sparkindarkness

I really do. It has always been my preferred party. I lamented so much of what Tony Blair did that I simply couldn’t bring myself to vote for your party again.

He is gone. I want to vote Labour again. I want to support Labour for all the good it’s done - and yes, it most certainly has done a lot of good for this country after so many years of Tory misrule. I, particularly, want to vote Labour to support them for the great strides they have taken for GBLT rights. In the teeth of Tory opposition, you fought for us. Sure, it wasn’t perfect and I’m not happy with all that has been done and hasn’t been done - but the record is impressive and even though I have criticisms, I also have a lot of praise.

I also like you as a Prime Minister. You’re not charismatic - which I like. Unlike Blair you don’t rely on pretty speeches and dazzling smiles to win you past awkward times. You’re in many ways simple, stolid and practical. You’re the kind of man I like to see in the Prime Minister’s spot. I also have a lot of pity for you, inheriting Blair’s legacy.

In terms of the three parties currently in the offing, Labour is by far and away the best. Nick Clegg has lead the Lib Dems further and further into obscurity. The Conservatives continue to be homophobic arseholes and further compound it by being generally unpleasant on all fronts - and anything bad that Labour does, well, they did first and they did worst.

So, I really really want to vote for you.

But I can’t.

I will not support the ever expanding surveillance culture - from ID cards to CCTV cameras absolutely everywhere - and above all the damn DNA database. It’s the biggest in the world - because EVERYONE arrested - even the innocent, even those who never come close to court - have their DNA placed in it. Police are ARRESTING people just to add their profile to this monstrosity.

But even more - I cannot tolerate this.

I will not ever accept torture. Not now, not ever. You could end world hunger, bring world peace, lead us all into a utopian state of rather tedious bliss and I STILL could not support you if you use torture.

We can talk about how torture harms us. About how useless it is. About how it’s hurting our intelligence and justice efforts

But we don’t need to. We shouldn’t even be having that debate. We shouldn’t even begin to discuss it. It’s WRONG. Pure and simple. It’s evil. End of. Nothing justifies it. It doesn’t matter if it works or not. It doesn’t matter if it’s effective or not. It doesn’t matter if it helps us or hurts us. It doesn’t matter if the intelligence community relies on it or it destroys all the work they do. It doesn’t matter.

Because it is evil. It is one of the worst evils we can possibly commit. That alone is reason enough to unreservedly condemn any and all torture.

I cannot, will not, support this.

So, Mr. Brown, with deep and heartfelt regret, I cannot vote for you. There is some stink that cannot be ignored. There are times when you cannot simply hold your nose and tick the box. There are times when the lesser of 2 evils is just too damn evil to tolerate.

The obvious good news of gay civil unions coming to Austria. It’s not marriage by any stretch and it is still limited - and I’m firmly opposed to settling or stopping on civil unions - but it’s a step forwards. And every step forwards is a cause for celebration


In the UK School children will learn about transphobic bullying, gender equality and gay relationships. For the future to be one of respect, the next generation has to be taught it

Australia's first civil union is performed. Pray it lasts since the law looks likely to be overturned :(


Another less obvious piece of news is the Dragon Age: Origins computer game.

Here is a (possibly NSFW) trailer of the gay man/elf action in the game.

Now I know you’re probably looking at me think I’m really dredging the barrel here but, really, I think this is quite a main thing. This is a mainstream game - it’s not marketed at gay people. It’s for all. And yes, other games have played with gay characters to a degree before - but to this eye catching extent?

It’s a sign of normalisation. It’s a sign of mainstream acceptance. Well, it’s a sign that the computer game designers believes they’ll pick up more pro-gay people (or neutral gay people) then they’ll lose in frothing anti-gay people.

Now someone let the right wingers know, I fancy laughing at some outraged flailing.

rape and murder of openly gay teen in Baltimore

Trans woman connected to political scandal murdered in Italy

FBI says hate crimes
- and anti-gay hate crimes (and fail on them for not listing transphobic hate crimes) are rising. Same as in London. The violence continues and worsens

Closer to home: gay teenager hurt in homophobic attack in Liverpool.


On the better news Gordon Brown marks transgender day of remembrance it is good to see the powers that be playing attention - noticing and at least making a gesture of awareness

...But if there WAS Stephen Fry would so get my vote to be it's godfather

Sir Ian Mckellan recently said "I increasingly see organized religion as actually my enemy. They treat me as their enemy," said the British actor, who came out 20 years ago. "Not all Christians, of course. Not all Jews, not all Muslims. But the leaders. . . . Why should I take the judgment of a declared celibate about my sexual needs? He's basing his judgment on laws that would fit life in the Bronze Age. So if I'm lost to God, organized religion is to blame."

And, increasingly, I find myself agreeing with him. I become more and more afraid of and angry towards organised religion. Naturally not all members of organised religions are ignorant homophobes - not even close. Some are passionately in favour of gay rights.

