Brian -- So true, but interesting to note that Boitano is surrounded by women, no?

Jon -- That's an interesting and good point. The lousy classes and lousy teachers can be a real misery. I've been to a few of those too.

Lex -- It's all self-reinforcing in some vicious cycle, isn't it? I mean, the more the theater world becomes about its own gal-and-gayness, the less straight guys have any reason to pay attention, or at least the less they have to relate to. But it's odd: it wasn't so long ago (1880s, 1930s) when "the theater" didn't instantly imply "nothing but gals and gays," and when it was a point of masculine honor (at least for some straight guys) to be able to date, dance, and have a little culture. When did that whole thing collapse? My own theory is that the collapse had to do with the '60s, when everything suddenly became about pleasing yourself. If you can't see yourself up there on stage or on screen, then the hell with it. People seemed to stop extending themselves and started to want to look in mirrors instead. But that's probably a pretty half-assed theory ...

Agnostic - I think you're on to a lot with those ideas. Sigh: I love America but it can be hard to avoid the occasional feeling that we're a big gang of literal-minded, clueless, materialistic rubes ...

Tatyana -- I don't doubt it. But the fact that *any* Russian male ballet dancers are straight is reason for wonder, at least in the States. I'm sure there are a few straight American high-level male ballet dancers. But I'd guess that at 90% are gay. Nearly all physically gifted straight American guys go into sports (if they make a profession out of it at all), while nearly all physically gifted American gay guys go into dance. But there's a larger phenom too, isn't there? In some other cultures -- Mediterranean, African (and, I'm under the impression anyway, Russian) -- straight guys can be and often are narcissistic, vain peacocks. They're the prima donnas; they're competing in the "beauty" sweepstakes as much as the women are. Looks very, very suspect to American boys. Here, at least among vanilla guys, it's almost as if you prove your straightness by demonstrating how clueless you are about "aesthetic" things. You don't care about art, or food, or staying in shape -- and thus you're straight. I wonder how that whole ethic developed. Not that I'm eager to go around like a peacock, of course. But still I sure like culture ....

Peter -- I hadn't heard that one. But wouldn't many of the women be ... well, political? That's a lot to have to put up with, or at least it would be for me ....

aldkf -- It's never not a propos to invoke the wisdom of The Simpsons.

JT -- Which raises another point, doesn't it? I mean, in some other cultures, women are much more prone to let themselves tumble for a guy with some arty suaveness. Why are women in America so much more fixated on the good-provider thing than other women are? Actually, are they? God knows French women can out-cutthroat American women where looking out for themselves go. And then they have affairs in order to please the woman-inside ... And interesting to note that even in the States arty guys do score more often than square guys. So at least some American women do indulge their arty appetites every now and then ...

Yahmdallah -- Not surprised to learn that you've spent a little time in the theater. It *is* a funny feeling, being one of few straight men among a lot of gay guys, isn't it? There are so many very basic assumptions the two groups just don't share -- it can come as a surprise. The kind of thing you're describing probably helps explain a lot about the state of today's theater. Funny how "liberation" seems to have led to self-segregation in many fields. Gays can be themselves! Which seems to have resulted, in one small sense, in straight guys having lost all interest in the theater.

ST -- I'm with ya on all that. Straight guys will express themselves somehow, god knows. What's funny in this country is how much straight-guy-expressiveness has taken the kinds of forms you talk about rather than more Euro forms. (Steve Sailer talks about the traditional Euro arts as "aristocratic," and I think he's onto something with that.) I mean, country music is almost anti-"aesthetic." It's scuffed-up, down-home, rough and individual. All reasons to love it, of course. But its beauty is a rather roundabout thing, something you stumble across rather than aspire to. (Which suits me, btw.) I think that's part of what confuses Euros about country music -- they don't get its point, or how it works. Funny how the various art impulses and experiences have sifted and sorted themselves out in this country, isn't it? The thing that bugs me about it most is the degree of antagonism between the various fields and approaches. Why not enjoy country as well as ballet, or at least wish both of them well? But many people seem to identify with one team and then enjoy blasting away at the other teams. Why do the pop-cult types hate the high-cult types, and the high-cult types despise the pop-culters? Strange. I think part of what may have happened is that the old ideal of the generalist (and the gentleman, come to think of it) has dissolved. Previously, you were incomplete if you couldn't handle yourself both at a speakeasy and at a snazzier night out. You had to know how to court a woman, and you had to have read at least a few books, yet you needed to be able to get funky too. These days people seem to glom onto one team and then stand there defiantly. Seems like such a limited way to experience life, doesn't it?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on February 16, 2006 11:46 AM

