When I'm in town with a male friend, some people assume we're gay.
I would think it weird, except for one observation: once I saw two men walking together in the road side, and I thought: "how extraordinary."
That's what's weird. Why don't you see two men together? You see families out shopping, and you see groups out drinking, that's about it. Are we to conclude that people don't have anything to talk about? That they only reasons to be together with others are sex (family) and alcohol?
11 comments:
Maybe it's a Northern thing? I remember reading that Northern England had been trying combat homophobia in schools and with parents.
Here in the Southeast (Kent) it is very common to see guys two X two. But then maybe we're more gay down here LOL.
Many men hang out here together in my town and its normal. They are not considered gay. The only thing that gives it away is if they are holding hands or something, but for the most part it's just a normal male friendship.
Things may have changed but two men, just out and about, not a problem.
Holding hands, hugging, or immaculately dressed/groomed (metrosexual) may be indicative of gay behaviour in the NW of the 90's. But around Chester, Manchester and Liverpool I don't remember any problems. There again, we were in student areas, not working class.
Who knows, the NW is full of prejudice, heck you can't be from a city without fear of the "woolies" who live in the sticks. You can't be from Liverpool without hating people of Manchester, you can't be from Chester without hating Ellesmere Port. The only unity in the NW was a mistrust of anyone from South of Watford.
I hope things have changed there.
"Friends are the family we choose for ourselves" (source unknown, from a magnet on my fridge)
I wouldn't mind being alone in the street with a male friend.
Especially if neither of us are drunk. :-)
Jerry, perhaps it's also that men are afraid to seem gay if they walk by two, while larger groups are "manly". Um... except in a sauna or a seminar!
It's funny, really: I have no "gaydar" whatsoever. Looks like not only am I color-blind (partly!), but I'm also prejudice-blind. I never wonder about a new person "what is (s)he?", only "what is (s)he LIKE?".
But it doesn't feel one bit like a handicap. It's like realizing you're not nearsighted while it is the norm. :-)
I make an essential distinction between "in the norm" and "normal". There are places where being an intolerant bigot is "the norm". It's still abnormal.
Uh... does saying that about intolerants make ME an intolerant??? ;-)
Actually, in a funny way, yes.
Though it's more understandable to be intolerant of bigots than of skin color or whatever, it's all part of the same trap.
Actually I'm not talking about homophobia. I am talking about never seeing two men together being the cause of imagining such a pair to be homosexual, not the other way around.
I know exactly what you are talking about. And though I don't personally care the least bit what other people think, I've realised that some men are sensitive about this.
As an example, I would have no problem going to the movies with a male friend. But I've noticed that generally it's not considered kosher to do that.
I wonder if it's actually easier to live in this society as a gay than as a straight guy (especially middle aged)? Probably not, I am sure gays would disagree. But I gotta wonder.
At least showing any kind of affection to kids is now totally forbidden. Even looking at their general direction seems to be a no-no.
Luckily, visiting the zoo is still acceptable for straight middle aged guys. But who knows how long?
Hey -just remembered, an excellent film you might want to see. It's called "Priest", by Jimmy McGovern (Cracker, The Street, Hearts and Minds).
It addresses homosexuality in NW Britain. Very well written. Starring a young Linus Roach, and a younger Robert Carlyle (Trainspotting, Full Monty, Face)
"Priest", by Jimmy McGovern.
In our town Priests are looked at as pedophiles, many are. Even the nuns who dress up in their silly halloween outfits to Attempt to show the world who they are. But underneath they still have vaginas and needs, regardless of the black shit they wear.
They're still human and have sexual drives either for each other or for me.
The cherry-picker cardinals still have a penis and are no hollier than the priests or anybody else.
for each other or for me.
for each other or for men.
-------
Ah, well, the Church is entirely responsible for the dramatic downfall of their reputation. Laic society has hugely evolved and matured, by its own merit, while the clerics have become increasingly backwards over the centuries.
The very same wooden heads cover up for priests who serially abuse children, and excommuniate those who fall in heterosexual love with a consenting adult and wish to get married. So... sex is okay as long as there's absolutely no love involved??? Even Ayman Al-Zawahiri doesn't have more extremely contradictory double standards. He's a fanatic murderer, but at least he's got some consistency and is straightforward about his moral code.
I see the 20th century Judases are stabbing Jesus in the back with the cruelty that only a brother's blow can have. Et tu, Benedictus?
I distrust the clerical establishment. Near-completely. Too much blatant hypocrisy everywhere I look. But, by some miracle, the original and excellent principles are something I still totally believe in. Hallelujah for that.
I'll always respect a sincere priest (from whatever obedience or religion). I need not agree in order to respect. Provided I see sincerity and sense in him/her! Otherwise, their respectable secular uniform means little more to me than a bag of horse manure. Maybe less, because manure helps gorgeous roses to grow!
"If all the world's men and women and children could hold hands..."
(Well, for one thing, getting a nose itch would become a nightmare! :o)
Post a Comment