why cant we be "normal!"

guy2454

Maybe its just me, but does anyone else find it difficult being stereotyped. For instance when i meet new people conversation arises "are you seeing anyone?" reply "yes HIS name is X" jaw drops. "weve been going out 4 yrs and just building our first house together etc" and you get "REALLY?" (surprised look).its not that i hate being gay,but people seem to think, oh gay men they just dress up go out have a shag and go home,they are so funny(when i see them on tv),they dont have relationships etc.im just a normal bloke who happens to like guys,and be in love with one in particular.its like agh!so what?obviously with friends and family its ok it just seems to be in new surroundings meeting new people.e.g headin to a party at a friends parents house before we arrive friends dad asking"are they gonna arrive in a pink car?"or "which one is the woman?" if one of us was a woman we would be a straight couple!!!Im on a bit of a rant here but i cant be the only one who feels like this.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

wow, I guess gay people don't like paragraphs

guy2454

there you go stereotyping again, instead of saying "wow, I guess gay people don't like paragraphs" you could have said "wow, I guess you don't like paragraphs".

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were joking.

well done sir, well done.

The_Minister

Move to Thunderdome.

guy2454

yes clearly i was,if i wasnt god i would give "us gays" a bad name! any input on the topic,not bein rude but just wonderin?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

umm, i think you're entirely correct. Peole shouldn't rush to judgements about gay people or anyone else (except dubliners), but it's going to happen and you're best off just trying to ignore it.

guy2454

i understand its gonna happen,but i wouldnt tar all "straights" with the same brush?some are tramps/some arent, it just seems theres a misconception about gay men and women for no reason.well television(was going to say tv but surely someone would have something smart to say) has done us no favours i suppose.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it's probably because there's two men, and men are traditionally thought of as the randiest of the genders.. so people see two men together and assume the worst.. or the best depending on your perspective.
It's probably going to take a few more generations before the hardcore stereotyping fades from the general population, people just need time to adjust and you are in the unfortunate position of being born into this **** too early

still if one of your grandkids is gay, they will hopefully have a better time of it.

guy2454

god grandkids,then id have to have kids which means i couldnt go out and get pissed every weekend with my mates singing karaoke at the gay bar!no way!

Nevyn

Hey such assumptions go the other way as well you know I have had gay people assume things about me because I have children. Breeder is not a pretty term or is the assumption that I am staight and not 'queer' at all because I happen to have kids.

guy2454

Totally agree,not being one for "the scene" ive only heard that term in the past couple of weeks.not a fan of the term "breeder". I think were just jealous as it gets more complicated if we wish to have kids!

Boston

Normal, common, dull, boring, same, conformist, bland, repetitive, sheepish.

guy2454

??????????????????????

Kazobel

You never will be "Normal", no one is. Everyone fit's some stereotype and some are worse than others depending on what side they are seen from. With you it's probably all drained down to

1. "He's male therefore he dates girls"/ "Oh sh!t he dates guys!"
2. "He's straight enough so his boyfriend must be the girl"/"Oh sh!t they're both masculine"
3. "One must be the 'bottom'"/ "Oh **** which one?" ***bites nails***what will I say, what will I say***, ***Did I just mentioned battered fish....****!!!!****


You get the idea? stereotypes are just a way for everyone to feel better about themselves, it's crap but part of the construct of society. Sure even within the gay community there are stereotypes, look at the perceptions of "straight acting" and "Fags" <---(I hate that word but it's not my word) the assumtion on the scene for the most part is that all "Fags" are crossdressers no matter how manly they dress and most of those assumptions are based on how a voice sounds or how someone moves so it goes in more than one way...I agree though it still does suck donkey balls but the best you can do is either ignore or educate, people are people and the mass opinion will usually win out in the end.

Boston

guy2454 wrote: »

??????????????????????

Why would anyone want to be normal?

Kazobel

Boston wrote: »

Why would anyone want to be normal?