"Why not enjoy country as well as ballet, or at least wish both of them well? But many people seem to identify with one team and then enjoy blasting away at the other teams."

Well Yeeha and Amen! We can get so damned analytical. But what's the point in endlessly describing and disassembling if it only ends up keeping us separated from the absolutely miraculous human impulse towards creativity in all its amazing diversity. It's not that I don't have my tastes, but I've really gotten to the point where I just marvel at the human experience, no matter what the form. I think I might be turning into a sentimental old fart…

I'm not a huge art fan, but I like to go to museums. I know only little of the names, the styles, techniques, or time periods. I just go and soak it all up. And I find myself attracted to things that in my younger years I wouldn't have given the time of day. The last time I went to a museum I was with a friend who is a fairly good artist and whose sensibilities are more or less modernist. She's a young, attractive, "creative type" who likes her primary colors. But as we walked through the museum I found myself stuck in an exhibit of early twentieth century Iowa painters. The style was simple, the tones muted if not bleak. The subject matter was, of course, centered on agriculture and rural landscapes. My friend said, "This is paint by numbers crap" and I said, "This is history, this is telling us something about how it felt to be alive in that time and place."

I don't think she got what I was saying. But I think this story is an illustration of what you are talking about. Age seems to have something to do with it. When I was in my twenties, I was a stubborn coot with what I now see as a very narrow idea of what was "good" creativity. At the time, I thought I was hip because my tastes were "more expansive" than the small town culture I had grown up in. But now, I look at the people and the lives that surrounded me as a child and I find amazing creativity. Down to Earth, unpretentious, making meaning out of life creativity.

Posted by: chris on February 16, 2006 1:03 PM

Professional bodybuilding presents an unusual twist on the gay/straight situation. With the occasional exception, most top bodybuilders are straight, notwithstanding the fact that they pose on stage heavily oiled while wearing costumes that amount to little more than G-strings. It is no secret, however, that a fair percentage of the audience at any bodybuilding show is comprised of gay men. The economics of the profession being what they are, some aspiring - and straight - bodybuilders make ends meet by posing nude while gay fans photograph or paint them. They don't consider this to be a gay activity as there's no physical contact.
As a Google search should reveal, there's a well-known photograph online of Arnold taken during his days as a top bodybuilder, posing in all his (very well-equipped) glory.

Posted by: Peter on February 16, 2006 2:22 PM

Don't forget that arts programs are heavily subsidized in countries such as Russia. There is a sense of national identity in the arts that is common in Europe but not so much in the US. As mentioned, we do have our art forms, such as jazz, but we don't fund them all that much. Not to say money is the only issue here.

Country music is mentioned here as a particularly masculine art form, it's "accidental" artistry perhaps what makes it so. I think visibly striving toward an aesthetic is seen as a feminine trait in the US. Men are just supposed to be effortlessly competent, sort of "no need need to thank me, ma'am" kind of thing. To be seen as trying to achieve something is a vulnerable position, one many American (and other) males are uncomfortable with. To our detriment, I would add.

Posted by: the patriarch on February 16, 2006 4:11 PM

What a fabulous thread!

Wait, did I say fabulous?

Seriously, this debate exposes a great and growing rift in American culture, one that I believe impoverishes the lives of many, especially young men.

I grew up in a small town in a very rural area, but went to a high school that prided itself on its marching band, theater productions, choral concerts and the like -- as well as its sports teams. This was not at all uncommon in the upper midwest, at least. So I, and most of my contemporaries, did a bit of everything -- played some sports, sang in the choir, acted in plays and musicals, and even (hold on to your hats) participated in choral reading in state speech contests. I wasn't at all self-conscious about it, either, even the year our choral reading team did a spoof on nursery rhymes. This was in the early 80s, BTW.

