Ship of Fools: Their own worst enemies?

Thread: Their own worst enemies? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028545

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

This article is of course a tongue-in-cheek (won't say whose) spoof on the excesses of "gay pride" parades. But is there a subtle truth here as well? Do silly displays like the pride parades do more harm than good sometimes, in the minds of at least some of us breeders? Or is it just that people who would react negatively to this just were never really okay with gays to begin with?

I've heard that some gay people -- perhaps "leaders in the gay community" if there is such a thing, I don't know -- have said that it would be better for gay people as a whole if the parades were toned down.

I'd be especially interested in hearing what gay shipmembers think about this -- is it really an embarrassing excess that you want to distance yourself from? Or is it just a bit of fun and people who are offended by it should get a life?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Hmm. Two thoughts on this.

The first is that I think there is something of a 'letting the cork out of the bottle' phenomenon involved. Release of pent up pressure. It's precisely because public expression of other sexuality was (is?) repressed that it's liable to appear in a big display once it's finally allowed.

There is an argument that, over time, if expression of other sexuality is (or is continually) allowed, less of a need will be felt to have big gaudy parades.

The second thought is that the media is liable to make the parades a lot more over-the-top then they actually are. I've not personally participated in the Sydney Mardi Gras parade - and this is partly because I've been concerned about what it's like. BUT, I know several people who have marched, and they've told me that the groups with showy costumes or, um, almost no costume at all, are actually a minority of the marchers. But that's what the cameras point at, reinforcing the notion that this is what Mardi Gras is about. Meanwhile, the community groups marching along in jeans and t-shirts never make it to air.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

By odd coincidence I was just in the new York Pride march this past Sunday, marching with the New York Area Bisexual Network. Which, btw, I guess, is me coming out of the closet.

However, it was a great experience. And yeah, there's a lot of pretty wild stuff. But there's also plenty of pretty quiet, normal, everyday type people like me. Even though I was wearing pink hot pants with penguins on them. ;-)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Even though I was wearing pink hot pants with penguins on them. ;-)

PICTURES!

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

Hope you were serious about that mousethief,cause here it is:

Nicolemrw comes out of the closet as bi

The other side of the banner is held by a friend of mine, and my daughter and her boyfriend are visible under the lavender umbrella.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I am somewhat ambivalent on this issue, aware that some aspects of the gay pride parade are used by conservative Christians to highlight the debauchery of the gay community (Apparently no one has yet claimed that the antics of Mardi Gras represents the entire heterosexual community).

My guess is that North Americans generally are more uptight about sexuality than others. No one bats an eye at Veterans' Day parades which, some of my more Pacifist friends, would argue, celebrates militarism.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Hope you were serious about that mousethief,cause here it is:

Nicolemrw comes out of the closet as bi

Fetching!

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My guess is that North Americans generally are more uptight about sexuality than others. No one bats an eye at Veterans' Day parades which, some of my more Pacifist friends, would argue, celebrates militarism.

We (as a whole) are nonplussed by militarism -- it's part and parcel of the history of our country (and most other first-world countries I could mention). I don't know about Canadians but I'm sure USAians are more uptight about sexuality than most of western Europe, for example. But then, we didn't kill Turing. There's enough blame to go around.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Toned down? (OP).

Why not tone down (heterosexual) weddings? They are so flamboyant.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...Or is it just a bit of fun and people who are offended by it should get a life?

That about sums it up for me!

As for the article, it appears that Rita Skeeter is alive and well and living in LA.

I have had a lifetime of watching hets behave appallingly in public and nobody bats an eyelid so if some of my community behave a little outrageously on one day a year why all the fuss? I may not completely approve of some of the displays but in the light of the pressure that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender folks face on a regular basis and in the light of the appalling behaviour of hetties I completely defend their right to behave as they do.

In Liverpool loads of straight students go to the gay clubs and some have said to me it is because the music is better, they have more fun and there is rarely any violence - that last in particular is more than can be said for most of the straight clubs around there.

Yup, the detractors need to get a life.

nicolemrw - love the hotpants and matching shoes!

p.s. where was the good Revd Freddy Phelps on the day?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I am somewhat ambivalent on this issue, aware that some aspects of the gay pride parade are used by conservative Christians to highlight the debauchery of the gay community (Apparently no one has yet claimed that the antics of Mardi Gras represents the entire heterosexual community).

I'd echo that, but doesn't it work both ways, in that the antics of Con-Evo Christians are taken to be typical of Christians as a whole? Both are a part, maybe one is more typical than another. I wouldn't know as I'm neither Gay nor a Con-Evo.

quote:

My guess is that North Americans generally are more uptight about sexuality than others. No one bats an eye at Veterans' Day parades which, some of my more Pacifist friends, would argue, celebrates militarism.

I'd suggest, from this side of The Pond, that it's a matter of numbers. There probably aren't so many Con-Evo's in Britain but some a pretty strident. We have similar arguments about Remembrance Day parades.

I'd like the parades etc to carry on, but for the pro- and anti- camps to keep a sense of proportion. I fear we are stuck with a few who cannot.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Part of the problem is that the Christian call to holiness has sometimes been associated with a Victorian sense of morality. To be holy is to cover up, to be reserved and not flamboyant.

I would argue that the call to holiness ultimately means to be true to who God is calling one to be. Now for a go-go boy, that might mean, dancing shirtless on a float on a hot Toronto day. Who am I exactly to judge [Big Grin]

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

Nicolemrw, nifty outfit!! [Yipee]

And congrats on the announcement.

