THE GAY QABALAH - Will Parfitt

THE GAY QABALAH
Gods, Gays, Archetypes and Stereotypes of the Gay Scene
by Ash Charlton
Part 1: Why have a Gay Qabalah
Gay Images
The images and stereotypes in a society have a special power to members of that society.
One of the functions that the gods had for many societies is to give an access point to a
particular power or potential within all humans. They could do this by inspiring, by
giving a role-model, by granting petitionary prayers, or as a meditation focus. This use
of god images continued in the Christian church, most notably in the way in which the
Catholic church uses saints.
As a general rule, Western secular society no longer uses god images in this way: they
are generally regarded as fairy stories at best. Among the forces that have replaced gods
are stereotypes: popular imagery. Famous figures in popular culture such as Madonna,
Elvis, Arnold Schwarzenneger etc. give examples of human extremes of sexuality,
physical prowess and so on. People buy merchandise associated with these figures as
they would once have bought a saints relics. And like all religious systems we have our
minor gods, demi-gods and heroes. The two men in "Men Behaving Badly" present a
particular way of being which has acted as a legitimisation or inspiration to many, as
indeed has my personal hero, Roseanne. Whilst not on the same level of fame and power
as Madonna, these more detailed, closely written stereotypes can have greater power,
because they are easier to relate to for many people
.
It is my belief that most people use these these accesses to archetypal power
automatically, without thinking. They crystallise ways of being modes of operation, and
our lives are enhanced by them, as, like all characters in stories, they open up
possibilities and options for us.
Some groups are starved of images, however, and have very few of these archetypal
handles. Many black comedians joke about being called downstairs by a parent who had
dust glimpsed a black person on TV, only to find that by the time they'd got to the TV
the black person had been killed. Gay men are in 2 similar position we are either
invisible (most people know at least one gay person, but until the eighties, none were to
be found in soap operas, films or mainstream TV), or made the butt of heterosexual
humour (cf. John Inman's character in "Are You Being Served" the gay Uncle Tom).
Also, as is typical of an oppressed group, we oppress each other. While I've worked with
gay men I've heard that: promiscuity is a terrible thing, monogamy is merely hetero
mimicking, that effeminate gay men are sell-outs, that masculine gay men are ashamed
of being gay, that political gay men spoil it for everyone else, that gay men who work to
help others are self-oppressed and so on. Again, I would argue that this in-fighting, this
desperation to label what it is to be "truly gay" is a search for an image, an archetype that
we can appeal to for strength, a god of our own.

But why should we have only one god, when we live in such a pagan era No-one else
has to live with dust one possible Way of living, of being. Heterosexual people have a
huge range of images and stereotypes to draw on, starting with their (usually)
heterosexual mother and father. Which is another point: we need images more than
most people, because, unlike almost every other oppressed group (with the possible
exception of disabled people) we are not brought up among our own kind. Each of us is
a cuckoo in the nest unable to mimic the behaviour of our heterosexual family, and
having to find our own way of being from an early age.
So, I would argue, there is a need for an inclusive list of useful gay archetypes, to give us
models of being, handles on our archetypal powers, to give us equal rights in the life
choice stakes. The Qabalah is an excellent method for generating inclusive models that
are in harmony with each other, and for exploring the relations between them, which is
why I have used it here.
Gay Spirituality
Many gay men are deeply spiritual, again in a Way which is typical for an oppressed
people. In addition, many of the approved "good lives": to marry, to have children etc,
are blocked to us/ and so we have to seek meaning elsewhere. A great many gay people
are on a spiritual quest, but for most of them it is a road to nowhere. There is no
established world religion which is truly tolerant of gay men, and a great many which
are actively hostile. Our options are to sneak into a liberal wing of an established
religion (as gay Christians and dews do), knowing that the majority of practitioners of
that religion wish we weren't there, or to find new religions, with all the attendant
problems of choice, and the risk of exploitation. Furthermore, even these new religions
are usually essentially heterosexual, based on certain models of child rearing and
partnership which are not relevant to many gay men. We still have to care ourselves a
niche in these New Age religions as the (very few) gay and lesbian members of
communities like Findhorn have found.