But organised religion is probably THE biggest force for homophobia today. It is the loudest cheerleader for hate, the most passionate opponent of our rights and equality and the must virulent attacking force against us. Increasingly, when I see prominent displays of religious faith I shrink back - because it tells me this is a place and an organisation that hates me and would strip me of everything I have if it could. I fear it as one of the most virulent sources of hate against me and my life.

Catholic church Gay Unions threaten fabric of society Apparently we’ll harm children, spouses, education, the common good and the intrinsic dignity of the human person. Oh and while our unions are a threat to society cohabiting without marrying is inherently sinful. SO basically the Catholics to gays: fuck you.

Catholic church had to conclude that, no, the sex abuse scandal was NOT the fault of gay people They tried so hard to Blame us for their harbouring, protecting and hiding paedophiles and their abuses I’d demand an apology - but if we start asking the Catholic church to apologise for it’s venomous hate we’d have no time for anything else

And let’s not forget that the Catholic church wants us to keep the hell out of the Vatican, and is willing to screw the poor and toss aside all that ‘Christian charity‘ in favour of attacking gay people.

But it is nice to see Christian denominations that spend so much time spitting at each other coming together in their mutual prejudice. Touching, ain’t it? Of course one signatory there is Rev. Peter J. Akinola Primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, Bishop of Abuja. Who wants to throw gay people in prison

Then we have Bishops blaming the break up of straight families on homosexuals. Yeah, right.

Religious pro-hate group that set out to deliberately break the hate crime law was a disaster - and actually included someone from a hate group. Someone who travelled to Uganda to encourage their little “let’s kill the homos” law.

Which is, of course, a virulent anti-gay law that has been met with, at best, Anglican indifference and Anglican and Evangelical support. Further supported by the Orthodox, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist and Muslim religions in Uganda as well as American Evangelical leaders promoting and supporting homophobia in Uganda and elsewhere


And these are just SOME of the link from just the last month or so.


Really, I think Sir Ian Mckellan has hit the nail on the head. In fact, he may have been far too moderate and forgiving.

I’ve never been in favour of civil unions/domestic partnerships/relationship-that-is-like-marriage-but-isn’t-because-the-religious-types-freak for gay people and then ‘marriage’ for heterosexuals. I don’t agree with them because separate but equal NEVER is. I don’t agree with them because having 2 different names for the same damn thing makes it EASY to discriminate. I don’t agree with them because it’s OFFICIAL recognition that gay people don’t deserve ‘marriage.’

All this is pretty well known.

But there’s a much better idea. The idea that ALL legal unions should be civil unions. Gay, straight, gender neutral and any future arrangements we make . And marriage become the pure religious ceremony - similar to, say, Mass or Confirmation.

And I agree - firmly and passionately. Let us divorce the legal from the baggage the churches keep throwing at it. And if this were a movement 50 years ago or 50 years (or however long it takes to achieve marriage equality) from now, I would completely agree and fight alongside.

But not now.

Because now it would be impossible to divorce it from the marriage equality debate. If it happened now it WOULDN’T be about separating legal and religious marriages - it would be about keeping the gays away from marriage. Because that’s how it would reach various legislatures and that’s how it would be sold and even if it wasn’t said overtly, it would be the tacit understanding. Because that is how civil union has been used so far - a way to keep the nasty gayness out of marriage.

So I don’t think it would be possible to separate them both now outside of that context.

If we tried now we would be admitting that the church has the power to define what is and is not marriage.

We would be admitting that they are RIGHT to exclude homosexuals, that their discrimination is acceptable - and I don’t care what any book says, they are most certainly not right and it is not acceptable. Apart from anything else, most churches seem to be positively blase about people married in other faiths or married after divorce or any other marriages that strictly speaking they should consider naughty - but they’re not trying to force the law to pander to those dogmas. We would be admitting that their prejudice is a legitimate concern - and what enrages me beyond thought is that we KEEP DOING THIS. We keep giving credence to these bigots.

We would be creating a cut price marriage. And even if it DID apply to all civil unions the context of the time would ensure that most of the heterosexuals would consider themselves ‘married’ while ‘civil unions’ are used to point out that gays can’t/shouldn’t get married (which, ironically ignores the fact that I am married religiously). It would be another note in the chorus of “gay people are inferior” song that is constantly being broadcast. And it is to the backing of that song that rights are denied and bodies are devalued.



It’s a great idea. And one I would support and fight for. But here and now I don’t think it could work. Because it would be seen as part of the marriage equality battle - and a way of protecting marriage from gay people, not a way to protect the law from religion.

The Roman Catholic Church has condemned the Twilight Series of books

For once I thought I'd finally found common ground with the Catholic church! Yes, such writing should be declared an offence to all mankind!

But no. Apparently it is condemned for "deviant moral values." Wait... aren't these the "mate for life, no sex-before marriage" vampires?

It's like they're TRYING to become less relevent in the modern world!

But there has been a terrible side effect from this.

*urge to read Twilight rising* Gods protect me...




I'm also kind of waiting for Anne Rice to fly out to the Vatican and start screaming "where's MY condemnation, arsehole?!"

