Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character

[Val Mickey]

It seems to be that there will be gay men in any society, however repressed or free that might be. Therefore, Randland undoubtedly has some homosexuals. The fact that they haven't featured in the story so far should considered abnormal, irrespective of whether it is by design or by accident.

 

The same could be said about homophobes. And probably about anti-homophobes. Also about people whom the issue doesn't matter, but try to be PC and judgemental (like me )

 

Also the argument that it shouldn't be included because of space/plot concerns doesn't stand, considering that it won't be very long, and that there are too many details in the story anyway (not that it is a bad thing.)

 

Most of the pro-gay debaters assume that others are homophobic. Which might be true in a few cases, but from the posts I've seen, it doesn't look that way.

 

The issue here is : is Mr. Sanderson playing the crowd?

 

When I look at this issue with what happened in ToM, I have some nagging doubts, which I will not air in public. I'd like to PM some of the mods and Terez, if they agree.

[yoniy0]

Hey, can I get a seat in the cool guys' debate room? Please? Look, I have this shiny Prefect badge right here. Ahm, something like that.

 

Just teasing, you can always PM anyone. Some don't use their PM box, though, like Jennifer for example (can't remember if she joined us here, but she definitely posted in the old thread).

[Luckers]

Go for it.

[Terez]

Yeah, go for it.

[FarShainMael]

pfff, attend to your books. It's perfectly clear that Nalesean, Talmanes, Daerid, Edorion, Estean and Vanin are gay, I'll look up the quotes soon :)

 

You forgot someone..

 

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Matrim_Cauthon

 

(Hey, I like him. really. I don't mind about the pink ribbons. honest.)

[Hopefire]

pfff, attend to your books. It's perfectly clear that Nalesean, Talmanes, Daerid, Edorion, Estean and Vanin are gay, I'll look up the quotes soon :)

 

You forgot someone..

 

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Matrim_Cauthon

 

(Hey, I like him. really. I don't mind about the pink ribbons. honest.)

 

Dear god. I just read the series summary. The Gathering Storm's Egwene bit was perfect.

 

"Egwene gets spanked. Gawyn wants to rescue her. Egwene gets spanked. Siuan wants to rescue her. Egwane learns to enjoy her spankings and forbids rescue. She then saves most of the tower from the Japanese and makes the woman who spanked her second-in-command."

 

So true.

[Grig]

I really wouldn't like it, unless it needed to be a significant part of the plot.

 

Coincidentally, I am reading a new fantasy book by Robin Hobb, and just found out that two of the key male characters are having a secret relationship.

 

It just seems out of place in Fantasy; although, the 2 Mord-Sith seem to work in SOT :)

Ah, and here is a perfect example of what the problem is.

Terry Goodkind? I blame him for a lot, but...

 

No, the "gay males are out of place in fantasy, but the bondage lesbians are AWESOME!!!!11". Honestly, this is the sort of thing that keeps me from ever getting too into the modern WoT (and probably fantasy at large, but I don't follow too many series') fandom (I don't really recall this sort of thing much back on rasfwrj, although perhaps a killfile helped). The first few Goodkind books (up to Soul of the Fire) are a guilty pleasure for me, but I'd have to do grievous bodily harm to myself if I found my thought processes going along those lines. Especially when it's not a "this sort of thing doesn't work for me" (RJ definitely had certain Author Appeal, himself), but "this doesn't belong in fantasy".

[Morsker]

I think this is a great idea. Robert Jordan's interview comments said he had no problem with gay characters, and a few times the series implies that men who "don't like women" exist, but for whatever reason RJ as a writer just couldn't write a male gay character, so they never appear. But RJ was clear they existed in the world, and if Brandon is better at including this then it's something that should be in WoT.

 

Honestly the lack of male gay characters, given the sheer number of characters, and a few female gay characters too, and the series making a central theme of gender, is outright silly. I suppose RJ had an understandable enough excuse that it just wasn't done in the 1990s, but it's 2011 now and it's silly not to.

[Kiriath Til Asdod]

Probably doesn't matter overall but BS just lost one reader.

Haha, you can't be serious? Oh wait, I forgot about homophobes.

Nothing like adding to the civil discussion.

To be fair, he only said what most of us were probably thinking.

