Fujiology Archive

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Fujiology Archive / fujiology_archive_v1_0.iso / !MAGS / TRYST / TRYST12.ZIP / TRYST12.MSA / TEXT_GAY_BOB.WAL < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1998-12-15 | 14.3 KB | 276 lines

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T H E R I G H T T O R E P L Y ---oOo--- Barbara takes Bob to task for homophobia, Bob replies, and jfw stokes the flames ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well, Bob seems to have stirred up the proverbial can of worms (or should that be 'hatbox of stoats'?) with a few comments he made in KelAUG 11 about "homosexuality being promoted as normal behaviour". Barbara wrote in with some strong objections to Bob's views, so I passed her letter on to Bob and sat back to wait for the flames... Bob's reply is about ten times longer than Barbara's objections, and opens up some new angles for discussion, so I've cut and pasted everything together and added my own views at the end. john ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bob's original comments in KelAUG 11 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It was suggested [by Chris Holland in his 'Right to Reply' piece] that I might be "latently homophobic". Not true. I am quite openly homophobic and, although I would not want to do physical harm to homosexual people, it is my own opinion that their sexual activities should be confined to the back of well locked doors and that their deviant behaviour should not be flaunted in public places. Contrary to what seems to be acceptable nowadays, gayness, for want of a better word, should not be touted to young impressionable people through various media. Gays should never be allowed to adopt kids, and public displays of gay affection should result in collars being felt. It's not normal, no matter who says it is. Bob ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Barbara's response ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Homophobia: Who defines, who has the right to define, what is 'natural' and what is not? There are instances in the 'natural' world where animals become temporarily homosexual and stop mating with females at times when there is not enough food to support their offspring. There are peoples where the females just do not become pregnant in times of famine or drought. Being homosexual is natural to the people who feel this way and if we are saying they can't express affection in public places then perhaps neither should the rest of us. Homosexuals are people too, they have the same propensity to pain and being hurt. They are not a new deviant species' they have been around since time immemorial - look at the ancient Romans for example. Maybe this is one of nature's ways of limiting population - who knows! I agree we don't need anyone's sexuality thrust at us but I think Bob needs to talk to a few homosexual people about their experiences in a heterosexual world and open his mind to their problems and swallow his prejudices. In my work I have met many interesting people who happen to be homosexual. Most of them do not flaunt their sexual preferences any more than heterosexual people do. Don't judge everyone by the actions of a minority, mostly show business people whose business it is to attract attention! All most homosexual people ask is the chance to go about their lives quietly without having to contend with other people's prejudices. Sorry to lecture but I feel strongly that people in minority groups should not be stigmatised and discriminated against just because they don't fit someone else's perception of what is 'normal'. I am sure Bob will not agree with my response to his homophobia but it is his problem not the problem of homosexual people in general. Barbara ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THE HOMOSEXUAL DEBATE PART DEUX ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bob's response to Barbara's response ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Barbara's points in the letters page merited more space than might be available there, so I thought we'd maybe continue this discussion as a separate article. Barbara has obviously met quite a few gay people and has found them to be quite nice and genuine people and on that subject she is definitely one up on me, as, coming from a small village, I'm maybe more insulated against these people than she is. So I must take her point that there are many gay people who are caring and useful citizens. But... What I dislike about the whole gay hype that seems to have descended over the last ten or fifteen years is that being gay seems to be increasingly portrayed as normal. It isn't. The talk of animals reverting to homosexual behaviour in times when food is scarce and no little animals are desired is a bit funny. I haven't ever heard this theory before and I do take a more than passing interest in the natural world via books and TV. Most animals are only aroused when confronted by the whiff of another of their ilk (which is like a big deer), which is sexually 'ready'. So I have to enter Frank Muir mode now and say "BLUFF". It sounds too much like a contrived argument put about by some willy woofter trying to defend his claim of normality. As far as I'm aware only humans engage in sexual activity purely for the fun of it, all other animals use sex for procreation and nowt else. Therefore male-female is normal, and male-male or female-female is not normal. I have a great belief that media coverage of any type of event is very likely to encourage the copying of that same type of event by those who see the coverage. The freedom of the press is sometimes the cause of many incidents like city centre rioting, football hooliganism, and maybe even drug abuse. If these things weren't put about so graphically when they happen, then maybe less people knowing about them wouldn't be a bad thing. I think the same goes for being gay. If it wasn't constantly portrayed by prominent celebrities that being gay was 'cool', then I very much doubt that you'd see as many young people getting into it. Take George Michael the other evening on Parkinson. For years and years he's desperately hidden the fact that he's gay, but now that he's been caught out in the most public way possible then he's suddenly proud to be gay. If you were proud of it Micky, why wait until you were caught giving it the careless wrister in public bogs before you announced it to the world. He declares that he wasn't doing any harm as there weren't any kids present and nobody was hurt. Well it was a public convenience in a public park mate, and if you had gotten down to some serious podging and some dad had wandered in with three kids needing a wee wee, you might have got hurt if the dad removed the stick-on