Haven't been to one of the Pride events as yet. Plenty of friends who do, but they're big and noisy (er, the events, not my friends) so I find it all a bit overwhelming as a wee aspie. In my view, it's colourful, fun, and a chance to be ourselves without having to feel intimidated or worried.

Frankly if people are going to be negative about LGBT individuals, it doesn't matter whether we're dressed and acting like Queen Victoria or dressed in a rainbow bikini and acting like the Queen of the Catwalk, they're still going to find an excuse to hate us.

I'm off to find me some of those hotpants...

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I don't know enough about the topic to know if being flamboyant can cause people to hate gays, but I - and I'm sure many others - find people who act up camp (think Julian Clary) hugely entertaining - the flamboyance is all part of the enjoyment they give to those who watch.

I think for me, some of the excessive visual statements (flamboyance fallen over the edge into smut, perhaps?) give off an 'ick' factor, but I'd also feel that way if they were straight.

It may be a reaction to the knowledge that many gays are bullied - if they refuse to act the victim and turn the situation to their advantage by being out and proud they can overcome their victimhood as well as giving enjoyment to the crowds.

(And btw, nicolemrw, what are you doing wearing Smudgie's underpants??? [Eek!]

)

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

Thanks everyone for the support!

You know, it occurs to me that the only other recent occasion I've been too that was about as flamboyant, or even more so, than Pride, was the Coney Island Mermaid Parade, which I didn't actually attend, but the aftermath of which I happened to wander through (coincidentally the same day I bought the penguin shorts, at the NYC Aquarium, but that's besides the point.)

To judge by the people I saw wandering around afterward, the Mermaid Parade is just as gaudy, flashy, freaky and glitzy as Pride, and, in fact apparently even attended by the same counter-demonstrators... at least, I'm sure I saw the same black guy with a Jesus v Saves, Repent Your Sins vest both eating dinner at Nathans after the Mermaid Parade, and counter-demonstrating on a corner at Pride.

But the Mermaid Parade is not exclusively, or even primarily, a gay event. It's just a sort of NYC Mardi Gras (albeit at the wrong time of year).

All of which is a long winded way of saying that hets can be just as flamboyant and out there as gays.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Here's a heart-warming story about a group of Christians at a gay pride parade.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

Well the group that was two groups in front of us at Pride was St Francis Xavier, which has participated in Pride for 15 years. They aren't allowed by the diocese to actually use their name in their banners or signs, but the Marshall at the reviewing both announced it, saying that it was proof that you could be gay and Catholic, and praising them. They got a real big cheer.

BTW, two of the churches that the route passes hand out water to the marchers as they pass, which i that heat is very much appreciated.

"When did I see you thirsty and give you water?"
"Gay Pride."

Posted by apostate630 (# 15425) on :

I marched with Nicole at Gay Pride. I told her that I felt like an impostor, even unto wearing a "God Made Me Bi" sticker.

I'm a notorious heterosexual. But as a teen my peers assumed I was queer. I got bashed. Lots. And therefore for most of my life I've identified with LBGTs.

Felt good marching in that parade. Lots.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

(he's the one who took the pic, too. [Smile]

)

Posted by apostate630 (# 15425) on :

One more thing.

Two boyhood buddies of mine were gay. They, like thousands of young men from homophobic small towns, migrated to New York City.

In the early 80s, one was murdered. The other perished in the first cohort of AIDS victims.

During the Pride March, there were two Moments of Silence, for the victims of AIDS and homophobic violence.

All of 5th Avenue came to a halt, to utter silence.

And I bowed my head in remembrance of my boyhood friends.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Personally, as a rather dowdy kind of lesbian, I honour those who make it so much easier for me. I don't have the chutzpah to wear spangles or ride a motorbike bare-chested, but because some lesbians and gay men do (and you can decide for yourselves who's doing spangles or bare chests), and do it with flair, they let the world see us queers unafraid.

I've been in pride parades, and its fun - I'm the very ordinary middle-aged woman in jeans and a jersey. Public statements make it that much easier to be out at work, and in other places.

So what if it is over-the-top and sexual - has anyone looked at what teenage girls are wearing at the moment? I was in Youth Court on Wednesday, and most of the girls appeared to be wearing their clothes painted on - certainly didn't leave a lot to the imagination.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

I like the word chutzpah! Thanks Arabella for reminding me of it.

I reckon that some of the ire from the hetties is just envy at the exuberance of some of the participants - perhaps they think just having fun is sinful.

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

May I share this?

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
May I share this?

Thanks, Mr C.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

What an interesting idea, countering the protesters with an alternative view of Christianity. It's never occurred to me before that, when seeing rabidly conservative Christians demonstrating (or shouting out their views in a public place), many of us quietly walk by on the other side, saying nothing. And that this might give others the idea that we are in agreement with them.

A new interpretation of the Good Samaritan story, perhaps?

(Goes off to make an 'I'm a Christian and what this guy says is nuts' placard to parade next time the local loonie brigade take up residence in the town square..... Well I would if I was brave enough. Anyone care to give me moral support?)

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
May I share this?

Thanks, Mr C.

The whole song/video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN6Du3MCgI
Oddly enough, the phrase "nuclear war" is censored, but the rest of it isn't.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Personally, as a rather dowdy kind of lesbian, I honour those who make it so much easier for me. I don't have the chutzpah to wear spangles or ride a motorbike bare-chested, but because some lesbians and gay men do (and you can decide for yourselves who's doing spangles or bare chests), and do it with flair, they let the world see us queers unafraid.