Well that's my point. "Most of us" assumed Kiriath's homophobic? That wasn't in what Kiriath posted previously; he just didn't like the late inclusion of a gay male character to satisfy, in his mind, some agenda.

 

As to what should be said; I dunno, something that gets the poster to explain his/her post maybe? Actually engages the other poster in a debate? Do I think Kiriath's reaction is a little over the top? Sure. But I'd like to get more info as to why he said it; not just assume homophobia.

 

Now, if he never comes back to defend such a unequivocal post/position, then we are left to draw our own conclusions. ;-)

 

HGT

 

Actually my sister is a lesbian, I have no problem with gay people or anyone for that matter. I will finish reading the series and I'm sure it will be awesome. I have been thinking about picking up some of Brandon's other works however. Ive heard good things about The Way of the Kings and a few others from a friend and figured since Ive got another year or so I could knock out his entire collection and still have time for a complete series reread before AMoL. I read fast, yeah me!! So in hindsight what I should have said was Brandon has lost a potential reader. I have no problem with any gay character, but at this point in the series I want conflict resolution, not pointless plot detail. A characters sexuality isn't going to enhance the story in any way at this point the only reason a character is being made gay is to appease the masses. I'd prefer more BT/LB/FoM/Seanchan/WT sequences.

[Terez]

Eh, I wouldn't say that making a theme of gender was 'silly' in any way. It was actually quite awesome in a lot of ways because it is a very pertinent theme in our time, then and now. It's opened a great number of discussions on the subject at WoT discussion places over the years and has taught all of us a number of things about ourselves as a society. I've seen it happen again and again. The issue is still relevant in 2011, and is made perfectly clear by the diverse reactions seen here. But of course, I agree that it only makes sense for Brandon to do what RJ surely would have done if he had finished the series. Because RJ was just barely getting into the internet - into blogging - when he got ill, and I can imagine that it would have eventually come to this point - this discussion with the fans - and that he would have been happy in the end to correct his bias so long as it was presented in the right way. He was that kind of guy. He was smarter than most of us (I'm tempted to say all of us but I hate to speak for other people), and over the years of interviews and the evolution of the series, you can see that he was very responsive to logical objections such as these. And if we had pointed out the comparison to Goodkind....well, in that case I'd have been expecting something rather non-throwaway in AMOL. It would have been hard for RJ to write, I think, but not so hard that he wouldn't have done it.

[Terez]

On homophobia:

 

Like 'racism', it's a term with some pretty harsh connotations, and no one wants to be accused of it. But being homophobic doesn't mean that you hate gay people. It just means that you have a fear of the idea of male physical intimacy. It could be a huge fear, or a little fear. A lot of the guys who can joke around about their various bromances with their best buds are still a little awkward about the idea because it kind of grosses them out a little bit.

 

By and far, hetero men are the most homophobic creatures on earth. There are a few reasons for this, I think. Part of it is probably that men are more afraid of being seen as less than men than they are afraid of seeing men as sexually attractive in any way (even indirectly by talking about gay men without interjecting every now and then with 'fag' or 'queer' or some other derogatory term uttered lest observers suspect that the utterer had ever thought about it himself).

 

A sort of watered-down side to this sort of fear is this (for hetero males):

 

1. A girl you are attracted to talks about sex.

 

2. A girl you find disgusting talks about sex.

 

Generally, one is interesting, and the other is TMI, right?

 

Some weird things going on there, and I think that a lot of it just comes from sex taboos, which are old as dirt.

[Morsker]

Eh, I wouldn't say that making a theme of gender was 'silly' in any way.

Oh, I didn't mean that making a theme of gender was silly, but that making a theme of it, and then ignoring homosexuality, seems silly, due to the contrast of so much emphasis in one area, and so little elsewhere. Of course this is all speaking in hindsight. In the 1990s, it must've seemed normal.

[Hopefire]

By and far, hetero men are the most homophobic creatures on earth. There are a few reasons for this, I think. Part of it is probably that men are more afraid of being seen as less than men than they are afraid of seeing men as sexually attractive in any way (even indirectly by talking about gay men without interjecting every now and then with 'fag' or 'queer' or some other derogatory term uttered lest observers suspect that the utterer had ever thought about it himself).