What a bummer to get to college and realize how much of the rest of the world viewed these activities. (Although it didn't keep me out of the choir.)

My old school is bigger now, having consolidated with another, and I wonder if pursuing the same range of extracurriculars would not pass the -- well, shall we call it the Pirates of Penzance Test?

My point, I guess, is that my life is much richer for having spent a few hours here and there as an adolescent singing sappy songs, trying to dance (albeit with a comprehensive lack of success), and all the while being oblivious of the, ummm, tightrope I was walking, if I'd been held up against current standards.

Posted by: mr tall on February 16, 2006 8:55 PM

I'm not saying you and Sailer wrong, Michael, on the contrary, I agree with most of what you're saying - except presenting Russia as model "straight guys in arts" country.

There are number of reasons why art ; remembecareer for men is still considered prestigious: historical and economical, mostly; but it's changing rapidly and more and more resembles American model described so vividly above. But the reasons you didn't see majority of gays in arts until relatively recently is not because straight guys took available positions, but because gays were determined to make themselves invisible. Being a homosexual was a criminal offense in Russia (for all I know, still might be). Paradjanov was sent to prison camps for being involved in "unnatural sex acts", and the horror of being accused of homosexuality was so big, even after surviving the camps he was trying to pretend he was straight.

Remember the great Soviet leader Nikita Krucshov? Here's what Wikipedia says about closing of painting Exhibition in 1962:

"In 1962, artists experienced a slight setback when Khrushchev appeared at the exhibition of the 30th anniversary of the Moscow Artist's Union at the Manege exhibition hall. Among the customary works of Socialist Realism were a few abstract works by artists such as Ernst Neizvestny and Eli Beliutin, which Khrushchev criticized as being "shit," and the artists for being "homosexuals." ". Only he didn't use the academic term, mind you - and the whole country adored him; that is except a handful of "pidors"... I'm afraid the country remains largely homophobic even now, despite all the efforts in the capitals.

Oh, and the argument about male dancers, actors, singers etc being married and having kids as proof they are straight is just...er..funny. As if it stopped anybody from being gay; O.Wild or Paradjanov.

As to young Americans dressing and acting super mucho so as not to look gay - yeah, it borders on idiotic. I recall certain young HS student throwing downright tantrum when his mother dared to buy him a plaid shirt with 1 (one!) pink stripe in it...

Posted by: Tatyana on February 16, 2006 10:23 PM

Given the name of this website, I would think you guys would avoid the topic.

:-)))))

Posted by: Bob Grier on February 17, 2006 11:32 AM

Given the name of this website, I would think you guys would avoid the topic.

:-)))))

Posted by: Bob Grier on February 17, 2006 12:21 PM

First, I think Michael B.'s comments above on how "rough-hewn" or "uncultured" blues music is plays into some negative and unfounded (racial?) stereotypes. The blues led rather rapidly to midcentury big-band jazz, which was a very elegant, urbane, and cosmopolitan art form dominated by straight men. Was Duke Ellington gay? A blues/big-band/soul hybrid like Motown was in its own way very sophisticated, stylish, and urban while still keeping the "rough" masculine edge of the blues. Think about the elegantly costumes and unison dancing, or about the (straight) Smoky Robinson's beautiful falsetto. Same thing goes for a lot of other 60s and 70s soul come to think of it. And the 'countrypolitan' stuff out of Nashville in the 60s that was influenced by jazz, big band, and soul could be quite sophisticated as well (e.g. Ray Price or Charlie Rich).

I actually believe that there is something historically specific that has led American males, especially white American males, away from sophisticated expressions of style. I think it has something to do with a lower-class "lout" culture that we get from the British Islands. You'll notice that Scottish, Irish, British lower-class males are more suspicious of "aristocratic" culture than continental or Mediterranean men are, perhaps because of class resentments. One can combine this with the aversion to anything "gay" that has come along with the out gay rights movement.

