Councilor Gay...so what!

dbnavan

I was enraged today to read that Mr Malcom Byrne Wexford County Concillor, was made apoligise for Boasting he had a big member on a gay website so f**kin what!

Its the 21st century, he is gay, live with it, he is a public rep who gets paid expenses, not even a salary, just cause he is gay does not mean that he should act any different, would it have made front page if he boasted about the size of his manhood on a hetrosexual site, NO WAY do i think this warrents newspaper news never mind front page!

Who is he hurting, maybe himself from not getting votes next time from narrow minded homophobes thats about it!!

aidan_walsh

I'm pretty sure the problem is with his conduct on the site, not with him being gay... The man is an elected official, like it or not they are held to a higher standard than everyone else.

kc66

Had to laugh at the article in the Independent. Wasn't sure if they were taking the píss with the name of the radio program he was on-

From: http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1548523&issue_id=13588

A FIANNA Fail councillor has defended his actions after he put highly personal information on an international gay website.
Malcolm Byrne (31) a councillor in Gorey, north Wexford said his private life was his own business and that he had "no intention" of walking away from politics.........
....."It is not very nice for some of my family and friends to hear about my sexuality through the media and it has been distressing for them," he added.
Speaking earlier on South East Radio's morning show, Straight Talk, following the publication of an article in local newspaper The Echo, Cllr Byrne, a research consultant, said that if a "person's sexuality is an issue that's sad".......

walshb

I agree everyone has the right 'to find love' and it is his own private business. It is 2006, so why should he not be allowed lead a normal life as a gay man. However if he is claiming it's his own business and it's private, why then is he broadcasting it in a lewd manner on a public website. He is a Councillor and he is representing people so I think he should try be a little more discreet with his affairs....Show at least a little class and some standards.

Kolodny

dbnavan wrote:

would it have made front page if he boasted about the size of his manhood on a hetrosexual site

In fairness I'd expect a heterosexual councillor posting the same sort of thing on a 'heterosexual site' to get the same treatment if he was caught - he's a councillor and is expected to abide by certain rules of conduct regardless of his sexuality.

flogen

I agree, Kolodny.
It's not a matter of the site he used, or his sexuality but more his conduct in the public domain which is unfitting for his role as councillor. I wouldn't like a politician to act in such a lewd manner, and if they were to they should have the cop on to do it in private!

Stark

aidan_walsh wrote:

I'm pretty sure the problem is with his conduct on the site, not with him being gay... The man is an elected official, like it or not they are held to a higher standard than everyone else.

walshb wrote:

I agree everyone has the right 'to find love' and it is his own private business. It is 2006, so why should he not be allowed lead a normal life as a gay man. However if he is claiming it's his own business and it's private, why then is he broadcasting it in a lewd manner on a public website. He is a Councillor and he is representing people so I think he should try be a little more discreet with his affairs....Show at least a little class and some standards.

What conduct and lewd behaviour would you be referring to?

And if this is about "boasting he had a big cock", I'd double-check the source of the article. Note also, gaydar.co.uk does have multiple choice options you can click and one of them is your endowment. Yes the website itself is very sleazy, but I'd still consider there to be a difference between answering the MCQ honestly, and "boasting". I haven't seen the profile myself, but anyone who has had said it was tasteful and genuine. As he said in his own defence, personal ads are everywhere these days with people lonely and looking for love.

flogen

Stark wrote:

What conduct and lewd behaviour would you be referring to?

And if this is about "boasting he had a big cock", I'd double-check the source of the article. Note also, gaydar.co.uk does have multiple choice options you can click and one of them is your endowment. Yes the website itself is very sleazy, but I'd still consider there to be a difference between answering the MCQ honestly, and "boasting". I haven't seen the profile myself, but anyone who has had said it was tasteful and genuine. As he said in his own defence, personal ads are everywhere these days with people lonely and looking for love.

But if your a public servant shouldn't you be careful not to get publically involved in lewd behavior, be it that you were asked or you volunteered the information yourself?
As I said, he should have kept his identity private or else had more sense.

Stark

I think that's crap to be frank. You haven't even said what "lewd behaviour" is. Last time I checked, public officials weren't asked to takes oaths of celibacy.

"Volunteered his identity". "Should have kept his identiy private". At what point did he reveal his identity? Perhaps when he goes to date someone, he should have a secret identity like Batman and Bruce Wayne?

