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

"If Brand and Ross had had their "infamous" answerphone message edited out (had it been possible)"

It was a pre-recorded programme Otto, so it could indeed have been edited out

There are quite a few gay people where I work. The gay women just get on with things; alright, a couple of them are 'butch', but you'd never guess they were gay unless it came up in conversation. However, most of the gay men there don't hold back; they have the put-on camp voices, mince around constantly and make it their mission to let everyone know which team they're batting for if you show an interest or not.

I couldn't care less if you get your kicks from shagging hairy barbershop floors to be honest, but what I do object to is having people showing off like this. You're gay, good for you - now get over yourself because nobody really cares.

So how do you spot all the ones who don't behave like that? The ones that lie, pretend, put on an act etc? Or do you assume they must all be straight. Do you always just judge on appearances?

>You're gay, good for you - now get over yourself because nobody really cares.<

Nice utopia you must inhabit.

"So how do you spot all the ones who don't behave like that? The ones that lie, pretend, put on an act etc? Or do you assume they must all be straight. Do you always just judge on appearances?"

Not sure I understand you there.

">You're gay, good for you - now get over yourself because nobody really cares.<

Nice utopia you must inhabit."

What exactly do you mean by "nice utopia"? I don't grudge anyone their sexuality, I'm sure I made that clear, and I am a firm supporter of gay rights. I fear you may have missed my point though - I have nothing against how people live their life and there's nothing wrong in celebrating who you are (Gay Pride ftw), but what does flaunting your lifestyle choices to every single person you meet prove? I know plenty of gay people who are ashamed of the deliberately camp brigade; does that make me a bad person by agreeing with them?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/

Dr. Henry Thorne, a New York University history professor who has written several books about the gay-rights movement, explained the misunderstanding.

"After centuries of oppression as an 'invisible' segment of society, gays, emboldened by the 1969 Stonewall uprising, took to the streets in the early '70s with an 'in-your-face' attitude. Confronting the worst prejudices of a world that didn't accept them, they fought back against these prejudices with exaggeration and parody, reclaiming their enemies' worst stereotypes about them and turning them into symbols of gay pride," Thorne said. "Thirty years later, gays have won far greater acceptance in the world at large, but they keep doing this stuff anyway."

"Mostly, I think, because it's really fun," Thorne added.

The Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade, Thorne noted, is part of a decades-old gay-rights tradition. But, for mainstream heterosexuals unfamiliar with irony and the reclamation of stereotypes for the purpose of exploding them, the parade resembled an invasion of grotesque outer-space mutants, bent on the destruction of the human race.

@jwf
>"Yes, the rare prosecutions such as that of Oscar Wilde were usually
a direct result of 'flaunting' it. The old policy of 'out of sight out of mind'
was sort of like 'common law'; it allowed almost everything between
consenting adults as long as it was private and co-consentual. But the
laws would be enforced when 'radicals' like Wilde started with their
'in your face' politicking and self promotion."

Wrong on pretty much all counts. For a start, the law didn't unofficially sanction private homosexual relationships since men could be and were charged for being gay in private. The reason there were few prosecutions was, as I said, more to do with evidence and a certain amount of general apathy towards private homosexuality than unofficial tolerance. And that's before we get to the issue of blackmail - the majority of persecution of gay men was carried out by nasty money-grubbing individuals rather than the state.

Secondly, Wilde was hardly a gay rights 'radical' who pushed his sexuality in peoples' faces. His public persona was that of a married man and he denied being a homosexual when taken to court. The reason he was arrested and charged, incidentally, was because he'd had a sexual relationship with the son of the Marquis of Queensbury who was determined to prosecute Wilde, not because he was publically open about his sexuality. Amongst close friends and within the semi-closed world of the London social scene I think the truth about Wilde's sexuality was probably better known but this was far from the same as someone making it public.

