"Jolly Blokes"

[Uncle Gizmo]

There's a television soap that I have nicknamed "Jolly Blokes"... One of my wife's favourite soaps, and that's how I am aware of it. I often find myself becoming interested just because I'm sat in the same room.

It's a bit like I'm witnessing a conversation between two friends and I occasionally cherp in, I'm one of "those" annoying people! My wife has a very good strategy for handling me in this situation. For example, I might say I did that guy kill that guy? Are those two chaps together? Is that his girlfriend or boyfriend? Whatever my question my wife's strategy is to explain it to me in detail. I very quickly realise I am not interested at all, and I say "no no it's ok don't tell me anything I don't need to know!"

Now on the flight back from Barcelona Saturday, I note two chaps sat in front of us. And then they start to have a cuddle. I give my wife a sidelong glance, and she grins back at me. I start to wonder, I'm quite an accepting person, but this is making me uncomfortable. Am I underneath all my supposed liberal attitude offended by gays? It doesn't seem possible. But here's this feeling, I'm definitely feeling uncomfortable.

So then I try and change the situation in my mind, I think what if it was a man and a woman. How would I feel? I don't think I would feel uncomfortable, unless of course there was some petting going on. Then I might, but now what if it was an older man and woman? No that wouldn't be uncomfortable either but then I hit on it, if it was to a couple of extroverts then yes then I would be uncomfortable.

And what if it was two girls? Let's not go there shall we!

So what do I mean about exhibitionism? What's difference does that make to a cuddle?

I don't think exhibitionism is the right word, it's similar to if an older couple were having you know, one of those "more than a cuddle cuddles". Crossing the line so to speak.

So it wasn't about the two chaps being gay, and they may well not have been gay, they may have been just good friends. Brothers relatives, maybe somebody with an extreme fear of flying. But I'm pretty sure it wasn't any of those. It was more about the line, and the fact that the line has not yet been drawn in my consciousness. So my reaction was uncomfortable because there isn't a line. I need to experience these new, different situations to establish a line, and until I have, I will feel uncomfortable.

So what do you think, from your experience, am I fundamentally homophobic, or is it something else?

 

[Bee]

You are not fundamentally homophobic. Why do I assert that? Well...

What you've experienced is a moment where your values and beliefs have been checked. You had a few options open to you in terms of your reaction:

1. Acknowledge that you weren't comfortable with it and then put it out of your mind, or
2. Acknowledge that you weren't comfortable, but turn that feeling of discomfort into outrage, or
2. Acknowledge that you weren't comfortable with it and then question why - and go on challenging yourself.

Option 1 or 2 may suggest a latent homophobia. Option 3 (which is the course of action you took) is to recognise that no matter how liberal or forward thinking we like to think we are, we all have latent prejudices (or biases). It's perfectly okay to have those biases. What's not okay is to then go on to treat those people differently because of your own bias.

You hit the nail on the head when you said this:

I need to experience these new, different situations to establish a line, and until I have, I will feel uncomfortable.

I'm guessing either no-one, or very few people in your circle are both gay and openly demonstrative. It's therefore a new thing for you to experience. If you see it more often, it becomes the norm and you will be more accepting of it - unless your gut reaction is more like options 1 or 2.

And no matter what the circumstances, Public Displays of Affection (PDAs) can be stomach churning no matter what the orientation of the people involved.

Don't beat yourself up - but do keep challenging your assumptions

 

[The_Doc_Man]

When talking about one's perceptions of gay people:

I used to be very close with a woman who was my bridge partner. (We played tournament bridge, of the style known as "Duplicate.") We were very good players and lot of people saw how well we got along. They started to question whether we would marry. The day came when E. and I were talking in a car on the way to a tournament. E. confided to me that her sister had asked her about WHEN we would marry (not IF). At that point, E. "came out" to me and admitted she was a lesbian. I think I learned that I wasn't particularly homophobic because all I asked her when we were done was, "Can we still be friends?" Before that moment, I had not considered the possibility of her being gay.

When my mother was in the depths of her Alzheimer's, the holidays were tough, but E. arranged a "pot luck" for some of her gay friends - male and female - who bought Thanksgiving dinner components. We met somewhere (don't remember where after 30+ years) and had the fixings for a pretty good feast including turkey, dressing, cooked veggies, desserts, etc. I remember bringing drinks, a dessert that I knew how to make, and a couple of other things. Turned out I was the "token straight guy" at the party. All of us were displaced by family issues. So we just had a good time where nobody felt threatened or rejected by uncaring or hateful family members.

