h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It is odd, though. In and around my own city, I know of at least one popular venue for alfresco gay sex, and one for straight sex (dogging). I've never suggested to friends or colleagues that we visit either of them for a laugh. If I were to do so in company time, I'd pretty much expect to get in trouble.

There's also no evidence that the firemen were merely 'goofing' around.

I was once walking on my own at night and a car load of young men slowed down to walking pace beside me. The men started yelling out the windows about how they should drag me into the car and take me away, presumably to rape me. Although I don't think the word rape was never used, there was plenty of harsh sexual taunting.

Now I'm sure that if those men had been asked by the police (or any kind of authority) later about what they did they would have said they were just having a laugh. And I'm sure that some of them thought they were. But that doesn't stop what they did from being nasty. The reality is that women do get dragged into cars by men and raped, so there really isn't anything to laugh about in the threat to do so, particularly when you're the vulnerable person at the receiving end of the 'joke'.

It's all about context.

Gay men still get murdered in public places, simply for being gay (actually simply for being gay in the presence of extreme homophobes). For gay men, the reality is that they are the victims of a specific kind of hate crime that no-one else is, so the actions of others towards them have different implications. You can't compare what happened with the firefighters to a situation where it was het people having sex and say those are comparable situtaion ( and there is also the issue that's been already been mentioned about why men havin sex with each other need to have sex in public places in the first place).

We don't know what the intentions of the firemen were. I'm not suggesting that they were intending physical violence. But they could still have had malicious intent in the same way that young men cruising and harassing women on their own do.

Or they may have had no malicious intent at all, other than their usual garden variety homophobia that says it's funny to find some gay men having sex and shine their spotlight on them . But for the people on the receiving end of the 'goofing', there is still the context. How are they to know that this particular group of men is or isn't going to beat them up?

And all that aside, the issue of firemen 'goofing' around while on paid time still stands.

This was in Bristol? On the downs? How did I miss that?

So when I started university three years ago they told us not to walk across the downs at night because of rape, and everyone laughed. If they'd said you probably won't want to walk across the downs at night because its a gay cruising spot, .

(Incidentally I've walked through there many a time in the dark and never noticed anything.)

Take a big red lorry and a torch next time Bouncy.

Yeah - Clifton Downs, I believe. On my route back to the airport.

by the watertower?

We all know the place, then

I don't think by the watertower can be the venue. When I passed last week there was some kind of brightly lit marquee nearby. Hardly conducive to a bit of discrete man-on-man action.

"Gay men still get murdered in public places, simply for being gay"

No, they don't.

"(actually simply for being gay in the presence of extreme homophobes)."

Again - no, they don't. This is so obviously wrong it's hardly even worth arguing with, so let's move on.

"For gay men, the reality is that they are the victims of a specific kind of hate crime that no-one else is"

Here's a thing - I've never entirely understood why "hate crime" is worse than "crime". I was mugged once. I was beaten unconscious, and my watch was taken. Now, as it happens, the perps were the same colour as me and the same gender as me. I have absolutely no idea, no clue at all, whether they were the same sexuality as me, because it didn't come up in the conversation. However, they did beat me unconscious and take my watch. If they'd been a different colour from me, and beaten me unconscious and taken my watch *because* of that - how is that worse? Or more to the point, from my point of view, why is it in some way BETTER for me to be beaten unconscious and robbed by people "like me"?

Violence is violence - isn't it? (And I repeat - there has been, in all the news reporting I've seen about this case, NO suggestion WHATEVER that there was violence, actual, implied, threatened or even mentioned. So all talk of "hate crime" is hyperbolic crap.

"You can't compare what happened with the firefighters to a situation where it was het people having sex and say those are comparable situtaion"

Of course. I wouldn't for a moment expect gay people to expect the same treatment as straight people in the same situation. I would absolutely agree with you, that they should expect special, different treatment because of their very, very special and different nature. They are NOTHING like us normal people and shouldn't expect to be treated as such.

That is what you meant, right?

"and there is also the issue that's been already been mentioned about why men havin sex with each other need to have sex in public places in the first place"

They do not need to have sex in public places. When I was a teenager, there were very limited opportunities to have sex, largely due to the inconvenient presence of parents in all the private places where it might otherwise have been possible. But here's the thing - not having somewhere private to go and have sex meant, we didn't have sex. Tough.

"We don't know what the intentions of the firemen were. I'm not suggesting that they were intending physical violence."