This piece originally appeared at Womanist Musings where Renee has very generously allowed my random musings to appear on her excellent blog

Specifically, why marriage rights are important to homosexuals. I’ve already spoken many many many times about all the essential, non-imitatable rights and protections are inherent in marriage. I’ve also touched on how denying ANY right, no matter how insignificant, sends a dangerous message from the government that that group is worthy of discrimination (though I’m going to cover that more) but those are other points.

Now I’m going to ramble about the assumptions of a relationship most heterosexuals enjoy EVEN WHEN THEY’RE NOT MARRIED. I’m doing this because I’ve seen a few heterosexuals around the edge of the marriage debate basically saying “well, why do you want it? Why is it important?“

Because I think, to a degree, there are some factors to this that heterosexuals miss simply because we’re all inclined to take for granted the advantages of privilege and we all just assume the power of rights when we have them for so long.

The fact is our societies are prejudiced and they have both privileged and normalised the idea of a heterosexual 2 partner relationship - to such a degree that anything outside of this is going to face opposition AND NOT GAIN THE ADVANTAGES OF ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS RELATIONSHIPS BENEFIT FROM.

And the latter is a point to emphasise (among many many other points). We can spend some depressing hours googling our way through horror stories about how denial of gay rights has caused real pain. Whether it’s the lesbian who had to wait with her children unable to see her partner of many many years even though she was dying in the hospital, or the gay man who lost his house when his long term partner died and they had crippling inheritance tax or the partner of a gay soldier who had to learn about his boyfriend’s death when the media turned up to INTERVIEW HIM ABOUT IT (I think that’s as much to do with DADT as anything - but seriously, that’s madness) to the INNUMERABLE cases where wills, power of attorneys et al have been challenged (successfully!) when homosexuals have desperately taken what limited steps we could to ensure basic rights that heterosexuals take for granted.

Do you know what the key linking factor between all these beyond how they would all have been solved if the couples could marry? The factor is that if all of the couples were heterosexual they would not have happened - EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT MARRIED.

If it was a woman wanting to see her long term male partner dying in the hospital the hospital staff wouldn’t have blinked. Challenging the will of a man who left all his property to a woman he had spent the last decade living with would be considered utterly insane. No-one has trouble thinking of someone fulfilling a parental role of children they have raised for 5, 10 or 20 years even if they aren’t married to either biological parent and haven’t adopted the kids - so long as they are heterosexual. Most employers won’t blink if you ask for time off because your heterosexual partner has had a bereavement, life tragedy or is hurt and needs someone to help look after them. Even little things - I cannot count the number of cards (and even invites) I’ve received from people who KNOW all about Beloved and have for years that don’t include his name. And I may have to go on an axe-murdering rampage through my local bank if they don’t give us a joint bank account soon.

To me, ultimately, marriage is about declaring to the world that you are an official couple (actually, I think TRADITIONAL marriage is about treating women as transferable property from father to her new owner, the husband, but that’s another matter and certainly a legitimate reason to have a problem with marriage) and that you should be treated accordingly. Many marriage laws and rights cover that - from treating 2 people as separate entities to 2 people acting, at least occasionally, as one unit. The reason why this isn’t always seen as necessary for heterosexual couples is because society will treat you like that ANYWAY (at least usually).

We don‘t get that assumption. It’s the legacy of societal prejudice and the blinkered view that privilege can give even the most well meaning of us. Even when we ARE married, it can be still very hard to get people and the powers that be to treat us as such. Without that legal recognition it can be like getting blood out of a stone.

And that is why marriage rights are important. It’s an official recognition not just that our individual relationships exist but a movement for society to realise that YES same-sex couples exist, YES these are reasonable relationships and should be treated as such and YES the assumptions that are applied so casually to heterosexuals should apply here too. Even for those of us that do not get married - it is a step towards having those assumptions, those so-helpful societal assumptions, apply to us as well.

A friend of mine recently asked my opinion of m/m fiction in general. I tried to answer then and there but found myself rambling around because it is complicated muchly - and within it are many ifs maybes and buts. So, time to make an LJ post to see if I can sort out my own thoughts and see if the wonderful people who read this can help find order in the ramble.

First of all - the definition. M/m fiction as I see it, is literature centring around a male/male relationship. It is also primarily written by straight women.

And I know some gay men loathe it with a fiery passion. And I don’t blame them - because most of it is bloody awful.

No, really. It’s full of gross (and often insulting) stereotypes, focused entirely on the sexing, full of tired and unrealistic tropes.

Now the reason I haven’t had the same averse reaction to the genre is the FIRST m/m I read was actually very good. I have read good m/m fiction since then - but the very first m/m fiction I came across in the net was written by 2 women whose stories I still follow and enjoy immensely (I had thought to name them here but have decided against doing so. If I invite controversy with my musings I‘d rather not spill it into their spaces). These were good stories with actual developed characters, great plot lines and in general were good reads.

