Join us as we thrust into house music...

Week of July 04 04

Madonna/Esther.
Liz writes:
Ok, I did something I promised myself I wouldn't. I bought a ticket to the Madonna concert for the 24th. I had to! There were seats available, and when I knew she was in town I felt like a girl who couldn't go to the prom. I couldn't stop myself. It's an illness, and obsession. I just couldn't let her come here and not see her... I hate her and I do feel betrayed, but there's a hole in my heart that gets bigger if she's in town for a concert and I don't go. 

I don't hate you Liz, nor do I hate anyone who went to see Madonna's "Reinvention" concert. However, everyone who paid for tickets ought to be aware of something. I emailed the Kabbalah Centre (under an alias) to ask about the tour's connection to the Kabbalah Centre and received this response, syntax & spelling errors intact:

Dear D,
abut the Madonna's new show . Rav berg [the former insurance salesman/founder of the Kabbalah Centre cult] says that this show is ALL KABBALAH and it is the first time in history that Kabbalah is exposed to the souls of the universe in such a wide scope.she don
you can get aticket for  show  threw us All the money that well be  raise
with these tickets will go towards the Spirituality for Kids program (you may visit http://www.sfk1.com to get more details about this amazing program
Sincerely,
R. Yehuda Dan
The Kabbalah Centre

Let me rephrase that for those who don't speak cult: ALL of the money people paid for tickets is going to "Spirituality for Kids", a recruitment program that aims to induct children into the Kabbalah Centre cult.

Please. Visit the "Spirituality for Kids" website and you'll get to see a really CREEPY video of Madonna proselytizing.. to children. Just when you thought Madonna's cult fix couldn't get any nastier.

Peter Staley and his crystal posters.
I've gotten a look at the issue of Genre with reader response letters to my article about Peter Staley's "Buy Crystal, Get HIV Free" ads. Four writers despised what I wrote, two agreed and one wrote to say that I sounded disappointingly bland compared to how I sound here.

I was edited. Most of the changes were minor but they added up in such a way that regular HoD readers could notice that not all of the words were mine. For example, in one part I had written that "regular use of crystal, especially when smoked, drives people nuts." This was changed to "regular use - especially when smoked or injected - often leads to serious depression, paranoid delusions and psychosis."

I was told by the editor that the word "nuts" unnecessarily stigmatized anyone with a mental illness. And so in a bow to political correctness, my words were changed. (I wondered at the time if the editor also thought that Barbra Streisand's movie Nuts unnecessarily stigmatized crazy people - or just Barbra Streisand?)

My feeling is that using medical or "official" language in a tract about drugs is a distancing device; it puts off most people, especially young people, who otherwise might be listening. Plus they just aren't words that I would use. But, I also see the editor's point. If crazy people are going to write Genre about my stigmatizing transgression then the editor is the one who has to deal with it, not me, because I'd just ignore it.

In one of my drafts, I concluded with the line "The last thing any activist should be doing to confront the crystal problem is to court the attention of the police, the media, or public health. We need these ads like we need a gun pointed at our own heads." That line was changed to "So let’s put [Staley's] preachy, demonizing moralism behind us and begin teaching, helping, and respecting one other. And let’s start the process—and the discussion—in the community where it belongs."

I can understand this change. My original would have been like ending with a red hot poker in the gay community's ass, and apparently people got pissed off enough.

Asking me to write an essay and then de-clawing it is a bit like asking the Sex Pistols to perform and then piping in Celine Dion. But all in all writing for Genre was good experience and I was pleased to see our point of view in a mass market magazine. 

As for the Genre readers who wrote Genre to disagree with me, I'd like to respond to a few of them.

Jose A. of Pasadena, CA annoyingly wrote:

"..[Is Genre] in such a need of writers that you accept anything that walks through the door? All anyone has to do to get a better understanding of Diabolique's 'wisdom' is visit his Web site. He threw a fit when they banned smoking in New York City because people dared to claim that second hand smoke causes cancer!"