I've been in pride parades, and its fun - I'm the very ordinary middle-aged woman in jeans and a jersey. Public statements make it that much easier to be out at work, and in other places.

I've always got the feeling that the whole "can't they just tone it down a little" thing is a milder version of "can't you just keep it in the closet". In other words, the privileged demand not to have anything you dislike impinge upon your delicate sensibilities.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
What an interesting idea, countering the protesters with an alternative view of Christianity. It's never occurred to me before that, when seeing rabidly conservative Christians demonstrating (or shouting out their views in a public place), many of us quietly walk by on the other side, saying nothing. And that this might give others the idea that we are in agreement with them.

A new interpretation of the Good Samaritan story, perhaps?

(Goes off to make an 'I'm a Christian and what this guy says is nuts' placard to parade next time the local loonie brigade take up residence in the town square..... Well I would if I was brave enough. Anyone care to give me moral support?)

I'd join.

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Personally, as a rather dowdy kind of lesbian, I honour those who make it so much easier for me. I don't have the chutzpah to wear spangles or ride a motorbike bare-chested, but because some lesbians and gay men do (and you can decide for yourselves who's doing spangles or bare chests), and do it with flair, they let the world see us queers unafraid.

I've been in pride parades, and its fun - I'm the very ordinary middle-aged woman in jeans and a jersey. Public statements make it that much easier to be out at work, and in other places.
I've always got the feeling that the whole "can't they just tone it down a little" thing is a milder version of "can't you just keep it in the closet". In other words, the privileged demand not to have anything you dislike impinge upon your delicate sensibilities.

As someone who once (in anothet time and place) subscribed to the "pathology" theory of homosexuality, I think the OTT displays serve a very useful purpose. In making people like my former self extremely uncomfortable, OTT stuff helps makes ordinary, run-of-the-mill, garden-variety homosexual people and living easier to accept for those still struggling with attitude adjustment.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
What an interesting idea, countering the protesters with an alternative view of Christianity. It's never occurred to me before that, when seeing rabidly conservative Christians demonstrating (or shouting out their views in a public place), many of us quietly walk by on the other side, saying nothing. And that this might give others the idea that we are in agreement with them.

A new interpretation of the Good Samaritan story, perhaps?

(Goes off to make an 'I'm a Christian and what this guy says is nuts' placard to parade next time the local loonie brigade take up residence in the town square..... Well I would if I was brave enough. Anyone care to give me moral support?)

Christians at Pride

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
What an interesting idea, countering the protesters with an alternative view of Christianity. It's never occurred to me before that, when seeing rabidly conservative Christians demonstrating (or shouting out their views in a public place), many of us quietly walk by on the other side, saying nothing. And that this might give others the idea that we are in agreement with them.

A new interpretation of the Good Samaritan story, perhaps?

(Goes off to make an 'I'm a Christian and what this guy says is nuts' placard to parade next time the local loonie brigade take up residence in the town square..... Well I would if I was brave enough. Anyone care to give me moral support?)

I'll get me rainbow scarf and Union placard out, gladly.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
Thanks, Mr C. The whole song/video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN6Du3MCgI
Oddly enough, the phrase "nuclear war" is censored, but the rest of it isn't.

You'd be really really hard pressed to beat this version , methinks.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

In other news, our brand-new Supreme Court has decreed that the Home Office isn't allowed to deport you if you face persecution for being gay in your home country. Sanity prevails.

Maybe there's hope...

Jane R

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
In other news, our brand-new Supreme Court has decreed that the Home Office isn't allowed to deport you if you face persecution for being gay in your home country. Sanity prevails.

Maybe there's hope...

Jane R

Hope indeed! That is brilliant news.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

My own view has long been that the sillier, more exhibitionist displays in Pride parades aren't helpful to our public image with many people. Or more specifically, the televised coverage of these displays aren't helpful. I like Pride, especially Toronto Pride, and I think Pride celebrations serve a useful function in terms of giving collective visibility to the gay community (besides being enjoyable for the participants), but I worry that bears in bottomless leather trousers, totally OTC drag queens, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, etc may indeed fuel the fires of conservative reaction, especially in a country like the USA.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

So, in case anyone is wondering just what a Gay Pride March is like, here is a link to a youtube video of this years NYC Pride. As an extra attraction, starting at about 0:35, you can see yours truly carrying half the Bi Alliance banner, as in the picture I posted. Shortly after that, the girl in the black bikini top under the lavender umbrella is my daughter, and the tall skinny dude in the white cap she's talking to is Apostate630. (and yes, he said it was OK to post and identify him)

Just before our group, if you look at signs, you'll catch St Francis Xavier not being able to use that name, but with lovely Christian banners about diversity and acceptance.

Gay Pride Vid

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

Thanks nicolemrw, I haven't been on a pride march in a long time - it was wonderful fun reliving it there.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

No problem, Welease. It was a lot of fun.

Come to NYC next June and join us, we'll show you a good time!

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

There is something to be said for inflaming conservative (read homophobic) sensibilities, by having an annual Pride march.

I well recall the early ones here in Sinny, and quite honestly, the vast majority of the non-gay community don't take a lot of notice of the Bare-arsed Bears, Dykes on bikes or the Safe Sex Sluts (upper case deliberate). Even the Reverend Fred Bile seems to have frothing at the mouth rather less these days especially as his effigy ( modelled on Jabba the Hutt) was paraded through the city 10 or so years back.

