The reporter got some things right and some things wrong, but he captures the experience in a wistful, almost sweet way, with only a residual hint of desire to "expose" the underbelly of gay cruising.
He got right:
a) The fact that the kids who are arriving with Mom for their games in the park are not being menaced by the gay men in their cars.
b) The fact that this activity has been going on for decades, often with the same group of attendees, some of whom even admit to having spent their entire youth trolling the same parking lot (that is a distressing topic for another time).
c) The fact that married men are the major benefactors of the lot.
d) The fact that these places provide socialization for older lonely gay men who form a sort of Greek chorus as they watch the desire under the elms.
He got wrong:
a) a missed opportunity to complete his report without once adopting the tone of someone seeking to expose something shocking. He is overly deliberate in his specificity about the exact location of the parking lot. It seems he wants the locals to go there and to upset the long-term peace between the various communities of the park and its lot.
b) the clear presentation of the married men as recipients of oral sex because they are not getting any at home or because they are bored. I am here to tell you that the married men (happy or otherwise) who are having sex at rest stops, public parks or gym shower rooms are giving as much oral sex as they are getting, and they are doing it because they like it.
2 comments:
I roared when I read the article and he quotes the guy, "I'm not even gay. I'm just bored."
Well you're not not gay, you know what I mean?
You are dead on about what the reporter did not get. The author thought he was being so suave about his framing but anyone can see his true intentions that you pointed out.
Dead on about the married men. I live in Dallas and let me tell you the suburbs here have more action than the gayborhood.
Post a Comment