As a result, we tend to be spiritual patch workers, swiping a bit of Buddhism, a bit of
Western Mystical Tradition etc, and ending up with highly personal spiritual systems
which cannot really be shared as they are so idiosyncratic.
The advantage of the Qabalah is that is has a good pedigree, it's been going for ages, it's
inclusive, and, more than anything else, it's adaptable. Furthermore there is a strong
tradition of filling it with relevant material, and using it for specific purposes, as the
Western Mystical Tradition has done, and also as other people have done with healing
systems, organisational patterns, teamwork models and so on. A gay qabalah is not a
bastardisation or distortion of the qabalah's purpose (as I believe gay models of other
religions tend to be): it's one of its many fulfilments.
So, enough talk how does it actually work The diagram sets out the gay stereotypes to
be reclaimed for use by all of us. On the sections following, I consider the spheres
individually, and in the section following that, the relations between them. I will
conclude by exploring some of the implications and uses of the model, and how I have
applied it to my own life experience.
Part 2: Spheres and Veils
10. MALKUTH: PERFORMERS

Subsets: Artists, Festive Faggots
Often the first sign that someone is gay, frequently seen in early childhood, is the need
to perform, to show off. Possibly as a reaction to having to keep so much secret, we
reveal as much as possible of what we can. Gay men as a group are famously creative,
however it is in the performing arts that we seem to excel. Even in our famous
appreciation of the arts, it is often from the point of view of being a "closet performer":
we all want to be Cho-Cho-San singing "One Fine Day" or Brunhilde singing her
immolation .
The number of professional gay performers is legion: dancers, actors, singers, comedians
etc.: so much so that it is almost a viable career choice for a gay man.
Examples: Nigel Hawthorne, Elton John, Nidinsky.
Justification: Malkuth is to do with exteriors, with expression, and also with beginnings,
and so performance seems most rightly to belong here, as it is often the first sign we are
gay, and it is a vital part of how we express ourselves.
Also, for many of us, there is a strong attraction to the Shadow of this sphere: the Festive
Faggot: the gay man who performs for straight people, puts it on, becomes a gay Uncle
Tom: i.e. John Inman, who unlike Larry Grayson or Julian Clare (both of whom were
bitches, see Hod), never came out, always hinted, and was always a pathetic gay man
that straight people could laugh at.
9. YESOD: SEXUAL PREDATORS
Subsets: Clones.
This is obviously the sexually predatory side of all of us: best-typified by "scene queens"
who live for the next casual contact. The "clone" image, with it's sexual imagery, and
ease of identification taken up and used throughout raunchy gay venues everywhere,
and the most famous image of the rampantly sexual gay lifestyle - belongs here also.
There is a power in this casual sex that we need to harness. Gay men tend to be less
sexually possessive than straights, tend more often to have open relationships and be
okay about them, because sex has a different significance for us. For many of us, it's a
quick way into intimacy: I've met many friends through sexual contact: it's a rapid way
of getting to know someone really well. At its best it's joyful, celebratory and
tremendous fun. And there is something distinctly male about it.
For example, at a famous gay celebration the men and women each had exclusive use of
the pool for a period of time. The women all swam naked, and felt comfortable and safe
with each other. The men swam naked too, and all had sex in the showers. I know which
group I'd rather be in.
Examples: Gore Vidal, Julius Caesar.
Justification: The most sexually potent gay image should be in Yesod, the sphere of sex,
and it is also appropriate that "pure" sex, same-sex sex for it's own sake, should be at the
Foundation of a Tree. based around gay sexuality.
It is also here because it is our great secret. When we are campaigning for equal rights
etc., we know that heterosexual people think that we want equal rights to be the nice Mr.
and Mrs. Gay couple next door who are so knowledgeable about opera and make such

nice salmon mousse. We keep quiet about how many sexual partners many, if not most,
gay men have, how common promiscuity is, and how much most of us enjoy it.
