I had a lot more gay friends in the seventies than I do now, and especially from the standpoint of hanging out together, and one thing I observed whenever I accompanied one to a gay bar was that they were often a lot more "gay" when at at the bar than when not, and the fact I was tagging along with them was a subject in and of itself. Especially when I was the only male present at a lesbian bar, the close friends of my friend were fine with that, but based upon some of the looks by others, if looks could kill........

I think there is a tendency towards conformity in any sub group, and I have to admit thathe notion of "learning to be gay" seems tantamount to "conforming to rigid expectations", and amounts to little more than an affectation if it is part of a group identification where adherence to superficial things made for acceptance and not conforming leads to exclusion. There are certainly gay stereotypes for men and women both, of course, but I think there is a fine line between discussing these from a sociological standpoint and setting them up as ideals to be "learned". What about the gay man who dresses in blue jeans and tatty tee shirt, can't stand show music, and is a political moderate? Is he any less gay?

People create litmus tests for one another, and if that litmus test exists in the form of "you aren't gay enough" when applied by other gay people, I would imagine the need to conform would be strong. If this course studies these mechanisms, I think that would be a good thing for gay people in general, since the object of any (for lack of better term) consciousness raising experience should be to allow people to just be who they are instead of them having to adhere to the rigid expectations of others. I would think this would be just as true within the gay community, itself, as it would be between the gay community and the rest of society.