Posted by: MQ on February 17, 2006 4:41 PM

Guys will do almost anything to meet girls, and get dates etc. They are not stupid. They avoid the arty stuff because it carries penalties.

Macho, tall, and relatively athletic guys in their youths (like say Samuel L. Jackson and the YOUNG Tom Hanks) were pretty macho. No one would think them gay so they incurred no "gay penalty" in being involved with acting (thought to be "gay") and competed on a near even level with football jocks. They also had the talent to achieve a relatively high level of accomplishment and thus look attractive.

Without that talent and height/attractiveness/macho attributes straight guys endure the "gay penalty" in dating. Women around them will pass them by assuming they are gay or bi, and go straight for the more macho appearing guys who are taller and more physically impressive.

Girls and how to meet them occupy about 98% of guys thought patterns, so they will always follow an optimal path for them to find ANY competitive edge. It does you no good to be around lots of attractive women when gain no advantage from it and incur a wider penalty by doing activities thought to be "gay." And thus incur the dating penalty.

Guys going to extremes not to appear effeminate and the ridicule associated with that label among other men has a lot more to do with the competition for girls than anything else I'd say.

Women's choices? Younger women generally tend to go for excitement and thrills, and often select guys with more exaggerated macho characteristics who are still fun to be around. Think Howie Long. The Jock with the Brain and sense of humor. Older women generally want more comfort and stability and a guy who will stick by them as they age, so tend to select on those lines. In both cases women in America having far more economic independence means they can select according to emotional needs not purely economic ones. Sort of like the guy progression from extreme sports to golf as you age.

At the heart of the matter is the competition among men to find themselves the choice for some girl; matching with girls utility curves for male attributes. If that makes any sense.

Posted by: Jim Rockford on February 17, 2006 5:12 PM

Chris -- That's a lovely essay in its own right, thanks.

Peter -- That's fascinating. Gays and straights collaborating - woo. There's a movie in it, though I'm not sure who'd want to see it ...

Patriarach -- You write, "Visibly striving toward an aesthetic is seen as a feminine trait in the US." That's a great way of putting it. I wonder where this characteristic comes from. General suspicion of Europe and everything Europe stands for?

Mr. Tall -- It all does sound so innocent, doesn't it? And there's a lot to be gotten out of such experiences. Funny how the male vs. female, and the gay vs. straight lines seem to have grown in many ways more pronounced. I thought the reverse had been promised to us...

Tatyana -- I love your bulletins! Thanks for straightening us out. Funny to hear that Paradjanov bothered to pretend to be straight. His movies are about as gay as can be, at least in aesthetic terms.

Bob -- I think we probably should avoid the question! A funny thing is that the whole dirty "blowhard" semi-pun seems to hit Brits even more than Americans. Apparently the Brits don't use the word "Blowhard" for someone who's full of himslef and his own opinions. It just means, er, blowing hard. Ooops, we didn't know that when we named ourselves...

MQ -- The Brits do seem more suspicious of aristocratic culture than the Continentals are, don't they. At the same time, hmm. A lot of Brits seem obsessed with their upper classes, and even in pop culture there were always the Bowies and the Mods, who at least liked to dress well. And such icons of style as Cary Grant came from the lower classes. So I wonder if there isn't a little more to the picture. Maybe recent developments? But which ones? I wonder if the Continentals are going to follow in our wake. I have one friend in France who says that, while they think of themselves as superior to us, they're really only 30 years behind us. I didn't say anything insulting about the blues, btw. I worship the blues. And my comment about "rough-hewn" concerned country music anyway, which I like a lot.

Jim -- I find that a very persuasive line of reasoning. And you write, "Girls and how to meet them occupy about 98% of guys thought patterns" -- that's something that ought to be acknowledged up front, in all conversations. At the same time, I still get a kick out of pondering some paradoxes. One is that arty straight guys *do* get a lot of chicks. The whole "art" thing is something a fair number of women (even in America) still find attractive. So why don't more straight guys make use of it? And if guys are going to more extremes these days not to appear gay than they used to, well, why? Is it harder these days to attract girls? Do the signals have to be that much louder than they used to have to be? No idea myself, but eager to hear surmises ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on February 17, 2006 7:15 PM

Michael, is it simply because perfect symmetry between the sexes has been promised us that so many strain to reassert the fact that this 'goal' is bunk?

