Bougainvillea, and choosing sides

I spent much of yesterday battling bougainvillea.

What an evil plant it is.

Not much blogworthy material came to my attention over the weekend, except I did briefly note two NYT Magazine articles that show some unusual takes on gay identity. The first, about a young man who was so far into the gay lifestyle that he worked for a gay youth magazine and lived in a 3 way relationship, decided suddenly that he was straight. Stories of married men deciding they really are gay or transexual late in life are rife, but people tend to forget that it can happen the other way too. (Maybe not often, but still.) As in this case of this American guy, though, if the conversion has a religious aspect to it, people tend not to believe it's genuine. Still, the article was interesting for some of the observations his gay friends make about him. Here the writer and "Ben" talk about ex-gay Michael:

As Ben and I reminisced, I couldn’t help wondering if Michael’s new philosophy might, in a strange way, be a logical extension of what he believed back then — that “gay” is a limiting category and that sexual identities can change. Ben nodded. “A radical queer activist and a fundamentalist Christian aren’t always as different as they might seem,” he said, adding that they’re ideologues who can railroad over nuance and claim a monopoly on the truth.

Ben went on. “To me, Michael is a victim of this insane society we live in, where we grow up with all these conflicting messages and pressures around sexuality and religion, and where we divide into these camps where we’re always right and the other side is always wrong. Some people are susceptible to buying into that, and I think Michael is one of them.”

Is that what "radical queer activists" believe? I also suspect that magazines for gay youth don't do much other than re-enforce the binary thinking of "gay or not gay" for nearly all readers (although I have not made a study of the source material!) so it's a little odd to hear "Ben" talk about how this is something to be regretted.

The other story, which I haven't even read past the first page, is about therapists who help gay people stay in the closet as being the most appropriate thing for them.

How helpful of them. As I'm sure I've alluded to before, the whole thing about modern treatment of sexuality which is to be regretted is that it has devalued all sense of privacy. Frankly, it just seems that people treat sexual identity and practices as worthy of attention in a way that they don't really deserve. Can't we go back to the likes of Noel Coward, who famously would claim he did not want to come out "Because there are still three old ladies in Brighton who don't know?" In the Australian context, I feel similarly well disposed towards John Michael Howson, who, apart from being pretty right wing politically, has always seemed to be homosexual while at the same time not wanting to be defined by his sexuality. (He is still a practising Roman Catholic, and refuses to believe he is sinning by having a stable gay relationship.) Of course, Gore Vidal is strongly against sexual identity politics; although I suppose people might say that it's easier for a genuine bisexual like him to take that line.

Look, I know this is a not a simple issue, and it's not as if the way homosexuality was treated in the West 50 years ago is something worth re-implementing. I'm just making the point that I certainly find it easier to like those who display the somewhat more stoic and privacy valuing attitude of men like them, compared to the bare cheeked exhibitionism of Gay MardiGras.