Bright and Gay Men's Choir
Tell me, am I wrong ? But does it not offend one’s sensibilities to have a group of singers calling themselves The Brighton Gay Men's Choir presented to us on prime time TV ? Last Choir Standing on Saturday had exactly that, a bunch of bald boutique bearded bum bandits singing and not very well at that. Why is it necessary for them to declare their sexual preference ? I don’t introduce myself as Duncan Wells – heterosexual.
At least they looked squeaky clean which given their predilection was a blessing. Still they were kicked out of the competition and put back in the closet where they belong thank goodness. Homophobic me ? I just, well, you know. It was Clarkson who wrote... 'whenever I meet a homosexual I can't help but stare at their bottom and wonder' ...
Perhaps I misread the name. Was it actually the “Bright And Gay” Men's Choir. I note that I have apostrophised the Men's. I am not sure that this is how they spell their name, alas.
I am not the only one who is finding this homosexuality thing hard to handle, the Anglican Bishops seem to be having their fill of it too.Do tell me if I have got it all wrong though.
Duncan
posted by Duncan Wells at
10:30
8 Comments:
Hi Duncan.
I agree with you D. there again I can't stand any "I'm a wannabe trying to be famous" so I tend not to watch TV on Saturdays now Dr Who has finished.
Good to read your blog Duncan and it is great that you are now so well. I said many prayers that you would recover.
In response to your question Duncan, I would like to venture that indeed, you have got it wrong. It's a common misconception that being gay is about sex - I would recommend you get to know someone who is indeed gay and you will discover that it is neither a choice nor a lifestyle. The vast majority of gay guys can trace the first signs back to early childhood, even back as far as being toddlers. As a result, there are 1000s of teenagers and children out there who have had, and continue to have, horrendous childhoods because they are trying to reconcile the fact that they are different to what is perceived as the norm. Thankfully, as the general public have begun to learn and realise over the last 20 years or so, being gay is about being true to yourself - your likes and dislikes, for example whether it be a predilection for creativity or enjoying the more gentle things in life (and there are plenty of exceptions to this too). In the same way it is for heterosexual guys, sex only makes up a small part of the person. The world of psychiatry and psychology accepts that being gay is a perfectly natural state for the person involved, and there are distinct correlations regarding differences that are physiological, psychological, hormonal and chromosomal. I would encourage you to re-visit your views and perhaps consider finding out a bit more - there are still many teenagers....children, in fact..... who commit suicide each year in this country because they are rejected by their families or suffer bullying or abuse of some kind, just for being gay. Seeing the Gay Choir on TV gives some of these kids hope that they can grow up and be accepted and the rejection they currently feel can end. Also, having done a bit of research, I've discovered the gay choir in question is open to all guys, gay or straight, and has nothing to do with sex, as you seem to be indicating. It is a natural instinct to flock together with like-minded individuals regardless of the commonality that's shared.
I don’t know if anything I have written will have made a difference – you are of course, entitled to your opinion, but I do hope you will consider it carefully. Having a number of gay friends myself, whom I must say are amongst the most loyal and kind friends I have ever had, I have listened to the struggles they have had to go through just to be able to confidently lead productive lives (which indeed they do, being bank manager, lawyer, sailor and teacher), but also being true to themselves in all aspects of their lives. As for the choir – if you watch the show back on iPlayer, they received by far, the loudest and warmest response from the studio audience. The world is changing and people are realising that gay people are still people, after all, and generally speaking the vast majority of the UK population seem now to accept this.
Dear Bassethound,
Everyone has a sexuality, gay, bi or hetro, but that doesn't need to be displayed on Primetime TV does it?
Surly this should be classed as safe family viewing as is described by OFCOM without having TV that could cause embarrassment to family members whilst watching?
I don't go parading my sexuality everywhere, and I don't expect other to do so...
Dear English Blogger.
