Are gay folks getting too much attention?

Status
Not open for further replies.
dowie said:
What are your thoughts on straight people in gay bars out of interest?
Click to expand...

They are most welcome if they don't cause trouble. Same as any place.

Is this the issue your getting at...?? I think the issue some people have is they may wish to flirt with another guy and the guy might be straight. The straight can take huge offence and start a fight. If they are in a gay bar they should be expected that a guy could be interested in them. A polite no thanks and the gay should respectfully move along.... Just like a woman and guy in a straight bar.... No difference.

I'm not sure if that's why you were asking my thoughts on it? Was it? :)

I don't even go out drinking anymore anyway.
 
Last edited:
I did enjoy getting free drinks from dudes when at Fire, and then afterwards inform them that I am straight :D
 
Was just curious, it does seem to potentially be a bit of a can of worms (obviously most people wouldn't condone some idiot going into such a place and kicking off).

It was just the comment re: pride being for everyone to attend, I'd always thought of it as something for people who identify as LGBT etc...

I know of some women who've gone on a hen do in Manchester and have been turned away from a Gay bar for being straight, even though they apparently had some gay men with them... they were straight but the bouncers don't know that for sure other than by stereotyping them and (quite correctly) assuming it was a straight hen do. I'm not even sure it is technically legal to do this, it would obviously cause (quite justifiable) outrage if bouncers were to turn away someone from a regular pub if they assumed they were gay.

re: expecting to be flirted with - that expectation is potentially dodgy these days re: straight women and guys approaching them, I'm not sure it is always PC to state that women should simply expect it when they go to a regular pub/bar

(I'm not trying to say that gay bars are wrong or trying to start an argument, was just interested in your views)


I guess on the other hand I had no problem going into a gay bar with an old army buddy in London a few years ago, though we didn't intend to it was literally the nearest pub to have a drink before going to meet some more friends - everyone in there seemed pretty friendly.
 
In my experience the majority of patrons in any gay bar I've been in were straight women!
That said there were plenty of gay blokes who have a few times tried to chat me up. Explained I was straight, never had a single negative comment and generally sat chatting to them afterwards any way or pointed out my gay mate happened to think they or one of there mates weren't bad and away things went!
To go to a gay bar and get offended if you do get approached just seems hilariously stupid to me.
Actually, now that I think about it I've never been chatted up by a woman in a bar!
 
I've always known pride to be quite open... And encourage everyone to come including families and friends. But maybe every pride is different... I've only been to two.

I think it's wrong that anyone is turned away from a gay bar... Everyone should be welcome. I don't think many places that do it and the ones that do probably do it to avoid trouble brewing...

I went to a club in Germany once and was surprised to see the club full of mixed sexualities and not one battered an eyelid seeing two guys kiss on the dancefloor. I wish I could see more of that kind of integration. It wasn't a straight club or gay club. It was just a club lol.

Maybe I worded it badly to be 'expected' to be flirted upon... And I actually changed it before you posted. What i meant to say is... Someone is likely to be interested in a guy at a gay bar. As long as everyone is respectful (gay and straight). But of course if you in a gay bar your more likely to get interest from a gay guy.
 
there definitely was gay culture historically in the UK too, kept underground obviously and some of it was a bit weird:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_house

"Mock-birth" rituals: during which a man dressed in a nightgown pretended to be a woman giving birth to a baby assisted by fellow Mollies as "midwives" — a fact confirmed by other sources including trials.This ritual almost certainly originated as a couvade, designated to collectively relieve the extreme stress this particular social group was forced to live under. The ceremonies described by Ned Ward took place in specific periods called "Festival Nights", which other sources indicate took place towards the end of December.[
Click to expand...

also form that wiki article it seems the younger men/boys & older men thing observed in Ancient Greece and apparently today too also seems to have been depicted here:

8yUFF9t.jpg.png
 
Too bad that most became dens of paedophiles, not that anything really mattered in the 1700-1800s socially.

Though the contemporary replacement in the 1900s up to decriminalization, were certainly well... Cyril Smith likely went to them.
 
krooton said:
I did enjoy getting free drinks from dudes when at Fire, and then afterwards inform them that I am straight :D
Click to expand...


I used to work in Brixton Prison years ago and one the plumbers there was gay. He said it was paradise for him. I actually ended up getting on quite well with him and we often went out together. He'd come with me to straight bars and I'd go with him to gay bars. I always loved the gay bars because I never paid a penny. The only awkward times was when guys would grab my arse and whatnot, but a polite "I'm straight" usually resolved that quickly.

He went too far and took me to a club called VXR or something, which was basically a gay meat market. That was the only time I've walked out of a gay bar.
 
Diddums said:
I used to work in Brixton Prison years ago and one the plumbers there was gay. He said it was paradise for him. I actually ended up getting on quite well with him and we often went out together. He'd come with me to straight bars and I'd go with him to gay bars. I always loved the gay bars because I never paid a penny. The only awkward times was when guys would grab my arse and whatnot, but a polite "I'm straight" usually resolved that quickly.

He went too far and took me to a club called VXR or something, which was basically a gay meat market. That was the only time I've walked out of a gay bar.
Click to expand...

It's not awkward, it's fun ;).
 
Not really that cultured to know, background is of mildly Conservative rural areas. I know when I was younger a few eyebrows would have been raised with the topic. Can't really add much.
 
StriderX said:
It's not awkward, it's fun ;).
Click to expand...


I was still young and wasn't very familiar with homosexuality (I'd only lived in London for a few months as well) so when I first started encountering it it felt a bit odd. I've come a long way since then.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
What are you talking about?? The only reason why there might not have been a gay identity is because religion had demonized it so much.
Click to expand...