Uh, guess what, Jose.. second hand smoke DOESN"T CAUSE CANCER. Campfire smoke is more toxic than second-hand cigarette smoke. Maybe we should ban campfires?

The anti-smoking lobby promulgates the second-hand smoke lie because their real intention is to get people to stop smoking by any means necessary. This is fascist social engineering. Don't believe me? Then why does the anti-smoking lobby oppose a new law that would allow people to smoke in bars that installed air-filtering systems? If their real intention was to protect people from second-hand smoke, why oppose a law that would rid bars of it?

Why aren't cancer hospitals overrun with bartenders if second hand smoke causes cancer? Why don't bartenders have a higher rate of cancer than other people?

I don't know how many more ways I can make my argument, but here are my original essays (Part I, Part II). And it's not as if I'm the only person to have discovered the truth. Check out this segment of Penn & Teller's Bullshit (56k, cable). Independently of me, they came to the exact same conclusions. This is a testament to the power of logic and rational thinking, two things alien to Jose A. of Pasadena, CA.

When fascism comes to America, it will come with a white coat and a stethoscope.

Kevin P. of Salt Lake City erroneously wrote Genre:

"..Diabolique should be ashamed of himself for supporting the use of crystal meth..."

But of course, I don't support the use of crystal meth. My personal feeling is that it's a nasty drug and the article made that clear. I simply don't think Staley's ads are the right way to address the issue.

The best feedback I got on my crystal essay was from Jon, who wrote me directly:

One thing I have noticed is that a majority of those who are now clean and against crystal are more bitter in their message than informative.  Yes, I do agree that it can and will destroy your life if you do not keep the usage in check.  But, like you said, education is the key, not lecturing.  As anyone can attest, the more someone says not to do something, the more likely you are to do it......refer to your teenage years and your parents.

I have met people since being clean who have never tried crystal and they usually ask what it is like.  I tell them the whole story...that it is fun,to be quite honest, but that it can also be very disheartening and damaging.  I do not exaggerate the highs or lows in my stories.  I give them the information and trust that they are mature enough to make an informed, intelligent decision on their own; no matter what that decision is.

The statement you made that it seems the 'powers that be' are upset that we are not under their power is right on in my mind.  What gets me is that their broad generalization of meth users is no better than early assumptions that since you are gay you will get HIV.  The gay community fought against those assumptions and we educated the straight world that everyone is at risk.  Their generalizations are just as bad if not worse since they are coming from our own 'family.'

I apologize for prattling on so long and appreciate you taking the time to read this.  Hopefully, others will band together and start an educational, non-preachy arena.  Oh, in response to the lack of educational materials at gay events, Bad Boy Club Montreal (BBCM.ORG) always has pamphlets at all their dances or co-sponsored events stating the effects of singular drugs and how they mix (good or bad) with others.  Keep up the good work and have a great summer.
 -jon

Thank you Jon for your honest letter.

One thing all of my detractors have in common is that they dispute my reaction towards Staley's ads. However what they cannot dispute is that my reaction is THE reaction of the club community. When I originally asked people here to send me their thoughts on the ads, NOT ONE person wrote to say they were effective. Everyone thought they were over-the-top and ridiculous.

Has it occurred then to any of Staley's supporters that the only people who supported the ads were the ones who were predisposed to agree with it? And so what good did they do, really, if their silliness just attracted law enforcement and alienated everyone else?

In the same Genre issue as my crystal essay, a column appeared by Craig Chester, who wrote:

Soon we will realize that crystal is the symptom of a much larger problem in our community and begin to ask the real question: Where is the spirituality of the gay community? After all we've been through as a people, why are we still so shallow, spiritually bankrupt and addicted?

First of all, who's "we"? I hate when people (usually liberals) condemn others with the royal "we". If you're going to be critical of anyone have the bravery to do it without hiding behind "we".

According to Craig Chester, the "gay community" may be spiritually bankrupt but I can assure him that the club community is not. For many of us, sweating and dancing under the lights with hundreds of like minds to deep bass is the ultimate spiritual experience.