Of course not. That's why you mentioned hate crime.

"for the people on the receiving end of the 'goofing', there is still the context. How are they to know that this particular group of men is or isn't going to beat them up?"

How about - if they're so concerned about being beaten up "for being gay", having sex with other men in public places possibly, just maybe, isn't the brightest idea.

"And all that aside, the issue of firemen 'goofing' around while on paid time still stands."

Absolutely. And as I already said, they should all have had their XBoxes confiscated and their biscuit rations cut, and nothing more.

SoRB

>No, they don't.

Actually, they do. There's been a few high-profile cases recently. Believe it or not, despite all the media/government promotion of tolerance, homophobia is still rife. There's definitely less of it now but it's still common.

>Here's a thing - I've never entirely understood why "hate crime" is worse than "crime". I was mugged once. I was beaten unconscious, and my watch was taken. Now, as it happens, the perps were the same colour as me and the same gender as me. I have absolutely no idea, no clue at all, whether they were the same sexuality as me, because it didn't come up in the conversation. However, they did beat me unconscious and take my watch. If they'd been a different colour from me, and beaten me unconscious and taken my watch *because* of that - how is that worse? Or more to the point, from my point of view, why is it in some way BETTER for me to be beaten unconscious and robbed by people "like me"?

First, you've misunderstood what a hate crime is. It isn't someone who isn't the same race/sexuality as you attacking you, it's someone attacking you *specifically because* of that difference.

Secondly, it's not so much that it's "worse" on a case-by-case basis so much as that it makes life a little bit more dangerous for some people because they're vulnerable to it because of something they can't help and they shouldn't be targetted for and so the police need to treat it separately. There's also (rightly) a moral revulsion at the concept of beating someone senseless because you don't like their colour or who they sleep with. Arguing that hate crime isn't such an issue because people are mugged is like arguing that we shouldn't worry about murder because people get hit by cars and killed. In both cases, you get a death but there's a reason why people get more upset about one than the other.

>They do not need to have sex in public places. When I was a teenager, there were very limited opportunities to have sex, largely due to the inconvenient presence of parents in all the private places where it might otherwise have been possible. But here's the thing - not having somewhere private to go and have sex meant, we didn't have sex. Tough.

I don't think they should be having sex in a public place either in the sense that I don't think it should be legal but it's a very minor crime, especially at 10.30pm at night (solstice or no solstice very few people are in public parks at that time of night so the usual arguments don't really apply). I don't mind people saying "they shouldn't have been doing this", I mind people carrying on as though this is a henious crime morally and legally which it isn't in either case.

Conversely, though, Firemen using public property and on public time to have a laugh is much more serious (if not exactly henious) and yet you have expressed sympathy with the worse perpetrators here and outrage at the lesser offenders. To be honest, your motivations make no sense to me at all.

You seem to have issues, SoRB.

I'll have to check, but as far as I'm aware having a laugh isn't yet a crime - my point about committing a crime was meant to show the stragne inverted society we live in.

The firemen were goofing off, maybe they were all gay and went there for sexual thrills, maybe they were all homophobes and wanted to stop the gays from breeding. What they did was wrong, but not actually illegal.

The people who were committing a crime, at least having sex in a public place, but possibly prostitution, use their sexuality to stand up and shout "the nasty firemen are picking on me !"

And everyone is on their side - had it been a known dogging site people would probably have laughed - but no - they're homosexuals, so we all have to get serious.

Do you have to have a persecution complex to be homosexual ?

">No, they don't.

Actually, they do. "

No, they don't.

People get murdered for being black. People get murdered for being Asian. People even get murdered for being white. Things you can tell simply by looking at someone.

People do not get murdered "for being gay", for the simple reason that, all nonsense about "gaydar" aside, the newsflash is that you can't tell if someone's gay by looking at them.

I've known gay people of both genders who would be in absolutely no danger from gay-bashers. Equally I knew a guy at uni who was "gay bashed" walking back from his girlfriend's house. He was slightly built and a bit effeminate, and he was, believe me, battering the chicks off with a stick as a result.

Straight people have been murdered "for being gay". So how, exactly, does that work? Is its still a hate crime if the victim ISN'T one of the "oppressed" group?

SoRB

"First, you've misunderstood what a hate crime is. It isn't someone who isn't the same race/sexuality as you attacking you, it's someone attacking you *specifically because* of that difference."

