A question of identity

Denerick

I've always found it confusing that people belonging to a certain sexual orientation have endeavoured to create a 'culture' which revolves around that said orientation. Now I've no doubt that homosexual people have broad differences with heterosexuals in terms of 'social mores' etc. (Because to be homosexual is to be upset social mores, in a way) but do you not think the creation of an entire culture is somewhat self harmful?

I can never understand why certain homosexuals go out of their way to maintain an invented culture which only alienates them from most peope. Surely the primary aim of any oppressed group should be to seek equality in laws but arguably more importantly equality of perceptions? The vast majority of people under 30 are indifferent if you like people of the same sex, but a significant portion find the 'gay culture' rather nauseating. What do you think?

Aard

I don't really get the whole "gay culture" thing. I'd never be friends with somebody just because they're gay.

Boston

Which one of us created the gay culture again? I think it was ixoy on some lazy Saturday? It's not something which came about through deliberate intent. Where there is a separate culture, it has only come about as a result of the failure of wider society to accept homosexuality.

Dwn Wth Vwls

I suppose by "gay culture" being nauseating you're not referring to the theatre festivals, dance festivals and the myriad of other things. What are you referring to exactly? What parts do "a significant portion" find nauseating?

Gay people will always spend a certain amount of time congregating together, there's a variety of reasons and benefits. Equality is not about trying to be identical, it's about everyone being treated fairly.

Denerick

I mean by treating sexuality as something divisive rather than as 'just one of those minor things' that makes everybody different. Like preferring ice-cream to chocolate. Thats where sexuality should be - it should be differentiated by mundane divergences that people don't care about in the slightest. By embracing a culture based around where you like to put your genital organs, you only serve to alienate people who don't like loud displays of public affection. (The Gay Pride festival is a prime example)

There is no 'Straight Pride' festival. There are no mass public displays of 'straight' semi nudity one day a year. I react to two straight people kissing the face of each other in public the same way I'd react to two gay people - utter disgust and contempt. (Of course both sexualities do it and most people aren't as neurotic as me)

L1011

Why do we have so many people here recently assuming Dublin Pride is fecking Mardi Gras?

I've never seen particularly much semi-nudity at Pride in Dublin. Last year you had the three (straight, apparently) lads in mankini's wandering around but thats about it...

Denerick

Boston wrote: »

Which one of us created the gay culture again? I think it was ixoy on some lazy Saturday? It's no something which came about through deliberate intent. Where there is a separate culture, it has only come about as a result of the failure of wider society to accept homosexuality.

I don't know. I equate it more with 'emo' or 'goth' culture than anything. These are fads, not cultures.

Dwn Wth Vwls

Denerick wrote: »

I mean by treating sexuality as something divisive rather than as 'just one of those minor things' that makes everybody different. Like preferring ice-cream to chocolate. Thats where sexuality should be - it should be differentiated by mundane divergences that people don't care about in the slightest. By embracing a culture based around where you like to put your genital organs, you only serve to alienate people who don't like loud displays of public affection. (The Gay Pride festival is a prime example)

There is no 'Straight Pride' festival. There are no mass public displays of 'straight' semi nudity one day a year. I react to two straight people kissing the face of each other in public the same way I'd react to two gay people - utter disgust and contempt. (Of course both sexualities do it and most people aren't as neurotic as me)

Pride in this country does not have much nudity, but admittedly in some other countries it has. However in other places they also have Mardi Gras (flashing boobs for beads) and carnivals which feature just as much or more nudity. Sorry, but gay people don't have the exclusive on taking their clothes off in public.

Saying that sexuality should be completely insignificant is all well and good, but we're just simply not there yet. I'm sure most people would love things to be like that, but in the meantime there's going to be marches and pride and a separate gay culture. Though I think things are changing all the time, and we're certainly heading in that direction.

If the sight of two random people making out in public is enough to elicit "utter disgust and contempt" then that's really an issue you need to work out for yourself. It doesn't have much to do with anyone else, it's a pretty natural part of life that's not going anywhere.

Annasopra

Denerick wrote: »

I mean by treating sexuality as something divisive rather than as 'just one of those minor things' that makes everybody different. Like preferring ice-cream to chocolate. Thats where sexuality should be - it should be differentiated by mundane divergences that people don't care about in the slightest. By embracing a culture based around where you like to put your genital organs, you only serve to alienate people who don't like loud displays of public affection. (The Gay Pride festival is a prime example)

There is no 'Straight Pride' festival. There are no mass public displays of 'straight' semi nudity one day a year. I react to two straight people kissing the face of each other in public the same way I'd react to two gay people - utter disgust and contempt. (Of course both sexualities do it and most people aren't as neurotic as me)

Is there mass public displays of gay semi nudity?

