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

Nyss: attitudes vary between regions of teh UK a fair bit, dare I say it (and as someone born in the region), often places like Norfolk/Suffolk, tend to be somewhat backward (in many respects), but other places, esp the larger citys etc., are a lot more whatever the word is...

Well, I've certainly noticed a big (but, yes, generalised somewhat), difference in outlooks and attitudes between that which I was surrounded by over in Suffolk, and what its like here in Cambridge; Still east anglia mind I guess

In answer to the original questions, what's wrong with a word that happily names exactly the group you're discussing: 'people'?

I actually mean that in a non-facial way. Why on earth is there this necessity to categorise and subdivide? Why do people have to belong to groups, rather than being individuals that do particular things, but belong to the human race? Like Gore Vidal, I reckon that 'homosexual' is an adjective not a noun - it always used to be, after all.

In fact, by the logic that the opposite of 'racist' is 'colour-blind' - that any distinctions you make, any time you notice a particular property of one racial group you're being racist (if you says '60% of prison inmates are black' you're being just as racist, i.e. not colour-blind, as if you said 'All black people are stupid') - I reckon it's rather pandering to prejudice to make assertions about the bi-60%-gay-20%-straight-10%-asexual-10%ers, or whatever you call them. They're PEOPLE, they do particular things, are attraction to particular people (in fact they're attracted to exactly the group of people that they're attracted to, no more, no less). They're not gay, not straight, not bi, trans, asexual, paedophile, bestialist or whatever. They're PEOPLE.

(rant over)

Personally I don't care what people call me, I'm not too fussed about labels. However, when I was younger I used to find comfort in saying I was gay, it gave me some certainty in otherwise confusing times. I know some people hate the idea of being pinned down or called something inaccurately but others can find it reassuring

Labels can be useful, if a little restrictive as well - each one always seems to conjure up some sort of image about how the people with the label act (maybe not a stereotype exactly, but possibly "behavioural trends"). For example, I could hardly be described as a "scene queen" , yet I believe that's the image gay people (in general) project to the outside world.

Oh, and BTW, the East Anglian attitudes are slightly worrying me at the moment - I'm going to Felixstowe at the end of the month for a conference-type thing there!

Mikeo (5.8 on the Kinsey scale, since you ask)

Why the .2 heterosexuality Mikeo? I'd put what I beleive my rating is but I don't know what that is at the moment

Err ... the 0.2 deviation is due to crushes I had on girls when puberty started and when I was still confused about my sexuality - at first I wasn't exclusively attracted to boys/men, but that developed relatively quickly. (Although it took me a few years to actually come to terms with it.)

Oh okay

In response to Ben, I dunno, i guess I have an adjective addiction problem?

Don't take this nastily, but... You see, the thing is, and where I was being more, well, militant than perhaps I seemed, is that I don't think it's a matter of just shrugging your shoulders and saying 'Yeah, well, labels are useful'. I actually think they're pretty pernicious. Many people have tried producing 'taxonomies' of the human race, and frequently these range from the 'noble white man' through the olive skinned to the negro and then to 'monsters'. I know that none of you intend to produce that sort of categorisation, and yet, I kind of feel that any set of labels is playing just that game. We're people, we're all people, and that, I seriously hope, is all we'll ever be.

It's rather like the current debate about multiculturalism, where everybody accepts that it's wonderful that Britain should have so many different cultures, and people who celebrate different things, but there has to be a point of mutual understanding, of interaction.

Labels and pigeon-holes can only *ever* divide people, and I can't see how labelling oneself could ever help you to be happy with who you are, since it seems to me a mistake to 'accept' that you are a 'gay person', when the truth is that you're a normal person, who has 'gay feelings and actions' - which is surely a far more accepting, and reassuring position to take. Which is not to say that labelling isn't good - I'd just like to be convinced of that before I accept it

Some people do find 'labels' useful though, I certainly do, both for myself and for others, and not just regarding sexuality, 'he's a musition', 'she 'she's a great artist', 'I'm bisexual', 'I'm a lazy sod'... and so on, i think of it as the set or group of labels that can apply to someone, makes up the person they are, though often and most of the time we don't 'view' them as the 'labels', but as the 'person' they are as a consequence of all these aspects of themselves...

It is sort of unrealistic. In order for humans to survive, it is necessary that we compartamentalize our input; i.e., that thing is big and hairy and has teeth - by god, it's a bear, run the hell away! In the same way, in order to to survive socially, we have to organize our information in meaningful ways. The key, I think, is to be able to use one's words - any words - in productive and respectful ways.

yep, I'll agree with that We're all control freaks in a way, like we compartmentalise things on our hard drive, or in our wardrobes/drawers, we do it with our interactions with others, 'he's a great guy', 'shes a real party animal', etc...

Yeah, the labels themselves are often harmless, there is nothing wrong in calling someone French, it's the prejudices that go along with these labels, like cheese-eating surrender monkeys for our Gallic neighbours. I know it can be difficult to separate the two sometimes but for those who can, or who don't care about the attached prejudices it can be quite comforting

You forgot that they smell of garlic
I think steriotypes, so long as they're not used to put people down and that, can be fun/funny. I take the p**s out of my heritage regularly. One side of my family is of Scotish decent the other side of Jewish decent, so of course I'm tight with money and always on the lookout for a bargain. I have been known to boast about what a great deal I got for something before now, and of course I /love/ bagels and lox. I tell Jewish jokes fairly regularly, I think they're hilarious. The only person I knew to get really angry about irish jokes wasn't even irish, she just lived there.
Also there was the whole 'Gay Romeo' & Juliet thing I've mentioned before. That wouldn't have seemed anywhere near as funny if people didn't categorize and create steriotypes for other people.

Half Scottish then? Explains why you are so tight with money then

I don't think you've completely understood my point. I'm perfectly happy for people to call a bear 'a bear', or a Frenchman 'a Frenchman', because those certainly are things things can be. We know what bears are, and can point to the thing that makes some things bears and some things not (whether than be by number of legs, shape, mating viability, DNA, or whatever). The same with being French - they are people born in France.

But things /aren't/ intrinsically 'big' or 'hairy', those are adjectives that we use to describe things that belong to a certain type. We certainly wouldn't talk about the group of 'big things' or 'hairy things', since that would include, say, stars or linings-of-the-lung.

My claim is that there is nothing whatsoever intrinsic about sexual preference, and you only go to prove this by trying (and, I'd suggest, failing) to place everyone at a particular place along a 6 point scale. To me that seems a rather pointless exercise, and if it has a consequence that can only be to divide. And whilst I'm being mean and nasty and critical (!), you might feel that self-identifying as essentially a member of a group (i.e. 'I am a gay person', as opposed to 'I do gay things' or even 'I am gay') is helpful, but when you claim that it is a group of people that are, at essence the same, you automatically exclude those that don't fit in with the group.

Perhaps the strength of my feeling on this issue (and why I'd really like to make clear my views on this) are because I don't often feel 'gay communities' are in any way accepting, but are far more judgemental, stereotyping and intolerant than contemporary British society (though certainly with less dangerous consequences).

Ben I wholeheartedly agree with you about how the 'gay community' is becoming increasingly insular, I really hate the idea that some places refuse admission to heterosexual people. However my defintion of gay isn't exclusive as you describe it, it's a simple description. Like a French person is one who is born in France I am a gay person because I am a man who sleeps with men, I'm a Scouser because I was born in Liverpool. However I don't think gay is the only description, just like there are other names for stars and for bears, there are other names for peoples' sexuality. I'm also fairly certain that the term gay does describe accurately my choice of partner