why some people like some things and others like different things almost makes it worse.

I go on the premise that I'm obviously old and that such an article has been written pretty much shows we are in the 21st Century. Like Rock and Roll, times move with youth and we all grow older eventually. Like Billy Joel said: 'Its still Rock and Roll to me!' :}

What's interesting to me is that now, in this time ,we as LGBT are now open and generational and that in discussing it, is measure of where we are today versus even 5 or 10 years ago and I like that and appreciate it. We are making our own pop culture!

"You bit the hand, Marty, You bit the hand!"

I personally don't care much for labels, which in an ironic way kinda puts me in the "new gay" category.  People are people, and being gay for me is just one part of a full, well-rounded life, not in any way the entirety of that life.  But individuality is a touchstone for me, so all varieties of the interpretation of what it means to be gay are cool.

I do have a question, though, that I've been thinking about quite a bit.  The NYO article asks: "then, really, what’s the difference between the gays and the straights?"  My question is:   why is it important that there be a significant cultural difference between gay people and straight people?  The two inherent, inescapable differences are whom we're attracted to, physically and emotionally, and the fact that a large part of society still doesn't accept us.  Obviously, those two things set us apart, and the second of those things makes it desirable that we forge a sense of community for mutual support and political/sociological power.  I'm not saying a unique community is or isn't important beyond that, I'm just thinking about it.

Let's posit a future, say in 20 or 30 years, where the anti-gay sentiment is confined to an ever-shrinking group of evangelical die-hards, and where essential acceptance and equality has been achieved (a likely scenario).  With no need to band together for protection or validation, and with no political battles to fight, is a separate "culture" necessary or desirable?  On the one hand, cultural diversity of all types gives our wonderful melting pot its flavor.  On the other hand, perhaps our current "separateness" on a cultural level harms us by restricting our viewpoints, our relationships, and the richness of our lives.  As much as I loved Queer As Folk, I was always struck by how few meaningul connections anyone had to the straight world, and it didn't seem entirely natural or healthy.  And I can't bring myself to watch shows listed in the daily Queerview guide simply because another gay person is on.  I'd rather watch a high quality show or movie with straight people than a bad reality show that I'm watching simply because of the presence of a gay person.

The GLBT population is incredibly diverse, and therefore we don't have a culture based on broadly shared interests or personal characteristics.  So there's not much natural need to rally around a common set of interests, as do, say, football fans, or theater people, or evangelical Christians.  Again, though it may sound like I'm making the case for no "separateness", I'm really asking the question as to what in the future would be the basis of a unique culture.

Yes, that's all moot right now, considering the realities of our rapidly improving but still very deficient law and social climate.  There are more than enough political battles to fight, and more than enough hatred and fear to combat.  But if current trends continue we'll have to increasingly think about those issues.

 

I'm just a guy that is attracted to other men.

Looking at it from a more serious standpoint; I work in a predominantly white-male chauvanist profession, I drive a truck and would NEVER consider replacing it with a smaller hybrid, I don't like Madonna, Janet, Kylie, or Cher (okay, some of her older stuff), I like being in the country much more than the City, go to more 'straight' bars than gay bars (i've been to a gay bar twice in the last year, and one of those times I went with a group of straight people that invited me!), I own guns and would go hunting, but don't, I watch football and baseball, like NASCAR, will get my hands dirty working on my own vehicles or around the house and yard, I don't listen to dance/trance/house/techno... I could go on...

The only reason someone would suspect I was gay (if I didn't tell them, which I have no problem doing) is the fact I live with another man (who happens to be straight), take care and pride in maintaining a clean and neat home, care about my dress and appearance, and have two cats.

Just trying to catagorize people, especially with such ridiculous lines like "New Old Gay" and "New Gay" is beyond me. 

Marcel Proust, Ronald Firbank, Cole Porter, Lorenz Hart, Noel Coward, John LaTouche, Jean Cocteau, Christopher Isherwood, Gore Vidal, Frank O'Hara, Joe Orton, Joe Brainard Alan Bennett and Stephen Sondheim are my Gods.

Rufus is lovely but he's no Judy and he knows it.

 

Patti Lupone is no Judy either -- and she doesn't know it.

Neil Patrick Harris is the new (vastly improved) Liza, and Pink is the Navy Blue of India.

 

(Miranda Priestly voice) That's all (end Miranda Priestly voice)

 

This makes me laugh because with a few minor changes this article could have been written at pretty much any time in history.  Friends of mine in the 80s started a group called "Gays against mustaches" to fight the clone look.  There have always been reactions against what's percieved as old style gays by younger gays--I'm kind of surprised that REALLY old style divas like Judy were brought up.  There are numbers of younger gay men who don't even know who she was.  Also, gays who don't care for/about musical theatre are pretty much the norm now--us Show Queens are an endangered species (though perhaps a loud one) at this point in time.

"Nuff Said!

I actually found the whole thing to be stereotypical and insulting.

"In some ways the New Old Gay can be read as a reassertion of a gay identity that had all but been given up for dead: If gays can be married and have children and live contentedly in the suburbs, or on the other end of the spectrum, do the same drugs at the same loft parties as their Oberlin classmates, and if everyone thinks AIDS is no more serious than diabetes, then, really, what’s the difference between the gays and the straights? " This is so shallow, does the writer really believe this?

"Rufus Wainwright flirts with being New Old Gay, but he’s really New Gay in a Judy Garland costume." if you say so.

"theater historians agree that one simple explanation why musical theater was attractive to gay men was in part because it provided them a place where singing and dancing was considered acceptable." oh my gawd, when will they let my people sing and dance?!!!!


Like db suggests, was there ever a time when there weren't "new old" gays as well as "new" gays. And when gays embrace popular culture, or in most cases create it, people are amazed, even the gays. Back in my day it was the fact that the quintessential punk band was created by a gay man, Malcolm McLaren (whether that's completely accurate is beside the point.) The point is that in 1977, I was wearing "pointy shoes and tight cutoff shorts, (I) studied queer theory and dabbled in (drugs)" Meanwhile, the boys who "weren't getting laid" where at a different bar drinking next to a pot bellied old queen who had "actually" seen Judy Garland perform live. So, I think to be accurate, her "new gays" are really the "New, old, new gays" and her "New, old gays," are really the "New, old, new, old gays."

This is one of those stoopid articles, with a snappy hook, "new old gay", that you are suppose to read on friday night so you have something interesting to talk about when you're at the bar with your friends. The sad thing is, there's some straight dude out their right now, who's going to hear this in a conversation and for the rest of his life he's going to be thinking, "new gay guy/ new old gay guy," like he's on to something..

 

If I'm taking the same drugs as MY Oberlin classmates, then it's not the kind of parties to which this article is referencing.

I think the author picked a great school to be out (love my alma mater) but mixed it with the WRONG culture.

*sigh*

I'm from Texas/Florida. I love old Country. I detest musical theater, except Cats for purely nostalgic purposes. Would rather spend time harvesting my garden than contemplating the horrid train wreck that is Top Design Model or whatever those shows are called. But I would dearly love to see Cher and her costumes. Golden Girls is my passion and was the epitome of the half hour comedy. I dislike bars/clubs/discos (if those still exist) for the same reason I dislike big cities. The closest I get to the Hollywood scene are reruns of Kathy Griffin. Reba and Dolly are my Judy/Babs. Also, my cats eat Toy Dogs.

I am gay. That's all.

I consider myself clinically homosexual because I'm pretty much a total failure at being gay.