For me, the only jarring moment was when E. and I were discussing a movie we had seen with our circle of friends and I realized that she and I were lusting after the same actress. That one time was the only time I felt strange around my friend E. We moved apart, not because she was gay, but because she found a job elsewhere (and a long-term partner as well). We still see each other sometimes at the holidays.

I have since been able to understand my occasional gay-aversion feelings. In New Orleans, because the town is generally gay-friendly, it is not unusual to find someone whose attractive appearance hides a slight issue - the "babe" is a guy. Over the years I've learned how to spot the simple cross-dressers. The ones that are harder to catch are the ones who have undergone the full-bore gender reassignment that includes "shaving" the larynx. I used to get somewhat upset with the flamboyant cross-dressers. Still do, but it isn't because they insult my sexuality. It is because they insult my sense of propriety by trying to be something they aren't (yet) but doing a half-a$$ed job of it.

Uncle G., I understand that some people get upset by public displays of affection. To be honest, I share that uneasiness. But for me it is specifically breaking the taboo of the bedroom. And yes, any combination of couples has the same effect. So if things were getting steamy on the airplane, I might have been as upset as you were, but I would instantly realize which taboo had made me upset, and it wouldn't have had to do with being gay.

As Bee pointed out, we analyze the situation to identify the sudden feelings we had at the moment. I had already gone through my analysis so when you discussed your thought process, I recognized it.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Well, I don't know what to say except Thank you both! And I'm very pleased I posted it. I was dubious, not 100% sure how to say how I felt, realising it could be interpreted in many different ways.

 

[Bee]

Doc - being gay has nothing to do with being either a transvestite, or transgender.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Bee, well aware of that - but in New Orleans you see every combination of the TV, TG, and gay communities. When I used to play music on Bourbon Street in one of the corner bars (to work my way through college), I used to see TVs, gays, and a few TGs (though back then the surgical option wasn't as easily available.) I could talk to any of them. The key was always to gently say, "I don't go that way but otherwise don't care how you are dressed."

In the sense that I am not offended by any of those three categories, I lumped them together. My sensitivity is more that sometimes I'm an insufferable purist who thinks that anything worth doing is worth doing well. And it saddens me when their preparation is poorly done.

I'm not racist to any major degree that I am aware. I'm not homophobic. I don't drink or smoke. I don't do non-prescribed drugs. But that doesn't mean that I'm an angel. I just sometimes can be difficult if I see someone who isn't doing what they should be doing in my opinion. And I have tried to control my impatience with such people. But let me tell you this (not that you couldn't have guessed it): When I was working for the U.S. Dept. of Defense, I was always biting my tongue when dealing with a certain bunch of government clerks.

No, not a group by race... a group by tasking. The folks who worked in the purchasing department for that site didn't work at that site because we used a unified purchasing department for the Atlantic Coast division. That NAVLANT purchasing group could screw up a wet dream. They let service contracts lapse. They often ordered things incorrectly specified and we had to step in to explain WHY they should have ordered something else. But I'm told that NAVPAC and NAVEUR were no better. (Pacific and European divisions.) I know I just strayed a bit off topic. But I was offering a contrast for being homophobic, which ISN'T one of my problems.

I don't know if "jolly blokes" is the new UK slang for gay men, but I'm told by some of my New Orleans acquaintances that "festive" is a new term that is being used because "gay" is somehow being watered down by casual usage.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I don't know if "jolly blokes" is the new UK slang for gay men, but I'm told by some of my New Orleans acquaintances that "festive" is a new term that is being used because "gay" is somehow being watered down by casual usage.

The actual soap is called "Hollyoaks" and I nicknamed it "jolly blokes" because there's always appears, to me anyway, scenes with guys kissing each other, a bit like this YouTube clip:- #DontFilterFeelings: Scott's Story

Note to self:-
Be careful how I conduct myself during the "festive season" and how I refer to "festive" things... I reckon there's potential to develop some new jokes with this new term, --- something along the lines I was feeling festive!

 

[Jon]

Uncle, to me, if you feel uncomfortable about something that differs from the 'norm', that is a perfectly acceptable response. Much of our feelings are genetically based, in my humble view. For example, some people see a snake or spider and have a significant reaction. You can try to desensitise them using 'therapy', but is that even a wise idea? There is a reason we have developed these automatic feelings. They protect us. You could tell someone who is fearful of snakes that the one you are asking them to hold is not poisonous and have had the fangs removed. Yet it is unlikely to have much effect on how they feel about that snake. You could then call them a 'snakeophobe' and should be shunned for their views.