Boston

Denerick wrote: »

I don't know. I equate it more with 'emo' or 'goth' culture than anything. These are fads, not cultures.

Making definitive statements about abstract concepts. I cannot define gay culture, and I know more about "it" then you do. If you study group theory, you'd understand that gay culture is the result of prejudicial behaviour. When homosexuality was illegal there was more gay venues then now. If there is a culture, it's on the decline.

Sir Ophiuchus

Denerick wrote: »

I've always found it confusing that people belonging to a certain sexual orientation have endeavoured to create a 'culture' which revolves around that said orientation. Now I've no doubt that homosexual people have broad differences with heterosexuals in terms of 'social mores' etc. (Because to be homosexual is to be upset social mores, in a way) but do you not think the creation of an entire culture is somewhat self harmful?

I can never understand why certain homosexuals go out of their way to maintain an invented culture which only alienates them from most peope. Surely the primary aim of any oppressed group should be to seek equality in laws but arguably more importantly equality of perceptions? The vast majority of people under 30 are indifferent if you like people of the same sex, but a significant portion find the 'gay culture' rather nauseating. What do you think?

You're raising an important question in the gay community - that of "separationist" versus "integrationist" philosophies.

However, you don't acknowledge the fact that all cultures are, ultimately, created.

Dr. Baltar

It's not that LGBT people rejected society and created their own. Rather, society rejected LBGT people and the LGBT subculture came about because of this.

However, now with homosexuality becoming more acceptable, the majority of lgbt people would like to see the lgbt subculture integrate into wider society.

Denerick

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

You're raising an important question in the gay community - that of "separationist" versus "integrationist" philosophies.

However, you don't acknowledge the fact that all cultures are, ultimately, created.

I question whether there should even be a 'gay community', for the simple reason that there isn't a 'straight community'.

I will admit though that it is probably unfair to expect gay people to behave like homosexuality isn't a big deal when society is not prepared to do the same thing. Its changing for the better though, I think.

ding-dong

Denerick wrote: »

I question whether there should even be a 'gay community', for the simple reason that there isn't a 'straight community'.

I will admit though that it is probably unfair to expect gay people to behave like homosexuality isn't a big deal when society is not prepared to do the same thing. Its changing for the better though, I think.

Uh, well considering everyone is usually assumed to be straight, I think it's pretty safe to say that there is a "straight community" - or at least that's how it's percieved, particularly when people are growing up. The word community is obviously quite misleading though. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people feel comfortable sticking with other gay people because of bad experiences they've had in the past, or because they feel they understand each other more given the experiences or difficulties they've had. Some people just feel "safer" that way and I think it's ridiculous to say they they just randomly decided to "go out of their way to maintain an invented culture". I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "gay culture" and I don't know how it could be nauseating but I don't think you realise just how "heterocentric" the world is. You've really got to keep that in mind for a bit of context. I think Dr.Baltar explained it pretty well there - and what you're referring to is certainly more common in the older generation (and they've been through a lot more than most young folk nowadays). Most of my gay friends would be fairly clueless about all the "gay" events/stuff going on in Dublin, so I think you're looking at long lasting effects of the past, rather than the reality of present day life for a lot of young gay people. Still, even just the "gay scene" is a tiny proportion of LGB people. Gay people are all around you Denerick, but because many are as assimilated as you would hope, you haven't a clue. Therefore, you get a somewhat distorted view of the situation. I think you need to be more explicit about what you mean by "gay culture" though, so that people can maybe clarify a few things. You may have a certain perception that doesn't resemble reality in the slightest...

I think this thread can be linked pretty nicely to the Pride thread. I'm willing to bet pride parades pops into Denerick's head when he thinks of this issue. It's annoying that they are so "out there" and yet the most significant moment of "gay person visibility" every year...

P.S. Does anyone know if it's possible to change my username? I recently found out ding-dong is a euphemism for penis...

Cabbage Brained

Humans are tribal and it is totally natural to form subcultures like this with people who have similar interests/ beliefs (religion, ex-pat communities, sports clubs, the list is endless).