And even more pertenant OP, would (what you consider to be) "normal" not also be a stereotype?

guy2454

Apologies i put the word normal in inverted commas,what i was trying to say in my original post is what some people perceive to be normal. Some people find i strange or get a bit of a shock when i say ive been in a relatioship for 4 yrs,they are of the opinion that gay men dont do relationships, that we're all out for a one night stand or a casual fling.It comes across that they find it, for want of a better word, abnormal,that gay relationships are the exact same as straight ones, in that if youve found someone you like/love, you stick with them. you may even spend the rest of your life with them(heres hoping).Any relationship is down to the two individuals gay or straight that make up the relationship.being gay or straight has no bearing on it.
answering the "normal" question,its not that i want to really be considered normal,just not "abnormal".at the end of the day everyone is an individual each to their own i say,i guess to me normal is something that people dont gasp,looked shocked/wierded out when they hear or talk about it.
On the educate people,thats the part i like.straight guys are the most inquisitive when it comes to asking questions but i dont feel im answering questions for all gay people, just myself,who happens to be gay.I have my own opinions as does every other person,man/woman, straight/gay/bi which are all different.I dont claim to educate on the entire gay population,just my perspective.

brazilicious

I reckon the shock factor ("really???!") will phase out in a few years, there'l be something far more controversial and people wont bat an eyelid at you or others of your orientation..you just need something newer and more shocking to come along and replace you!

and on the note of educating people, are straight guys really that inquisitive?? surprising, thought theyd be much more taboo-ish on the topic... but thats just it, speaking for myself anyway, its not something id go asking a whole load of questions about at risk of coming accross nosey / prying into a sensitive subject, once again presuming that it is...?

guy2454

I do agree in time ,ya things will improve. Seriously with the straight guys,well the ones ive met are full of questions.but why?how etc?One of the most frequently asked is"what if the most beautiful woman in the world came up to you (naked) and told you she was well up for it??" I simply reply "what if the most handsome man in the world came up to you (naked) and told you he was well up for it??" They soon get the idea.

brazilicious

really??cool that they/you r so open about it! most straight guys i know are well weirded out by that kind of banter tbh!

LegacyUser

Ever heard the sayin "you fall inlove with who they are not what they are"... sadly not all the gay community (if you dont mind me using that term) think that two gay men can have a long lasting faithful relationship, we get stereotyped by other people but it seems its our homosexual brothers and sisters that are the ones first in line to take a stab at the finer things in our lives, wether its relationships, raising a child, or the way we dress... at the end of the day its not what strangers think that matters its the people closest to you! why do you care what someone thinks? seems like your a tad selfconscious about your relationship (not trying to sound rude in any way).. **** what anyone thinks!

Oracle

I think you've made a very valid point I'd agree with you guy2454. I think the gay scene and culture is exactly what those who want to marginalise and discriminate want. It's sex obsessed, outrageous and extreme. It can safely be labeled unapproachable and dangerous, to be ignored and not taken seriously. A good example of this is the so called Gay Pride. It's much more difficult to discriminate against mainstream people you deal with in everyday life, who happen to be gay. Like your plumber, car mechanic, school teacher or dentist. My opinion is their are powerful covert commercial forces at work that drive the commercial gay scene to encourage extreme behaviour. There are also ideologies perpetuated that encourage gay men to not take responsibility for their own health. Unfortunately the commercial gay scene is also the most visible aspect of gay culture.

Boston

Oracle wrote: »

There are also ideologies perpetuated that encourage gay men to not take responsibility for their own health.

I don't think thats true. I've learned more about health issues surround health from LGBT sources then I ever did from heterosexual sources. I'm more informed then most people I know.

Oracle

Boston wrote: »

I don't think thats true. I've learned more about health issues surround health from LGBT sources then I ever did from heterosexual sources. I'm more informed then most people I know.

Yes, that's ironically part of the ideology. Many groups were set up, most in the aftermath of the AIDS panic, that targeted "health" messages and information at gay men in particular. This appeared to be a positive, pro-active and preventative measure to be welcomed by all. But the messages and information they spread has the opposite effect of what the organisations claim. This happened for a myriad of reasons. Firstly, most of the gay men's health organizations receive funding from pharmaceutical companies, and other commercial entities, whose aims and objectives are not the promotion of health. Secondly, the politicisation of the health agenda allowed these groups to be easily manipulated. They were encouraged to demand greater access to expensive and toxic drugs. That suited the objectives of the drug companies and those who would seek to destroy the gay community. I believe almost every so called, "health" message, that is targeted at gay men, is counter to maintaining good health and quality of life. But these messages are so deeply embedded in the gay sub-culture it's almost impossible to notice. They are subliminal, seductive, pervasive and deceptive. These messages work by stating one thing, but actually having an opposite and contrary effect.