 

As a heterosexual man, I've never felt any kind of urge to add queer or fag to my conversational vocabulary, and I have strong dislike of the use of the word gay as a synonym for bad. I believed that gay people had a right to be married under the law before it was cool to think so. I don't feel uncomfortable around people I know are gay.

 

But, having said that: seeing two men be physically affectionate is something that makes me uncomfortable. I can bear watching romantic comedies, and I have no doubt that I could enjoy a romantic comedy with lesbian protagonists, but I don't think that I could enjoy a romantic comedy with male protagonists. I've been playing Dragon Age II lately, and I have no interest in completing the romances with the male characters - not with a male protagonist, and not even with a female protagonist (oddly enough, I typically prefer playing as a female protagonist in BioWare RPGs to playing with a male character).

 

And, having said that: knowing a character is gay doesn't bother me at all. Really, so long as nothing particularly romantic or sexual is happening "on screen" a gay character and a straight character are pretty much entirely interchangeable for me.

[ajameswhitehead]

Probably doesn't matter overall but BS just lost one reader.

Haha, you can't be serious? Oh wait, I forgot about homophobes.

Nothing like adding to the civil discussion.

To be fair, he only said what most of us were probably thinking.

Well that's my point. "Most of us" assumed Kiriath's homophobic? That wasn't in what Kiriath posted previously; he just didn't like the late inclusion of a gay male character to satisfy, in his mind, some agenda.

 

As to what should be said; I dunno, something that gets the poster to explain his/her post maybe? Actually engages the other poster in a debate? Do I think Kiriath's reaction is a little over the top? Sure. But I'd like to get more info as to why he said it; not just assume homophobia.

 

Now, if he never comes back to defend such a unequivocal post/position, then we are left to draw our own conclusions. ;-)

 

HGT

 

Actually my sister is a lesbian, I have no problem with gay people or anyone for that matter. I will finish reading the series and I'm sure it will be awesome. I have been thinking about picking up some of Brandon's other works however. Ive heard good things about The Way of the Kings and a few others from a friend and figured since Ive got another year or so I could knock out his entire collection and still have time for a complete series reread before AMoL. I read fast, yeah me!! So in hindsight what I should have said was Brandon has lost a potential reader. I have no problem with any gay character, but at this point in the series I want conflict resolution, not pointless plot detail. A characters sexuality isn't going to enhance the story in any way at this point the only reason a character is being made gay is to appease the masses. I'd prefer more BT/LB/FoM/Seanchan/WT sequences.

 

Thanks for replying. I didn't want to speak for you; I just don't like sweeping generalisations/assumptions about other posters when said poster offers an opinion other than the one desired.

 

As for being 'hetero' and male and finding homosexual physical intimacy 'icky' I can't say it ever bothered me or even came up as a point of discussion. My family & I belonged to a church in Mass for a number of years with a lesbian pastor, mentally retarded altar boys, and a large proportion of gay & lesbian couples. My family, actually, was in the minority.

 

Open affection all the time, well within the bounds of a church setting anyway. ;-) Never bothered me or made me feel uncomfortable at all. Nor did the lesbian couples' open affection titillate me - being a hetero male, that's supposed to have that affect on me.

 

As for comparing Goodkind to Jordan, I can't see it even being close. Jordan had his POV but he wrote in a way that let you find your own conclusions and meanings in what he presented. Goodkind simply hits you over the head with the proverbial sledgehammer until you see the Truth as he believes it (sorry for the pun; couldn't resist).

[Guest PiotrekS]

I don't think that not enjoying the idea of male sexual intimacy or feeling uncomfortable about it should be equated with being homophobic. Being heterosexual doesn't mean being homophobic.

Following the same logic, gay people who don't feel 100% comfortable about heterosexual intimacy should be called heterophobic.

 

Wikipedia entry on homophobia refers to feelings of "antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear", which seems to me to be the more accurate description.

[yoniy0]

A lot of the guys who can joke around about their various bromances with their best buds are still a little awkward about the idea because it kind of grosses them out a little bit.

I don't know if I'd use the term 'gross', but yeah, awkward is a perfect description. To the point that I'd find it uncomfortable to watch a gay love scene on TV. I don't really know why. Do you think that's homophobic? Probably is, now that I think about it. Ha, what do you know.