That is not true. There have been cultures in the past in which the dominant religion said nothing about homosexuality and in which there wasn't a "gay identity". Pre-Christian Rome is the most famous example, but there are others.

You're assuming that people must treat sexuality as the entirety of a person, the thing that identifies them. That's a false assumption. It isn't a matter of doing that and hiding it if a dominant religion demands it. It isn't necessary to do that at all. I don't. Many people I know don't. It's not even necessary if you don't know a person except in a very limited sense. For example, I saw a doctor a couple of weeks ago. To me, their identity is "person" and "doctor". Their sexuality? Don't know, don't care. Their shoe size? Don't know, don't care. Even for far more important things, such as the political party they support, I don't know or care in that context. There are, of course, people I know better. That also does not make it necessary for me to consider their sexuality to be their identity. If I know them to some extent, their identity is "person" and "coworker" or "friend" or "neighbour" or whatever. Their identity is "Bob" or "Sue" or whatever. To me, their identity is not "gay" or "straight" or "white" or "black" or whatever other minor biological characteristic some people sadly consider to be of such paramount importance that it defines a person, that it is their identity. It is not necessary to think that way.
 
Angilion said:
That is not true. There have been cultures in the past in which the dominant religion said nothing about homosexuality and in which there wasn't a "gay identity". Pre-Christian Rome is the most famous example, but there are others.

You're assuming that people must treat sexuality as the entirety of a person, the thing that identifies them. That's a false assumption. It isn't a matter of doing that and hiding it if a dominant religion demands it. It isn't necessary to do that at all. I don't. Many people I know don't. It's not even necessary if you don't know a person except in a very limited sense. For example, I saw a doctor a couple of weeks ago. To me, their identity is "person" and "doctor". Their sexuality? Don't know, don't care. Their shoe size? Don't know, don't care. Even for far more important things, such as the political party they support, I don't know or care in that context. There are, of course, people I know better. That also does not make it necessary for me to consider their sexuality to be their identity. If I know them to some extent, their identity is "person" and "coworker" or "friend" or "neighbour" or whatever. Their identity is "Bob" or "Sue" or whatever. To me, their identity is not "gay" or "straight" or "white" or "black" or whatever other minor biological characteristic some people sadly consider to be of such paramount importance that it defines a person, that it is their identity. It is not necessary to think that way.
Click to expand...

There's very little point in putting pre-christian Rome on any sort of pedestal for this, we don't live for a thousand years, it's well past it's social relevance. The last 400 years however for many minorities wrt to any christian denomination have been attacked as "wrong".

Still occurs in less liberal christian nations in Africa and Asia, as well as a lot of Muslim countries.

Thankfully the current Roman Catholic stance is increasingly liberal, as well as many other christian denominations moving towards seeing homosexuality in more equal light.

In most senses though, it's mostly socio-cultural than it is religion, but considering religion was so heavily connected to people's lives pre-info era, it's hard to disconnect them. After all the persecution in Russia is very much largely socially/culturally motivated i believe.
 
StriderX said:
There's very little point in putting pre-christian Rome on any sort of pedestal for this, we don't live for a thousand years, it's well past it's social relevance. [..]
Click to expand...

That would be relevant if I had put pre-Christian Rome on any sort of pedestal, but I didn't. I just cited it as one example of a situation in which homosexuality was not demonised by the dominant religion and was not regarded as a person's identity.

I disagree with the idea that it is essential to regard a person's sexuality as their identity, as the whole of what they are, as the thing that defines them.
I disagree with the idea that the only reason why anyone wouldn't do that openly is because they do it in secret because the dominant religion requires them to do so.

Do you disagree with me about that?
 
dalehitchy1 said:
[..]
We can do it at pride but then 'why should they be proud of their sexuality'

Personally I'd be happy without a pride because it would mean I don't have to worry about walking down the street holding my husband's hand on a normal day of the week and not one where I have the back up of thousands of other gays and a number of police. So people wondering why they don't have a straight pride... Be thankful you don't need one.
Click to expand...

Nobody needs biological group identity and pride ideologies. Being proud of being in the "right" biological group is not equality. It's the opposite of equality. It has nothing to do with whether or not homosexual couples can hold hands and kiss in public without any hassle. It does have something to do with whether heterosexual couples can, in that if NOT HETEROSEXUAL! pride has enough success then of course heterosexual couples would be harassed. The whole point of biological group pride is to put down everyone else. If a person doesn't regard a specific biological characteristic as being what defines a person and a specific variation of that characteristic as being better than the others then they won't (and couldn't) be proud of being in the "right" biological group.

People who don't have the "right" biological characteristic might (or might not) be allowed at a "right" biological characteristic pride event. That wouldn't stop it being a "right" biological characteristic pride event. The point is the point, not who is allowed to attend as long as they agree with the point.
 
Tefal said:
meh, think of it aswhy is there a notting hill canival, why is there a Manchester day parade, countless town jubilees, and organizations special days. they all meant something at one time or another but now they're just old traditions that are an excuse to have a party.

gay pride served its purpose, now its just another fun street festival.
Click to expand...

If that was the case, it would be renamed. We also wouldn't have it very specifically being promoted as an BE PROUD YOU'RE NOT HETEROSEXUAL! event and part of BE PROUD YOU'RE NOT HETEROSEXUAL! month (or two months or three months or whatever), but we do. More so each year, rather than less. Some of the people who attend do so as a fun street festival, but it it's not that yet and probably won't ever be because it's not meant to be.

I'm not proud of not being heterosexual for the same reason I'm not proud of not being "black" or not having reddish hair or not being short or whatever - I don't regard those things as being inferior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom