Editorial

This issue celebrates the queer element of our
culture, and more specifically, of Douglas College.
There is a constant exchange every time the
Other Press has a special issue devoted to a
segment of the population. “If we are trying to
promote equality,” the question goes, “why set
people apart? Why point out the differences, if
we’re trying to emphasize sameness?”

But this issue is not about setting apart, but
of welcoming into. Not only the straight popu-
lation welcoming the queers into mainstream

 

society, but of the queer population offering
straight people a glimpse of their culture, of
their lives, of their lifestyle. And maybe, if you
look close enough, a glimpse .of their humanity
as well. Because before we can recognize that
people are all the same, we need to get past
these barriers that we have built up around
ourselves.
This issue gets beyond those barriers. We
get a glimpse into the life of a gay instructor,
and we recognize that he is human. We are

rae Gexuality:

 

7
the —

ther Press

Volume 21 « Issue 13 - Februery 10

1020-700 Royal Avenue
New Westminster, BC
V3L 5B2

Phone 525-3542

Fax 527-5095

The Other Press is Douglas College’s
autonomous student newspaper. We have
been publishing since 1976. The Other
Press is run asa non-hierarchical
collective.

The OP publishes every week during
this semester — we felt like we needed the!
change — and monthly (as a magazine)
during the summer

We receive our funding from a student
levy collected every semester at registra-
tion, and from local and national
advertising revenue.

The Other Press is a member of
Canadian University Press, a cooperative
of student newspapers from across
Canada. We claim to adhere to CUP’s
Statement of Common Principles and
Code of Ethics. The Other Press reserves
the right to choose what to publish, and
what not to publish. We don’t publish
anything racist, sexist or homophobic. If
you have any quibbles with what we
choose, maybe you should get your lazy
butt down here and help.

Coordinating Staff

Advertising ~ vacant

Athletics ~ Jonathan D. Chapman

Arts & Entertainment ~ Kim Jorgensen
Classifieds ~ Barbara Kinley-Hubert
Creative ~ Gweny Wong

Coquitlam ~ Joyce Robinson

CUP Liaison ~ Julia Cornester (acting)
Distribution ~ Michael Pierre (acting)
Features ~ Arthur Hanks

Graphics ~ Cheryl Chui

News ~ Jim Chliboyko

Opinion and Editorial ~ Elijah Bak (acting)
Photography ~ Eric Milner

Production ~ Jessica Fish

Queer Issue ~ Gweny Wong

Systems Operator ~ Michael Pierre

Contributors

Miguel Strother, Ron Kearse, Doug
Whitlow, David Tam, Andrew Carroll,
Christopher Lo, Animal, Kendra Kawalilak,
Alternating Current, KO, Marusya
Bociurkiw, Pat Barker, Peter Thomas
Chattaway, Ciaran Meeks, Steve Eykel
(submitted a letter last issue that was
erroneously credited to‘Anon’, our
apologies Steve, you may now take you
rightful place as a ‘sensitive and funny’
guy), and Lee Whatshisname, John’s friend.

Interim Employees

Accounting ~ John Morash
Production Resource ~ Trent Ernst
Editorial Resource ~ Corene McKay

 

 

 

 

Nowavars=———

   

 

 

 

 

To the Editor,

As a student of Medieval history, I
was most fascinated by Ciaran
Meeks’ feature on Asatru (Issue
10). The rise of modern paganism
has intrigued me for some time
now. I am an orthodox Christian
myself, but I feel that I understand
our society’s latter generations’
tendency to try and embrace some
other form of spirituality. Many
churches have failed to provide a
spiritual centre and cultural
alternative to the post-industrial
society. People feel dislocated and
isolated from any sense of commu-
nity, and the church has been
towing the capitalist line for the
past few decades.

Judaism is inaccessible to all but
the most dedicated—and Islam is
associated with fanatical groups
such as Hamas and Islamic Jyhad.
Buddhism is currently in vogue,
but perhaps a bit abstract for some.
Hinduism seems to be forgotten
for the moment, and I’ve only met
one non-Punjabi Sikh in my life.
New Age is a farce and white
people trying to be Natives just
look foolish. So what's left? The
Paganism revival.

Now I'd like to call attention to a
couple of points regarding Mr.
Meeks’ assumptions about pagan-
ism. First off, it is incorrect to say
that Christianity “exterminated”
the pagan religions. While some
extremists certainly took drastic
actions against their northern
European neighbours (especially
the Frank’s against the Saxons of
Germany), it is too general to
assume that this was the norm.
One has to understand the tribal
mind set to understand why
Christianity was implemented in
the Northern countries the way it
was. When the chief of a given
village or tribe made a decision it
was expected that all in the
village/tribe would abide by that
decision. King Olaf I of Norway
converted to Christianity and
expected that, as the leader of all
the Norse, his people should
follow suit. They didn’t, and thus
his Viking-like vendetta against the

letters

“rebels” in his society.

Christian missionaries had the
hardest time getting Northern
Pagans to accept the idea of Christ
as a suffering saviour. Jesus wept
and submissively went to his
execution—acceptable to the
Mediterranians, but a dishonorable
death in the eyes of the Norse. One
did not submit to fate, but fought
against it with axe and sword in
hand screaming all the way to
Valhalla. This perceived weakness
in Christ was alien to the Ger-
manic warrior culture’s under-
standing of heroism. Thus the
missionaries tried to incorporate
the warrior culture into the
Gospels, the Saxon Gospel is a
good example. Christ became an
Odin-like warlord with his loyal
knights (except for Judas). Ger-
manic warrior culture is incom-
patible with Christianity; it is
pride verses humility. No wonder
King Olaf went on a rampage
against the pagans, he was really
no different from them. (Note:
Iceland’s more or less democratic
conversion forms an interesting
contrast to Norway’s violent
extreme.)