I have to say, though, I don't see the connection to your watered-down scenarios. That's quite simple - if you don't fancy someone it's just awkward to get too personal with them (I'd feel the same way if someone told me about their bowel movements, for example). If you do, is it really that hard to understand why that would be arousing? You can't help but think/hope that maybe there's a reason why she's telling you this.

[Terez]

Actually my sister is a lesbian, I have no problem with gay people or anyone for that matter.

Obviously you do, since you differentiate between this and other 'pointless plot details' and similar 'appeasements' along the way (such as Nacelle). As I mentioned in my blog post on the subject, 'pointless plot details' are probably the meat of the most common criticisms of WoT. The next most common criticisms have to do with gender and sexuality. An anecdotal observation, but one that I think would hold up to a test on non-WoT forums where the critics are more common.

 

As for being 'hetero' and male and finding homosexual physical intimacy 'icky' I can't say it ever bothered me or even came up as a point of discussion. My family & I belonged to a church in Mass for a number of years with a lesbian pastor, mentally retarded altar boys, and a large proportion of gay & lesbian couples. My family, actually, was in the minority.

That's good, but my statement was I think pretty obviously a generalization. There will be some exceptions of course (up to and including women who find lesbians to be 'icky'), but as a general rule it's true.

 

As for comparing Goodkind to Jordan, I can't see it even being close.

It's not. It's similar in terms of preferential treatment being given to hot lesbians, but Goodkind stepped over the line in a way RJ didn't when he equated male homosexuality with pedophilia and evil.

 

I don't think that not enjoying the idea of male sexual intimacy or feeling uncomfortable about it should be equated with being homophobic. Being heterosexual doesn't mean being homophobic.

Being heterosexual doesn't mean being homophobic, but expecting the world to conform to your heterosexual preferences IS homophobic.

 

Following the same logic, gay people who don't feel 100% comfortable about heterosexual intimacy should be called heterophobic.

Indeed, and I have used the term before. If someone refused to read WoT because it had heterosexual intimacy, then they would certainly fall into the heterophobic category. It's okay to be a little uncomfortable with it, though I still think that's an unnecessary weakness that can be eventually overcome. I am a hetero female, but I do not find lesbians to be in any way disgusting and reading about lesbians does not in any way make me uncomfortable. It also doesn't make me uncomfortable to say that a woman is sexually attractive, and if a woman flirted with me I'd only be flattered (it has happened before). In my experience, the majority of women are the same, and those who uncomfortable with the idea usually have some hardcore religious conditioning.

 

Wikipedia entry on homophobia refers to feelings of "antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear", which seems to me to be the more accurate description.

It's a broader definition, not a more accurate one. It includes the definition I gave by listing 'aversion' and 'irrational fear'.

 

A lot of the guys who can joke around about their various bromances with their best buds are still a little awkward about the idea because it kind of grosses them out a little bit.

I don't know if I'd use the term 'gross', but yeah, awkward is a perfect description. To the point that I'd find it uncomfortable to watch a gay love scene on TV. I don't really know why. Do you think that's homophobic? Probably is, now that I think about it. Ha, what do you know.

It is, but again, there are degrees of homophobia ranging from that awkward feeling to full-on hate. Again, it's the connotations of the word that make people defensive about it, but it's still pretty prevalent among hetero men, and it's something that I don't really think is insurmountable.

 

I have to say, though, I don't see the connection to your watered-down scenarios. That's quite simple - if you don't fancy someone it's just awkward to get too personal with them

Exactly. For some reason we find it difficult to process sexual conversation or implication without involving ourselves and our own preferences (which are, of course, usually quite irrelevant).

 

(I'd feel the same way if someone told me about their bowel movements, for example).

In that case it probably wouldn't matter much whether or not you were attracted to the girl, excepting your potential disappointment.

[idiostock]

A lot of the guys who can joke around about their various bromances with their best buds are still a little awkward about the idea because it kind of grosses them out a little bit.

I don't know if I'd use the term 'gross', but yeah, awkward is a perfect description. To the point that I'd find it uncomfortable to watch a gay love scene on TV. I don't really know why. Do you think that's homophobic? Probably is, now that I think about it. Ha, what do you know.

I have to say, though, I don't see the connection to your watered-down scenarios. That's quite simple - if you don't fancy someone it's just awkward to get too personal with them (I'd feel the same way if someone told me about their bowel movements, for example). If you do, is it really that hard to understand why that would be arousing? You can't help but think/hope that maybe there's a reason why she's telling you this.