Since then I have read good m/m. But the majority I’ve read doesn’t come close - in fact it goes a long damn way from coming close. In fact, let’s be frank, most of it is porn. The m/m characters have as much relation with actual gay men as the nigh obligatory “lesbian” sex scene in porn aimed at heterosexual men. And, naturally, that has strong implications of appropriation, exploitation and voyeurism to say the least and potential consequences for young gays looking for something about them come across a stereotypical, angst filled, sex obsessed one-hand-reading piece of m/m fiction.

In short, I do not like the majority of m/m fiction because it doesn’t have gay men in it - it has blow up dolls painted with rainbows.

This is further exacerbated by what I’ve seen of the m/m community - though I admit my perceptions are heavily coloured from the Lambda fail (Details: here, here, here, here and here.) I have found it to be extremely straight-centric, straight privileged, very cavalier with gay people, characters and issues and with a very strong sense of entitlement (displayed grossly by the Lambda award brouhaha). We have some straight authors pretending to be gay to sell books - and arguing that that is ok and even straight authors assuming they are allied to (you don’t get to claim ally status) LGBT people just because they write about gay sex. I have seen them show up in gay spaces, gay forums, pride parades, gay events and actually acting like authorities or members because of what they write.

In short, I have been neither impressed nor amused. In fact, I don’t consider the m/m genre to be a safe space for gay men.

BUT, I am unwilling to throw away the whole category of m/m altogether. I as I said some authors of m/m write extremely good stories with gay characters. Some of them read this journal and they know they’re good (or should do :P). I also do not buy into the idea that straight writers can’t write gay characters. I think it takes time and effort and research to write gay characters in a sympathetic, realistic, non-stereotypical and non-offensive way - but I have no problem with straight people writing gay characters. I think the idea that they shouldn’t is both silly and self-defeating.

So what, I ask myself, to do? What is the way out here?

IDEALLY I would like to see a split of genres. With m/m fiction being classed as primarily books aimed at straight women that largely orientate around the *ahem* “relationship” (term used loosely). With another coined genre based on gay characters in a more full, less fetishised/voyeuristic fashion. In truth I think the latter would often fit nicely into CURRENT genres. Is there a reason why a quality Sci-Fi, Fantasy or Romance novel is suddenly labelled m/m just because it has gay characters in centre stage? Why does the fact the main characters are gay utterly change the genre? Are gay characters unfit or unqualified, somehow?

(I have to say at this point that I wouldn’t support the idea of straight authors writing books that were labelled as ‘gay fiction’. For obvious reasons).


Of course, the ‘ideal’ doesn’t happen. Mainstream publishers are not exactly falling over themselves for books with gay main characters. And publishers that do publish m/m primarily are very much a part of the genre and I doubt very much will draw any distinction at all between a book written with realistic, fully fleshed out, non-stereotypical gay characters in an absorbing and detailed plotline who do more than hump and angst and books which are intended to read one handed, written by Julian McHomo (honest), have more words spent describing the throbbing of penis than actual plot and have characters that make yaoi ‘uke’ and ‘seme’ characterisations seem a positively glowing example of homosexual relationships.


Despite the ideal being likely unattainable, I have to say I am unequivocally against the good authors who are as not impressed as I am from just putting down their pens and packing up their keyboards. And, sadly, I have seen 2 authors consider doing just that. Removing the well characterised plots from the voyeuristic, appropriation almost-porn will not make the headache-inducing stories less common, less prevalent or slow down its production nor will it balance the genre or the community. While I can understand an element of not wanting to be part of or being seen to be supporting a community whose practices you find objectionable, there also has to be a measure of practicality.


So I would say that, even if you don’t like all that happens in the genre, write. Promote where you can in the community - preferably choosing the least objectionable spaces (and they most certainly exist) - but don’t be afraid to hold your nose now and then. Choose the publisher most sensitive to your concerns - but in the end, any port in a storm. Don’t think that being a part of the genre means you can’t criticise it.

Mercenary? Maybe. But I’d rather see more good stories with gay characters out there, than the authors deciding they don’t want any part of the various problematic issues in the genre. I don’t think either their disapproving stance is damage nor the genre’s negative elements encouraged by their participation. And if they were, I think these concerns are outweighed by the benefit of having allies increasing the amount of realistic portrayals of gay men in literature.


So... I’ve rambled a whole hell of a lot here and not said an awful lot, largely because of my own ambivalence. I have to say again that I don’t think in any way that my characterisation of the m/m genre to all m/m authors. It may not even apply to most (but, if it doesn’t, then ‘most’ are very very quiet). And, again, I say that my perceptions have been coloured by the Lambda debate and similar which did not show the genre in the best possible light. I do feel though. there’s more than a little... unpleasantness there and some very strong problematic elements. I don’t know exactly where to go here (or how to end this piece) but it’s probably something I’m going to be musing about for a while.

That is, the EU has a President and a Foreign Affairs chief (at long last! Gods this has been a long time coming).

Our President is Herman Van Rompuy and Foreign Affairs Chief Baroness Catherine Ashton.

And the EU did say “who?” True, they’re not exactly household names.

I was dubious at first. Well, actually at first I was delighted that Tony Blair hasn’t got anywhere near the post - something I was dreading only a little less than the idea of Margaret Thatcher suddenly running for it (one moment, I just had a minor heart attack considering that). But on reflection I am actually very happy with the choices.