One other point, aside from the
fact that there is no historical
evidence to show that Wicca was
ever an ancient religion, is that we
have no clear idea how the Norse
enacted their religion. There were
no temples built and it was
carried on by oral tradition. We
only have the myth cycles and
sagas to instruct us, and they are
vague. Larger pagan practices, as
can be seen in the case of the
Germans and the Celts, wound
themselves into Christian practice
(Halloween and Christmas), while
smaller beliefs and practices
became part of the superstitions
that obsessed the late Medieval
and Early Modern periods. Any
attempt to‘reconstruct the Norse
religion is done so purely on
conjecture and hypothesis.

Sincerely,
Byrun Stedmann

human.

offered one Christian’s view on the topic of
homosexuality, and see that there, too, is a

It’s not much, we know, but it’s a start. And
maybe the next time you hear that someone i
gay, or a Christian, or an environmentalist, or
a vegetarian, or a reporter, you won’t auto-

matically put them in the box reserved for

‘other’ and accept them as another human
being, as alike and different from you as you
are from that person.

the state of the onio

 

by Elijah Bak

 

ur sexual lives in the latter

half of this decade have

been predicated upon a
hyper-awareness of AIDS. This
focus upon the disease has led to a
shift in the way we perceive and
conduct all our basic sexual
behaviours. No longer does one
just get into a casual relationship
with someone and engage ina
little of the old in-out-in-out
(assuming of course this is how
most of us perform the act) for
certain intervals. The spectre of
AIDS is now haunting our bed-
rooms. Every conscientious
individual has to ask their partner
the dreaded question, “Have you
been checked, recently?”

Sex has shifted away from the
agenda of the sexual revolution of
the late 1960s and ‘70s. This is
probably a good thing (seeing how
people no longer have to lie about
all the sex they’re not having). We
live in a decade where latex is
synonymous with safety and being
positive is bad news. This clinical

complacency and the difficulty
arises of rationalizing the contin-
ued existence of the relationship
beyond basic emotional and sexual
reasons. In essence, the problem is
this: in the past, our societies built
sexuality into marriages and thus
preserved the procreative aspect of
sexuality while imbuing the act
itself with a certain mystery.

In modern relationships there is
no moral imperative intrinsic to
our sexuality, nor is there any
material basis for our relation-
ships (in the First World). This
lack of a material basis for modern
relationships (in the First World)
is grounded in the fact that we are
no longer having children to
sustain ourselves in our dotage.
We no longer need to have
families to fend off the harsh
reality of the world. In short: one
of the most important organizing
principles of human society is
now moot. Where do we go from
here?

We must find then, that sense of
mystery and wonder that we had
when we first set ourselves upon

perspective of sex leaves the the path of romantic discovery. We
average Joe must then link
(and/or So, you have this this more
ae discussion, and assuming eteiis
than a tad you're both clean and with a more
jaded. The most health developed
noticeable ealthy, you set to adult point of
casualty in the shagging with much view, that
whole AIDS-as- : incorporates
end-of-sexual- youthful alacrity the sense of
freedom issue is mystery

the delicate balance between sex
and romance. No longer can we
enter into a relationship without
the inevitable discussion of our
clean or besmirched bills of health.
It’s difficult to balance this grotty
approach with a more traditional,
sentimental, romantic one.

It seems as though romance and

_ sex have been sliding apart in our

collective consciousness for the last
three decades, or at least since the
early ‘70s. I’m not trying to
advocate a return to a Victorian
romantic paradigm, but as Valen-
tine’s Day is approaching I think
we should take advantage of this
otherwise commercial holiday to
re-insert the mystery into our
sexual /romantic lives.

The problem that occludes the
mystery in most of our relation-
ships is the intrusion of blunt
discussions of our past sexual
conduct, usually before we've
engaged in any sexual conduct
with our new partner. So, you have
this discussion, and assuming
you're both clean and healthy, you
set to shagging with much youth-
ful alacrity. For a period of time
after this, things balance out, with
sex and romance assuming their
proportionate places, thus leading
to a sense of contentment. But then
that contentment mutates into

inherent in this world with a
sexual/romantic sense of discov-
ery.

It’s essential that we re-inject
that lost idea of wondrous discov-
ery within the context of our
committed monogamous
realtionships. With our social roots
grounded in the air, it’s everyone
for themselves. If you adhere to
religious precepts, fine, you’re
covered. But for the majority of the
population this void is making its
presence felt. So, we're left with the
current state of affairs: relation-
ships based on our own individual
lights, without overriding social /
moral imperatives to turn to when
in doubt. We’re left alone in all of
this, to stare at the skies in fear.
Because, when you stare at the
void too long, it stares back; and
this time it will be your free face
reflected back as an object for your
consciousness. That elusive sense
of mystery will come rushing back
upon you and stamp its indelible
impression on your psychological
countenace, unless you can
embrace that void and contain its
mysterious implications within the
constructs of all the free projects of
your consciousness; including your
relationships. Put that in a Valen-
tine and mail it.

 

2 February 101997 The Other Press