I went round to my friend's over the weekend and he was moaning about being single.
Again.
But he came out with an odd phrase whilst ranting about other people who shag around: "it's just gay". He seems to think that he falls outside or short of a standard definition of being gay because he isn't promiscuous.
Now, this is coming from the chap who, at least according to his Facebook feed, goes on more dates than I have hot dinners. But he was bemoaning that that was all he does: date. However, I'm not too sure he was bemoaning or considering himself falling short. I couldn't tell from his tone whether he was actually proud of the fact he hadn't had sex for a year, that he was 'better than gay'. He had a marvelous way of either disparraging both himself and gays; or priding both.
But the main thrust of his argument was that gays get it, a LOT, with a LOT of people - mostly different ones. And I don't think it's just his opinion. There are a number of people who seem to think the gays shag around. It's a reputation and i'm not too sure how it has been gained.
The reason i'm not sure how it has been gained? Because I don't think they do bonk all over the place. Yes, there are quite a few gays that I know who seem to be with a different chap every week. But then there are quite a few straights who do the same. And in much the same way as gays seem to live their romantic lives at high-speed, going from single to head-over-heels in love and back to single within a month, so there are a lot of straight people who do the same, just apparently under the radar.
And I don't think it is because the gays scream louder when they have had sex or are in love or when they have been dumped either, because again I have many straight friends who do exactly the same. One of my straight friends last night posted on Facebook about why he couldn't wait to see his gorgeous gorgeous girl. That will be the lass he's been seeing for two weeks and whom he got with within a couple of weeks of being dumped by his previous girl of around a month who he was convinced was 'the one'. This morning the posts were about his heart being broken.
I don't actually believe the proportions are any different. I know of many gay people who seem to be perpetually celebate; and there are those that have been in a relationship for years and years, a very happy relationship with no adultery or such like - as committed, if not more so, than some of the straight couples I know. I often wonder if gays try harder in relationships as a reaction to this flippant, promiscuous, transient - nay instantanious, gratuitous gratification - and superficial reputation. They have to try harder, achieve more to be considered as similar; purely because of the ignorance of the activities of the many (straights) and the paritisan, denigrated and therefore promoted (by the detractors) perception of the minority (gay). After all, if the gays are a minority, their supporters within the remainder will be fewer still (with them not having a vested interest) allowing that view to be deemed as a rebellious, renegade, dangerous diversion from the norm.
It just seems to be one of the tags that attach, probably quite wrongly, to gays. Perhaps it is because liberalisation is a pretty modern thing - there are still a lot of people around for whom homosexuality was illegal whilst they were growing up. And everyone knew homoism happened, it just happened behind closed doors. Maybe that increased the mystique about it amongst the straights and that because it was underworld and cloak-and-dagger that it must be seedy and promiscuous.
And maybe it was anti-liberal propaganda. We don't want to legalise it, because it will lead to a decline in morals, in the nuclear family, in relationships and society as a whole. They don't form proper loving bonds, they don't produce kids - give something back - they shag around and spread diseases.
Maybe the legalisation caused a boom. It didn't cause a boom in gays, but perhaps once they could 'come out' it turned out there were more of them than people actually expected. And the fact they weren't underground any more, that they were proud and LOUD and gloriously (nay garishly) draped in every colour of the rainbow so they couldn't be hidden, thrust them exaggeratedly into people's faces. There was no gradual tickle, it was a sudden thump in the face. Rather than just being ordinary people that happened to be gay, they were a very distinct, identifyable and seperate group, united under a banner to the exclusion of, and irritation of, 'normal' people who just didn't understand what the fuss was about. Fine, be gay, but don't scream and shout about it.
And this is so even for those who tried to be quiet, and subtle about it. Other people had forced it into people's faces, and they got smeared with the same skreechy-bumsexy brush, despite that they lived their life behind (albeit very stylish) curtains
And maybe the Pride movement has been counterproductive to that extent. So desperate were we to identify as a group that we have segregated ourselves. Straight people don't see the need to have a day to celebrate being straight, making babies and keeping the species alive; so why should the gays go marching around waving flags and blowing the bluddy whistles. And I have been out with lovely, tolerant "normal" straights who have been excluded when the group of us go to gay clubs. They have been singled-out, discriminated against embarrassed by their exclusion from the activities of the remainder of the group.
