Page 4

kiss

and

kill

By JOHN NOSEK

While watching the television premiere of Cabaret a few weeks back, I was moved to a mental investigation of the relationship of sex to violence. I find it irritating how in every phase of the current media there is an almost conditioned linking of sexual activity to violence. Television executives have proclaimed 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. "family viewing hours", reserving the allegedly corrupting "sex and violence" presentations for later in the evening. Fundamentalist religious groups bemoan the present "amorality" of our culture, accusing both sex and violence of distorting traditional human values. And entertainers nonchalantly spice an entire evening's performance with off-color jokes and cracks about muggings, theft, etc.

The question of sex and violence (and its eventual effect on our society) is of particular importance to gay people. Like it or not, many non-gay individuals view gays solely as sexual beings. If sex is ever repressed for its "detrimental influence," you can bet that regardless of what constructive steps we may have achieved toward equality, ahy further gay activity will be curbed and checked.

Throughout, the movie Cabaret contained a sexual symbolism that was indirectly related to the inhuman and violent behavior of the Nazis, Although Cabaret is in fact a strongly political statement against ignorance and inaction, the non-perceptive viewer might conclude that excessive involvement with sexuality leads to decadence which, in turn, plants the seeds of inevitable violence. This is not so.

Sex and violence are two separate, unrelated, and opposing behaviors. First, any mode of sexual expression is innate to mankind. Like eating, sleeping, and eliminating, it is a physiological function one that manifests itself sporadically during each day of one's life. Violence, on the other hand, is not a biological function, but a conditioned one. Not too long

ago, WVIZ-TV featured a series on human behavior and emotions which presented convincing studies by both psychologists and scientists that violence is a learned behavior. In a society which promotes such behavior by exploiting it for profit, one should not be surprised to see its proliferation and encouragement to create new, "innovative" portrayals of violent action. (It is true, or course, that sexual manifestations are results of conditioned behavior; however, one's sexual orientation is generally fixed by the age of five and further influences bear little effect on one's major preference. With violence, the opposite is true.)

Second, though sexual fervor might occasionally cause one to aggress, violence can only exist as aggression. Strictly by definition, violence implies the use of force by one against another, himself, or some object a blatant display of disrespect. While sexual behavior is often agreed upon between consenting adults, violence is never concurred to. This is not to say that sexual manifestations cannot emerge in violent tones. For surely, rape, child molestation, and sex-murders will attest to that; however, it is important to realize such sexual expressions are symptomatic of deeper emotional problems.

Those with unrealistic and destructive sexual passions are not in touch with the appropriate expressions of their sexual orientation. For instance, sadomasochism between consenting adults is a perfectly legitimate form of sexual expression. Though some claim it is a violent and unhealthy practice (the same has been said of oral sex, homosexuality, transvestism, fetishism, etc.) if done in the privacy of one's abode with a congenial partner, S and M can be as acceptable and valid as any "normal" sexual behavior. Indeed, most S and M is theatrical and rarely involves deliberate injury.

The question that arises now

HIGH GEAR

is how we can prevent people from voicing both sex and violence in the same breath. Of course, the logical starting point would be the mass media. Too often, movie producers incorpirate both sex and violence in the cinema to assure the highest appeal potential possible. Television is guilty of the same crime. Publications like The National Enquirer thrive

depictions of senseless brutality and the love lives of top personalities. Even advertisers appeal simultaneously through "macho" virile violence and the sexy purr of a woman. These correlations must at best cease, or at least be prudently applied.

Secondly, any aggressive tendencies could more constructively be channeled through sports, production (manual, literary, social) or through self-actualization efforts, knowing and admitting to yourself who you are and your relationship to others. Granted, what I am proposing directs itself to the very fabric of our society; and as we all know change does not come easy. Still, unless a rational response to the association of sex and

violence is made on a grass roots level, we all, and gays in particular might suffer irreparably from any future mass reaction to "sex and violence."

Objectively, sex in itself is neither decadent nor amoral. Whatever its expression, it is a natural response. To avoid sex as if it were something repugnant is not only unhealthy, but actually becomes a repression that leads to violence. Joel Grey quaintly says it during one Cabaret number, "Is it a crime to fall in love? Can one ever tell where the heart leads him? All we ask is a little understanding. Why can't the world live and let live?" Sex and violence are not, nor have they ever been compatriots, and until Americans fully comprehend the difference, we may be headed toward a one-way, self destructive course to primitivity.

FLIGHT

OR FIGHT

By LEON STEVENS

Recently a reader of High Gear wrote to us to report that he had been brutally attacked by what he believed to be a member of this city's vice squad, Like many such complaints received by gay newspapers and organizations, this person's letter was signed "name withheld." Many abused gay citizens fearing discovery of their homosexuality by friends, family, etc. hope gay political organizations will help them while they remain safely out of sight.

sum-

No gay group is omnipresent and omniscient, to be moned by any distressed incognito to perform a nearly miraculous rescue. As unlikely as it might seem to some, most local cases of harassment, especially violent assaults, can be successfully prosecuted.

OCTOBER 1975

Gays can have recourse to justice IF THEY ARE WILLING TO DEFEND THEMSELVES OPENLY. No civil court will accept testimony from a nameless spectre. In instances involving physical abuse, the Cleveland Police Department has been generally quite cooperative in assisting gays (even if certain individuals on the force are themselves lawless). For example, recently when two homophobic youths in Cleveland smashed the windows of several automobiles owned by gays, the police quickly apprehended the lawbreakers. The victims of the damage did not hestitate to prosecute and were subsequently compensated for their losses.

Some deranged heterosexuals feel that gays are timid and easily intimidated by the threat of exposure. Consequently any gay who manifests his closetiness is a probable victim for straight marauders. No one who refuses to help himself can honestly demand assistance from others. Potentially helpful citizens who decline to "get involved" in the calamities of their fellows are not nearly as reproachable as those who balk at "getting involved" in their own behalf. While all homophile activists empathize with victimized semi-closets, they are powerless to aid helpless fugitives who wish to remain nameless.

Society's view homosexuality has changed so significantly in recent years that the risk of coming out (at least far enough to take an assailant to court) far outweighs the dangers of remaining in the closet. No one can expect help if he will not help himself, and self-help comes only after selfrespect.