The gay subculture is further justified by the fact that it is not just similar interests which bond us, but the fact that it was an absolute necessity to group together and form one voice in the face of intense discrimination. It could be argued that this is less of a necessity these days, but to be honest I think you'd have to be extremely naive to think that we don't have a very very long way to go (gay marriage, adoption, hello!).

And in any case, why should we even have to have a cause to justify grouping together, hanging out together, and being proud of what we are? The straights can have a straight pride if they want, go for it. But to argue that because they don't have one then we shouldn't have one is pretty dangerous logic. Catholics don't need to pray five times a day therefore Muslims shouldn't either. Sound reasonable to you? No, I didn't think so. That is because forcing people to assimilate isn't acceptance. Acceptance will be when people like yourself don't get offended by something as innocuous as a gay pride parade.

Denerick

Cabbage Brained wrote: »

And in any case, why should we even have to have a cause to justify grouping together, hanging out together, and being proud of what we are? The straights can have a straight pride if they want, go for it. But to argue that because they don't have one then we shouldn't have one is pretty dangerous logic. Catholics don't need to pray five times a day therefore Muslims shouldn't either. Sound reasonable to you? No, I didn't think so. That is because forcing people to assimilate isn't acceptance. Acceptance will be when people like yourself don't get offended by something as innocuous as a gay pride parade.

Listen, I don't get offended, I cringe. I cringe at the drama and 'gayness' of it all. It makes a parody of gay people the same way that violent rap music makes a parody of black people. It doesn't do your community any good whatsoever. The only enemy of integration are the people who insist on maintaining a wholly seperate identity based on where they want to put their penis.

Untense

Denerick wrote: »

Listen, I don't get offended, I cringe. I cringe at the drama and 'gayness' of it all.

That's an interesting reaction you have.
Notice that not everybody has the same issue as you with 'gayness', so it can't be something intrinsic in 'gayness' that is the problem.
The question you should ask is why you have this reaction. That's something you can actually change, rather than expecting the whole world to suddenly change to suit you.

It makes a parody of gay people the same way that violent rap music makes a parody of black people.

Violent rap music is a parody of black people for you...?

Cabbage Brained

Denerick wrote: »

Listen, I don't get offended, I cringe. I cringe at the drama and 'gayness' of it all. It makes a parody of gay people the same way that violent rap music makes a parody of black people. It doesn't do your community any good whatsoever. The only enemy of integration are the people who insist on maintaining a wholly seperate identity based on where they want to put their penis.

So 'gayness' makes you cringe? Why should your thinly veiled homophobic sensibilities stop us from having a fun day out?

Dwn Wth Vwls

Denerick wrote: »

Listen, I don't get offended, I cringe. I cringe at the drama and 'gayness' of it all. It makes a parody of gay people the same way that violent rap music makes a parody of black people. It doesn't do your community any good whatsoever. The only enemy of integration are the people who insist on maintaining a wholly seperate identity based on where they want to put their penis.

To a certain extent, isn't making you cringe the point? You're basically saying "sit down and shut up if you want any respect" and everyone else is saying "Why should we?". I have no desire to put on glitter and feather boas, but I'll be damned if I let someone tell me I can't or shouldn't.

I also don't see what other peoples' behaviour has to do with me, just because we have a sexuality in common. When straight people do something ridiculous, it's never mentioned that they're straight. Yet when someone bisexual cheats, suddenly all bisexuals are cheaters. When someone gay is flamboyant, suddenly all gay people are flamboyant.

You should try accepting that everyone is different and people will do what they want to do. Nobody is going to stop being themselves just because it makes you cringe. Would you change because someone else cringed?

Denerick

Cabbage Brained wrote: »

So 'gayness' makes you cringe? Why should your thinly veiled homophobic sensibilities stop us from having a fun day out?

Gayness is just an easily describable term, which may or may not have negative connotations. I'll stop now, because people are far too offendable here, and that wasn't my intention originally.

Boston

Straight culture: Slappers in short skirts with too much make up stumbling around temple bar drunk out of their minds while their male counter parts take turns beating the crap out of each other in a race to see who can be the most disgustingly base. Would it be right for me to call this straight culture? Would it be right for me to say theres something wrong about you Denerick because you're straight and straight people act this way?