 

Hardly homophobic, it's just a preference. I'm attracted to women, and therefore I'm more comfortable watching women get intimate. I'm not attracted to men, thus I don't feel comfortable watching them do the aforementioned nasty (in the past-y or not).

 

It's no more homophobic than being uncomfortable watching Wayan's brothers movies. Just doesn't appeal to me and those like me.

 

That said, I have no complaint about the existence of gay men in literature. If it's shown as an aside, I won't even feel a little uncomfortable. If it's more blatant (romancing or whatever) I'll read the whole thing because I don't believe in skipping anything that isn't vulgar, something that sex (and thus everything "less") isn't.

[Suttree]

It's no more homophobic than being uncomfortable watching Wayan's brothers movies. Just doesn't appeal to me and those like me.

 

Could you clarify that statement? Who exactly would "those like me" be?

[srbtarheel]

It's no more homophobic than being uncomfortable watching Wayan's brothers movies. Just doesn't appeal to me and those like me.

 

Could you clarify that statement? Who exactly would "those like me" be?

 

I think he is referring to people who have a sense of humor and think the Wayans brothers arent funny

[lsm]

Here is where you may discuss your thoughts on Brandon's revelation that he chose to include a gay character in TofM.

...

Antagonistic comments such as what filled the 'who is it' thread will not be tolerated.

 

ok 96ish posts in, i'm sorry to ask but who is it exactly? i missed that other mentioned topic, can't find it ("who is it" is to short to search for), and i'm really curious where/when this character gets screentime. ive read towers of midnight twice now and I can't recall ever noticing.

 

thanks

[Terez]

Hardly homophobic, it's just a preference. I'm attracted to women, and therefore I'm more comfortable watching women get intimate. I'm not attracted to men, thus I don't feel comfortable watching them do the aforementioned nasty (in the past-y or not).

The difference is this: I'm not uncomfortable at all watching women get intimate. I just find men getting intimate far more arousing, due to my hetero female nature. Some females don't find mansex to be particularly arousing, and that's okay too, but there is no reason why lesbians should make me uncomfortable because I don't feel that their sexuality threatens me in any way. I don't feel the need to roleplay or get hormonally involved just because sex is happening. (Or anything lower on the vulgarity scale of physical intimacy for that matter.)

[Terez]

Here is where you may discuss your thoughts on Brandon's revelation that he chose to include a gay character in TofM.

...

Antagonistic comments such as what filled the 'who is it' thread will not be tolerated.

 

ok 96ish posts in, i'm sorry to ask but who is it exactly? i missed that other mentioned topic, can't find it ("who is it" is to short to search for)

It appears as though the separate thread created for that purpose has disappeared, unless it was re-merged into this one or I just missed it (checked 3 pages of threads). I think it was created so that people could speculate on the subject free of invective, but it turned out that more people were interested in the controversial side of the conversation. We don't know who it is, but the transcript of the conversation can be found here, and the thread on that subject can be found here. Supposedly the character was in TOM but his sexual orientation won't be made clear until AMOL.

[Goramier]

Actually my sister is a lesbian, I have no problem with gay people or anyone for that matter. I will finish reading the series and I'm sure it will be awesome. I have been thinking about picking up some of Brandon's other works however. Ive heard good things about The Way of the Kings and a few others from a friend and figured since Ive got another year or so I could knock out his entire collection and still have time for a complete series reread before AMoL. I read fast, yeah me!! So in hindsight what I should have said was Brandon has lost a potential reader. I have no problem with any gay character, but at this point in the series I want conflict resolution, not pointless plot detail. A characters sexuality isn't going to enhance the story in any way at this point the only reason a character is being made gay is to appease the masses. I'd prefer more BT/LB/FoM/Seanchan/WT sequences.

 

I got to say, I fully agree with these thoughts. I was trying to avoid posting on this topic (I think there is what, 2 threads on this?) because at the end of the day, when people want to get all politically correct and make points for the sake of writing and sounding good, it is almost always junk writing. This kind of thing, IMO hurts the gay community. People will toss around all kinds of buzz words and make all kinds of accusations if you don't agree with them. If its a racial issue, and you don't agree with how the thoughts are being presented, your a racist. If its a matter of sexuality and you feel the topic isn't appropriate or necessary in any way, then your a homophobe. The truth is irrelevant, all that matters is whether you will hold a person on higher ground for bringing forth such great insight.