Neither is known for their extreme flash or charisma. This is good. I loathe charismatic politicians. Charismatic politicians lie and deceive. They give speeches and little substance. They promise the moon and tell you the sky is pink and drape wool heavily over your eyes while screwing things every which way. I don’t like charisma in office - it’s too easily used and too easily exploited.

Neither are divisive or giving to divisive foolishness or dramatic gestures. In the EU bloc there are 27 states - and growing. Flashy people, divisive people, people unwilling to listen will not help us and will not manage that well.

Further, they both have a reputation for, well, quiet competence. I have a lot of respect for quiet competence. Van Rompuy seems to be credited as a capable economist (and reluctant politician)

Baroness Ashton has considerable achievements in the UK (and is very pro LGBT btw). She doesn’t have a lot of relevant experience - but she does look more than competent. I’m more doubtful about her than Van Rompuy, but on the whole am happy with both choices.

All in all, it could have been a lot worse. Which is usually the best you can say about politics.

Today is the 11th Trans Day of Remembrance

It is beyond important. People are dying. People are dying to hatred and bigotry and far too often those deaths and those losses are ignored.

They deserve to be remembered.

It appears that the murderer of Jorge Steven Lopez is using that ever-tiresome defence - the gay panic defence (along with a couple of dozen other very dubious defences

Now for those of you blessed not to know what this means, let me clarify. The gay panic defence (and it’s equally vile cousin, trans-panic defence) is a defence used, primarily by heterosexual mean, to justify why they had to attack/beat/hospitalise/kill gays (and trans people).

It goes like this - a straight guy, upon realising that a gay man (or trans woman) might be sexually attracted to them (and this is complicated by that eternal assumption that straight guys are UTTERLY IRRESISTIBLE to gays) is perfectly justified in going into a berserk rage and murdering said gay person.


Unsurprisingly, I have issues with this “defence” and this whole damn mindset. Oh yes I do.

Firstly - can we bury this idea that homosexuals are salivating desperately after the straight folk? (not relevant in this case, but it needs to die already). Seriously, get over yourselves already.

Right now to the ‘defence’. I am sure everyone woman reading this has had, at some point, an unwanted sexual advance from a guy. If they’re polite the response tends to be “no thank you.” If they’re an arsehole who won’t let it drop with the kind of personality that means they have to sneak up on their own right hand to masturbate then the “no thank you” is accompanied by swearing, a slap, drink thrown in face and/or a swift kick in the yin-yangs (in roughly that order).

What they DON’T do is burn, decapitate and dismember the lizard, no matter how skeevy he may be. Because that is evil.


“But Sparky,” I hear you cry, “of course the homophobes are ridiculous and evil, everyone knows this!”

And this is true. And I don’t expect the homophobic arseholes that attack us to give a damn whether their defence is reasonable or not. No, what I care is the rest of the world treating this as even remotely a reasonable defence.

I care about it being argued and considered as a defence in court rather than just being treated as patently ridiculous.

I care about the number of straight guys who think it’d be REASONABLE to beat up a gay guy who makes eye contact, who came on to them or even who touches them (because, yeah, that’s wrong - but worth beating someone up over?)

I care about the number of people who think it’s ok to beat up a sex partner who you later find out is trans.

I care about the police who think it’s worth considering. Who have asked both myself and my friends whether we approached, came on to, solicited our attackers - as if it were relevant. I care because these same police actually asked what we were wearing.



And this is the underlying disease. Not that repellent homophobes want to kill us - we know that and there sadly will always be bigots and arseholes. No, the disease is that GBLT life is so devalued in standard cis and heteronormative society that the gay panic defence is given ANY credence at all.

Our lives are so devalued that extreme violence against us is not seen as serious as violence against cisgendered and heterosexual people. Our right to be safe is treated by such contempt by society that even the slightest “provocation” is considered as a possible reason to assault, beat and kill us.


And this is why the “gay panic defence” must die. Because this crap can’t have even a shred of legitimacy. It is one of the chorus of voices (and there are so many voices in this chorus it makes me want to scream) that tell us our lives are worth nothing made louder every time it is used and every time anyone remotely considers it having any kind of validity.


And while that chorus keeps singing, we keep dying.

It's a shame that on the heels of the good news from Argentina we get some other news to bring us down.

A 19 year old gay teenager in Puerto Rico has been burned, decapitated and dismembered

Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado died horrifically before he was even 20 years old. Gods above, how can someone be so blackened by hate as to do this to someone who is little more than a boy?


And to add insult to injury - it is reported:

"the public remarks from a police investigator for the case that 'people who lead this type of lifestyle need to be aware that this will happen'."

No. It bloody well SHOULDN'T happen. And how DARE a policeman accept this as inevitable?! Or as a consequence! We should be SAFE. And it's the job of people like THIS to protect Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado - now matter what the poor kid's "lifestyle" was (and that's who the kid WAS bigoted idiot).