Yes, I know we have marches and parades to celebrate other hard-fought battles over discrimination, like on 11 November when we acknowledge the many, many people involved in the battles for our freedoms over the years. And yes, there is Armistice day, with its march, their symbol. But that is a moment for the whole nation. Pride parades sometimes seek to actively exclude straights as though their support would actually dilute the movement, distract from the cause.
Too often these days Pride parades are not seen as the courteous and proper acknowledgement of equality, democracy and liberality, but simple and excuse for people to get drunk and have a party. And shag around. They are loud, brash, garish events with an atmosphere of entertainment and enjoyment, rather than quiet reflection of achievement.
But is that necessarily wrong?
Yes, people dedicated their lives to the battle for equality, but maybe we should celebrate that achievement with a party rather than a solemn occasion remembering regret, remorse and repression. Just as a minute's silence seems to be getting slowly replaced with a minute's applause, perhaps we have been at the forefront of a change for better, for celebration rather than solemnity, optimism rather than pessimism. Rewarding rather than castigating. You can always guarantee the gays will turn anything into a party. And when the straights ask when their day is to celebrate being straight we should ask them when they won their battle.
It's an odd contradiction - we want equality, we want to blend in and be treated the same and not identified or distinguished; and yet we need a collective identity, a cause, a unifying - yet segregating - experience. One of most common conversations amongst gays - and questions that gays are asked - is "Are you out? When did you come out? How did you do it?" And yet there are a million and one different coming out stories, each one of them different in their own way to any other in its catastrophe, comedy, heartache or sheer boredom. But our individual experience is still expected to unify us, somehow: a shared conversation with a different ending every single time.
In the very recent battle for the legalisation of gay marriage, someone said:
But we do need to campaign for "gay" marriage, because marriage between straights is legal, and yet between gays is not. So we should be arguing for the legalisation of "gay marriage" not because it is "gay marriage" but because it currently isn't marriage at all.
But then, what exactly is the difference between the current state of civil partnership and marriage? Actually, when you look at the legislation and the tax and the benefits, there is no difference at all. It is difference in name alone. A token distinction compromised for those rallying for the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. But it is this token distinction that has riled the homos: if it is different in name alone, why should it be different in name? Call a spade a spade - if it is a marriage, it is a marriage. After all, marriage has - for a long time - very distinctly not been about any religious union, but about a civil one. And then - once this current debate is over - truly then we can say it is not about gay marriage, because there is no distinction. It is just 'marriage'.
This has been helped in recent days by Barack Obama coming out to, and David Cameron reaffirming his commitment to gay marriage. One day, maybe, perhaps, the distinctions will be few - there will be no 'gay' marriage, no 'gay' clubs or 'gay' culture; because everyone will accept all distinctions. Maybe
On a minor aside, I did hear one commentator state that it was trending very highly in Twitter, showing general public desire - not just acceptance - of gay marriage. I will, one day, discuss both demographics, reference groups, and the fact that things can trend on Twitter with just a couple of dozen mentions.
For those of you that haven't seen gay parking it usually involves a wonky Smart car; and gay lunch involves vodka.
Or maybe I'm just attaching more tags to the gay lifestyle...if there is 'a' gay lifestyle.
Again.
But he came out with an odd phrase whilst ranting about other people who shag around: "it's just gay". He seems to think that he falls outside or short of a standard definition of being gay because he isn't promiscuous.
Now, this is coming from the chap who, at least according to his Facebook feed, goes on more dates than I have hot dinners. But he was bemoaning that that was all he does: date. However, I'm not too sure he was bemoaning or considering himself falling short. I couldn't tell from his tone whether he was actually proud of the fact he hadn't had sex for a year, that he was 'better than gay'. He had a marvelous way of either disparraging both himself and gays; or priding both.
But the main thrust of his argument was that gays get it, a LOT, with a LOT of people - mostly different ones. And I don't think it's just his opinion. There are a number of people who seem to think the gays shag around. It's a reputation and i'm not too sure how it has been gained.
