Wales manager Gary Speed confirmed dead

[RHYDAL]

Nothing anyone does behind closed doors is the slightest sliver of anyone else's business. At all. Ever. Regardless of what their job happens to be.

Two examples for you......Fred West and Josef Fritzl.

 

[Realist]

Not at all. It shouldn't matter whether a gay person fits the gay stereotype or not, the "over the flamboyance nancy boys" comment is one which is derived from a heterosexist society in the first place.

There are also plenty of famous gay people who don't fit the stereotype, it doesn't matter either way and I don't think the fact some people do fit the stereotype has anything to do with the heterosexist culture of professional sport.

In part I agree, it shouldn't matter, but, is the over the top flamboyance of certain egotistical gay men the reason gay sports stars prefer to stay in the closet? If gay men acted the same as any other men, perhaps being gay wouldn't still be such a social taboo?

 

[Profondo Rosso]

In part I agree, it shouldn't matter, but, is the over the top flamboyance of certain egotistical gay men the reason gay sports stars prefer to stay in the closet? If gay men acted the same as any other men, perhaps being gay wouldn't still be such a social taboo?

But the whole idea of what men should act like is one which is completely governed by a historically heterosexist society in the first place. In another world, where gay people haven't been swept under the carpet for centuries camp men could be the norm and "any other men" would be the non-norm. It's only because of society that has caused the idea that "over the top flamboyance of certain egotistical gay men" (and what exactly is egotistical about having a lisp and being flamboyant?) is seen as something to look down on anyway.

And besides, it is important to an extent that gay or lesbian people identify themselves publicly, as most/possibly all prejudices are down to a lack of familiarity and being gay isn't something you can a person is by looking at them, like being black is, unless they adopt a certain image. If some people want to play into that no problem with that.

It's an indictment of centuries of a predominately heterosexist society that gay men are forced to stay in closet, nothing to do with the fact some gay men are flamboyant. The whole idea that being flamboyant is something to look down on is just as much due to society as well.

 

[Joe_Fox]

This is a very very sad news story this - a real shock. RIP Gary Speed.

 

[Realist]

Like it or not, the reason we continue to live in such a heterosexual society is because despite being around for thousands of years, it is only recently that being gay has become even close to being acceptable. Jees, it was still an illegal act as little as 50 years ago.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Like it or not, the reason we continue to live in such a heterosexual society is because despite being around for thousands of years, it is only recently that being gay has become even close to being acceptable. Jees, it was still an illegal act as little as 50 years ago.

Exactly and that's where it all comes from and it has nothing to do with some gay people being overly flamboyant. If homosexuality had been completely accepted for centuries people wouldn't even bat an eyelid today, it would just be like having a different eye colour and some people being flamboyant or not wouldn't make any difference to homosexuals being looked down on.

 

[gregs_y2k]

Like it or not, the reason we continue to live in such a heterosexual society is because despite being around for thousands of years, it is only recently that being gay has become even close to being acceptable. Jees, it was still an illegal act as little as 50 years ago.

Hmmm not sure I agree. Whilst it has been a taboo subject in our culture up until recently, Same sex relationships has not always been illegal and in Ancient Rome and Greece it was fairly openly discussed and common. I'm no historian on the subject but there are plenty examples of homoerotic art and literature from these cultures and societies. We've still got a long way to go though

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Hmmm not sure I agree. Whilst it has been a taboo subject in our culture up until recently, Same sex relationships has not always been illegal and in Ancient Rome and Greece it was fairly openly discussed and common. I'm no historian on the subject but there are plenty examples of homoerotic art and literature from these cultures and societies. We've still got a long way to go though

Yeah, not sure, but I think it was the Romans who made it a taboo subject. Certainly in ancient Greece I don't think it was taboo at all.

 

[SwedeFox]

I think Realist has a point that some gay people yet to come out don't feel comfortable in the gay community, as, especially the part that gets much attention in the media, it's not always representative for gays. The solution, however, can never be to suppress that but to encourage gays who don't feel like dressing up in fancy clothes or speaking in a high pitched voice.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

Wiki (as reliable as ever :icon_wink) says it wasn't taboo in Roman times actually for the dominate one in gay sex, but the submissive one was always a slave or something.

Then says homosexuality started to become a crime in the 3rd century AD when Christianity began to takeover and then by the 4th century AD become a crime worthy of the death penalty.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

I think Realist has a point that some gay people yet to come out don't feel comfortable in the gay community, as, especially the part that gets much attention in the media, it's not always representative for gays. The solution, however, can never be to suppress that but to encourage gays who don't feel like dressing up in fancy clothes or speaking in a high pitched voice.

Exactly, Swede, but it's hardly the fault of more flamboyant gay men, society should never have gotten to that position where a gay person feels they have to hide their sexuality in the first place, if it hadn't, the flamboyance of anyone or the image of gay people wouldn't be an issue. As you say, the issue should be to encourage less stereotypical gay people to come out more, not to suppress more flamboyant gay men.

 

[SwedeFox]

Exactly, Swede, but it's hardly the fault of more flamboyant gay men, society should never have gotten to that position where a gay person feels they have to hide their sexuality in the first place, if it hadn't, the flamboyance of anyone or the image of gay people wouldn't be an issue. As you say, the issue should be to encourage less stereotypical gay people to come out more, not to suppress more flamboyant gay men.