Wherever there is a gay scene there are casual encounters, promiscuity, orgiastic sex etc.:
it seems to be an essential part of gay male sexuality: the predatory, acquisitive side of
all male sexuality taken to its logical conclusion. We dust don't talk about it too much: as
if we are ashamed. So it belongs in Yesod, the place of secrets.
8. HOD: BITCHES
Subsets: Culture Queens
The verbal wit and agility of gay men's repartee is legendary. In the most homophobic of
eras and societies, there is usually an accepted role for gay men as satirist and wit. And
we all do it: we all camp it up a bit and have some fun. Gay men are also famous for
their knowledge and appreciation of the arts, and for being skilled in various crafts
(cooking, hairdressing, interior design) with a strong artistic leaning. These stereotypes,
for many people, are entirely what it means to be gay.
Examples Julian Clarey, Larry Grayson, Boy George, Kenneth Williams.
Justification: Hod-gods (Mercury, Loki) are famously artificers, cunning men. They are
also famously verbal and cruel: if there is a sphere of verbal wit it must be this one.
Knowledge, particularly of the arts, and appreciation (as opposed to inspiration) are also
located in this sphere.
7. NETZACH: SISSY BOYS
Subsets: Dizzy Queens.
Scratch any gay man and you'll find a sissy boy: scratch the sissy boy and he'll burst into
tears. We all were sissy boys at one time, before we learned to be butch or bitch.
Stereotypes of soppy gay men abound, and, for good or ill, they're mostly true.
Everyone has a say friend who is a truly loving, sensitive, non-threatening person: a
sissy boy in other words.
And we all have some of the sissy boy in us. Gay men are notoriously averse to team
sports, despite often being strongly into physical fitness. Team sports are too rough. As
children, we tend to find ways of coping with our rough straight counterparts: usually
by becoming a festive faggot, or some other more camouflaged archetype: sissy boys are
far too vulnerable and sensitive to survive in a tough world.
And yet they have a surprising strength: they endure. Every motherly man has a sissy
boy within him, that lets him be so sensitive and caring. Only a sissy boy could bear so
much of another's suffering and survive: a tough boy would break under the strain.
Examples: Piotyr Tchaikovsky, the young Harvey Fierstein, fotherington-tomas.
Justification: Sissy boys are our open, vulnerable, empathic, sensitive side, and so seem
right for Netzach. They are notoriously intuitive, and their subset, Dizzy Queens, are
famous for putting feeling before sensibility.

They are also notoriously unconcerned with specifics, and put emotional values first: if
anyone is picking violets while the house is on fire, it's a sissy boy, and that is Netzach
all over.
INTERLUDE: THE VEIL OF PAROKETH, COMING OUT
Traditionally on the Tree of Life, the bottom four spheres are divided from the next three
by a veil, called Paroketh, or, sometimes, truth. In the gay qabalah I would argue that
this "truth" is coming out, which is such a necessary part of our experience. Where two
or more gay men are gathered, there they will compare coming.out stories: it is our rite
of passage.
All of the stages below the veil can be done from the closet: Freddie Mercury, Nigel
Hawthorne, Piotyr Tchaikovsky and Kenneth Williams did most or all of their work
without coming out: with the exception of Hawthorne, recently, none of them ever
"came out" even though with most of them the truth was obvious.
Performers, bitches, sissies and sexual predators don't need to be "out" as gay, and are
often very resistant to the idea of it, as if the honesty of being "out" would detract from
their performance, their bitchery.
I do not wish to make moral judgments about being "out" or "in": we all have times
when we use both: no-one is "out" on a bus full of Millwall supporters (to my eternal
shame I discreetly removed my Gay Pride badge in this circumstance once), no-one is
"in" while they're having casual sex (or else why bother). The point is, that to openly
love another person, to be a gay politico or, to a lesser extent, to care for others, requires
a more full expression of one's true nature than the previous four spheres, and so will
tend to rend the veil of deception (as Paroketh must look from the other side).
Not all of the people below the veil are in the closet: not all of those above are out of it.