Again, as I go down in a hail of punches, lapse into unconsciousness and wake up bruised and without my watch, frankly I don't give a monkey's WHY I was attacked.

"Secondly, it's not so much that it's "worse" on a case-by-case basis"

So, do you agree that it's not?

"so much as that it makes life a little bit more dangerous for some people because they're vulnerable to it because of something they can't help"

See above point on it being impossible to target gay people without either (a) asking them first or (b) spying on them.

"and they shouldn't be targetted for and so the police need to treat it separately."

Um... again... why? Are you saying they deserve a greater degree of attention than me, because I was unlucky enough to be beaten unconscious by people who looked like me?

"There's also (rightly) a moral revulsion at the concept of beating someone senseless because you don't like their colour or who they sleep with."

No, hang on. Please, just a moment...

"There's also (rightly) a moral revulsion at the concept of beating someone senseless"

Now, explain to me why you need to tack ANYTHING onto that sentence, EVER.

"Arguing that hate crime isn't such an issue because people are mugged is like arguing that we shouldn't worry about murder because people get hit by cars and killed."

Garbage. People are hit by cars and killed ACCIDENTALLY.

I resent most strongly your implication that because I was beaten senseless by white, presumably heterosexual males, that that was comparable to an accident and in some way less deserving of police attention.

"In both cases, you get a death but there's a reason why people get more upset about one than the other."

Duh.

SoRB

"...use their sexuality to stand up and shout "the nasty firemen are picking on me !" "

Mackay, they've done no such thing. Read the article again, and my post 60 again, please, for the facts about how this got into the public domain. I really can't work out why people are jumping to the assumption that this is all part of some gay militant plot, because there's no evidence, other than people's prejudices, for it.

Even SoRB seems now to have stopped going on about "queenie whining" - though he hasn't addressed what I said in post 60 either. And has moved the discussion on to something different, again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/30/newsid_2499000/2499249.stm

People *do* get killed for being gay.

"he hasn't addressed what I said in post 60 "

Sorry, but I didn't see a clear question.

SoRB

Indeed. And to say otherwise is utterly disingenuous.

OK - so people can maybe disguise their sexuality in a way that'd impossible with race. Never go to a gay bar. Never show affection to one's loved one in public. But is that not an unreasonable price to expect to have to pay for protection against murder?

Now - there's an elephant in the room here. Obviously some people are het up over the idea of promiscuous sex in the open air - and maybe the fact that it's in the bushes under cover of darkness isn't sufficient excuse for the impoliteness involved. So I guess there's an undercurrent of 'serve 'em right' here.

But think about it for a moment. What would we normally think of someone going out of their way to peer upon couples having sex - eg in the local Lover's Lane car park? Isn't that even more icky than the act itself? And wouldn't you think that 'Having a laugh' in this way during office hours would normally merit some sort of disciplinary action?

If not - Seriously?!

Now add to that kea's point about the context. Were these morons really just 'having a laugh'?

Ah - but they were brave, selfless pillars of society jsut letting off steam while the boys in the bushes were moral degenerates. See the shape of the elephant, anyone?

"People *do* get killed for being gay."

And once more - no, they don't. From the very page you linked to:

IN CONTEXT:
"The death toll in the Soho pub bombing later rose to three. Andrea Dykes, 27, who was four months pregnant, was killed instantly; her husband was among those seriously injured."

Four months pregnant and with a husband. Yup, certainly sounds gay to me.

Regardless of the comedy potential of the surname, was Mrs. Dykes killed "for being gay"?

Or are you suggesting that her death was *less* of a crime because she was heterosexual? After all, it can't have been a "hate crime", therefore it's clearly less deserving of police time - right? Or not?

Yes, this isolated nutbar bombed a pub. It's a reasonable assumption that he hated/hates gays. But he rather makes my point for me by killing a married woman. You CANNOT target someone simply for being gay, because YOU CAN'T TELL.

It would be like trying to kill only Tory voters (now there's a thought...). How would you do it? Ask them first? It just isn't possible, as evidenced by the straight people who are bashed, even as you point out for me, even KILLED, "for being gay". The people perpetrating this violence neither know nor care what sexuality the person they're beating or killing is. THAT is the crime - not discrimination, but its very opposite, indiscriminate violence. The Soho pub bomb is, as you perhaps inadvertently demonstrate, a perfect example of INdiscriminate killing.

SoRB