I spoke, as requested, about how to create a gay-positive atmosphere to support kids and teens growing up who may be gay. This is always a big thing for me because I think that gay kids and teens are incredibly vulnerable

The next part (also requested) is naturally, what to do when someone comes out to you as gay.

Firstly I’d say go to the inestimable Plaid Adder’s site and look for her extremely good guide on a Straight person’s Guide to Gay Etiquette. It is both funny and informative

I will not repeat it here because most of what is covered there is just so universally useful. I will, however, add things from my own experience and thoughts. I also won’t talk about the “experienced outcomer” since Plaid Adder covers it AND if someone like me is coming out to you then there’s little need to protect or shelter me and we’re generally tough enough to deal with the badness out there. However, I WILL say do NOT assume someone is experienced just by their age. There are 19 year olds out there who have been out to all and sundry for years just as there are 70 year olds who are just now cracking the closet door. I would say assume your outcomer is inexperienced unless it is obvious they are not.

Preamble aside:

The overriding rule, I think is: Be positive

Don’t be fake and ridiculous. You don’t need to do the “YAY HOMO!” dance. You don’t have to call in cheerleaders. You don’t have to act like you’ve just won the lottery. BUT this is a positive thing. This is a good thing. This is time to make it abundantly clear that you are happy and wonderful.

Any doubts you have about homosexuality? Yeah NOW IS NOT THE TIME. Any concerns you have about homophobia? NOT NOW! Worried that your child will now never give you a grandchild - SHUT UP AND DEAL. NOW IS NOT THE TIME. Seriously, I can’t emphasise this enough. There can be no negative here - NOT NOW. No matter how important you think it is, or how much it matters this is NOT THE TIME. You need to be sincerely happy, supportive and positive without a single HINT of a reservation.

Is this hard? Well it’s nothing compared to what that gay person is going through coming out to you. When a gay person comes out to you (especially an inexperienced one) they are incredibly vulnerable, afraid, worried and putting their heart and mental well being in your hands because they value you enough that they need you to know. That is a huge responsibility and a massive complement. It is an immense gesture of trust and friendship. Treat it with the respect and honour it deserves.

REMEMBER: When a gay person is coming out, especially if they’re only just coming out, calm, logical, coldly objective thought is NOT HAPPENING. They are likely thinking of the 101 horrible things that can go wrong here. No matter how obviously pro-gay you think you are, the poor gay person coming out is going to be horribly thinking of the worst. And it’s not always unjustified - the first person I came out to was my best friend - we grew up together, I never imagined he’d be hostile. And he responded by planting his fist on my jaw. I repeat - that outcomer is worried and half expecting a hostile, negative reaction. Don’t feed that, don’t imply even slightly that being gay is a bad thing. Don’t make them think you’re smiling to be polite while internally you are screaming “save me Jesus from the evil homo!”

That’s the main point, I think - but there are some important don’ts growing from that.

DON’T:
Talk about homophobia. Positive, remember? Even if you want to shout out that you’ll be there with them defending them against all and sundry. This is not the time to remind the outcomer that there are no small number of people who want them dead. ESPECIALLY if you’re going to say something like “I wish you weren’t gay, you’re going to be harrassed by arseholes” because you are suggesting being gay is a BAD THING (not rational thinking mode, remember?) By all means talk about homophobia LATER and make it clear you’ve got their back - but not now.

Be dismissive. Sure it may seem great to take the pressure off by saying “It doesn’t matter” it does matter very much to gay people. Don’t deflate one of the biggest moments of their lives (if anything you’re showing how very much you do not get it). Do not try to change the subject or move on quickly. Sure, you may think you’re normalising the experience and acting like being gay is normal and mundane - but what it sounds like is you’re trying to AVOID the subject.

Ask personal questions. Questions are good. Asking about their sex life etc isn’t. Unless you have that kind of very close relationship, the chances are if they’re only just getting round to telling people they’re gay, they’re not ready to discuss the nitty gritty of their romantic, emotional and sexual lives. Sure, do it later - enjoy some eye candy together if possible :). But not now. Now will just make a hard, awkward moment into a hard, awkward and embarrassing moment.

Ask “who knows/who can I tell.” The first isn’t your business and can look like pressure to tell certain people. The second answer is “no-one.” No. Really. They get to choose who knows and who doesn’t and they get to do the coming out. Not you. You do not out someone. Ever (I realise there is some political debate about outing closeted homophobic politicians which is another issue. Regardless - if you’re STRAIGHT then I don’t think even that possible opt out applies). This is a part of their life that they need to control.

Say you already know. Even if you do. Plaid Adder says this very well, but like the above, the gay person needs to feel in control over this. Don’t act ridiculously shocked, especially if you aren’t - but they need at least the illusion that this is under their control. Considering the hate and the violence out there, that’s not exactly surprising.