And after all, there is nothing like safety in numbers.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

If they are homophobic, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to try to alleviate their fears rather than playing into the stereotype in the first place?

I thought the purpose was to gain acceptance in the quickest way possible. I didn't know it was to make a statement and upset people for the sake of it. People have a right to do that. It just ultimately does more harm to their cause than others.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If they are homophobic, wouldn't the logical thing to do be to try to alleviate their fears rather than playing into the stereotype in the first place?

Trying to placate the fears of bigots is a suckers bet, the ultimate form of which is the closet.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
...I thought the purpose was to gain acceptance in the quickest way possible. I didn't know it was to make a statement and upset people for the sake of it. People have a right to do that. It just ultimately does more harm to their cause than others.

Several answers to that, I think:

From my perspective I don't see it as being about gaining acceptance, it is about celebrating who we are - sure it is in your face but why not? Straights are forever in OUR faces about everything but it is so common most folks don't even notice! I have always liked the Queer Nation slogan of

quote:
We're here, we're here, get used to it!

I am not asking anybody to grant me any sort of acceptance so I can tug my forelock and thank them for their generosity and they can feel good for being so liberal and so accepting of me. I am who I am and despite the bullying at school and the put-downs and the not getting jobs because of it and the being driven out of my church because of it and the other shit I happen to like myself and if other people don't like me or the fact that I do like myself despite all that shit then, frankly, they can sit on it and swivel because I have no time to spend justifying myself to a bunch of lame wankers!

The next point is that sending up the stereotypes can be a great way to show people how ridiculous all those stereotypes are. Sometimes people need to be upset, need to be challenged. I seem to remember that some guy called Jesus was pretty good at upsetting the status quo.

The whole thing grew out of the Stonewall Riots when a group of queers decided to fight back against police brutality and harrassment - asking hadn't got them anywhere! Read the history.

And now we celebrate! And it is brilliant and funny and outrageous and FUN!!

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

No, it isn't.

There is a big difference in staying in the closet and some of things people see at parades. Acceptance will come by showing people that gay couples really aren't all that different from heterosexual couples. Isn't that the point? It's about being able to openly love who you love and share your life with that person just like straight people?

Some on this thread seem to believe that people are more tolerant of heterosexuals if they do the things that are done at Gay Pride Parades. I don't think this is the case. They see them the same way. Only difference is they don't associate all straight people with the few they see at say Mardi Gras in New Orleans because they know other straight people who are different. They don't know other gay people. They never will if gay people either stay in the closet or if what they see of gay people is the stuff they see of Gay Pride Parades either in person or on television.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

What Croesos said, I'm afraid.

There are always intractable bigots.

Best in the face of the enemy than in the closet.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Double-post alert:

And whatever you do, don't do as your enemy does.

I have in my time met militant gays ( usually men) who got their rocks off taunting women who were silly enough to walk though a gay enclave, especially that supremely soft target the "breeder".

I recall being sniggered at (loudly) by a couple of leather queens as I waddled across Taylor Square back in 1986 shortly before the birth of my last child. I turned around and reminded them politely that without the like of me there's be no nice boys to ogle. What I really felt like saying was that in a week or two i'd no longer look like a barrage balloon but they'd still be nasty queens.

Mind you that was in the early days of AIDS when in fact those who were nicest to the sufferers were in fact female (from the nuns at nearby St Vincent's hospital to those of us females on the shop floor, nurses and medicos alike.

m

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, it isn't.

There is a big difference in staying in the closet and some of things people see at parades. Acceptance will come by showing people that gay couples really aren't all that different from heterosexual couples. Isn't that the point? It's about being able to openly love who you love and share your life with that person just like straight people?

Some on this thread seem to believe that people are more tolerant of heterosexuals if they do the things that are done at Gay Pride Parades. I don't think this is the case. They see them the same way. Only difference is they don't associate all straight people with the few they see at say Mardi Gras in New Orleans because they know other straight people who are different. They don't know other gay people. They never will if gay people either stay in the closet or if what they see of gay people is the stuff they see of Gay Pride Parades either in person or on television.

But frightening the horses is what makes it all so funny and so much fun!

It is us celebrating us, it is bugger all to do with the prurient onlooker - they can think what they like and frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.*

- - - -

Ah well, as the old Harley Davidson advert used to say:

quote:
If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand.

- - - -

[*that's a nice line, perhaps I'll use it in a movie script one day]

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
...I thought the purpose was to gain acceptance in the quickest way possible. I didn't know it was to make a statement and upset people for the sake of it. People have a right to do that. It just ultimately does more harm to their cause than others.
Several answers to that, I think:

From my perspective I don't see it as being about gaining acceptance, it is about celebrating who we are - sure it is in your face but why not? Straights are forever in OUR faces about everything but it is so common most folks don't even notice! I have always liked the Queer Nation slogan of

quote:
We're here, we're here, get used to it!
I am not asking anybody to grant me any sort of acceptance so I can tug my forelock and thank them for their generosity and they can feel good for being so liberal and so accepting of me. I am who I am and despite the bullying at school and the put-downs and the not getting jobs because of it and the being driven out of my church because of it and the other shit I happen to like myself and if other people don't like me or the fact that I do like myself ...And now we celebrate! And it is brilliant and funny and outrageous and FUN!!

