Well, I’m prepared to take a strong stand against anyone who pays minors for the performance of sexual acts. I think it’s disgusting. I’m also against the exploitative aspects of the sex trade full stop.
Your position seems to be that people are not paid less BECAUSE they’re gay, but it just so happens that gay people as a whole are paid less than straight people. Pure coincidence! No doubt it’s also a complete coincidence that women, on the whole, are paid less than men, on the whole, as belied by the numerous high-profile exceptions and the women you happen to know who are doing just fine.
I agree that the statistics given are suspicious, because I have not yet been shown statistics backed up by direct questions on identity and some assurance that nobody is disguising their sexual orientation when claiming an identity. That said, you are dismissing the whole issue for reasons that don’t appear to be grounded in anything. If you could bring in some facts to back up your assertions, that would be welcome.
I was referring to sex between two men. You’ve made disparaging remarks about anal sex (“butt-hurt”) and fellatio (“smoke the pole”). I presume you are against the practice of such sex acts when done by consenting males. At the very least, you seem contemptuous of those who might be ok with such behavior. I believe this colors your perception of the issue of equality, since you seem so quick to belittle “homos” (your term) and discount any statistics that have been presented.
This is a General Questions thread about whether or not gay men and lesbians are more affluent than average. If it offends you to read factual information on this topic then perhaps you should stop participating in this thread.
Going back to the OP, what IMO does exist at least in the US is a media image/stereotype of (big city, mostly) gays as reveling in fabulousness and exquisite taste, which is about as realistic as that same media’s portrayal of the lifestyle economics of young entertainment-sector workers in the Big City a-la Friends (the underlying notion apparently being that the childless must have this huge wad of disposable income. newsflash: we don’t)
We don’t get to hear the stories about the plight of working-class gays or LGBTs of color 'cause it doesn’t sell ratings, you can’t market upmarket consumer goods to them, and it can be a real downer (and in the case of gays-of-color their communities may themselves be very gay-unfriendly). And the Trans community gets their troubles multiplied, as has been mentioned already.
Heck, never mind LGBT, people tend to be incredulous of how limited are the discrimination-protected categories in general.
Having a wedding photo in the paper is flaunting orientation? And offensive jokes?
Are you just participating in a GQ thread to bait people? Or did you have some kind of factual information in answer to the OP?
Buffalo Bilious, this post is completely out of line for General Questions. Rants aren’t appropriate here, nor are offensive terms like homo. This is an official warning. Don’t do this again.
Hey, I’m a freaking activist in that community, and I had to look that one up. I think this is the first time I’ve ever encountered “questioning” “asexual” and “allies” joined to the others.
In a general discussion it’s not up to the communicant to perform research to understand the communicator’s meaning of an obscure initialism, patently ridiculous in length and counterproductive in practice. Its use without an explanation should be only for readers and writers within a coterie of practioners self-satisfied at their exclusive knowledge.
Now, after having had the conundrum solved, I find its meaning absurdly specific and redolent of the lawyer’s contract.
There are two important reasons for the “absurdly specific” meaning: (1) To recognize that the community is everyone who is not heterosexual, not just gays or gays and lesbians, and (2) to communicate that the list of people who are not heterosexual is long and varied, thus asking even longtime activist gays and lesbians to continue to question their assumptions about what it means to be “not straight.”
Aye, the LGBTQQIAA was known to me as well, all the way back in college, and it was just as silly then as it is now. My old boyfriend at the time loved making fun of it by adding as many more letters to it as he could possibly think of, that might fit, for example FHST (Fag hag, Stag hag), OID(Odd,Interesting,Different), and a bunch of other letters that I have forgotten now. He took pride in being able to rattle off the whole thing very quickly (in letters) and then explain what each letter meant.
As a gay man, I’ll just stick to LGBT and apologize to anyone who this offends or excludes.
I agree that in the interests of communication that it’s not reasonable to expect people to have to Google to look up some little-used acronymn. So posters should strive to be clear about what they mean.
In any case, this is a hijack from the topic of this thread. Let’s get back on track.
I took my Fag Stag out shopping yesterday because he needed new suits for his new job. Jos. A Banks was having a four for the price of one sale. He bought 8 suits!
My aunt and her husband ran away to the next state to get married, and hid it from everybody for a few years, because she would have been fired from her job – elementary teachers were absolutely not allowed to be married.
But this was a one-room schoolhouse in rural Minnesota in the 1930’s – 80 years ago. I don’t think it would happen now.
P.S. In the end, that was the only job my ever had – she taught at that school from the time she finished teachers’ college until she retired on Social Security. She was the only teacher there for 48 years. At the end, she was teaching grandchildren of her first pupils.
Thinking about the recent CS thread about gay musicals, it occurs to me that the arts and entertainment have long been considered gay friendly professions* and that these are fields where some people make a lot of money…but most people don’t. It’s easy to think of famous and successful LGBT writers, actors, musicians, comedians, etc., but regardless of sexual orientation plenty of aspiring writers, actors, musicians, comedians, etc., never make a dime doing these things.
I don’t know if there are really a lot more LGBT folks working in the arts/entertainment than in any other field, but if LGBT folks are disproportionately drawn to these professions then some of them will be very successful (thus contributing to the perception of LGBT affluence) while many more will have to wait tables to pay the rent.
*It wasn’t, and to an extent still isn’t, considered a good career move for a performer to be out to the public, but it’s my impression that even pre-Stonewall people who actually worked in the entertainment industry tended to be relatively open-minded about homosexuality.
