Straight Away?

So, there's been a lot of chatter recently about 'gay only' or 'majority gay' clubs - the idea being to provide a safe space for gays to associate.

Now, I recently went into quite some detail as to whether this is choice of association, or discrimination, and this very nicely (or not so) follows on from that.

So, the idea is that gay-only or majority-gay clubs or pubs are needed. Or, rather, needed still.

Because, lets face it, fifty years ago they didn't exist. Or, at least, not overtly - not publicly. Such clubs were desperately wanted - but not available - to the gays. Now they exist but are, perhaps, wanted - but not available - to the straights.

The furore occurred a month or so ago when a large group of straight lads were turned away from a 'gay' venue. It's not a new thing - I recall me being allowed in (and to pay) only then to find that none of my other friends were allowed in to a particular venue.

But, is it moral? Is it wanted? Is it even legal?

I kind of see both sides (as ever).

As a chap who quite fancies chaps, I do like to go to a venue where I'm not going to get shouted at, derided, perhaps even threatened, if I happen to suggest to a chap I quite like him. At least in a gay / gay-friendly venue I know that if I approach a chap, he knows that it could reasonably be expected, he knows to be flattered, he knows how easy it is to rebuff. In a 'straight' venue he could be taken off guard; his mates might take the mickey ("he clearly appeals to men more than women" - I've heard it); he might never have encountered it before and only know how to respond with the offensive - usually a swift "fuck off mate", followed by perhaps a threat. Believe me, I've been there.

So I kind of understand their position. But are gay-only clubs actually wanted? Are they actually legal?

Let's face it, if you were running a 'straight' venue which excluded gays you would immediately have the gays throwing the Equality Act in your face - we've seen it with the Christian B&Bs.

Where am I at with them? They are in the wrong. They protest and moan about having to let gays into 'their private house'. It isn't that. The moment they opened it up as a commercial business, the moment they started advertising and extracting a profit from the property they lost all claim of 'private house' over it. They've opened it up for profit, whether pink or otherwise. If you don't want gays in your home, don't run a B&B for profit.

But, could the Equality Act not operate otherwise? Afterall, it defines 'sexuality' as a protected characteristic, not 'homosexuality', 'bisexuality' or any of the other LGBTQQIP2SAA (is that where we left it?) identifiers. So, surely heterosexuality is a protected characteristic? And you can discriminate in favour of a protected characteristic only where it is under-represented by your business - in other words, to draw in missing sexualities (or other protected characteristics) in order to 'even out' the mix in your business. Well, if gay bars are already maxed-out on gays, surely the Equality Act could be used to 'straighten them out' somewhat?

And, coming back to my previous comment within this blog, are they not seen as divisive? Discriminatory already? I have to admit already to picking up more of my chaps in 'straight' (or, more particularly, not-identifying) bars as I have in gay bars. Indeed, though it is not so easy to achieve, I do tend to prefer the chaps I find in non-gay bars; they identify less with 'gayity' and more with actual real stuff. For example, tonight I got chatting to two chaps because we were at a gig. We got chatting about music, the night, all sorts of stuff. In a gay bar, all that there is unifying is gayness.

I say that it's not so easy to achieve as if you were to walk into a gay bar and - assuming you are a man - every man drools and thrusts over you. Obviously they don't. But there is a massive hurdle overcome: go out in a non-gay bar and the chances are 90% that the men fancy women; in a gay bar 90% that they fancy your gender (albeit it not necessarily you). That's true, surely?

Well, that depends how you flirt.

IF you go out in non-gay bars you can identify those that are flirting with you; as opposed to those just being pally and matey. Ditto gay bars. Admittedly your chance of 'success' may be higher in gay bars.

But it depends on the types of non-gay bars you go to. There are some that I would never think of even trying to flirt with someone, even if they gave off the appropriate signs. There are many others, however, where if someone approached me - or (weirdly, rarely) I approached them - that it might not perhaps be a fall-off-your-seat moment.

It depends on your clientele. If it's what they expect - or are at least comfortable with - then go for it. If not, don't risk it.

And that, perhaps, is the reason for my success - the places I go aren't 'gay bars', nor are they 'non-gay bars' they are good bars. They have live music, or just plain funky music. They don't rely on a forced stereotype, a performance, a persuasion. They rely on a common theme - that of music, or good beer, or some other idea. Not sexuality.

And that is how it should be done. If you like a particular type of music - perhaps that more commonly enjoyed by homosexuals - then go to those bars. If you prefer other music, associate elsewhere.

But does that not justify gay bars for those that want gay bars? Well... maybe. But why should they exclude anyone? Yes, make the environment welcoming to gays, but surely then it should make it less attractive to those that don't like gays? Surely they would only attend to cause protest, which would be short-lived. Afterall, they have so many other places they can go if they enjoy accessible pop on a regular basis without it being thrust in the faces of the gays?

So, should there be gay bars specifically for those that wish to exclude the non-gays? Exerting directly the force that those who didn't or don't want to accept the gays fifty years ago? Or even fewer than that?

Unity or diversity?

Association or discrimination?