Tell them you’ll keep their secret. Ooooh, that surprised you didn’t it? :) This is complicated - but if someone says “I’m gay” and your response is “I won’t tell anyone” then you’re making it pretty obvious that you think they should keep is hidden and you regard it as having being let in to some big dark secret. That’s not positive! That’s not affirming! Positive positive positive guys! Sure, if they ask you reassure them, even make it clear you won’t tell anyone without their consent - but it’s not a big shameful secret or an inconvenient skeleton to push into the closet

Bring up a stereotype. Not even if you think it’s funny. If your response to the words “I’m a lesbian” is “hey you can help me put up shelves then!” or to “I’m gay” is “great, I need someone to go shopping with!” then please stop and rethink. Stereotypes are damaging. Even if you think that you’re diffusing the situation and using humour to make it clear you're fine - trying to force your friend into a narrow stereotyped box doesn’t help. You are telling them they have to act a certain way in order to be gay (my previous point about ‘doing it wrong‘ applies). You are telling them you expect them to change now you know they’re gay. You are telling them your relationship will change and you will treat them differently now you know they’re gay. Don’t - they’re the same person they always have been. You just know more about them now




It’s not about you. REALLY not
Some people need reminding about this so much it hurts. Some people are so stuck in their own lives that they can even make a friend coming out all about them. So let’s address this for the sake of the poor GBLTs out there who need one of the biggest and hardest moments of their lives to be about them:

“But I believe homosexuality is wrong! My religion/religious leader/politician/invisible pink unicorn says so!”
First of all - grow up and do some thinking and stop absorbing the dogma of hate - but that‘s another post.
Secondly - your friend needs you. Your friend is so fragile, so vulnerable right now - what you do now can leaves scars on them that can last for years, if not the rest of their lives. If, later, when they‘re stronger and more secure, you feel the need to distance yourself from them or even give them extremely unwanted and unhelpful lectures then that’s your business - they’re probably better off without you, to be honest. BUT, if you have even the slightest shred of humanity in you then you will NOT do this when an inexperienced, fragile gay person is coming out to you. Seriously, don’t, because that is evil.

Why did they keep this secret from me? Don‘t they love me/trust me/do they think I‘m a bigot?
Unless you are or have been a closeted gay person you do not even begin to understand what it’s like. You do not understand the fear, the pain, the agony of self-realisation. Believe me when I say they had damn good reason. Do not make this beautiful act of trust about your hurt fee-fees.

But anal sex is yucky!
Are they bending you over against a wall and reaching for the lube? No? Then why the hell is your opinion on anal sex - or any perceived “gay” sex (and, really, you need to widen your horizons a little) even remotely relevant here?!

For parents: But I want grandchildren!
Firstly, being gay doesn’t mean childless. Secondly are you willing to crush your child’s emotional well being and leave mental scars that will take years to fade is ever because you want a baby to dandle on your knee? You’re a parent - if your child is coming out to you then this is most certainly a time to show that UNCONDITIONAL and UNRESERVED love that a parent is supposed to show a child because you, more than anyone else in the whole world, have the power to rip out that kid’s heart. Don’t. Please. Don’t.

For Parents: “It’s because I didn’t breast feed/was working too much/let her play with action man!”
Firstly: No-one is 100% sure what causes being gay, but there are more studies pointing to homosexuality being inherent than there are about left or right handedness.
Secondly: It doesn’t matter WHY your child is gay - you child is gay. Now. And that’s not going to change.
Thirdly: If you’re looking for something to blame, you’re implying being gay is a bad thing. Don’t do that to them. You have the potential to do more damage to them than anyone else in the world. Don’t.



I can’t think of anything else right now. But I know a lot of GBLT people read my journal - anything else to add? :)


ETA: linkies fixed

A judge in Argentina granted a homosexual couple permission to marry

It is beautiful and extremely uplifting to see these victories won. More and more around the world we are being seen and treated as people

Every nation that fails to grant homosexuals every human right and privilege that heterosexuals enjoy is a nation that denies our humanity. It is a nation that considers us less, a nation that sends the message loud and clear world wide that we are less - less worthy, less respected, less equal and less than people.

Which means every nation that removes this bigotry is a victory for us all - tht message is countered. We are equal. We have rights. We are due respect - and everyone who treats us other than that, big or small, is deeply wrong



*looks to Slovenia with hope*

See? Prolific

For the record I'm not sure what happened to Kyernath and I'm not sure I like it. The alien deformed and monstrous creature is what I envisaged - not this. I'm not sure I like what it has become. I'm also pretty certain it's not only been done before, but it's been done so often to the point of being tiresome.

But, I also know I don't care because it is now WRITTEN and I can now IGNORE it. And yes, I know this is why i could never be a professional writer


( Read more... )

I have been almost prolific last night in an attempt to actually become sleepy enough to sleep. Of course, this was rather foiled by how frustrating this was. I have written and rewritten it and in the end just SPLURGED it on the page in quite an unsanitary fashion. I need to proof read it, edit it, the tone is wrong and the pacing is shot all to hell. The verbiage is alsmot Dickensian in its tediousness.

But it is now written and it can stop giving me a migraine




( Read more... )

Remember yesterday when I expressed how not impressed I was at the Sun for jumping on Gordon Brown for misspelling a fallen soldier's name in his condolence letter?

Guess who misspelled said name in their online coverage?

Oh yes they did.