L1011

The Gay Health Network / GMHP / etc here are, as far as I know, entirely funded by the State. I don't see the involvement of drugs firms here, nor do I see how the message being put out is in any way contrary to health.

I can't speak for any other countries, but in the UK the main body in health promotion to a gay audience is the THT which has no publically known pharma sponsors and again, doesn't appear to be putting out a particularly twisted message.

If you can back up any of your statements I'd be interested to see what you bring up.

Oracle

The Irish health groups may not receive any funding from drug companies, but as you've said they do receive state funding. Also they, broadly speaking, take the same approach to gay mens health as organizations in the US and UK. One of the biggest gay health charities is, as you've said, the Terrence Higgins Trust (THT). You said that THT has no publicly known pharma sponsors, I'm not sure that's true.

In THTs most recent financial accounts filed with the UK's Charity Commission, they had a revenue income of almost £13.5 million for the year ending March 2007. Just over £8 million of that is from statutory sources, such as Local Authorities, the UK Department of Health, and ironically, even the YMCA, labeled for Health Promotion and Care and Advice. Most of the rest, just over £5 million, comes from voluntary income, of that £315,000 is from Corporate Donations. Another £1.8 million is from Individual Donations. I can't find a list in the accounts of the corporate and large individual donors with the amounts they gave, but I notice that THT feel the need to thank, among others ...

Boehringer Ingleheim
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Gilead
GlaxoSmithKline
GlaxoSmithKline Medical Fellowship
The Pfizer UK Foundation

They're pharmaceutical companies who are also all makers of HIV medication. While the accounts don't show these companies gave millions to the THT, at the very least it suggests a close relationship. The pharmaceutical companies could have donated the bulk of the £315,000 in corporate donations. It's also possible individuals involved with those companies could have given some large individual donations as well. There may also be benefit in kind, such as goods and services, that these companies donate that are not shown in the annual accounts.

L1011

So (at most) 4.2% of their funding = enough to control what they say and do?

Can you show how the message put out by the THT is contrary to health?

Boston

Tbh, this conversation should be over on the nutbar forum.

DubArk

Well im with my partner for 23 yrs and still people ask the oddest questions.

One example is we attended a relations fiftieth birthday and during the evening this guy questioned me in front of everyone, with out batting an eyelid, “which one was I the man or the women?” when I asked him what he meant by this he said; “did I give or was I taken?”:eek::eek:

I just burst out laughing and told him he was one of the stupidest people I ever had met and just left their company.

Get use to it! We're highly amused most of the time.

Oracle

The financial support THT receive from the pharmaceutical industry may be a small percentage of their overall income, but it still amounts to possibly £300,000 (€377,000) a year or more, that's a substantial amount of money. Especially if this donation is on-going every year.

It also raises another interesting question. If the financial support of the pharmaceutical companies is so unimportant to THT, why don't they refuse to take it? The truth is it's a mutually beneficial arrangement. The THT and the pharmaceutical companies each lend themselves credibility by being associated with each other. In fact because THT receive so much statutory (government) funding, the drug companies effectively get government approval and promotion of their products, by being associated with THT.

But the THT are not the only gay mens health organisation that get financial support from pharamceutical companies. Gay Mens Health Crisis (GMHC) New York, also received about $335,000 from pharmaceutical companies this year. GMHC recieved at least another $100,000 from Altria, formerly known as Philip Morris, one of the worlds biggest tobacco manufacturers and the makers of Marlboro cigarettes. A strange corporate donor for an organisation who's mission is ".... to reduce the spread of HIV disease, help people with HIV maintain and improve their health and independence, ....." http://www.gmhc.org/about.html