I don't remember seeing anybody "parading their sexuality" on television. They seemed like ordinary guys to me and didn't mention being gay once. It was about the singing and the community spirit. Nor was anything about the viewing "unsafe" by anybody's standards. What is unsafe about a group of gay guys singin on TV? And why should something that is part of everyday life cause embarassment? If it does, then it shows there is still far too much stigma and ignorance around being gay. Shamefully, our country used to lock people up for being gay. This still happens in 77 countries around the world and in 7 countries a gay man can be put to death. Thankfully, we've come a long way in this country and as a society we are far less ignorant than we used to be. The Brighton Gay Men's Chorus are bound together because they are gay. The Hereford Police Choir are bound together because they have a connection to the police.
The Filey Fisherman's Choir are bound......etc etc. It's a natural instinct to flock together with like-minded indiviuals. And besides, in order for the masses to realise that they've got their thinking very, very wrong, historically groups have had to make statements in public in order to enlighten people that change needs to happen. There would have been many white, middle classed men in the early 20th century that said similar things to you regarding the Suffragettes - they wouldn't have wanted women to parade their woman-hood in public and give them the same rights as men, and that the public statements made by them would have been considered "unsafe". Fortunately, prejudice against women has all but disappeared - prejudice against gay people still has some way to go. Should one argue that the Basingstoke Ladies Choir shouldn't have paraded their womanhood on Primetime TV or would you have considered that as "safe"? 100 years ago, if we had television - you almost certainly would not have approved.
I would also llike to thank you for reminding me that homophobia is still very strong in some quarters in this country, but thankfully, you can see it disappear gradually as ignorance is replaced by enlightenment. And as each new generation passes and young people question the beliefs of their parents more and more, eventually, it will disappear completely.
Dear Bassethound,
You see, you are making assumptions that I am homophobic, I am not. I am a person who does not want any sort of sexuality on my TV during pre-watershed times.
Having a group called the Gay what ever is parading thier sexuality on TV, the same as calling a group The Neo Nazi's is parading someones political beliefs. I know that would have lit the phone lines!!!
There is a time and place, to me teatime Saturday isn't it.
FYI, I am not a homophobe, in fact I have a lot gay friends, working in the industry I work in it would be very hard to be homophobic. Though I tend to base my friends on the person and not who or what they find sexually attractive.
Dear English Blogger. The assumption was made because the content of your posting is most certainly homophobic and despite having gay friends, as you say, your comment seems to assume that being gay is about sexual attraction. That may be part of it, but only a small part - there's a lot more to being gay than sex, but this seems to be the unfortunate assumption that a lot of people jump to if they see the word "gay" attached to anything. I would suggest you would do well to re-evaulate your definition of a gay man. Maybe speak to your friends about how difficult it has been at times during their lives and why it's so difficult when large parts of society want to lock you away back in the closet and never mention the fact that you are gay, whether it be on television or anywhere else. In addition, gay people are just one of many groups of people or who have been told over the years that it is not acceptable for them to be seen on television or only to accept certain roles, and if they are, then they must either do their utmost to hide what makes them different, or it should be exploited. For example: years ago women were forbidden to read the news; black people only appeared as pastiches or objects of ridicule; disabled people were never seen; gay people were only seen as steroetypes (eg Larry Grayson, John Inman, Danny LaRue - all of which appeared regularly on Saturday night television btw). Finally we've reached a point where a much larger part of society accepts that ordinary gay people are people first and foremost and can do ordinary things in life like sing in choirs, and don't have to be outrageously camp to have the same opportunity to appear on televsion. Your comment seems to be based on the assumption that you looked at the choir and thought "sex". I saw the choir and thought - "seem like a nice bunch of guys - nice to see some gay people on Saturday night TV doing ordinary things instead of camping it up and being suggestive (Graham Norton) or dressing up in drag (Lily Savage). Brave thing they've done here and well done to the BBC for showing gay people as people and not as objects of comedy". One final point, I'm sure you didn't mean it to be offensive, but I would suggest that using a comparison of gay people against neo-nazis isn't very appropriate, particularly as the Nazis gassed 1000s of guys for being gay. I promise that I respect that you are entitled to your opinion. It just saddens me that you feel as you do.