Edit: Okay, I've taken a look at his profile and he does have pictures of himself on it which did leave himself open to being outed so I withdraw my second statement in this post. But I still fail to see what you consider to be "lewd and unacceptable" behaviour. I think his profile is quite sweet tbh. I think he did change it a little since it was made public, but considering the general tone, I doubt he ever "boasted about his cock" on it. I think whoever reported that was perverting the truth by reporting on those MCQ questions I mentioned earlier.

flogen

I still haven't seen his original profile, but if he was boasting about his size (or even if it was a standard feature of the profile).
I don't care what way the guy swings, but if he's a public representative then he has to act in a certain way in public.
If Enda Kenny had a profile up on Buy and Sell which made reference to the size of his penis I'd still think it was unfitting for his role.

Stark

Would it have been better if he put down "small"? At least he wouldn't have been "boasting" then.

Until fairly recently, before it became so sleazy that you got the figurative stench of cum on the rug right after logging in, the whole gaydar thing was totally normalised in gay culture. I don't know a gay guy who hasn't had a profile on it at some point. Having your dick size listed on the site was about as shocking as letting your bulge show through your trunks at the swimming pool. I can see why he became complacent as it's something no gay guy would give a toss about. Subcultural norms and all that. I can also see how a heterosexual person having a peek in this instance would be fairly apalled though. All I can say, and any other person who's seen the profile can say, is I've seen nothing that casts a shadow over his character. He's obviously learnt from his mistake and I hope things blow over for him.

flogen

That just would have caused further embaresment

Well I understand that such a profile detail is the norm on gaydar at least, and probably on similar sites, but, regardless of sexual persuasion, public officials really shouldn't be putting this information out there for all to see. I have no problem with him wanting to live a normal life, but once you become a public official the idea of a normal life is extremely limited.
I wouldn't say I was appauled by the details, I just don't think I'd be too impressed if someone I had elected and I was paying for was acting like this in the public domain.

I imagine things will blow over for him, and I'm sure he's learned something from it; I don't think the profile was casting a bad shadow on his character either; it's not like it pointed to some kind of sexual deviency, it just didn't show him in a very professional light (which, when in the public, a public official has to be)

Guy:Incognito

Would anyone want to see a lonely heart ad with berties name and him professing to having a massive schlong? I personally would rathe rno have to read that ta.

walshb

People in positions of authority do have certain responsibilites and obligations and cannot act like the normal 'joesoaps' in the public domain. That is just the fact of the matter. We expect high standards and we deserve them. That is why Ireland is in the state it is now, the lack of standards in the country is unreal. You just have to look at the carry on of some of our TD's and ministers to realise this. Any they still hold on to their positions. Nobody is ever sacked or forced to resign. They brazenly hang on until people 'forget'.
This councillor made an error of judgement in my opinion. On the one hand he says it's private, then he's broadcasting it. It's one or the other. I have no objection to him being Gay. That's his business and he was after all born Gay, big deal and best of luck to him, but keep it out of the public domain. If it was a heterosexual councillor and he/she was doing the same thing I would feel exactly the same.

damien

Lewd behaviour? Sex is now lewd? Get over yourselves. All he did was mention the size of his cock. The reason this was the issue of the story is that people are sick of the papers outing gay politicians or popstars or sports stars. It's not PC to do that now so they made a big issue for the fact that his penis was large. The cheek of a politician to be so forthright on a site that dealt with his private life.

These days public officials are held to a higher standard mainly for others to knock them. The same people that decry double standards are the ones who are the happy hypocrite if they think that public officials deserve less of a private life than the rest of the population.

Gaydar is a popular website amongst a subset of the gay population which is rather a small section of society as a whole. Given the stigmas that still exist about homosexuality and the fact that trying to find a mate or whatever is a lot tougher, some gay men have to find solace on the likes of gaydar.

It is a private site dealing with private lives. It is not public domain, it was made public domain. It is quite different to taking out a notice in the local paper. It in essence is like joining a private club and a journalist sneaking into it to get dirt on people. They should have honoured the mans privacy but why do that when you can sell a few papers about a gay scandal?

Why don't they go after the senior party official who was well known for beating his wife? Or the coke addict? Or the one that drives home drunk? Or the tabloid reporter that got a 16 year old pregnant and sent her to England for an abortion? Are we suddenly starting at the bottom with the light offenses against our keenly developed sense of morality and working our way up?

I couldn't give a damn what people do in their private lives once it doesn't harm others or damage society but I think many people like to point out the flaws of others and especially those in a public facing job so they themselves can get a distraction from their own personal failings. At the end of the day what he does or doesn't do is none of our business. Why not get him on his failings doing his job? No, that would take some work.

flogen

damien.m wrote:

It is a private site dealing with private lives. It is not public domain, it was made public domain. It is quite different to taking out a notice in the local paper. It in essence is like joining a private club and a journalist sneaking into it to get dirt on people. They should have honoured the mans privacy but why do that when you can sell a few papers about a gay scandal?.

