Okay, this might be backtracking slightly in our studies, so please forgive me. And beware, I'll be discussing some controversial stuff ... please don't be offended, and if anyone has a response to the opinions I present, I welcome it.

When I was poking around for information about Justin Chin for my presentation last week, I found though an article search site an essay/article he wrote. This article was more about the homosexual experience than about an Asian American one, but I read it anyway in case I needed something to fill the time if my presentation went slowly.

From the very first paragraph I was shocked and a little horrified. The article was about fundamentalist Christian groups that are apparently trying to "cure" homosexuality. In order to write the article, Chin went to see the leaders of some of these groups and interviewed them, as well as some of the people participating in the programs. He even went to a meeting (scarily reminiscent of an AA meeting) and described that. I know homosexuality and its acceptance is a touchy issue in modern culture - I know it is one of my pet issues. To be frank, I was disgusted to see that people would attempt to "cure" a part of their life that really can't be changed. Fortunately, Chin felt the same way. It took a little while, but I recognized the sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek tone to his writing. He clearly thought that homosexuality was not something to be cured. As we could see in the essays we read for class, he didn't mind labeling himself as queer. Participants in the program were prohibited from acting in stereotypically "gay" ways, to find girlfriends or wives, and to start families. One of the ex-participants described it to Chin as "closeting their sexuality" again. Homosexuality is not something to be "cured," just to be forgotten or repressed. That is, perhaps, what I found most disturbing. But the figurative nail in the coffin to the essay that I read was that the two male leaders of one of the Christian groups had apparently left the program and started a relationship.

Something I attempted to say in class, and perhaps didn't articulate very well, was the similarity of "other"ness between homosexuals and Asian Americans. (Again, feel free to disagree.) In a white, patriarchal, heterosexual society, anyone not defined in these terms lies in the place of the "other." This reminds me of M. Butterfly, and not just because of the homosexual aspect. Because Song appeared feminine and was also Chinese, Gallimard saw him as "other" - he mentally forced Song into an Orientalist role as feminine and exoticized. In this way, he was able to trick Gallimard for far longer than if he had appeared masculine. Chin occupies two "other" roles by being both Asian American and homosexual. I thinnk perhaps this gives him a very unique view of the Asian American experience. It isn't the focus of the essays we read, but it is fascinating nonetheless.

Once more, I hope I didn't offend anybody by anything I said. And if anyone would like to read the article I spoke about, I can direct you there.