grin from your chops. What is it with homosexual men and public bogs anyway? If they were into caring and loving relationships then why don't they meet people, date them for a while and then, as feelings grow more solid, take the sexual side from there. I believe the term is "cottaging" or summat, but surely looking for casual rumpy in public places is to be condemned innit? Now this might not be the most popular point to make, but, while we're on the subject, why are probably 80 per cent of lesbians (there's no easy way to say this), pig ugly? I don't mean to offend, but seriously, when you watch those 'After Dark' type shows which discuss relationships and discrimination and porn and page threes, why is it that the lesbian members of the panels are just not good looking? When you watch documentaries about gays and gayness and clubs and bars, the women are "bowf" as we say up here in Scotchland. Now I'm not about to say that I believe that a gay woman is just one that needs a 'good seeing to', but maybe if they could get a bloke then they wouldn't bend in the direction that they do. Maybe not of course. Anyway, lastly, discrimination. Nobody should be discriminated against because of their sexual preference. Nobody should be physically abused because of it either. But, people with confused sexual leanings should always be aware that many people will be offended by their actions if they flaunt them in public places. If a gay man comes onto a six foot four hairy heterosexual coal miner in a pub and gets his hooter pounded because of it, then he was obviously pulling the cat's tail a bit and couldn't really be surprised if it scratched. Likewise, if blokes get it on in a public bog and get caught out they've got to be ready to take what comes as a result of their actions. Gay relationships are the business of consenting adult partners and should be conducted in the privacy of their own homes. That way nobody will be offended, therefore nobody will bother them and, even better, they will have peace to do whatever it is they want to do. Bob ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ any space left for a liz and john response? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well, to start with, we think you're both wrong, but Barbara's probably the least wrong. (If you see what I mean. This is being written off the top of our heads only a few hours from the mail-out.) Liz and I agree with most of what Barbara said about 'normality' (what's so great about about being 'normal'?), but we find it hard to believe that there are "instances in the 'natural' world where animals become temporarily homosexual and stop mating with females at times when there is not enough food to support their offspring". We'd be interested to hear more about these instances, because they go against most of what we know about nature. The normal methods of population control in mammals are to either eat the young, or to re-absorb them during early pregnancy. That applies mostly to smaller mammals. Larger mammals, including humans, stop ovulating when their body fat falls below a certain level, as happens during starvation. The one thing that mammals don't do, as far as we know, is change to homosexual behaviour as a result of population pressure. Some animals, such as sticklebacks and dogs (to give two wildly different examples, sorry about the pun) use mock-homosexual mating (everything but penetration) to establish dominance within a group, but the only animals that engage in true homosexual behaviour (including penetration) are the higher apes, such as the bonobo and homo sapiens. The difference, as Bob rightly points out, is that we higher apes are on heat all the time, which makes us the 'perverts' of the natural world. Other animals follow a hard-wired urge that only occurs at the time or times of year when they're ready to breed. But us apes are rarin' for it all the time, and have divorced sexual stimulation from procreation. In other words, as the bonobo and hom sap both say, "if it feels good then do it!" But we think Bob's wider of the mark when he says that gayness being trendy probably encourages young people to try it. First off, why shouldn't they? It's their bodies. Secondly, if they're not naturally inclined that way then why should they try it again? C'mon Bob, give people credit for having at least a grain of common sense. OK, true confession time. Both Liz and I have tried gay sex. In my case, I liked the scene that went with it (this was during the decadent seventies, London gay pubs, Bowie and glam rock) but I couldn't get a hard-on and didn't try it again. But at least I learnt something about myself, that I wasn't gay. Liz had an affair at her boarding school and decided she was exclusively gay. (It was a good way of winding her parents up, but didn't work because they were too tolerant...) Liz believes that we're all potentially bi-sexual, to some degree, but with her it works better with men. Women could have been an option for her, and might still be, if her life had turned out differently. But when it comes to public attitudes towards homosexuals then we're totally on Barbara's side. People are people, no matter how they get their thrills, and all that matters in the end is "are they kind?" As for 'cottaging' I think that's a relic of the old days when homosexuality was illegal, and most gay sex had to be anonymous for fear of the law. "Aha!", I hear you say, "then how come they're still hanging around the bogs when it's legal?" I honestly don't know, but some of it's probably down to the thrill of getting off in a public place, that extra excitement that comes from the chance of being caught. Don't tell me you've never felt that yourself, Bob, that you've never done it with a woman in semi-public, just for the sake of that extra thrill that comes from knowing someone might walk around the corner at any moment? But I'd definitely agree with you that public toilets aren't the place for sex; it just gets in the way of people trying trying to pee, and there's nothing more off-putting than seeing the guy next to you peering over the porcelain at what you're holding in your hand. It really puts you off, doesn't it? And we reckon you're way out out of line when you say that, "probably 80% of lesbians ... are pig ugly". How many lesbians do you know Bob? Or was it something you read in the Sun? The problem is that most people who are visible in any 'underground' group are probably the least representative of it (and this goes in spadefuls for gay groups). They're more likely to be the exhibitionists, the people who enjoy winding up the straights with their cropped hair and boiler-suits. (I had a cropped head once and it didn't do a lot for my looks...) OK, end of rant. (eor) john & liz ~~~ eof ~~~