Same applies to everything else.

Re-engineering peoples thoughts based on someone else's views is like the thought police coming in uninvited. I will be writing a thread about this in relation to comedy, having read something today in the highly inflammatory Daily Mail, the most popular national newspaper in the UK.

When I was at university, I saw two guys snogging the face off each other right in front of me. I had to look away. It repulsed me. If some find that offensive, what if I was to have sex with someone right there in the street in front of them? It's perfectly natural, isn't it? Why be offended? Well, some things offend some people, and don't offend others.

 

[Bee]

But were you repulsed because they were blokes, or repulsed by the PDA?

 

[Jon]

Because they were blokes.

There is a gene that affects our ability to taste bitterness. That is probably why some people love brussel sprouts, while to me they are the spawn of the devil.

How do we know there are not genes that affect these 'other' areas? If I had beliefs or views which were a result of my genetics, rather than social conditioning, would being aghast at my views be tantamount to someone being racist towards another, when we know they have no control over skin colour because of their genes? What is the difference?

 

[Bee]

I wish there was a dislike button.

Who honestly cares what people get up to in bed? The PDA would have been too much for me, probably - but I'm a firm believer in you love who you love.

 

[Jon]

Bee, I added considerably to my post but yours came before I finished so, its worth having a re-read.

I don't care at all what people get up to in bed. That is a different argument to being exposed to viewing something you find repulsive.

They even give warnings on movies now about gun violence, sex scenes, swearing and so on.

 

[Bee]

If I had beliefs or views which were a result of my genetics, rather than social conditioning, would being aghast at my views be tantamount to someone being racist towards another, when we know they have no control over skin colour because of their genes? What is the difference?

It depends on whether you view being gay as a choice, I guess. I don't.

 

[Jon]

Just so I understand, are you saying that if your genes have programmed you to being gay, you don't have a choice? And, consequently, you should not be repulsed?

 

[Bee]

Not quite. Your analogy centred around a possible genetic reason for what could be classed as racism - even though (genetically) people have no say over their skin colour. I'm saying that people have no say over being gay (although I do accept they can choose whether to act on it - but that's a whole different topic) and so it's the same argument as skin colour.

 

[Jon]

Ah no, that is completely NOT what I was saying. Let me clarify and apologies for my confusing English. I was suggesting this:

1. Assume for argument that I have a gene that makes me repulsed by seeing two guys snog.

2. Assume that people's skin colour is based on certain genes.

3. Neither #1 nor #2 have any say in it, since it is genetically based.

4. Insulting someone based on skin colour is 'racist'.

5. Insulting someone repulsed by seeing snogging men is 'make-up-a-word'.

6. #1 and #2 are analogous. Criticising my response to the snoggers is the same as criticising someone because of their skin colour.

 

[Bee]

I follow the logic - and thanks for the clarification. However, being gay is also genetic - so the fact that you may, or may not, have a gene that repulses you is kind of too bad.

So, if you follow your logic through:

7. Criticising the response to the snoggers is the same as criticising someone because of their skin colour or sexual orientation.

 

[Jon]

Yes, if you criticise me because of a response I have to the snoggers, you are tantamount to being racist! That was my whole point. If you don't think some things are automatic, try to overcome the blink reflex! (I made progress on this while trying to get used to contact lenses, but it was damn difficult!)

 

[Bee]

That's assuming your response is genetic, not conditioning. As there is no proof that there is a gene that moderates your response, let's say that there may or may not be. Does that make you Schrodinger's Homophobe? (That is very much tongue in cheek by the way. I'm concscious I've called you controversial and binary in the last 20 mins - I don't want to make it a hat-trick)

 

[Jon]

The definition of 'homophobe' includes the term irrational. Who decides if something is irrational or not? Is that not like the argument for hate speech? Who is the authority who decides what is hate or not?

I agree, my argument hinges on the genetic argument. But there is plenty of research suggesting personality traits have genetic influence (and some environmental too). Some of these traits include conservatism, not liking change and so on. Jordon Peterson talks about this, suggesting that indeed your personality characteristics may be the driver towards your political inclinations. Given this perspective, follow this train of thought....

Genes > personality traits > response > ban public male snogging.

So I don't believe that there is no proof that a gene moderates my response. In fact, the genes drive my reponses. Our behavioural traits are influenced heavily by our genes. Ask any dog breeder. In fact, we only think we are making our own decisions. In fact it is our DNA that is choosing how we think. Consider it the precursor to thought.