 

I am truly not trying to offend anyone nor directing anything at anyone specific as I have only glanced over the posts. I don't doubt I am setting myself up to be flamed but so be it. If people want to be a voice for tollerance, its a two way street...some people don't feel such topics are necessary, appropriate or helpful.

 

The Wheel of Time has gone way beyond the norm in terms of equalizing gender, race and sexuality. I can't think of any other book or specifically fantasy book or series that has even come close to the equalization RJ did outside of books that are meant to address those specific topics. There will always be those who aren't satisfied. So be it.

 

I fully agree with what you said as far as wanting resolution, not some lame attempt at appeasing the masses by including a politically correct gay character. If there are gay characters so be it. Great. I have no problem with that at all. I am all for sexual equality. But to alter or change a story just to toss in something like that is a load of crap. When the story has been following by so many for so long, the readers deserve an ending that finishes the plot lines and answers the long awaited conclusion. I do not need nor want some pointless side details concerning anyones sexual escapades.

 

I am not saying no one should discuss a topic like this on a forum devoted to a series of books that includes many areas of the spectrum as far as discussions go. But what I see, I can see it in this thread, and I am sure there are plenty of you out there who are either avoiding this thread or will read this and agree...your left feeling like you can't or shouldn't speak because if you happen to disagree with the way things are presented your very likely going to be made out a homophobe or some other such label even if it is simply not true. Its unfair to the Dragonmount community, its unfair to RJ and the series, and its unfair to the gay community who are left at the curb being the current fad in the politically correct world of buzz words and tossed around labels.

[Terez]

I am truly not trying to offend anyone nor directing anything at anyone specific as I have only glanced over the posts.

If you had done more than glance over the posts you might realize that this is not an attempt to be politically correct on Brandon's part so much as it is an attempt to kill two birds with one stone: he has to do a number of things to flesh out the end of the series, so it only makes sense to use a detail that is, by RJ's own account, an overlooked one: there are gay male characters in his world. They have been mentioned before. Also, it is clear to most of us that RJ's heteromale bias had at least a little bit to do with why none of those characters ever became important to the story. Brandon believes that RJ would have eventually corrected that bias himself, and I have a tendency to agree with that. Some might disagree, but either way there's no reason why it should be a problem.

 

The Wheel of Time has gone way beyond the norm in terms of equalizing gender, race and sexuality. I can't think of any other book or specifically fantasy book or series that has even come close to the equalization RJ did outside of books that are meant to address those specific topics. There will always be those who aren't satisfied. So be it.

It's not really as hopeless as you make out. Brandon's choice is not the evil pandering that you make it out to be.

 

But to alter or change a story just to toss in something like that is a load of crap.

Again, Brandon already has to flesh out the details for the end of AMOL. Why should he not do it in this way? We have RJ's word to attest that there are gay male characters in WoT.

 

When the story has been following by so many for so long, the readers deserve an ending that finishes the plot lines and answers the long awaited conclusion.

And we will get it. No reason to be alarmed.

 

I do not need nor want some pointless side details concerning anyones sexual escapades.

Why assume they will be pointless? Love is, after all, a rather important theme in WoT, which is why there has been so much attention given to 'sexual escapades' previously. I mean, did we really need all that about Mat? What did it add to the story, aside from another dimension for Mat's character? What about Caraline and Darlin? Or, even further down the ladder, Valan Luca's flirtation with Nynaeve? His marriage to Latelle? Obviously, I could go on and on. So what's the problem again?

 

I am sure there are plenty of you out there who are either avoiding this thread or will read this and agree...your left feeling like you can't or shouldn't speak because if you happen to disagree with the way things are presented your very likely going to be made out a homophobe or some other such label

I am sure you are right. It's what happens, when human rights issues progress. After a while, it just isn't socially acceptable any more to discriminate. That's a good thing.

 

And yeah, the gay community is the world's freak show at the moment. It seems to be pretty inevitable, so we might as well get it out of the way now. Putting it off does not amount to some sort of backhanded service to the gay community - it just prolongs the problem.