Yup. I can go into any newsagent and see any number of magazines with half naked people on them, and open Page 3 of the Sun and find myself face to face with a pair of boobs, or indeed log on to one senior clergy's website and find a piccy of semi-clad individuals (!)...but if a gay person dares to bare anything in some fun way...in a clearly identified gay pride parade, it's an outrage and an incitement to hate?

Blimey, double standards or what...

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

As usual, Wodders has it in one...

As much as one can expect form the Ship's idle layabout, God bless him....

Dear God, I'll be sending him chocolate next!!

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
As usual, Wodders has it in one...

As much as one can expect form the Ship's idle layabout, God bless him....

Dear God, I'll be sending him chocolate next!!

Thank you.

Sadly I am quite drastically allergic to chocolate; however if you find any stray surfer types hanging around on Manly Beach looking lost then you could always send me one of those!

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Jaysus, Wodders, Manly is the last place I'd be looking for to send you a birthday present; it is Tony Abbott country these days.

If you are so keen, check out Clontarf (a harbou raher than a surf beach) or Tamarama (otherwise Glamarama) just south of Bondi.

Lat time I was at Manly ( 2007) it was a 30 Centigrade Friday afternoon and it was hot and cold niquab-clad ladies (all freckle-faced converts, I suspect)

m

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, it isn't.

There is a big difference in staying in the closet and some of things people see at parades. Acceptance will come by showing people that gay couples really aren't all that different from heterosexual couples. Isn't that the point? It's about being able to openly love who you love and share your life with that person just like straight people?

Some on this thread seem to believe that people are more tolerant of heterosexuals if they do the things that are done at Gay Pride Parades. I don't think this is the case. They see them the same way. Only difference is they don't associate all straight people with the few they see at say Mardi Gras in New Orleans because they know other straight people who are different. They don't know other gay people. They never will if gay people either stay in the closet or if what they see of gay people is the stuff they see of Gay Pride Parades either in person or on television.

I tend to agree with this position, as reflected in my earlier post, even though I can see both sides of the coin and somewhat sympathise with both sides. I do think that my partner and I, who have been together these past 35 years, make a more effective "witness" to heterosexuals than do publically cavorting bottomless bears. Part of this is admittedly a personality thing with me. I'm a pretty reserved person generally and, for example, really don't like ostentacious displays of public affection between couples of whatever gender mix (usually it's heterosexuals who are the big exhibitionist offenders). My usual reactions are either "Get a room!" or "Your insecurity is pathetic"; maybe also "Thou dost protest too much". I don't appreciate noisy breeders and I don't like noisy queens either. I don't like all the noise. For God's sake, STFU! However, I also understand that dancing bears and dancing queens must feel they just gotta dance. I also agree that we can't placate the die-hard bigots. I find it a dilemma. There are some of the more freakish members of our community whom I frankly don't understand myself. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to express their bad taste in piercings, body hair, gesture and vesture. Is this "internalised homophobia" or identification with the aggressor? At this point in my life, I don't think so. My partner and I are completely out. Of course, I don't yell, scream and carry on in response to the footie or other sport either. OK, here endeth the rant.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Well, as long as it makes you and your partner happy. If you and your partner have been together 35 years then you are at least the contemporary of the unashamedly pagan Sponsa and meself if not older.

They way I see it as an outsider and the (potential mother of gays)is "shove it down the bastards' necks" is the way to go; certainly it is the way I deal with those who see my "lifestyle" (FWIW) as a threatening alternative.

It is a;ways worth reflecting that all those "out-there" people ( whose agendas include Catholic Emancipation, Female Suffrage and gay rights) have actually made life a bit more comfortable for the likes of both you and me.

m

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Part of the problem is that the Christian call to holiness has sometimes been associated with a Victorian sense of morality. To be holy is to cover up, to be reserved and not flamboyant.

I would argue that the call to holiness ultimately means to be true to who God is calling one to be. Now for a go-go boy, that might mean, dancing shirtless on a float on a hot Toronto day. Who am I exactly to judge

King David did something rather similar! [Big Grin]

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

And look what happened to Michal when she made her throughts plain....

What would a literalist make of that?

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
My own view has long been that the sillier, more exhibitionist displays in Pride parades aren't helpful to our public image with many people. Or more specifically, the televised coverage of these displays aren't helpful. I like Pride, especially Toronto Pride, and I think Pride celebrations serve a useful function in terms of giving collective visibility to the gay community (besides being enjoyable for the participants), but I worry that bears in bottomless leather trousers, totally OTC drag queens, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, etc may indeed fuel the fires of conservative reaction, especially in a country like the USA.

NO! Don't say anything against the Sisters! They do God's work.
[Overused]

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

So Pride shows, to those who want to see, that there is huge diversity in the gay community. Those who don't want to see will always see "us" as a uniform, unvariegated "them" - it's so much easier when we objectify people, isn't it?

Diversity is good and powerful and we should rejoice in it, both within the gay community and in the wider community.

364 days a year most gay folks live their lives according The Rules laid down by the wider society so one day a year they claim as their own and they let their hair down a bit and have a little street party.

As multipara says you need, we need, the flamboyant ones, the "out-there" ones, because they are the ones that fight for the change that the rest of us enjoy - don't forget that there were a lot of drag queens at the Stonewall Inn - it was them who screamed "Enough" and fought back. And don't forget that that fight is not yet won, we have moved forward but there is a heck of a long way to go.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
So Pride shows, to those who want to see, that there is huge diversity in the gay community. Those who don't want to see will always see "us" as a uniform, unvariegated "them" - it's so much easier when we objectify people, isn't it?