So let me get this straight - they attack an extremely poor sighted man for making a spelling mistake in a hand written letter.

Then they make the SAME mistake in a typed, edited, proof-read article after dealing with the woman repeatedly in an article THAT WAS ENTIRELY ABOUT SAID SPELLING MISTAKE.

You couldn't make it up. Really, you couldn't

Beloved has mangoes.

He likes mangoes (never really seen the attraction myself. I mean their nice and all, but if it was a choice between a mango and 90% of other fruit, I‘ll pass on the mango. It‘s like being mad keen on apples.) and has managed to get fresh mangoes (in November? Well, I suppose - can’t say I know when mangoes grow). This should be a simple and easy thing.

Of course, nothing is ever easy round here.

We knew there was a problem when the knife rebounded. I suggested that maybe, just maybe, the mango may, possibly be SLIGHTLY under ripe and perhaps, JUST PERHAPS, letting it ripen a little may be ideal.

Beloved scoffed mightily at my most unreasonable suggestion and found a SHARPER knife. This snapped. I quickly decided to put 999 on speed dial.

He found a bigger knife... this bounced. I dialled the first 2 9s to be ready as soon as possible

Then things escalated. There were knives all over the kitchen, knives with every kind of blade imaginable lying discarded across the counter. (3 ambulances, a blood bank and a ranting old man screaming from Revelations were already prepared and on standby at this point)

(It should be noted at this point that there was a brief time out while Beloved, obviously becoming quite unreasonable with his frustration, quite unfairly pointed out that losing/breaking ONE knife from a knife block or set shouldn’t really mean that we buy an entire new set or block. I have decided that the Infernal Mango has damaged his brain otherwise he clearly wouldn’t say such silly things. Of course you need a new block - or it wouldn’t have been a SET. This Is Important. Right?)

At some point in the operations Beloved found a large cleaver ... Of course we also both found the rum. It was very nice rum. We may have mixed it with the miscellaneous clear stuff that should have been lemonade but clearly wasn‘t. It MAY have been sambuca. I think it was - but neither of us are actually sure what sambuca IS (in retrospect, it‘s probably not a good idea to drink said unidentified liquid if there is this much uncertainty concerning it. Ah the benefits of sober hindsight).

Of course rum and sharp things shouldn’t go together - but then, alcohol and common sense are rarely companions anyway. (Like common sense has any place in our home). So instead of more *ahem* conventional fruit peeling we had:

Beloved: Chi THUNK del THUNK git- THUNK -a- THUNK -no i gi- THUNK -orni THUNK abel- THUNK -la?

The full chorus. Damn that mango was tough... Why do we use kevlar in bullet proof vests? Why don’t strap a dozen mangos to them? Or would the calypso look not work for the armed forces?

(I’m pretty certain he only did this to prove that both his Italian and his singing voice are better than mine, by the way. Yes yes he did. I shall have to plot revenge.)

Then came the electric carving knife. BUZZZZZZZZZZZ! I believe that at this point several of the standby EMTs fainted

So we have mango. So does the walls and the floor. The cat. The circling emergency services. The neighbours. A large proportion of the town.

It was at this point that Beloved conceded that maybe, just maybe, I could be right about the Mangos. And they may, just MAY, be a tad under ripe. Personally I’m contacting the military, these things could be used to break open tanks!

It’s a Murdoch backed rag that wouldn’t know real news or real reporting if it hit them in the face. It’s marginally better than the Daily Fail in that it manages to be less rabid AND that the Daily Frail still preserves the pretence that it’s a newspaper. The Sun seems to have given up pretending that its tabloid mess is anything approaching a new source.

Gordon Brown sent a hand written letter of condolence to Mrs Jacqui Janes about the death of her son, Guardsman Jamie Janes in Afghanistan. Frankly that is a mark of sensitivity that many seem to have forgotten - how many politicians send our hand written letters of condolence to the families of their dead servicemen?

In this letter, he made spelling errors. Mrs. Janes was understandably upset though I understand she has accepted Gordon Brown’s apology. I have every sympathy for her, though her taping Gordon Brown’s telephoned apology to sell to the Sun sits very uneasily with me. Very uneasily indeed.

The Sun piled on. Screamed about how insensitive he was, how cruel and heartless and thoriyghly exploiting this poor woman’s grief to the very limit of possibility. They said his ‘untidy’ and ‘badly spelt’ letter shows his disrespect for the armed forces

Right. Now can we step back here and THINK for 5 damn seconds?!

Gordon Brown is blind in one eye. He is has extremely poor vision in the other. He writes with a hugely thick marker pen because it’s the only way he can read his own writing (and despite this he still personally wrote a letter of condolence - that is not disrespectful. A near blind man is taking the time and effort to send personal hand-written letters to the bereaved). He wrote these letters privately. Not public, not in front of the press. Not for PR or votes.

I don’t like Gordon Brown. I am not a fan of his or the Labour Party. But dog-piling a NEAR BLIND MAN for a SPELLING MISTAKE?! Whining about his HANDWRITING? Ye gods that’s low.