The point is, the probability of having to come out is much higher for the archetypes
above the veil than below it: the forces that encourage one (like being loved by someone
of the same sex) or force one (like needing to take a public stand for gay rights) are much
stronger.
6. TlPHARETH: HOMOEROS
Subsets: Loving personal gay
relationships
This is really what it is all about. Anyone can have sex with someone of the same sex,
and in single.sex environments (such as prison) this behaviour is very common. Not
everyone who does so is gay, or would choose to have this kind of sex if their preferred
kind were available. What separates us from straight people is not sex, {out love. We are
homophilic: we love people of the same sex: we fall in love with them and want to be
with them for the rest of our lives, in one kind of relationship or other. And I make a
distinction here Between sex and love, and love and being-in-love. I have had sex with
men and women, have loved men and women, but have only fallen in love with men, no
matter how unsuitable they may be, and no matter how many beautiful and wonderful
women I have known. I once read the term Homoeros to describe this ability to fall on
love with the same sex, and, with it's demigod like overtones, feel that it fits well.

Examples: Socrates, Plato, Hadrian
Justification: Gods of Tiphareth are often gods of loving: Baldur, Apollo, Christ. Love is
the harmoniser, and it is the thing which makes the loved one beautiful (thinking here
that Tiphareth means beauty). When we are in love we are a child (lovers talking baby
talk), a king (we feel infinitely powerful) and a sacrificed god (as we give up our
personal godhood, our grandiosity that we need no-one).
It is also the one force which can truly unite us, and create harmony among us. God
knows we can bitch about each other, disagree politically, betray each other sexually and
so on, but our great redeeming factor, h, us as for all humans, is that we can love deeply
and intimately.
This is also important, because it is the main thing that oppressive societies try to deny
us. Either by refusing to recognise our relationships, or by denying that we are capable
of love (it is a keystone of psychoanalysis that gay men are undeveloped human beings
and so incapable of true adult intimate love). The spirit of Homoeros gives the lie to all
that. We love. We can love. We must never forget that. It gives us a huge quiet strength,
that doesn't need to combat or overwhelm: once you realise that as a gay man you can
love or be loved, nothing is ever the same again.
5. GEBURAH: POLITICOS
There were gay politicos before the AIDS epidemic, but the breed has multiplied greatly
along with the virus. These days as well as the Stonewall group, we also have Outrage
and ActUp. It may seem odd to lump such different groups with such different agendas
altogether, but the thing that they all have in common is a rejection of the way things
are, and a demand for change. They are radical groups, campaigning groups: ultimately,
in the kind of stunt.tactics used by Outrage they are fighting groups of a sort. They are
the people who organise marches and lobby MP's. Their work often requires bravery
and always requires discipline.
This is a latter day development of a very ancient role for gay men. The famed warriors
of Sparta were famously homophilic, and the principle of the Theban Band (a regiment
of gay lovers, who would fight all the stronger alongside their loved ones) is based on
the legendary bravery of gay men .
Examples Peter Tatchell, Chris Smith MP.
Justification: The ability to reject, and the need for discipline are both obvious Geburah
qualities. Even in the Shadow-set of Angry Politicos they are like the "regular" Geburah
subset of Warriors. Politicos often find it hard to compromise (never an overwhelming
Geburah quality) and have a tendency to single-mindedness (often a Geburah vice) .
4. CHESED: MOTHERLY MEN
Subset: Gay parents.

Gay men have been for a long time associated with the caring professions. A surprising
number of male nurses, social workers and teachers are gay men, as well as probation
officers and workers in supported housing. Of the men who do "women's work", there
are always a disproportionate number of gays.
Despite this, these men are not necessarily camp or feminine. Often their way of caring
seems very male: fatherly even. This has often been the role of gay men in other
societies, such as the Zuni Native Americans.
Examples: Mostly unnamed and unnoticed, lan McKellen is a good example.
Justification: Mercy, unconditional positive regard, empathy and forgiveness are all
essential qualities of Chesed, and they are also essential qualities of Motherly Men. Men
working in the caring professions have to care for everyone under their protection, and
not give any preferential treatment. A teacher is there for all his pupils, a nurse for all his
patients. This quality of all. acceptance seems to me to be very Chesed.