What the world needs right now is more rationality, not "spirituality", especially when regarding drugs. (And why the assumption that spirituality equals no drugs? In many cultures this is quite the opposite.)

Independently of my own thoughts an HoD reader sent this:
tuesday.. i got genre, i was freaking out when i saw "diabolique" on the contributers page! i thought that the article was amazing, and very well written.. the only complaint i would say is.. the "other" tina article [Craig's column] a few pages later, which seemed to be counter productive to your points. the answer to drug use is spirituality? OCP - oh child puhleeze! we've all heard that before!

Indeed we have.

Craig went on:
..At the [HIV/Crystal Meth] community forum, Martin Luther King Jr. was quoted quite a bit. But we cannot quote Martin Luther King, Jr., or look to the successful model of his civil rights movement without acknowledging that he was a preacher. At the core of his politics was his spirituality. In fact, the two were inseperable.

Like most "spiritual" leaders (Al Sharpton? Jimmy Swaggart? Mother Teresa?), Martin Luther King was a hypocrite. His doctoral thesis, first two books and many of his speeches were plagiarized and he embezzled money from the civil rights movement to buy hookers and booze.. not to mention that he repeatedly cheated on his wife with other married women, many of whom he saw fit to beat.

I'm being slightly facetious because Martin Luther King's lies, sexual wanderings and misogyny don't detract from his accomplishments. But comparing the civil rights movement to the gay liberation movement is silly anyway because they are totally separate things. It's like comparing apples and bacon.

African-Americans are long connected to spirituality and the church in this country; gays on the other hand are not. In fact the church has always been diametrically opposed to us. Like it or not, gays are historically tied not to the church but to cruising grounds, bars and nightclubs. Good for us.

Craig also wrote:
...If crystal weren't wrapped up in the romance of promiscuous, emotion-free, recreational sex that gay liberation has traditionally promised, gay leaders would be damning it to hell. But because crystal use has become intertwined with our right to be sluts, most of our leaders have been terrified to touch the subject.

Just who are these "gay leaders" anyway? Were they elected? Where did they come from? Do they have meetings?

Whoever and wherever they are, they're really out of touch and have nothing to do with my life or the life of anyone I know.

Therefore, I hereby nominate myself as Supreme Gay Leader.

All hail!

I will run on a platform of education, decadence and house music.

'Look, My Hair' by C.Machia & Dimmy Kieer

Ladies and gentlemen, there can only be one queen. And that's me, the Supreme Gay Leader.

Although I disagree with Craig Chester's take on crystal, his columns are usually the most interesting part of Genre, and he stars in one of my favorite movies - Swoon.

Finally, in Genre's most annoying letter, cosmetophobe Duncan O. of Brooklyn wrote:

"...The basic problem with Genre's crystal story is that you sent a club kid to do a journalist's job."

Oh, Duncan O, is that how you see me - as just some club kid, some drag queen? And how in the world could a club kid have anything valuable to say or think?

Would losing the house music on this site, dropping my persona and writing under my born name get me more respect from people like Duncan O? Too bad; I have a greater purpose. I could no more drop this persona than I could drop my heart and keep on living. To hell with those who see me as frivolous; they're blind.

Look deeper, Duncan O. My turds have more substance than your brains.

Need I remind anyone that queens have been on the vanguard of gay freedom since Stonewall. Therefore we are entitled to some respect.

I end with a cutie, who writes:
D,
I adore you in every single way.
I hope to dance with you some time. Let me know if you go out any time this summer.
My gift to you for giving us such funky, kickass beats...

I've got my friends hooked on to your site! We love your insight into political/social issues and best of all, your choice of BEATS.

You are an amazing individual.

No, I just have you fooled.

Keep up the good work!!!!!

Benji

Thank you, Benji. I enjoy your gift, a photo of self-love.

I hold you in my eyes.

until next week, remember..
when you dance, we are a part of what you feel.