The reason i'm not sure how it has been gained? Because I don't think they do bonk all over the place. Yes, there are quite a few gays that I know who seem to be with a different chap every week. But then there are quite a few straights who do the same. And in much the same way as gays seem to live their romantic lives at high-speed, going from single to head-over-heels in love and back to single within a month, so there are a lot of straight people who do the same, just apparently under the radar.
And I don't think it is because the gays scream louder when they have had sex or are in love or when they have been dumped either, because again I have many straight friends who do exactly the same. One of my straight friends last night posted on Facebook about why he couldn't wait to see his gorgeous gorgeous girl. That will be the lass he's been seeing for two weeks and whom he got with within a couple of weeks of being dumped by his previous girl of around a month who he was convinced was 'the one'. This morning the posts were about his heart being broken.
I don't actually believe the proportions are any different. I know of many gay people who seem to be perpetually celebate; and there are those that have been in a relationship for years and years, a very happy relationship with no adultery or such like - as committed, if not more so, than some of the straight couples I know. I often wonder if gays try harder in relationships as a reaction to this flippant, promiscuous, transient - nay instantanious, gratuitous gratification - and superficial reputation. They have to try harder, achieve more to be considered as similar; purely because of the ignorance of the activities of the many (straights) and the paritisan, denigrated and therefore promoted (by the detractors) perception of the minority (gay). After all, if the gays are a minority, their supporters within the remainder will be fewer still (with them not having a vested interest) allowing that view to be deemed as a rebellious, renegade, dangerous diversion from the norm.
It just seems to be one of the tags that attach, probably quite wrongly, to gays. Perhaps it is because liberalisation is a pretty modern thing - there are still a lot of people around for whom homosexuality was illegal whilst they were growing up. And everyone knew homoism happened, it just happened behind closed doors. Maybe that increased the mystique about it amongst the straights and that because it was underworld and cloak-and-dagger that it must be seedy and promiscuous.
And maybe it was anti-liberal propaganda. We don't want to legalise it, because it will lead to a decline in morals, in the nuclear family, in relationships and society as a whole. They don't form proper loving bonds, they don't produce kids - give something back - they shag around and spread diseases.
Maybe the legalisation caused a boom. It didn't cause a boom in gays, but perhaps once they could 'come out' it turned out there were more of them than people actually expected. And the fact they weren't underground any more, that they were proud and LOUD and gloriously (nay garishly) draped in every colour of the rainbow so they couldn't be hidden, thrust them exaggeratedly into people's faces. There was no gradual tickle, it was a sudden thump in the face. Rather than just being ordinary people that happened to be gay, they were a very distinct, identifyable and seperate group, united under a banner to the exclusion of, and irritation of, 'normal' people who just didn't understand what the fuss was about. Fine, be gay, but don't scream and shout about it.
And this is so even for those who tried to be quiet, and subtle about it. Other people had forced it into people's faces, and they got smeared with the same skreechy-bumsexy brush, despite that they lived their life behind (albeit very stylish) curtains
And maybe the Pride movement has been counterproductive to that extent. So desperate were we to identify as a group that we have segregated ourselves. Straight people don't see the need to have a day to celebrate being straight, making babies and keeping the species alive; so why should the gays go marching around waving flags and blowing the bluddy whistles. And I have been out with lovely, tolerant "normal" straights who have been excluded when the group of us go to gay clubs. They have been singled-out, discriminated against embarrassed by their exclusion from the activities of the remainder of the group.
Yes, I know we have marches and parades to celebrate other hard-fought battles over discrimination, like on 11 November when we acknowledge the many, many people involved in the battles for our freedoms over the years. And yes, there is Armistice day, with its march, their symbol. But that is a moment for the whole nation. Pride parades sometimes seek to actively exclude straights as though their support would actually dilute the movement, distract from the cause.
Too often these days Pride parades are not seen as the courteous and proper acknowledgement of equality, democracy and liberality, but simple and excuse for people to get drunk and have a party. And shag around. They are loud, brash, garish events with an atmosphere of entertainment and enjoyment, rather than quiet reflection of achievement.
But is that necessarily wrong?