INTERLUDE: THE ABYSS, BEYOND SEXUALITY
Just as the Veil of Paroketh denotes a movement into a different way of being, so the
Abyss denotes a similar boundary. The boundary in this case is harder to define, but still
seems to hold an essential truth. The spheres of the Ethical Triangle are very bound up
with being gay: to people who largely operate from these spheres, being gay is the most
important thing in their life: it defines their identity.
As with the Veil of Paroketh, I wish to make clear that I think that there is nothing
wrong with this. Having one's sexuality as the focus of one's life is an entirely credible
life.path: one does not have to "grow out of it" or "get past it". dust as I have every
respect for heterosexuals who primarily define themselves as parents, husbands, wives
or members of families, I also have every respect for, for example, gay politicos who live
eat and sleep being gay.
However the stereotypes across the abyss seem to have a different relationship with
their sexuality. They are still say, but they seem to be much more than that: it is
something which is a part of them rather than something they are. To take an example,
George Melly got married and forswore his gay side, and yet he's still a splendid
example of a Grand Old Queen: there's more to being a grand old queen than sleeping
with the right people.
It is possibly for this reason that the stereotypes on the far side of the abyss are
frequently more acceptable to straight people, men and women alike. They have little of
the need to be cruel, the need to make political points all the time, or prove their worth
by looking after others, which can be so strong are feature of spheres below the abyss. In
this way they seem to be beyond the duality of gay/straight they are still gay, but not in
a way which is in opposition or difference to heterosexuality: they are primarily
themselves, and only incidentally say. For this reason most of the persons mentioned
often have a large straight following.

3. BINAH: GRAND OLD QUEENS
Subsets: Drag Queens: Lily Savage.
This group almost needs no introduction. There have always been Grand Old Queens:
slightly (or very) effeminate dear old things with a will of iron: this is almost what a
Motherly Man grows into as he gets older. Grand Old Queens are not always asexual,
but they often give off an air of being past all that: that now they exist purely for style,
for appearance.
Examples: Harvey Fierstein, Oscar Wilde
Justification: At the head of the pillar of form there had to be . a group for whom style is
everything. Grand Old Queens are our grandmothers, our benevolent guiding female
spirits. Surprisingly unmalicious, unexpectedly generous, more full of heart than you
would expect, grand old queens are loved (and feared a little) by dust about everyone.
They also fit Binah well, because there is always an air of tragedy about them, which fits
well with the Vision of Universal Sorrow thing.
2. CHOCKMAH: DADDIES
Subsets: Leathermen, bears.
This is a bit of a hard one to explain to people outside the family, as it were. A daddy is
really an aging clone: there comes a point past which you simply can't carry off such a
young image, so you become something of a grand old (or at least . middle-aged) man:
you're allowed to have a paunch, let your clone moustache become a moustache and
beard, show off your body hair and wear lots of leather.
This "type" is very familiar to gay men, and very obviously the opposite of the Grand
Old Queen way of aging: basically it's an aging "butch" look. Daddies are frequently
involved in politics, in relationships, or in the caring professions, but what they mostly
are is daddies: larger-than-life characters -kind, supportive, and have seen it all.
When they are involved in doing good works, they rarely lead or take control. Most
working gay projects have a team of daddies uncomplainingly driving it from within,
whilst others take the credit.
Examples: No famous ones, but a very definite 'type among older gay men on the scene.
Edmund White is a bit of a daddy.
Justification: In their quiet way of dust getting on and doing things, Daddies are a good
model of the universal will at work, particularly as they are so often doing good works.
Their fatherliness (hence the nickname) or even grandfatherliness: the way that .they can
seem like a kind of benevolent angel, affecting everything around them, is a kind of
Universal Will thing too. And of course, they're usually greying. They really are Grand
Old Men, as opposed to Grand Old Queens.