Diversity is good and powerful and we should rejoice in it, both within the gay community and in the wider community.

364 days a year most gay folks live their lives according The Rules laid down by the wider society so one day a year they claim as their own and they let their hair down a bit and have a little street party.

As multipara says you need, we need, the flamboyant ones, the "out-there" ones, because they are the ones that fight for the change that the rest of us enjoy - don't forget that there were a lot of drag queens at the Stonewall Inn - it was them who screamed "Enough" and fought back. And don't forget that that fight is not yet won, we have moved forward but there is a heck of a long way to go.

I couldn't agree more [Overused]

I feel constanly different and choosing between working to 'fit in' or standing out, as I have ADHD - I would LOVE an ADHD Pride day!

[Big Grin]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I don't know if you guys have noticed the trend but at the gay pride parades I've attended over the past decade or so (in NYC-Manhattan, Brooklyn, Toronto, Ottawa, Dallas) the number of straight people attending grows every year. Many of them are "traditional" families, some are older.

I don't think the feeling many are attending to point and laugh at the spectacle but because it is a place they can let their hair down without judgment. Some of my gay friends groan and complain that the yuppies and stroller people are just taking over like they do everywhere (their words not mine) but where else are you going to make friends and gain allies?

[ 20. July 2010, 14:11: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

While a bear, and indeed threw beads from our local leather-groups float, I saw no one bottomless at Pride this year a few weeks back.

wiggles ears

Yes, I'm back. [Big Grin]

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
While a bear, and indeed threw beads from our local leather-groups float, I saw no one bottomless at Pride this year a few weeks back.

wiggles ears

Yes, I'm back.

Welcome back. [Smile]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

My daughter and her husband took part in this year's Toronto Pride Parade to carry a banner advertising an event at a local museum, since the event offered the chance to "show the flag" to many thousands of people who would never read the paper or otherwise see a minor ad.

Like most younger people, she has no problem with whatever relationship you have, so long as it doesn't involve cruelty or other mistreatment. She stood up as emcee for the wedding of a gay couple a year or two back. She and her husband had shared apartment space with that couple at one time.

But I have to agree with some earlier posters, in that such events are going to achieve more "integratedness" by becoming gradually more "multicultural", not in-your-face. People aren't going to bring the kids to an event that is too over-the-top; rather, they're more likely to want to come and see Jim&Bill or Aunt Sally being true to themselves in public.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

I hope they won't suddenly try to exclude those of us who don't fit into those more mainstream categories. That would be going backwards, not forwards.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I hope they won't suddenly try to exclude those of us who don't fit into those more mainstream categories. That would be going backwards, not forwards.

Absolutely, as I said above the diversity in the GLBT Community is something amazing and something to be celebrated and I feel Pride shows that and rejoices in that.

Yes, it is our more outrageous brothers and sisters who are shown on the news and more power to them and their courage - if they weren't there would Pride get any news coverage at all?

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

I dislike this whole idea that only gay people get to go out and about in silly clothes.

Although I wouldn't identify as het or bi (or gay) personally.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
While a bear, and indeed threw beads from our local leather-groups float, I saw no one bottomless at Pride this year a few weeks back.

wiggles ears

Yes, I'm back.

That's nice, Chast, but it has been the case at TO Prides I've attended in years past. We didn't go this year due to a scheduling conflict.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

Ahh yes, WGW on the culture show ...

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

DP bad.

To make a point. All over the western world perfectly respectable mostly middle class people dress in PVC, Leather, Fishnets, Corsets, and all sorts of other wonderful weirdness in a movement that really has its roots in glam. Inspired by a range of music from true Post-Punk origins through to metal and harsh electronic, and representing a huge range of sexualities and preferences.

Yes. Goths.

They are your next door neighbours.

Coming from that background I can't see a huge problem with what some folks do at pride. They are not mainstream, they have a touch of alternative culture about them.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

How does one wear PVC? I only know it for the pipes.

And I'm afraid to google it. [Razz]

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :

PVC? It's a slightly stretchy shiny plastic material...thinkof sort of artificial shiny leather!! Not that I'd know of course [Disappointed]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Here you are Lamb Chopped - pretty much like the clerical wear on the other thread [Biased]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Pride is almost a kind of gay Mardi Gras, too -- and straight (and other) folks show off all manner of skin and the like at that event.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

The only place I've ever seen PVC in clothing is bra straps. Where else do people wear PVC clothing?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here you are Lamb Chopped - pretty much like the clerical wear on the other thread

I can count on one hand the number of priests I know who could pull that off. I'm only counting female.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Damn. I have a new diet goal.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I minded to agree with Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras and Beeswax Altar on this one. London recently held its gay pride parade and the news from the Conservative Party on my Facebook news feed showed photos of LGBTory, the Conservatives' gay group, marching in London surrounded by other, every day people.

When I clicked on to the BBC News website, they had a 30 second or so clip of the gay pride march which featured a man in his pants and another man wearing some kind of bondage harness across his chest (the two men may have been attached to one another in some way, I forget now).

Having not attended the event, I can't get a first-hand impression but I'm sure the first set of photographs gave a truer reflection of the sort of people who were there than the footage on the BBC News website. But it seems to be case that the media will always report on the flamboyant and the exotic rather than the mundane. I think that probably causes more problems than its worth.

I suppose it goes back to a more a fundamental question of 'what does it mean to be gay?'. If being gay means having a flamboyant, extrovert, over-sexualised personality than that media portrayal is fine, but if being gay actually means being like everybody else except when it comes to who you share you bed with, then I think the message that Pride sends out (unwittingly or not) is counter-productive and is likely to build prejudice as much as knock it down.