I see your overall point but I don't think it's quite like a private club; sure you need to sign up, but it's about as private as boards.ie.

Besides that, while the man is entitled to a private life, publishing personal details on a site that is in essence available to the public means the information is no longer a part of his private life and is public.

damien

flogen wrote:

I see your overall point but I don't think it's quite like a private club; sure you need to sign up, but it's about as private as boards.ie.

Boards is not a private website specifically created for gay men to hook up. Boards.ie is probably as diverse as it comes for online sites and is all about public discussion.

publishing personal details on a site that is in essence available to the public means the information is no longer a part of his private life and is public.

Using your logic: Disclosing personal details in a support group available to the public means if members of the public can hear about this guys personal details then it is his tough if more of the public does. This mentality encourages keeping things hidden.

You are justifying someones privacy being invaded by saying it was his tough shit for not hiding away? Isn't that the logic that some use when someone is mugged in a bad area? "Well what were they doing in such a bad part of town anyway? They should have known better" Seems like it gives the mugger the right to do it then.

It wasn't part of his campaign, it was not on the pamphlets. He wasn't disclosing to the public that he had a large penis and what types of sex he liked. He was punished for looking for sex on a website where men go to look for sex. If he gave an interview and disclosed his size in the interview, then sure start using words such as "publishing", "broadcasting", "flaunting" and "in your face". Those that say the public doesn't want to know this information shouldn't seek it out. Don't read about it. If the papers thought nobody would care would they publish it? It'd be back to only a few people on the Wexford section of Gaydar who bothered to view his profile and read the part of his profile about his cock size.

Allowing someone a private life does not necessarily mean that they are not allowed to enjoy said private life in public. They should be entitled to have their privacy and lead a normal life like everyone else. It is a shame that many people have been conned into thinking the press and the public have some ownership of a public person. If you take the rights of one section of the public away, you should not be entitled to have those rights either.

flogen

damien.m wrote:

Boards is not a private website specifically created for gay men to hook up. Boards.ie is probably as diverse as it comes for online sites and is all about public discussion.

OK, but I never pegged gaydar down as a private site. It's dedicated to a minority of the community but that doesn't make it a private affair.

Using your logic: Disclosing personal details in a support group available to the public means if members of the public can hear about this guys personal details then it is his tough if more of the public does. This mentality encourages keeping things hidden.

I have no issue with his sexuality, he can keep that to himself or make it as public as he likes. He can campaign on the back of his orientation if he likes, I don't care. However, he decided to publish intimate details about himself on a public site (albeit one dedicated to a minority), and so he was putting into the public domain as far as I'm concerned. I don't think public officials should be putting this kind of information out there; while I understand that gaydar asks you to give your cock size I don't see why he couldn't have been more discreet about who he was until he actually got chatting to someone; that's not an issue of hiding his sexuality it's just having common sense regarding your public duties and roles.

You are justifying someones privacy being invaded by saying it was his tough shit for not hiding away? Isn't that the logic that some use when someone is mugged in a bad area? "Well what were they doing in such a bad part of town anyway? They should have known better" Seems like it gives the mugger the right to do it then.

I never said he deserves all the criticism he gets; I said he should have had more sense.

He was punished for looking for sex on a website where men go to look for sex.

No, he was punished for acting unprofessionally in the public domain; and while it was not an interview it was still in the public domain; it's not like it even costs you to sign up there, are you saying that just because it's aimed at gay people it's no longer public?

Allowing someone a private life does not necessarily mean that they are not allowed to enjoy said private life in public. They should be entitled to have their privacy and lead a normal life like everyone else. It is a shame that many people have been conned into thinking the press and the public have some ownership of a public person. If you take the rights of one section of the public away, you should not be entitled to have those rights either.

When someone is elected to represent the public they take on certain duties and roles that mean they no longer have the same freedoms as others. Of course they're entitled to a private life but they should be more careful when they are acting in public. I'm not saying that he isn't entitled to do the thing that many gay men do but he should have expected some fallout, be it from the media or the opposition, when he went onto a public site and gave details of his personal and sexual life.
I mean, if Bertie Ahern went onto the Buy and Sell personals, put a picture of himself up, told us about his whopper, told us that he likes it doggy style and is into whips and chains then he'd face just as much if not more of an outcry. It's just not the way to act in public.

Stark

flogen wrote:

I mean, if Bertie Ahern went onto the Buy and Sell personals, put a picture of himself up, told us about his whopper, told us that he likes it doggy style and is into whips and chains then he'd face just as much if not more of an outcry. It's just not the way to act in public.