1 . KETHER: STATELY HOMOS

At a certain point a Grand Old Queen or Daddy tends to become a national treasure, for
reasons which eventually seem to have nothing to do with his sexuality. Watching
Quentin Crisp talk so compassionately, and with such humility and wit, you almost
have to remind yourself that he's gay sometimes: he's so much himself.
Stately Homos seem loved by everyone, no matter what they say or do. Much of
Quentin Crisp's political view is somewhat dodgy, John Gielgud has a cruel wit, but it
seems to make no difference: they seem adored by gay and straight people alike, as they
seem to carry something that goes beyond sexuality, and beyond the duality of agreeing
with them or not. They seem to have ultimately become themselves, in a peculiarly
egoless way: I've never seen a less starry actor than Gielgud (compare him with Olivier
at the same age, for example), and yet he is rivetting to watch in his kindly, self-effacing
way.
Examples: Quentin Crisp. John Gielgud
Justification: Well, it's the ultimate, and it seems to be an almost ego-less state that I
associate with Kether, it's the face of the wise old man, and it's the summit we ideally
end up at.
It's also the beginning. When you're young, the first gay men you hear of are usually
stately homos, because they're safe. Every gay man of my age read "The Naked Civil
Servant" long before they read "The Beautiful Room is Empty", much less "Tales From
the City". So they are also our early inspiration: the root of the power of gayness .
Part 3: Cross-checking
Having established the attributions to various spheres, I'd now like to see if these "fit" or
not. In this section I want to consider the relationships between the spheres, and see if
these stack up as they should do.
Pillars
In the traditional Qabalah the right-hand pillar (as you look at the diagram: the one
containing Binah, Geburah and Hod) is the pillar of form: the left hand pillar, the pillar
of force. There is also an association of masculinity with the two lower spheres on the
right, and of femininity in the two lower on the left: this is reversed above the abyss.
This distinction seems to hold strong in the gay qabalah. Bitches, politicos and grand old
queens all seem to have an agenda of how the world should be: based around the
individual bitch's criticisms, the politico's politics and the queen's sense of style. The
right hand pillar on the other hand contains more subtle motive forces: emotions of
vulnerability (which could give rise to bitchery or a wish to change things), a need to
care (which could give rise to political awareness) and the pure motive force itself:
daddies who keep things going.
The masculine/feminine distinction is subtly altered. Certainly bitch is a more
masculine' role than sissy, politico more masculine than carer, and, the switch after the
abyss, daddies are more masculine than queens. There is also, as you would expect in a
diagram about same-sex forces, a subtle skew to the whole male female thing. The right
hand pillar really becomes the pillar of "hard femininity", the left pillar that of "soft
masculinity". Most of the right hand roles seem lifted from stereotypes of strong women:

itches, the kind of larger-life-woman that drag queens like to imitate (best exemplified
by Dame Edith Evans as Lady Bracknell). Even our politics is based more around
feminist conscious-raising politics than masculine party politics. The left hand roles, on
the other hand, are very much the soft, kind father masculine roles. A character for the
whole of the right pillar would be someone like Boudicca a character for the left hand,
someone like Santa Claus.
Up and Down
As I said earlier, the tree should contain no superior or inferior spheres, and should be
equally "readable" up and down, from Kether to Malkuth and Malkuth to Kether.
Going from Malkuth to Kether, we could-almost chart the life cycle of an individual gay
man. Starting off as a performer (Malkuth), as we all seem to, on a variety of stages,
discovering sex (Yesod) as a force (and h, many of us it is here, in our early sexual
fantasies that we become aware of how different we are from our straight families), we
then have the choice of how to respond to our differences: do we grow a brittle
protective shell: become a bitch (Hod) Or do we wear our vulnerabilities on the outside,
and proclaim ourselves as a sissy boy (Netzach) Whatever role, or mixture of roles we
take, this choice always requires a deeper level of acceptance of the truth of what we are,
which usually results, these days, in coming out (Veil of Paroketh). The next step on our
development is usually to fall in love with a man, (Tiphareth) for most of us this
happens in our teens and is sadly unrequited. This experience usually adds a new
dimension to our difference: it shows us how essential to our nature it is. It also makes
us more aware of the suffering of others, and presents us with a new choice: to fight the
oppression that causes the suffering (Geburah) or to nurture it's victims (Chesed).