Of course you don't attribute that to "straight culture" even though the majority of the behaviour revolves around heterosexual mores. You want us to be like you, but frankly I enjoy the fact I can go to a gay bar safe in the knowledge that it's highly unlikely I'll be assaulted or subjected to the crass behaviour.

Why do gay people congregate together? Because they feel comfortable doing so. You would not feel comfortable being the only hetrosexual in a grouping of homosexual men, so why conclude that homosexuals should feel comfortable in groupings of heterosexuals?

Dwn Wth Vwls

Denerick wrote: »

I'll stop now, because people are far too offendable here, and that wasn't my intention originally.

There's a difference between being offended and disagreeing. You presumably posted to have a discussion on the subject, don't run away just because the conversation isn't going according to plan.

Annasopra

Denerick wrote: »

The only enemy of integration are the people who insist on maintaining a wholly seperate identity based on where they want to put their penis.

There's a big difference between assimilation and integration

Assimilation is where people want to become the perceived normal in society - become similar to heterosexual couples where settling down, having 2.4 children, becoming a mirror image of "normal" heterosexual families

Integration is a desire to become an accepted part of society but at the same time maintaining a distinct separate identity so that the difference is still there

Of course some people want to still maintain a certain amount of segregation in terms of venues, groups etc

The LGBT community have very diverse views on all of this - some people would prefer for example that society was just an open and inclusive society that labels didn't matter - others want to maintain separate LGBT venues for the simple reason that venues for everyone can be (not always) very difficult to meet prospective partners because most people would be heterosexual

Denerick

Boston wrote: »

Straight culture: Slappers in short shirts with too much make up stumbling around temple bar drunk out of their minds while their male counter parts take turns beating the crap out of each other in a race to see who can be the most disgustingly base. Would it be right for me to call this straight culture? Would it be right for me to say theres something wrong about you Denerick because you're straight and straight people act this way?

Of course you don't attribute that to "straight culture" even though the majority of the behaviour revolves around heterosexual mores. You want us to be like you, but frankly I enjoy the fact I can go to a gay bar safe in the knowledge that it's highly unlikely I'll be assaulted or subjected to the crass behaviour.

Why do gay people congregate together? Because they feel comfortable doing so. You would not feel comfortable being the only hetrosexual in a grouping of homosexual men, so why conclude that homosexuals should feel comfortable in groupings of heterosexuals?

Although it makes me feel corrupted, I have to hand it to you Boston. Thats a good point.

ShagNastii

Hi guys good debate being had here. I can somewhat understand the point that the op is trying to bring up. I please ask you to bear with me, I often read the lgbt boards as I do most forums but fear replying at times as I'm a hetrosexual guy and almost everything I say will be shot down as wrong or ignorant in some way.

I've pondered this before. There is no doubting the need for a scene where gay people are safe to do what they need without getting abuse for bigots n idiots. I think the question the op posts comes from a very black and white thought process.

I believe this "get over yourselves" attitude mainly comes from the majority in socieity. As a white hetrosexual male I fall into this catagory through no fault of my own. We are unfortunately classed as the norm. I face little to nil discrimination everything we have is there, does aNyone get me?

Because I'm the most common my sexually never really is an issue but for gay people I thing they have to express their sexually for reasonS stated in the above posts. I hate to sound uncalled for but I believe homosexuals identites are defined by their sexualites.

I'd try argue my case by bringing up the gay sports teams and how they are needed. The emerald warriors feel the need to set up a team because they are gay but what has your sexual preference got to do with rugby? Idenity define by gayness? Donal og never felt the need to join a gay hurling club as I'm sure he stated in his book. Garth Jenkins when he played rugby he was a rugby player, not a gay rugby player.

Sir Ophiuchus

Yes, my sexual orientation and identity is only a part of who I am. But it's a pretty important part.

Also, remember, one major reason for gay people to associate is that it's much easier to locate potential romantic partners that way! Considering that a straight guy has nine times more potential partners than I do (that's estimating homosexuality at 10%, which is generous as it's nearer to 5%), you can see how that can actually be pretty difficult for gay men and women.

Boston

ShagNastii wrote: »

I'd try argue my case by bringing up the gay sports teams and how they are needed. The emerald warriors feel the need to set up a team because they are gay but what has your sexual preference got to do with rugby? Idenity define by gayness? Donal og never felt the need to join a gay hurling club as I'm sure he stated in his book. Garth Jenkins when he played rugby he was a rugby player, not a gay rugby player.