If I recall correctly, Steve S had a post some time ago about how a minor trend toward 'metrosexualness' in urban areas in the USA might have been the motivation for millions of other men to dress like total slobs -- just to make sure there were no misunderstandings, you see!

Posted by: mr tall on February 19, 2006 8:50 PM

Michael, I think that this explains a lot about the "not wanting to be seen to be striving towards anything" angle of American culture mentioned above:
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/gasset.html

That's a link to a long piece (with many quotes) about Ortega y Gasset's "Revolt of the Masses". It says a lot about these issues.

It's the whole anti-Aristocratic thing, taken to extremes.

Oh, and I'm moving to the Bay Area this next week: hello Urban Pedestrian Friendly Living!!! (been gone from here for a while, but will probably be back more now that reading about the Arts won't depress me so much, now that I'm going back to somewhere that, uhm, has them! :-)

Posted by: David Mercer on February 21, 2006 3:44 AM

Michael -- my explanation for the arty straight guys getting lots of girls is that they suffer no "gay penalty" because they are hypermasculine guys that no one could think of as gay. If you meet those attributes (tall, muscular, obvious genetic gifts, very masculine approach) then you benefit from the closeness to girls. You're there in proximity and artiness benefits you.

Kevin Federline would be I guess the model here.

My guess about the signals is that being "louder" is required with a "hookup culture." When women are in the market for various attributes (masculine physicality, obvious genetic gifts, appearance of wealth and status) the suppliers (guys) respond. Hence the worries about the "gay penalty" and strategy of pursuing activities (football, basketball, Xtreme sports etc) that mark you as "manly" and high-status and possessed of genetic gifts (you have a hot bod).

Older women in the market for a husband of course tend to select kindness and loyalty as dominant attributes, since mere wealth and genetic gifts not only don't predict a faithful husband and father and lifelong companion but can be indicative of increased risk (of the guy fooling around elsewhere and leaving you for a younger woman).

You see this in movies appealing to young women: they end up with some high status stud in High School (16 Candles, She's All That, Into the Blue etc) or TV shows (Buffy, Felicity, Dawson's Creek). Cause young women want the High School jock not just for his bod but his social status he brings them among their social set. The girl is cool because she has a cool boyfriend.

Hollywood is very good at giving young women this fantasy.

Movies appealing to older women often have them divorced or what have you and some handsome young stud falls in love with them. Any Lifetime movie or Diane Lane's "Under the Tuscan Sun" etc. Generally the young stud who is devoted to them comes with exotic real estate that they fix up as a metaphor for self improvement and nesting. Home and Garden Television porn I guess.

Hollywood is very good at providing this sort of older woman fantasy too.

I'd guess you can tell a lot about how men and women relate to each other by watching the schlock that Hollywood puts out that actually makes money. As opposed to Oscar fests that no one watches. When it comes to appealing to innate desires of men and women to make a buck, Hollywood has been pretty consistent.

Posted by: Jim Rockford on February 24, 2006 3:38 AM

I've been reflecting on the anecdotal info that occurs to me along these lines:
* Nureyev was frankly, gracefully, a sexy gay man. * Barishnakov is a hot het, a man of muscle who cuts a swath through the ballerina supply.
* When I was a little kid, tap (more "American" than ballet, eh?) was for little girls, usually taught by a lady in tap pants and top hat in her basement.
* In the same time period, Fred Astaire was elegantly dancing with a female partner, but -- um, where would you put him sexually?
* One of the most elegant evenings at the theatre I ever spent was a road show of aged black men who tapped/soft-shoed in the most subtle, persuasive, sexy way.
* One of the most poundingly vigorous and insistently sexual dance styles around is "Riverdance," the Irish clog/tap troupe that backs up a sweaty bare-chested man with a line of babes.
* A macho Australian dance company is just coming through Montana: "Tapdogs." In your face Male.

What I get out of it is that it's not what you do, it's how you do it. An old lover's rule.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on February 24, 2006 5:18 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?