Whatever path we take, we inevitably come to a point in our lives when being gay is not
enough, when a purely gay identity is too small for what we are (crossing the abyss).
Our politics becomes less angry, our need to care less compulsive, and we usually
decide to loosen up, to keep our commitments but have a little fun with it. We either
become a grand queen making grand shrieking gestures and having a wonderful time
(Binah); or a laid-back daddy, doing our bit but not getting to uptight about it
(Chockmah). Finally we become part of the fixed landscape of other gay men: a stately
homo (Kether).
From Kether to Malkuth tells a different story: it tells the story of gay liberation in our
time. There have always been stately homos: people that everyone knew were gay, but
provided they weren't too "out" about it, accepted by their (mostly upper-class) peers.
The "homintern" of W.H. Auden, E.M. Foster and Bendamin Britten is a good example of
this.
Inspired by these rare visible gays, there arise two other early forces: drag queens, who
have a long history of semi-acceptability, and daddies: the earliest gay activists, men like
the founders of the Mattachine society. They were mostly middle-aged or older, and
secure enough in their lives and jobs to risk coming out.
Once these forces had been at work for lore enough, they gave rise to openly gay people
being "out" in the caring professions, showing how valuable we can.be to society. Once
there were enough straight people who have been cared for by a wonderful gay nurse,
or who have a wonderfully supportive gay friend, then we had need of a political wing:
campaigning groups who could mobilise gay and straight support. The early gay
liberation front arose in this way.

And the first thing we campaigned for, after the right to exist, is usually the ,right to
recognised partnership: the right to Homoeros: partly because it is at the core of what
we are, and partly, it must be admitted, that it is the side of us that straight people often
feel the most at home with.
Once you have the luxury of a little gay reform and a commercial gay scene, people can
be open sissy boys (the world was too dangerous before to be dust a sissy boy: you had
to be a grand queen as well), and "out" gay satirists like Julian Clarey: bitches. I would
say that this is where we are at present.
I think the next step would be a recognition of gay sexuality, and it's difference from
straight sexuality (so far most of the liberation movements have, for obvious reasons,
stressed its similarity: "we are dust like you"). dust as feminism - the campaign for
women to have the same rights as men - gave rise to post feminism - the recognition that
not all the men have is worth having - so we will need at some point some kind of postintegrationist
politics that takes account of the orgiastic nature of much gay sex.
Something of this revolution has already taken place among professionals who work in
the AIDS/ HIV field.
And only then, finally, would it be safe for mainstream performers to "come out", and
we'd see dust how many there are. This process has begun already, with individuals like
George Michael and Nigel Hawthorne being more open about their sexuality (and of
course dear old Sir John), but we are a long way from the day when Tom Cruise can be
out and continue to play romantic leads, or Eddie Murphy can be out and continue to be
a (more-or-less) family entertainer.
Both of these cross-checks seem to bear out the internal logic of the gay qabalah. In the
next section I would like to discuss its possible uses.
Part 4: Practical Uses
I have only been working with the gay Qabalah for a short while, but I have already
found it to be a useful way of accessing these valuable gay archetypes. To give some
examples:
A.Inclusiveness: Like many vaguely-politico gay men I have had difficulty with the
images of drag queens, particularly the way in which they are often taken by the straight
press to represent the whole of gay culture (much as people dressed as Klingons are
taken to represent the whole of Star Trek fandom). Whilst I will always deplore drag acts
which border on the misogynistic, the majority do not: they use the "older female
dragon" archetype as a source of strength and satire.
I find that my work on the gay qabalah eases my relationship with drag somewhat. It is
a possibility, an alternative. We don't all have to do it, but those that are doing it are
providing a valuable service in keeping this archetype in our consciousness in an
accessible way. The way in which the qabalah keeps a number of opposing factors in
balance simultaneously is an excellent device for encouraging tolerance of this kind: that
something is way, not the way, and more, that the existence of a thing can make my
choice not to do that thing more meaningful.
