Its Hard Out here for a Bottom
Like any queen with good taste, I was horrified with the choice of members of the Academy when they decided to award, in the category of best Original Song for a Motion Picture, 'Its hard out here for a pimp', for the film 'Crash'.
Who in their mind would not give Dolly Parton an Oscar for 'Travelin' Thru' for the film, 'Transamerica'?
But if Hip Hop is the poetry of the street and the voice of the oppressed maybe we can twist things a little bit and appropriate this medium, personalize it and make it "our" own.
And in the wake of 'homohop', why not say, 'its hard out here for a bottom'?
One would be surprised by the parallels.
Queens go out in gangs, and inter-gang "violence" is rife. The term 'vicious queen' did not come out of nothing. Every queen is constantly at the threat of being dissed, insulted or publicly humiliated by other queens. Or worse, vicious queens would do anything to break a happy couple.
Queen are naturally a vulnerable group, and just like pimps, the government and the police can't get enough of harassing them.
Gay men might be an oppressed minority, but its the queens that are always attacked.
In our context if you're a "top" then the world is yours, you pick and choose and even if you're confronted with your "perverse acts" people will dismiss your sexuality as "confusion" at worst or "excessive virility" at best.
And no sorry "us".
Not only did Judith Butler ruin our last chance in the comfort of a stereotype or a category, its now too "limited" to think in those terms, 'top', 'bottom', 'queen', 'fairy',...etc
Call me old fashioned but Jean Genet does it for me. And this is a true intersection of high and low art.
A fairy is a fairy, category or not.
And while I have been harassed and cheated and deeply disappointed in my 'sisters' and follow queens for as long as I remember, the terms still holds.
One is aware of the ever increasing diversity and complexity of humans and everything that involves them.
Their behavior, their genes, their sexuality and even the very diseases that ails them.
Yet I think of the terms, 'bottom' or 'queen' as paradigms or strategies of being.
I am not arguing for an essentialist, prescribed set of expectations and mannerisms every queen must uphold and internalize or else she risks the chance of being marginalized. But we are defined and perceived by a continuous set of values and behaviors that we inherited and evolved over time. Like what Spivak says a strategic essentialism that a group of people adopt, overriding their own internal differences for the sake of some immediate "common goal".
What is our common goal?
What do the "sisters" want?
Aside from the prince charming, the sugar daddy and the stud muffin, the social networks that sisters form are crucial to their survival and well-being in a very unforgiving environment.
The camaraderie f the degenerates.
I always tell Kiki there are exactly 3 eligible men in the entire gay community, and 1000 queens fighting over them.
Hardly a condition that fosters 'sisterly affection'!!
Who in their mind would not give Dolly Parton an Oscar for 'Travelin' Thru' for the film, 'Transamerica'?
But if Hip Hop is the poetry of the street and the voice of the oppressed maybe we can twist things a little bit and appropriate this medium, personalize it and make it "our" own.
And in the wake of 'homohop', why not say, 'its hard out here for a bottom'?
One would be surprised by the parallels.
Queens go out in gangs, and inter-gang "violence" is rife. The term 'vicious queen' did not come out of nothing. Every queen is constantly at the threat of being dissed, insulted or publicly humiliated by other queens. Or worse, vicious queens would do anything to break a happy couple.
Queen are naturally a vulnerable group, and just like pimps, the government and the police can't get enough of harassing them.
Gay men might be an oppressed minority, but its the queens that are always attacked.
In our context if you're a "top" then the world is yours, you pick and choose and even if you're confronted with your "perverse acts" people will dismiss your sexuality as "confusion" at worst or "excessive virility" at best.
And no sorry "us".
Not only did Judith Butler ruin our last chance in the comfort of a stereotype or a category, its now too "limited" to think in those terms, 'top', 'bottom', 'queen', 'fairy',...etc
Call me old fashioned but Jean Genet does it for me. And this is a true intersection of high and low art.
A fairy is a fairy, category or not.
And while I have been harassed and cheated and deeply disappointed in my 'sisters' and follow queens for as long as I remember, the terms still holds.
One is aware of the ever increasing diversity and complexity of humans and everything that involves them.
Their behavior, their genes, their sexuality and even the very diseases that ails them.