I also have a bit of a problem with the name 'Pride'. If being gay is normal (which I think it is) I'm not sure how you can have particular pride in being gay, in the same way that you cannot really take pride in being straight, having blond hair, or long legs. I appreciate that lots of gay people just want to get together and have a good day out (which I think is what pride is for a lot of people) so I don't know why it doesn't become the Gay Mardi Gras or the Big Gay Out or some such. (Without wanting to create a Pond War, I suppose the need for a more political Gay Pride march might be greater in some parts of the United States than in other western countries).

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here you are Lamb Chopped - pretty much like the clerical wear on the other thread
I can count on one hand the number of priests I know who could pull that off. I'm only counting female.

You know that many? Wow! any chance of some phone numbers?...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I also have a bit of a problem with the name 'Pride'. If being gay is normal (which I think it is) I'm not sure how you can have particular pride in being gay, in the same way that you cannot really take pride in being straight, having blond hair, or long legs.

It's always been my take that in such things as Pride Parade, "pride" is being used as the opposite of "shame". They're saying they're tired of being made to feel ashamed for being gay. Far from feeling ashamed, we're going to feel the opposite -- pride! (Which I think is all to the good; don't get me wrong.)

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Pride is almost a kind of gay Mardi Gras, too -- and straight (and other) folks show off all manner of skin and the like at that event.

I don't care for straight excess either.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Whenever I read heterosexuals criticize the "excesses" of gay pride, I remember an article by a queer theologian over whether or not heterosexuals had any right lecturing the queer community over sexual ethics.

While of course, if an action involves real harm, such as sexual violence or domestic abuse, everyone, gay or straight, should be concerned. However, it is easy making judgments against a community in which you are not a member of. I suppose that is the real issue of LGBT people whenever they are critized by heterosexuals. It's about "You don't know my story, you don't have to face my problems, therefore why the hell do you presume to tell me what to do."

Heterosexuals do not need to ask themselves "Should I put a picture of my partner at my office?" They do not need to wonder whether or not they can hold hands with their significant other for fear of being violently attacked. The reason is that in our society, heterosexuality is perceived as normal.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I suppose it goes back to a more a fundamental question of 'what does it mean to be gay?'. If being gay means having a flamboyant, extrovert, over-sexualised personality than that media portrayal is fine, but if being gay actually means being like everybody else except when it comes to who you share you bed with, then I think the message that Pride sends out (unwittingly or not) is counter-productive and is likely to build prejudice as much as knock it down.

I disagree. That prejudice is already built. Events like Pride don't so much serve to counteract it, but rather demonstrate that even if gay people live up to the most outrageous stereotypes about themselves, society still refuses to collapse, God refuses to hand out smitings, and everyday life stubbornly continues. In other words, it's unrealistic to expect anti-gay bigotry to evaporate just because gays are just like everyone else (which will be dismissed as deception or exception), but the hateful can be made to feel like idiots when the predicted gay-pocalypse fails to arrive, despite the antics of Pride.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The reason is that in our society, heterosexuality is perceived as normal.

what definition of 'normal' are you using where that is not the case?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

As the famous catchphrase has it, heterosexuality isn't normal, it's just common.

(It would be lovely to think that "normal" is a nice neutral word that means only what it means in statistical analysis. Unfortunately, in a culture that tends to pathologise anything that deviates from "normal", it's anything but.)

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
(It would be lovely to think that "normal" is a nice neutral word that means only what it means in statistical analysis. Unfortunately, in a culture that tends to pathologise anything that deviates from "normal", it's anything but.)

I don't dispute that but surely AB was doing the same in reverse?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The reason is that in our society, heterosexuality is perceived as normal.
what definition of 'normal' are you using where that is not the case?

As Adeodatus points out, "normal" in our society has taken on a moralistic connotation. It is our modern secular society's version of "righteousness". If you are not normal, you are perceived as wrong or out of step.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

So shouldn't the response to abuse be right use, rather than more abuse?

This seems to be the same strategy as the 10%. IMO this kind of strategy will win the battle but lose the war.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So shouldn't the response to abuse be right use, rather than more abuse?

You've lost me as to where the abuse occurred. I didn't see AB make any criticism of heterosexuality. He just said it's seen as normal - with the implications that flow from that about not having to justify things where homosexuals do have to justify things.

[ 24. August 2010, 02:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You've lost me as to where the abuse occurred. I didn't see AB make any criticism of heterosexuality. He just said it's seen as normal - with the implications that flow from that about not having to justify things where homosexuals do have to justify things.

Maybe I misunderstood AB, but I hardly think it was a massive leap from what he said:

quote:
They do not need to wonder whether or not they can hold hands with their significant other for fear of being violently attacked. The reason is that in our society, heterosexuality is perceived as normal.

ISTM he is laying blame at the feet of the assumption that heterosexuality is normal. Which seems strange to me since it is also a self-evident fact. Any question of morality is, of course, a completely different issue.

I remember doing a talk on 1 Corinthians 7 where I concluded that 'marriage is normal and singleness is good'. The temptation is to imply from one of those statements that either marriage or singleness is better than the other. This is not the case. But the answer is not to pretend that they are merely directly equivalent options.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM he is laying blame at the feet of the assumption that heterosexuality is normal. Which seems strange to me since it is also a self-evident fact.