Doggy Style and whips? A hypothetical situation that's totally irrelevant here as the guy didn't even ask for sex or make any reference whatsoever to what he likes to do in the bedroom in his profile.

damien

flogen wrote:

I mean, if Bertie Ahern went onto the Buy and Sell personals, put a picture of himself up, told us about his whopper, told us that he likes it doggy style and is into whips and chains

Right, so that would be on the same level of moral outrage as what the guy in Wexford did?

A guy ticks a box about a physical feature on a dating site marketed to a very niche market is now comparable to someone posting about S&M in the classified section of a mainstream and massively distributed publication?

flogen

damien.m wrote:

Right, so that would be on the same level of moral outrage as what the guy in Wexford did?

A guy ticks a box about a physical feature on a dating site marketed to a very niche market is now comparable to someone posting about S&M in the classified section of a mainstream and massively distributed publication?

Firstly, was talking about the website, secondly the use of S&M was just an example that sprang to mind; besides I don't see S&M being any more of a perversion than homosexuality; as far as sex goes once it involves consenting adults I sincerely don't give a fúck what they get up to.
Thirdly, I was under the impression that his profile included details of his favourite sexual activities (beyond being gay). I apologise if that was not the case and will retract the comparison accordingly.

Even if the penis size was the only thing; I'll reword my comparison. Imagine Bertie Ahern posting a "looking for love (or sex or whatever)" personal on buy and sell online (or even the magazine; we live in a technological world and I don't see why something isn't public just because it's online, quite the opposite in my opinion); and he makes reference to the size of his penis do you honestly think that there would be no media responce? And do you think that it would be becoming of a man who is an elected politician with public roles and duties?

Stark

The analogy I see is: Bertie goes to a nudist beach. Bertie gets snapped by whatever paparazzi lie in wait there. Bertie's member ends up splashed across the pages of a thrashy rag. Add a few thrashy adjectives like "Bertie shows off his goods in exhibisionist shame" and lo and behold you have your moral outrage. The thing is do you direct it at the paper for invasion of privacy or to Bertie for "lewd behaviour"?

Pretty much the same thing going on here in my opinion.

flogen

Stark wrote:

The analogy I see is: Bertie goes to a nudist beach. Bertie gets snapped by whatever paparazzi lie in wait there. Bertie's member ends up splashed across the pages of a thrashy rag. Add a few thrashy adjectives like "Bertie shows off his goods in exhibisionist shame" and lo and behold you have your moral outrage. The thing is do you direct it at the paper for invasion of privacy or to Bertie for "lewd behaviour"?

Pretty much the same thing going on here in my opinion.

An interesting analogy, however I don't see why an exact comparison which I gave isn't just as applicable.

OK, I'll play devils advocate with this one. Now, for the details. Is it a public beach? If Bertie Ahern were to show all on a public beach it would be impossible to argue that his privacy was invaded; sure he'd be having his holiday (if that's what it is) interrupted but someone in the public domain who makes these details available to the public eye has no comeback IMO. It's kinda like Victoria and David Beckham complaining about how every thing they do is in the papers etc., they can't blame anyone because they made it that way. Now, would I be interested in reading such a story, no. It's not news. Public official get's his lad out. Who cares. The same goes for this guy giving details of his cock size. I don't care and I don't think it's news (which is all that belongs in so-called newspapers). However, in both cases they shouldn't have expected any different because trashy newspapers love trashy stories like these. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's inevitable.
Had Bertie been walking around his private villa in the nip and someone got on the wall and took a picture; that's invasion of privacy IMO. If in this case a journalist had pretended to be an interested gay guy, had private discussions with the Councillor and then published them in his paper, that would IMO be invasion of privacy also.

Now, If it is indeed the case that the only bit of private information this guy made public was the size of his penis then perhaps my use of the term lewd was uncalled for. I would instead say it was foolish. The fact is, as a public official the only things in your private lives are the things you keep private. Not hidden, private.
Also, while Gaydar asks for penis size there is a "rather not say" option, so it's not like he was forced to make the decision between giving his measurements and having no access to the greater gay community.

rsynnott

dbnavan wrote:

Who is he hurting, maybe himself from not getting votes next time from narrow minded homophobes

or people with small penises.

Stark wrote:

Until fairly recently, before it became so sleazy that you got the figurative stench of cum on the rug right after logging in, the whole gaydar thing was totally normalised in gay culture. I don't know a gay guy who hasn't had a profile on it at some point.

It was ever non-sleazy?!

flogen wrote:

Also, while Gaydar asks for penis size there is a "rather not say" option, so it's not like he was forced to make the decision between giving his measurements and having no access to the greater gay community.

Well, maybe he was worried about how that would be interpreted

This whole thing is really very silly.