Yet I think of the terms, 'bottom' or 'queen' as paradigms or strategies of being.
I am not arguing for an essentialist, prescribed set of expectations and mannerisms every queen must uphold and internalize or else she risks the chance of being marginalized. But we are defined and perceived by a continuous set of values and behaviors that we inherited and evolved over time. Like what Spivak says a strategic essentialism that a group of people adopt, overriding their own internal differences for the sake of some immediate "common goal".
What is our common goal?
What do the "sisters" want?
Aside from the prince charming, the sugar daddy and the stud muffin, the social networks that sisters form are crucial to their survival and well-being in a very unforgiving environment.
The camaraderie f the degenerates.
I always tell Kiki there are exactly 3 eligible men in the entire gay community, and 1000 queens fighting over them.
Hardly a condition that fosters 'sisterly affection'!!
Comments
anerxics muscle marries jocks leather skin heads ..... U have so many people with so many different types
P.S. thank u S for calling them 1000 men and not 1000 queens as if queens were a different gender, i guess we all are how we see ourselves.
Seriously!
I am WAY over this postmodern crap of "stereotypes do not reflect reality"!
The hell they don't!
It takes tremendous courage, perseverance and creativity to challenge stereotypes than to just dismiss them by saying, "its not who we are", or "it doesn't represent us"!
If some lame ass queen can come up with a better definition I am all for it.
But "men" is not an adequate term to describe this particular group of people.
I definitely do not relate to "men" as a category or what it represents.
And unlike some people, I am not in denial about it.
I exist at the margin, ephemeral, and in exile.
What the hell is the fight about human dignity when you want to subscribe to the very notions that oppress you?
Its "men" who beat up homos or is it different where you come from?
And the whole bullshit about people liking different things, that so not true.
There are few "stereotypes" everyone is looking for. Bears or not.
And if we are so blinded to this fact as "to thank S" for illuminating that "queens" are "men" then no wonder people hate us!
I am not talking about the biological gender of gay people.
Its way more complex than that.
But if every time someone says "queen", "queer", or "fag" a bunch of fairies will cringe and say "no, we are men" then this is a losing battle.
Take it with a grain of salt and a little lube sister!
You are right, stereotypes reflect reality, but only the reality of those who conform to them, come on E, you say you don't relate to "men" and then dismiss "men" as those who beat up homos, exactly like the so called men dismiss all homos as sick perverts, and the examples can even span political conflicts as u surely know, all aggregating under one flag and dismissing the others under another without realizing that most of the time they are nearer to the other (and farther to the picture they imagine of themselves) than they think possible.
Now what i was proposing was different, we like men, we like taking it up with a little lube as u put it, but are we really just that? and does that necessarily cause our front side to be useless or is it that we can't see ourselves using it only because we conformed to yet another stereotype?! and please, don't go on accusing me of being a bottom in denial hiding under the flag of "versatile", i'll never deny that i love taking it but what i mean is that taking it and giving it are not necessarily mutually exclusive, something clearly visible in other gay communities where the roles are not so set in stone as they are here in Egypt.
And sure there are the "hotties" we almost all love and dream of, but does that mean anyone who doesn't conform to them must be dismissed as a non eligible candidate?
I am not here to preach equality of chances or rediscovering manhood, all i am saying is that it is natural that if u consider only 3 men out of 1000 eligible, (and then maybe narrow the 3 to 1 top, and,2 not-so-top tops), you are clearly narrowing your chances, and being picky comes with the inevitable price of being alone most of the time.
As long as you or the rest of the 1000 "queens" are happy with it, then who am i to disagree?
My point was exactly that biological gender is a very narrow category.
Having a penis does not make you a "man".
And if it does we wouldn't have this conversation.
Just as taking it up the ass does not make you a "queen".
I am not limiting the range of desire.
Of course people like different things, and they like it differently.
But if we are going to borrow the mannerisms, behavior, lifestyle of queens and then diss them because we are "men", then is fucking hypocrisy and I refuse it.
It was the queens who took the first beating and thanks to them most of us have rights all around the world.
The gay community in the effort to go mainstream is trying to hit a moderate, watered down version of "queer identity".
Which is fine, because its more palpable and politically correct.