Bit of the same for us Swedes in the UK, really. The stereotype of Swedes as sex-crazed, globetrotting millionaires means I always have to lie and say I was found in a landfill in Hartlepool as an infant. **** you, Sven.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Bit of the same for us Swedes in the UK, really. The stereotype of Swedes as sex-crazed, globetrotting millionaires means I always have to lie and say I was found in a landfill in Hartlepool as an infant. **** you, Sven.

:icon_lol:

Did you hear he's applying for a job in Iran btw?

 

[Miles Away]

So closeted homosexuals aren't open because other men are too gay? Is that the gist of the argument?

That sounds dangerously like moral relativism: if gays were just less gay it'd be fine?

Slippery slope that one.

 

[SwedeFox]

:icon_lol:

Did you hear he's applying for a job in Iran btw?

Yeah, I can see why in a way, it's not a do-or-die job in the same way as, say, taking on a Premier League club right now would be. As his reputation has gone down rather massively (at least compared to what it used to be at its height) he needs a success quite badly, but in England all the eyes would be on him just waiting for another failure. Now he will escape the limelight for a while, and if he fails he can always say "the working conditions were horrible" (even if they're not) or "the Prime Minister interfered with everything I tried to do" (I think that has happened in the past).

Oh, and the money... Obviously. But I can't blame him for that. I'd try to milk every penny out of anyone willing to hire me.

 

[gregs_y2k]

I think there's an element of homosexual and bi-sexual men and women that don't out themselves because of the social taboos stillin place but I think there are some that just don't think that they have to. Why does a gay person have to tell everyone they are gay. Heterosexuals don't go round to everyone they meet and say I'm straight. It doesn't have to be a big deal but unfortunately in most cases it still is

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Yeah, I can see why in a way, it's not a do-or-die job in the same way as, say, taking on a Premier League club right now would be. As his reputation has gone down rather massively (at least compared to what it used to be at its height) he needs a success quite badly, but in England all the eyes would be on him just waiting for another failure. Now he will escape the limelight for a while, and if he fails he can always say "the working conditions were horrible" (even if they're not) or "the Prime Minister interfered with everything I tried to do" (I think that has happened in the past).

Oh, and the money... Obviously. But I can't blame him for that. I'd try to milk every penny out of anyone willing to hire me.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from. I think his reputation has taken too much of a battering in England now. I wondered whether he might go back to one of the countries he was successful in Sweden, Portugal or Italy and try and rebuild his career though.

I agree with what you're saying about the money, I never understand why people have a go at footballers for moving for the money. If I was offered a similar job to my one on bigger wages I'd be running off in the sunset, I'm sure almost every fan who has a go at footballers for doing that would do exactly that too.

 

[SwedeFox]

So closeted homosexuals aren't open because other men are too gay? Is that the gist of the argument?

That sounds dangerously like moral relativism: if gays were just less gay it'd be fine?

Slippery slope that one.

Well, if you don't identify yourself as the gay stereotype, and you know that people will have that prejudice about you if you say that you're gay, then obviously that's a factor.

It's not about trying to make some people less gay, it's about understanding that gay people are different in the same ways that straight people are different. When someone says "he's straight", I don't immediately get a picture of a chest-haired Simon Cowell sort of guy in my head (that would be horrible by the way). In the same manner, that someone is gay doesn't necessarily mean they will talk like Alan Carr but when a large proportion of the gays on telly are loud and pink, that's the way it goes for some people unfortunately.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

I think there's an element of homosexual and bi-sexual men and women that don't out themselves because of the social taboos stillin place but I think there are some that just don't think that they have to. Why does a gay person have to tell everyone they are gay. Heterosexuals don't go round to everyone they meet and say I'm straight. It doesn't have to be a big deal but unfortunately in most cases it still is

Not a very good comparison really. Heterosexual people don't need to go round everyone to say they're straight, because no one is going to discriminate against you because you're heterosexual, so there is no real sense of trepidation about how another person would judge you and tbh I would also say most people seem to automatically assume others to be heterosexual anyway.

Of course gay or bisexual people don't have to tell others they are if they don't want to, but I'm sure most people would want to and wouldn't want to have to feel they have to have their relationships behind closed doors and wouldn't have to put up with questions from their friends and family about whether they have a boyfriend/girlfriend yet. I can imagine it's pretty awkward for a gay or lesbian person to be around other friends of the same sex talking about which members of the opposite sex they like or whatever, which let's face it, is a very frequent topic of conversation amongst friends of both sexes.

 

[gregs_y2k]

Not a very good comparison really. Heterosexual people don't need to go round everyone to say they're straight, because no one is going to discriminate against you because you're heterosexual, so there is no real sense of trepidation about how another person would judge you and tbh I would also say most people seem to automatically assume others to be heterosexual anyway.

Of course gay or bisexual people don't have to tell others they are if they don't want to, but I'm sure most people would want to and wouldn't want to have to feel they have to have their relationships behind closed doors and wouldn't have to put up with questions from their friends and family about whether they have a boyfriend/girlfriend yet. I can imagine it's pretty awkward for a gay or lesbian person to be around other friends of the same sex talking about which members of the opposite sex they like or whatever, which let's face it, is a very frequent topic of conversation amongst friends of both sexes.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't tell anyone, of course you'd hope that they feel comfortable enough to tell close friends and family. I'm just saying that there's a huge element of the gay community that don't advertise it but aren't in the closet either. The example I chose was perhaps a poor one, a better would be the fact that I have a major disability that affects my health and whilst all my friends and family know, I don't tell everyone I meet. At the end of the day it's none of their business and if it doesn't come up in conversation I don't feel obliged to tell them