Correction: Wikipedia points out that Wilde in fact sued Queensbury for calling him a "sodomite" and lost the subsequent case as there were considerable numbers of witnesses to Wilde's sexual adventures. Wilde was subsequently arrested and charged with "gross indecency". Queensbury seemed to have been rather more keen to end Wilde's relationship with his son using his fists.

>> most of the gay men there don't hold back;

How do you know it's "most of them" fords? It might be a minority while the majority behave in a way that's ok with breeders. How good's your gaydar? No, really, how good is it?


>> flaunting your lifestyle choices

wtf?

W

T

F

???????

Sexuality is NOT a choice, let alone a "lifestyle choice". And "flaunting"....? You are going way past heteronormativity - which is pressure enough - and into homophobia there, no matter how much you say you "don't grudge anyone their sexuality" and are "a firm supporter of gay rights". Sure you are. Plain for all to see.


And breathe, Ben, breathe ...


>> "Thirty years later, gays have won far greater acceptance in the world at large, but they keep doing this stuff anyway."

>> "Mostly, I think, because it's really fun," Thorne added.




Incidentally, Queensberry couldn't spell, and accused Wilde of being a "Somodite". But everyone got the gist.

Alright, lifestyle choice wasn't the right phrase. I'll hold my hands up to that one

I work in a small office so we all know each other pretty well. There's no real need for a gaydar, trust me As much as I get annoyed by the 'look at me I'm gay rarara give me attention ooh shut that door' brigade, underneath they're generally nice people. I'm no homophobe, really I'm not.

I get the feeling that they feel these people feel the need to exaggerate who they are and that is kinda sad. I used to work with a gay guy who worked as a drag queen at nights and he used to get really really annoyed with them. He called them 'faux gays' because his reckoning was that real gay people are happy with who they are and those who flaunt their gayness need a reality check.

How different should people be allowed to be?

Imagine this:

"Bloody walkers, don't get me wrong I don't begrudge them getting exercise and enjoying the out doors but do they really need to wear hiking boots to work? Why are they so in your face with their national trust badges and three peaks sponsorship forms? What they do in there own time is up to them. I know a woman who walks to work and she doesn't wear gore-tex jackets so why do the rest of them feel the need to flaunt it?

I find a number of individuals irritating but I don't try to pin it on some unrelated background fact.

Moreover I think "the voice" though not an all encompassing or exclusive indicator of homosexuality is linked to homosexuality at physical level and is not an affectation.

Guy who used to work for me (oh, but for the days when I used to have staff, now I can't even get work) was and is the campest fellow I know. He makes Graham Norton look like Vin Diesel. I don't begrudge him for it, it's just a part of him that I can't relate to but recognise not as a self-identifier but as a sort of art form, like those silver statue types around Covent Garden. In his free time he practises pole-dancing (where he teaches the girls who make up the rest of the class how to do it) and gymnastics. He's a ballerina of sorts, not something I want to watch but I'm sure if he was a young female I wouldn't have a problem with it. Where's the harm? I worry sometimes he'll come out of a club and get assaulted (this being Ipswich) for being himself. But the real "flamers" (and I refer you to the origin of that term) get treated to the sort of behaviour that leads to Jan Moir articles and the nailbomber. Why? Because they portray their differentness in extravagant terms and play up to it, which in the final analysis is a pretty hardcore thing to do. It's an act of defiance in an intolerant world.

Would you have the same problem with someone like this (Chris Rock features again)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFY2kJ96jNY

Maybe you would, I'm sure I would - whoopdidoo, you're black, I get it. But it's easier to tell him to zip it because he doesn't have to hide it simply by not acting that way. He has no choice but to be out. If people who have been persecuted for centuries want to tie their colours to the mast good luck to them. It's better than the sort of scenario where a sexuality-Stasi exists to "weed out" those it disapproves of, by whispers and organised recrimination, and beats them to death because of who they are. If person A assaults person B in the street one night, and it turns out person B is gay, is it a hate crime? Not immediately. If person A assaults person B in the street one night and it's obvious person B is gay, is it a hate crime? Not immediately either, but the clues are there. That I think is some of the point behind it.