But nevertheless, the whole notion everyone is versatile and I am delusional is bullshit.
Versatility can only go so far.
So why not call an elephant by its name and not call it a giraffe, because giraffe is aesthetically more appealing!
If the entire gay community wants to go versatile and deny extremes (i.e. queens and what not) fine.
But that's bigotry and sexism.
If we are calling for tolerance and acceptance "queens" have a fair share as anyone else to be represented, respected and appreciated for who they are.
Not dissed and sent at the back of the bus, because its unsightly or politically incorrect or visually jarring.
My biological sex will not dictate my identity or who I stand for.
And yes I have penis and I like it, but that does not mean I will have a fit every time thinks I am not using it enough!
As for our community, which is an extremely classist, rigid with complete social immobility and very strict gender roles, the argument is even more complex.
I disagree completely.
There are very few eligible "men" out there, and the fact that the entire scene is underground makes it even more difficult.
And yes I am happy with 1000 queens, because at the end of the day they have the moral courage to express their desires and who they are with no persistent, superfluous, neurotic reference to their penis and make-believe "manhood".
At least they are real.
I might not like their survival strategies sometimes, but I have tremendous respect for them, because unlike many versatile-wannabees they don't give a shit.
This fucking community is fucking parochial and petty.
And FYI the lube and the salt reference were strictly metaphorical.
The whole aim of my comment was for each to seek his own identity.
as you said yourself, queens are the extreme of the spectrum, which doesn't make them the totality, much as geniuses are an extreme and don't represent the whole.
and, why u should try out your metaphors, they r good when practiced :p
E., your blog is entertaining and provocative. However, it seems to me that, for someone who exists in the "margins," you are extraordinarily quick to be intolerant towards people who try to 'fit together' their sexuality in a way that is different to you. Being someone who has been in relationships where I have been almost purely 'top,' purely 'bottom' and also 'versatile', and feel that all of these relationship have been happy and fulfilling to both of us, I resent that. I don't like to describe myself as 'versatile' because it is not nuanced enough, but it is surely a reasonable 'working title.' You are in danger of classifying yourself into the tightest category of all, one where only you fit.
Nothing good comes out of "hit and run" comments.
To the latest "Anonymous" you being so "versatile" in your various relationships exactly proves my point.
People can be different, at different points in time.
However, they can not be multiple "things" all at the same time with equal tenacity.
The whole range of the spectrum can be explored by anyone.
But I bet it can not be explored with all configurations at the same time.
And if you indeed have the capacity to explore these different configurations, then hurrah for you, you are truly emancipated.
Maybe some of us are not so liberated.
And while I have nothing against you or anyone becoming "versatile", its no longer a working title.
It became political.
Political as a condition fraught with power and conflict of interest.
People who are no longer "versatile" face the risk of being "excommunicated".
One can not freely choose a configuration, no matter how extreme, because it offends the sensibility of a bunch of spineless bitches, who want to have it all! Without any repercussions or social or cultural ramifications.
You want to be a "top", a "pure top", a "bottom", a "pure bottom", a "versatile" and while you are at a "ladyboy" too.
And you want everyone to respect, honor and support your choices.
Very well.
But if those of us who don't want to be a "top", a "pure top", a "bottom", a "pure bottom", a "versatile"or a "ladyboy" all at the same time or at different points in time, then the tolerance you are calling for, should be extended to us to, no?
And while I write from the margins, I am very happy restricting myself to the extreme.
I refuse to be mainstreamed by some despicable political agenda, and I refuse to be in a frame of mind that is palatable to a petty, heterosexist middle class.
And if I indeed devise a category of my own, where I only fit, then that is a remarkable achievement!
I think taxonomists will be thrilled!
I choose my choice and I stand by it.
Not everyone can be versatile, those who can, good for them.
Not everyone wants to be versatile, those who don't, have the same respect and appreciation for who they are.
Those who don't want to be, can not be penalized and ostracized because of their choice.
And those who do, should know they face the consequences of being accused of being insincere and mainstream.
And if the majority wants to bully the minority in being something they are not, then forgive the minority for irritating the shit out of everyone.
"We" (or "I" in case "I" am the only one in this category) have the right to speak.
And we exist as we are. Thats enough.