Yes, people dedicated their lives to the battle for equality, but maybe we should celebrate that achievement with a party rather than a solemn occasion remembering regret, remorse and repression. Just as a minute's silence seems to be getting slowly replaced with a minute's applause, perhaps we have been at the forefront of a change for better, for celebration rather than solemnity, optimism rather than pessimism. Rewarding rather than castigating. You can always guarantee the gays will turn anything into a party. And when the straights ask when their day is to celebrate being straight we should ask them when they won their battle.
It's an odd contradiction - we want equality, we want to blend in and be treated the same and not identified or distinguished; and yet we need a collective identity, a cause, a unifying - yet segregating - experience. One of most common conversations amongst gays - and questions that gays are asked - is "Are you out? When did you come out? How did you do it?" And yet there are a million and one different coming out stories, each one of them different in their own way to any other in its catastrophe, comedy, heartache or sheer boredom. But our individual experience is still expected to unify us, somehow: a shared conversation with a different ending every single time.
In the very recent battle for the legalisation of gay marriage, someone said:
"I don't want to be gay married, I want to be married. The fact that I am gay is neither here nor there - it is marriage the same for me as for any other. When I park my car I don't do gay parking; when I go for lunch I don't do gay lunch."
and there is a really very good argument to say that we shouldn't have such a distinction, that we shouldn't ourselves - as gays - be attaching the gay moniker to the cause. I know we do it with many other things: gay clubs, gay cinema etc. but we do those to advertise them to ourselves, to appeal to the gays rather than to disuade the straight, don't we? We do - mostly - let straights into gay clubs, so long as they don't directly affect the balance, risk the 'gay' tag, and they can subscribe to the gay lifestyle; just so long as they don't denounce they gays or denigrate either the name or the notion of gayity.But we do need to campaign for "gay" marriage, because marriage between straights is legal, and yet between gays is not. So we should be arguing for the legalisation of "gay marriage" not because it is "gay marriage" but because it currently isn't marriage at all.
But then, what exactly is the difference between the current state of civil partnership and marriage? Actually, when you look at the legislation and the tax and the benefits, there is no difference at all. It is difference in name alone. A token distinction compromised for those rallying for the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. But it is this token distinction that has riled the homos: if it is different in name alone, why should it be different in name? Call a spade a spade - if it is a marriage, it is a marriage. After all, marriage has - for a long time - very distinctly not been about any religious union, but about a civil one. And then - once this current debate is over - truly then we can say it is not about gay marriage, because there is no distinction. It is just 'marriage'.
This has been helped in recent days by Barack Obama coming out to, and David Cameron reaffirming his commitment to gay marriage. One day, maybe, perhaps, the distinctions will be few - there will be no 'gay' marriage, no 'gay' clubs or 'gay' culture; because everyone will accept all distinctions. Maybe
On a minor aside, I did hear one commentator state that it was trending very highly in Twitter, showing general public desire - not just acceptance - of gay marriage. I will, one day, discuss both demographics, reference groups, and the fact that things can trend on Twitter with just a couple of dozen mentions.
For those of you that haven't seen gay parking it usually involves a wonky Smart car; and gay lunch involves vodka.
Or maybe I'm just attaching more tags to the gay lifestyle...if there is 'a' gay lifestyle.
1 comment:
As an increasingly passionate secularist I have to see marriage as two things - a declaration allowing a couple to be regarded as a single entity for certain legal purposes, and completely separately, a declaration before an imagined deity that a couple will remain together until death do they part.
Now, if the religious communities wish to continue their intolerance and blindly follow selected passages (but not others) from their, again selected, snippets from choice scriptures, then let them do so within the confines of what they determine to be 'marriage'. However, their slightly crazy book of rules has no place in law making. A civil partnership should be called a marriage. It is a marriage as much as my marriage to my wife is.
Only 57% of the UK population declare themselves as 'Christian', and of those about two thirds hold beliefs that are not compatible with Chrisianity (for example astrology), only a third can name the first book of the new testament from a choice of 4 (25% would get it right just by guessing), and around a quarter actually go to church or use their 'faith' to guide their daily life. It seems insane that the rules that Christians choose to follow as part of their faith are still considered relevant when determining the laws of the state, which effect Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, Druids, Humanists and others alike.
Oh, and lets stop allowing the legal marriage to be performed by church representatives.
Post a Comment