B. Not Being Stuck: For me, some archetypes are dangerously attractive, and it is easy
for me to get caught up in them. There are times when I think I could spend my whole
life being a bitch, for example, or that being a politico is the way the truth and the life.

The gay qabalah is useful for reminding me that none of these archetypes is enough: that
I have all of these spheres within me, and that they all deserve expression. Staying a
bitch leaves no room for the sensitive, vulnerable sissy boy side of myself: staying a
politico means that I cannot easily express care for others. The Qabalah stops me from
being stuck, diminishes the attractiveness of "one-note" thinking. As the old quote says,
"neither this, nor that, am I".
To take this a stage further, realising that I am more than a motherly man, a politico, a
probable-daddy-in-the-making, that these are aspects of me, not all of me, is very
liberating. For many gay men there is a big question of "who am I to be" as straight
society does not really offer us a valid way of being (other than as a sad, lonely person,
or as a child molester). For this reason archetypes are particularly (and dangerously)
attractive to us, and we can easily "get stuck" in one role which doesn't truly express our
nature: this is why Festive Faggots can be such a bore sometimes. We've all been stuck
with some gay man determined to be Oscar Wilde, camp and clever about everything,
and we all know how irritating it is when you're not in the mood for it.
Allowing for a gay qabalah liberates us: camp is a thing we do, not a thing we are:
likewise radical politics, mothering people, sissy behaviour or promiscuity. We can
choose to do or not to do any of these things, because we aren't any of them: we are the
thing that chooses to use them.
C. Refine and Repair: The gay Qabalah is also useful as a checklist: which spheres do
you have a good relationship with Which ones a good sometimes/sometimes not so
good relationship Are any repressed or denied For myself, I would categorise them
thus:
Good relationship: The Inner Bitch (Hod), The Motherly Man (Chesed) The Performer
(Malkuth) The Grand Old Queen (Binah).
Sometimes good/sometimes not: The Politico (Geburah) Homoeros (Tiphareth) The
Sexual Predator (Yesod) The Daddy (Chockmah)
Not good: The Sissy boy (Netzach) The Stately Homo (Kether)
Which gives me an idea about where work might be needed.
Part 5: Some Conclusions
How can we check if this is a valid Qabalistic analysis I would suggest the following:
a. Being in keeping with the spirit of the spheres: I have amended the model a bit in
writing this as I wasn't sure of the "fit" of some of the spheres (for example, under
Malkuth I originally had closet cases), but I am satisfied that the finished model fits
really well, and doesn't seem "forced" as some Qabalistic versions of things can do. Also,
as I think of the various archetypes, it gives me a new "handle" on the power of that
sphere: Hod as a bitch, Chockmah as a Daddy and so on, which I think is evidence that
it is a workable model
b.Maintaining the same relationships with other spheres The pillars and up-and-down
analysis demonstrate this, I think. I am pleased at the way in which the opposing pairs

of spheres (Binah and Chockmah, Hod and Netsach) represent genuine choices or
compromises that many gay men make.
c. No sphere being superior or more advanced than any other Despite a lingering guilty
feeling that its better to be a bitch than anything else, I think that this largely holds true.
My only concern in this regard is the Sissy Boy sphere, which doesn't seem to have
enough positive qualities: although this may be a function of my relationship with my
inner Sissy Boy.
d. It should be "readable" in many directions: Kether to Malkuth and back again, for
example: See b. above.
e. It should spontaneously cause better integration of the stereotypes under discussion:
Definitely see Section Four for confirmation.
I feel tremendously excited by all this: it feels like a real "in": to my own nature, to the
forces in other gay men which I may be in more or less sympathy with, and to the
qabalah in general. The latter I particularly found with the supernal triad, which had
always seemed remote and incomprehensible to me previously. Drag Queens, Daddies
and Stately Homos gives me more of a handle on what these things might be much more
so (for me) than Saturn, Neptune and Pluto the traditional associations.