And, as you illustrated yourself with your story about 1 Corinthians 7, that depends entirely what you mean by "normal". If you mean "relating to a certain part of the normal distribution curve", but someone listening to you hears "desirable" or even "mandatory", then you really shouldn't use the word at all: it's ambiguous and confusing.

The catchphrase I used - "heterosexuality isn't normal, it's just common" - wittily does the same thing. What does "common" mean? Does it mean "it happens a lot" or does it mean "vulgar"?

I guess it's okay to say "normal" and to believe - albeit mistakenly - that the person hearing you is a statistician. But once it's pointed out to you that they're not, and that they think you mean "desirable", then if you continue to use the word I'm going to suspect you want them to hear "desirable". And that's not on.

As to the whole business of Pride parades, I've always counted myself more queer than gay. I remember when Pride was a political march, when we walked down Whitehall with not-very-undercover police photographing the leaders of the march because we were "troublemakers". I remember particularly the electric atmosphere - just on the edge of the possibility of violence - the first year that AIDS really hit the media here (when actually we'd been living with the knowledge of it for 3 or 4 years). That was the year when MPs seriously considered interment for gay people. When sick or injured gay men were literally left dying in the gutter by ambulance crews who refused to help them. It was the year that my friend had his face slashed with a knife on his way home from work one night: his assailant said he "looked gay".

After all that, and especially since things have changed so much, I don't grudge Pride parades their flamboyance and outrageousness. But I am a little sad - and a little worried - that many of them have lost their political edge. There's still discrimination. There are still assaults and murders. There is still work to be done.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I disagree.

I disagree with your disagreement, but let me try to explain why.

quote:
That prejudice is already built.

Is it though? Attitudes to homosexuality will vary and at one end of the scale you'll have the out-and-out homophobes who will always detest homosexuality, no matter what is said or done. Those people are, I suppose, beyond help but I query how many of those people there are (particularly in today's day and age). Many, I would think, are either uninterested or disinterested in the whole thing. The uninteresteds, I would have thought, vary between those who are mildly pro-gay if provoked and those who are mildly anti-gay if provoked. I would have thought it was these that Pride events are designed to appeal to.

I love the Onion article referred to in the OP. One of the best lines in it, I think, is this:

quote:
"I have a cousin who's a gay, and he seemed like a decent enough guy to me," said Iowa City, IA, resident Russ Linder, in Los Angeles for a weekend sales seminar. "Now, thanks to this parade, I realize what a freak he's been all along. Gays are all sick, immoral perverts."

Russ Linder, of course, doesn't exist but I think people like him do, the uninterested pro-gays. Russ Linder has seen enough of gays to think that they're ok, but has those accepted views challenged by an outrageous Pride event.

quote:
Events like Pride don't so much serve to counteract it, but rather demonstrate that even if gay people live up to the most outrageous stereotypes about themselves, society still refuses to collapse, God refuses to hand out smitings, and everyday life stubbornly continues.

I would have thought that the out-and-out homophobe would think the world has ended and that society has collapsed when he sees half-naked Adonises writhing around in jello down his High Street. One might even say that such a portrayal plays into his hands.

quote:
In other words, it's unrealistic to expect anti-gay bigotry to evaporate just because gays are just like everyone else

If we discount the hardcore of nutters, why is it unrealistic? I'm sure that twenty years ago, the kind of social acceptance we today (in Britain at least) with openly gay pop stars, senior politicians, actors and so forth would have been unheard of, never mind the civic rights that they enjoy. And many of those openly gay pop stars, actors and politicians are just like all the other ones. They aren't outrageously gay.

quote:
(which will be dismissed as deception or exception),

Why on earth would it? One could say that the highly sexualised scenes at Pride events are the exception, given the hundreds of gay accountants called Colin and gay IT supporter workers called Nick in the world.

quote:
but the hateful can be made to feel like idiots when the predicted gay-pocalypse fails to arrive, despite the antics of Pride.

As with all Evangilbabies, if the apocalypse doesn't happen when they say it will, they just roll on to the next date (weren't we all supposed to die in 1914?).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Could I have Colin's or Nick's phone number, please? [Biased]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Might I also note that Pride is a party and many of those same shirtless dancers are probably only wearing those costumes for Pride. It is the same as Halloween. I don't wear my zombie costume to the office, but I do wear it on Halloween. The same applies to Pride.

Just because I'm in this character one day of year does not mean it completely describes my entire identity.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Could I have Colin's or Nick's phone number, please?

You want to date an accountant? Has life got that bad?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Could I have Colin's or Nick's phone number, please?
You want to date an accountant? Has life got that bad?

I write laws for a living, I'm not sure I can claim to leading an exciting and exotic lifestyle myself... maybe an accountant is the best I can hope for. [Big Grin]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other words, it's unrealistic to expect anti-gay bigotry to evaporate just because gays are just like everyone else

I think ultimately that's how any bigotry is overcome. You work/eat/play/etc. beside people and realize they're a hell of a lot like you are, and then the reasons for your bigotry start to seem a little thin. But really it's a generational thing, I think. When your parents say "people-group X are all evil," and you rub elbows with people-group X all the time and can plainly see they aren't evil, then the generational bigotry begins to break down. This is why the vast majority of 20-somethings these days claim to have no problem at all with homosexuality. They just don't see it as mattering at all.

Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :

quote:
I write laws for a living, I'm not sure I can claim to leading an exciting and exotic lifestyle myself... maybe an accountant is the best I can hope for. [Big Grin]

Try a librarian. [Biased]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0