Dear Bassethound
Using a name is very emotive isn't it? if you took offence at the use of the term Neo Nazi sorry, but it is only a name isn't it, like gay? I was proving a point in which I'm trying to convey. Yes it is abhorrent!!!! to some people the term gay is!!! especially at 7pm on TV on a Saturday evening.
I am well aware of the amount of Gay people on TV and on Radio, I work in that field. I have no objection to anyone:- gay, bi,left handed, a Free Mason, Muslim, Christian, Taoist...being on TV or Radio. I have an objection to someone force feeding me anything.
You see if I use the term Nazi, you think millions Killed, you don't think of all the advances in rocket science do you? Well when people say gay....They think of gay sex, cottaging etc.
I am someone who thinks morals are important, and Saturday evening TV should be safe for anyone to watch as I have said before.I think a group of guys singing and enjoying themselves is wonderful actually. I object to the name, and I am entitled to that opinion, you can think what you like about me. You can think I'm Homophobic, I would object to the Dykes Girls Choir, or the N**gers Black Choir. So I'm a racist and a misogynist as well.
As for Camp (Larry Grayson, John Inman, Graham Norton et al..)..that's just sad and not funny in my opinion.
Dear English Blogger.
In a way, you've just proved my point. The only way to change the people's view of a stereotype is to challenge it. You still seem to have the opinion that you see the word "gay" then automatically think of sex, cottaging etc. As do many others unfortunately. As I wrote on my previous posting - being gay is not about sex, but sex is just part of life, as it is for straight people. People like the choir challenge this view and demonstrate extremely well that gay people are more than capable of doing other things than cottaging. And that's the case for the vast majority of gay people who do not cottage, which I agree, is immoral. The same could be said for straight people who go "dogging" - equally immoral. Rape - equally immoral. Child abuse - almost always committed by straight people (eg. fathers, uncles, brothers). And yet despite these immoral acts that straight people commit, they are seen the majority of the time on TV. The difference is there is no stigma attached to being straight. People don't get beaten up for being straight or discriminated against - people do not automatically think of sex and immorality when they see a married couple with 2.4 children on Saturday night TV. It doesn't even enter into the mind. And yet it does when you see a gay person or group of people. That is the stereotype that needs to be challenged, and in my opinion, bravo to the gay choir for proudly singing on prime-time TV. It shows the world that there's more to life than sex. The fact that many young people will have seen that is also tremedously important as it will enlighten and educate - hopefully leading to a fall in the amount of homophobic bullying in schools (which is rife - children are being attacked for being gay even before they've reached the age of 10 - in these cases, it's clearly not about sex - it's about ignorance, prejudice and bigotry).
As for the name, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I still don't see the relevance of your comparison - gay people have never been responsible for deaths of millions - wars are started by straight people (with the notable exception of Alexander the Great)and until recently, were fought uniquely by straight people - now THAT'S immoral.
Through ridiculous laws, straight people were responsible for driving the gay person underground and therefore are partly responsible for creating the culture of cottaging and other such immoral acts. Thankfully these laws were repealed in the 60s. The limited statistics available show that it tends to be married men and gay people who are unable to "come out" due to other pressures (work, family) that tend to frequent these places now and that the vast majority of gay people would not ever entertain the idea.
Gay people have given us some of the world's greatest art, music, culture and entertainment. More often than not, they tend to be loving, caring, kind, emotionally expressive, generous, sensitive and supportive. Surely these are fantastic qualities to promote and many straight men could learn a thing or two from them.
Unless there are higher profile occasions when gay people appear on TV, or in public, and advertise themselves as such, then the old images, such as yours, will never change and will never be replaced by a more accurate representation of who gay people are.
I hope we see many more positive images of gay people on TV, and I'm sure we will as thankfully we live in a country who is coming to terms with the fact that it got it wrong for so many centuries and realilsing that gay people are just normal people after all.
Post a Comment
<< Home