>> Queensbury seemed to have been rather more keen to end Wilde's relationship with his son using his fists. <<

This sentence really needs to be reworded. At least, use a comma!

RF

That is worryingly close to how I feel about Ramblers, Blicky. Though I have a particular fear and loathing for the ones in red socks who have maps in plastic pockets hanging around their necks. It's worrying that I'm saying that in honesty and without irony.

Fords, let me rephrase what you've said there:

"There are quite a few parents where I work. The fathers just get on with things; alright, a couple of them talk about their kids once in a while, but you'd never guess they were parents unless it came up in conversation. However, most of the mothers there don't hold back; they have the photos of their kids over their desk, they whine about their kids constantly and make it their mission to let everyone know they're breeders whether you show an interest or not.

"I couldn't care less if you get your kicks from keeping pet goats to be honest, but what I do object to is having people showing off like this. You're a parent good for you - now get over yourself because nobody really cares."

NOW do you get it?

Or this:

"There are quite a few Jews where I work. The well integrated ones just get on with things; alright, a couple of them don't eat ham, but you'd never guess they were Jews unless it came up in conversation. However, most of the Ashkenazi Jews there don't hold back; they have the elf-locks and beards and wear those silly little hats constantly, and make it their mission to let everyone know which god they're worshipping if you show an interest or not.

"I couldn't care less if you get your kicks from worshipping the flying spagetti monster to be honest, but what I do object to is having people showing off like this. You're Jewish, good for you - now get over yourself because nobody really cares."

I'm not going to say anything else about your post 61 because I don't want to bully you, but I am damned if I'm not going to call you on it good and proper. What you SAID there is homophobic, though I'm happy to accept that you don't care anyone does "in privacy".

I think straight people have No Idea how often they actually fault there straightness. Every time each of the following things happens then you are actually flaunting your heterosexuality

- Talking about your baby, having a picture of your children on your desk. That's effectively saying ' I have a had sex about a year ago'

- Talking about your husband / wife, and referring to them by name as your husband or wife, instead of referring to them as your 'partner'. Oh and taking great care about not using a pronoun in the process.

- Talking about the date you went on last night, and mentioning the name/ gender / pronoun of the person

- Talking about who you fancy, having a calendar of attractive people of the opposite sex

There are other activities gay people are involved in that may reveal that they're gay, and that they don't want to hide. For instance they may be involved in gay rights politics, or they may be involved in the gay community.

Why should they hide this at work? Does the Unite Rep hide the fact he's a member of the Labour Party, does the Christian hide that they're helping at Brownies.

If you are still not convinced try spending a day engaging in normal social activities and not mentioning the gender of your partner, or the fact that you have a child.

Can I flaunt my nonsexuality? I haven't had so much as a pat on the head in years.

Chris: maybe we should organise a "dry spell pride" day. It wouldn't matter if you fancied men, women or triple-breasted w****s from Eroticon Six, if you haven't had any for quite a while you can take part. Perhaps large bars of chocolate could play a part, there could be a bit of a cold-shower theme, etc.

Deb

Pfft - our workplace is full of onanists always going on about onanist rights and Onanist Pride marches. Nice enough people but no-one particularly wants to shake hands with them.

That means more Youtube I'm afraid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn6Z9djh8eA NSFW

No, it's not homophobic Ben. At worst it's a petty hate, but I'm no gay basher. I see what you did with the rephrasing ("NOW do you get it?" was completely uncalled for to be honest), and my point does apply to any sort who feels compelled to push their life into your face, but just because I don't like it that doesn't make me a bigot.

Here's a question for you - I've previously mentioned that I know gay people who also can't stand the put-upon gayness of some. Are they bigots too or is it okay for them to feel that way?

Are we not talking about "camp" behaviour though, which can be ok in small doses or the right situation but might be irritating if it's non-stop.