Of the accounts I've read from emerald warrior players, there seem to be a trend of having to stop playing rugby once they came out . They see the emerald warriors as an oppertunity to get back into a sport they used to enjoy. It's not fair to extrapolate that the tolerance Donal og was afforded as a county player will be afforded to all sport men and women.

Dwn Wth Vwls

ShagNastii wrote: »

I'd try argue my case by bringing up the gay sports teams and how they are needed. The emerald warriors feel the need to set up a team because they are gay but what has your sexual preference got to do with rugby? Idenity define by gayness? Donal og never felt the need to join a gay hurling club as I'm sure he stated in his book. Garth Jenkins when he played rugby he was a rugby player, not a gay rugby player.

It's just a social thing, they're not trying to be professionals, and they're not saying they couldn't play on a straight team. People generally don't broadcast their sexuality, so it's difficult to meet other gay people. The best way to do that is to have a wide social network where people will introduce you to their friends, and you constantly meet new people. Pubs/clubs can be a pretty bad way to do that. There is a pretty high demand for alternatives.

Untense

ShagNastii wrote: »

...for gay people I thing they have to express their sexually for reasonS stated in the above posts....

Some gay people have behaviour which appears distinguishable as 'gay', but to say that all gay people share this behaviour is not true. Also because some gay people are seen with certain mannerisms, is not to say they are doing it for the reason you're stating - they may not be doing it so much as it is something which happens to them. (This is the nature vs nurture thing)

I believe homosexuals identites are defined by their sexualites.

These apples are red, therefore all apples are red. You may (or may not) be seeing some gay people whose identities are defined by their sexuality, but that does not prove that all gay people are the same.
Just as you can observe plenty of heterosexual males who very strongly identifying with their sexuality and its accompanying behavioural stereotypes, it's not to say all heterosexual males are the same.

I'd try argue my case by bringing up the gay sports teams and how they are needed. The emerald warriors feel the need to set up a team because they are gay but what has your sexual preference got to do with rugby? Idenity define by gayness? Donal og never felt the need to join a gay hurling club as I'm sure he stated in his book. Garth Jenkins when he played rugby he was a rugby player, not a gay rugby player.

People are different. Just because Donal Og personally doesn't feel uncomfortable in a mainly heterosexual male environment doesn't mean to say everybody else should be. And just because his heterosexual team-mates don't have a problem, isn't to say that it's the same for all other gay sports people.
The reasons for this are as varied as the individuals and you'd literally have to speak to the entire gay rugby team to find out their reasoning if you really wanted to have a fair judgement.

Reflector

I dont find the gay scene nauseating but elements of it are. There is a big focus on sex and it can be hard to meet genuine people. I don't think that there is much on the that you wont find equivalences in the general community but the problem is that as it is quite small it is all right there in front of you and sometimes it may be hard to find what works for you within such a mix of different people and attitudes. I think everyone needs a step back and realise that even though we are all gay it does not mean that we are the same. Sexual orientation although an integral part of you doesn't define you.

Annasopra

ShagNastii wrote: »

Hi guys good debate being had here. I can somewhat understand the point that the op is trying to bring up. I please ask you to bear with me, I often read the lgbt boards as I do most forums but fear replying at times as I'm a hetrosexual guy and almost everything I say will be shot down as wrong or ignorant in some way.

I've pondered this before. There is no doubting the need for a scene where gay people are safe to do what they need without getting abuse for bigots n idiots. I think the question the op posts comes from a very black and white thought process.

I believe this "get over yourselves" attitude mainly comes from the majority in socieity. As a white hetrosexual male I fall into this catagory through no fault of my own. We are unfortunately classed as the norm. I face little to nil discrimination everything we have is there, does aNyone get me?

Because I'm the most common my sexually never really is an issue but for gay people I thing they have to express their sexually for reasonS stated in the above posts. I hate to sound uncalled for but I believe homosexuals identites are defined by their sexualites.

I'd try argue my case by bringing up the gay sports teams and how they are needed. The emerald warriors feel the need to set up a team because they are gay but what has your sexual preference got to do with rugby? Idenity define by gayness? Donal og never felt the need to join a gay hurling club as I'm sure he stated in his book. Garth Jenkins when he played rugby he was a rugby player, not a gay rugby player.

You made some very good points here and I'd broadly agree with you - the point that you were making about gay sports teams is a very good point but it also proves that some people want to have a strong identity and affinity with other gay people whereas others prefer not to