Ok, so proving today that even the intelligenterati can fail, and fail hard, is Stephen Fry, who apparently feels sorry for straight men, "because women only want sex in order to have a relationship."


I shan't bother heaping on the sarcasm, because [personal profile] gominokouhai has already done that far better than I could.

What I'd like to dwell on for a bit is the odd bit of straight male angst that Fry has managed to latch onto. "I think most straight men feel they disgust women", he says, "They find it difficult to believe that women are as interested in sex as they are."

Now this is interesting because it rings very true; I think a lot of (especially young) straight men feel ugly and unloveable, and often end up concluding that women aren't interested in sex per se, but rather in 'hooking a man' — rich and powerful, natch.

But the rest of the sentence is cringeworthy. "For good reason", Fry continues. "If women liked sex as much as men there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas."

This is perhaps the most bizarre aspect of his quotes. Despite years of work on gay rights, on promoting the idea that gay people are just as decent and well-balanced as straight people, Fry ends up perpetuating the same myth that gay people are inherently more promiscuous, more sex crazy, than straight people. And myth it is.

Where's the disconnect?

As a single straight man, sometimes I did envy my gay friends. And, yes, maybe pulling as a gay man is easier and more straightforward than as a straight man. But not because women aren't interested in sex. It's because our society forbids women from taking the initiative, and forces that responsibility on men. Obviously a thousand feminists have pointed out the negative impact this has on women, and obviously they're right, but that doesn't mean that the situation is all roses for men either. I'm not sure any female readers can understand what it's like to feel unattractive, lonely, in need of affection, and have to go out in that state and open yourself up, because companionsip is not going to come to you.

It's doubly awful if you're socially awkward and naturally self-doubting — and perhaps Fry can sort of empathise with that. And it's triply awful if you feel that your efforts to pick up women are somehow demeaning to them — that by chatting them up you are sexualising them without their permission, that every action that your sexual desire demands that you take is anathema to all feminist principles.

In comparison, the gay scene, as Fry describes it, does sound on the surface pretty ideal. No stupid rules about one group of people not being allowed to make the first move — if you want sex there are places you can go to get sex, because sometimes a quick shag is really what you want. And if you want possibly more than sex, then you can dress up nice and go to a gay bar and pull or wait to be pulled.

But then I'm not gay, and despite Fry's comments on how great it is, I have a nagging doubt that the gay scene is really all that either. Because people are people, and shallow whatever their sexuality, and at the end of the day, being a plain, awkward gay man is probably not much easier than being a plain, awkward straight man.
spudtater: (Default)
( Oct. 20th, 2010 01:32 pm)
Am wearing a purple tie today. Only one person's asked me about it so far.

This recent spate of homophobic bullying, plus [livejournal.com profile] nickys' post on the subject a few days ago, has got me thinking about bullying. A lot is said about the subject, not all of it sensible. You frequently hear such useless, condescending platitudes as "ignore them and they'll go away", or "try standing up to them", which sound plausible only to those not in the situation of being bullied. The following is my attempt to bring some sense to the subject:

Debunking myths about bullying )
spudtater: (Default)
( Oct. 4th, 2010 01:08 pm)
A load of people appear to be planning to wear purple on October 20th in remembrance of the six US teenagers who recently took their own lives due to homophobic abuse. If that sounds like something you'd want in on, consider yourself duly informed.

Another one via [livejournal.com profile] calcinations:

Parents across the UK are understandably being made anxious by news reports today suggesting:

Rise in 11 year olds on the pill (Sunday Times)
One thousand girls on Pill at 11: Huge rise in contraceptive prescription for pre-teens without parents knowing (Daily Mail)
Huge rise in 11-year-olds on the pill (Telegraph)


Despite the media hype there are many medical reasons why young girls might be prescribed hormonal contraceptives [...] Unfortunately the data from the GPRD does not break down reasons for prescribing hormonal contraception to young women, so we cannot conclude precisely why they are using it. This hasn’t stopped media speculation it’s primarily for pregnancy prevention, wrongly suggesting all young girls on the pill are sexually active lolitas.

11 years old, on the pill and sexually active? The media loses the news again, Dr Petra Boynton, 2 Aug 2010, drpetra.co.uk

...in BHS.

A woman's voice admonishing her son: "No, sweetie, that's pink. That's for girls. Come over here and I'll find you something for boys." And as they appeared from behind the shelf they were previously hidden behind, I notice two things:
  1. The item in question was a box of biscuits
  2. The kid was dressed in jungle-camouflage trousers and a kiddie-sized bomber jacket.
I really hope that kid doesn't turn out to be gay, because he will never be able to come out to his family.

Why sexuality is all in our brains
Lesbians' brains react differently to sex hormones than those of heterosexual women, a study shows. Their responses are more like straight men's, it added. An earlier study suggested gay men's responses differed from straight men but were similar to heterosexual women. This adds weight to the idea that homosexuality has a physical basis and is not learned behaviour, Swedish researchers said.

Metro, 10 May 2006

You know, in an ideal world, this would not be considered news.

I am rather amused by the site GayEgypt.com.
Of course, it gets frequent threatening emails from fundie Muslims, and this wasn't helped when they put out an article proclaiming Mohammed to have been gay. (Pardon?)
But then they come up with things like this:

Vote 4 (sic) Egypts Prettiest Dictator.

OK so it's time for the hardest decision you've ever made. Which of Egypt's handsome twentieth century despots was the most winsome?

Just Click on the president or king whose looks give you that warm and tingly feeling. The tyrant you think most deserves the title "Gay Icon."





spudtater: (Default)


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags