Tag: gay

Gay mojo

I Will Survive
I Will Survive (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sorry for the lack of posts, but as I managed to post from my phone the other day I have no broadband at home until March 6th at the earliest. Which sucks. Hugely.

Anyway, I had a revelation the other day. One of those things that just suddenly comes to you. Pieces of a puzzle that I didn’t know existed appeared, fit together and *pow* a solution presented itself.

Gay people didn’t exist before the early 1970’s.

No, really, I have proof. Of a sort. OK, so it’s more of a theory but there’s a solid piece of evidence to back it up.

Back-story: for some reason I’ve found myself in two gay bar/clubs in the last couple of weeks. To the best of my knowledge I’ve never been in one before in my life, but having said that – in the case of the second – I didn’t know I was in a gay bar until a friend pointed it out to me. So I might have been in one before and been equally oblivious. The fact that the more recent one is, I believe, multiple award winning for its gayness and has posters outside saying this didn’t register at all before I walked in.

I also failed to notice – or at least attach any significance to – the plastic chandeliers. Or the “friendly” bar staff. Or the male couples.

Or the late 70’s / early 80’s soundtrack.

And it is on the latter that I will focus. You see, apparently all gay men like the classics of that era. Erasure, Ultravox, Carly Simon, Gloria Gaynor, ABBA… I sit in a bar like that and the only thing I think is “retro… what great songs these are from my childhood”. When in reality I’m – apparently – listening to gay anthem after gay anthem.

Let’s bring these facts together. I like them because they’re from a time when I was growing up and was exposed to them when they were first released. Gay men like these tracks because they’re famed in the gay world as gay anthems (sorry for the overuse of “gay” here), but why these songs? Why not older ones?

The answer? Gay people didn’t exist until around the same time as I was born. The progenitors of the gay movement are about the same age as me. Nobody particularly gay was born before the early 1970’s.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Mind you, I don’t find two men kissing to be particularly weird so what the hell do I know?

Anti-gay music poll results and new poll

Roll up, roll up. Your results are in. With more of a spread than in the previous poll, it seems that most of you side with me in saying that this stuff should be left on the shelves, but a slightly larger proportion of you think that at least some action should be taken about it.

poll-gaymusic
Results of Anti-Gay Music poll

And now for a new poll. In the news recently has been home security – that’s security of the household rather than some kind of fascist policy that removes all of your citizens’ human rights. That one’s homeland security. Just ask George “The Chimp” Bush about his PATRIOT act.

Anyway, in the UK it’s generally been the accepted rule that if someone tries to break into your house and you do anything other than hand them old aunt Maud’s jewellery collection, your stash of DVDs and the stereo then you’ll end up in court. Hell, if they strain their back hoiking your widescreen TV into the back of the van they nicked for the job, you can expect to find youseld on charges of neglect or assault.

The poor dears.

Anyway, after recent court cases someone has decided that wouldn’t it be a good idea if we were actually allowed to protect our homes, family and property without worrying about the consequences of giving some thieving chav a broken jaw. The Tories started it, the mostsenior police officer in the ocuntry voiced his support and then Labour spotted the bandwagon about to leave town without them on it so jumped aboard.

What’s reported so far is a moderately simple change: to alter the fact that you can defend yourself “with reasonable force” to the fact that you can do what you want to the toerags as long as there is no evidence of “gratuitous violence”. I take this to read “as long as they don’t find the corpse” but I may be twisting the words in my favour somewhat.

Anyway, the poll – what would you decide is gratuitous? Where should the limit be? Or do you feel we should leave it on the basis that if scum know they’re more likely to get a fight then they’re more likely to come armed?

On the same subject I was watching Crime Scene Academy from last night and heard a great story set in America. Two scum broke into a guy’s house and held him at gunpoint demanding “the money”. They knew he had a safe in the house and made him lead them to it. They stepped aside and demanded he open it, which he did. They demanded he reach in and give them what was in there.

He did. It was a gun safe and contained, among other things, a 50mm semi-auto which was loaded and ready to use. A swift turn and a spray of bullets saw the two guys run off, one already mortally wounded with a nicked artery in his neck. The homeowner chased them through the house and put two bullets in the chest of the other. Both died.

Police verdict? Completely innocent. All the evidence backed his story up and they adjudged him to be protecting his property and himself. For once I am in awe of – get this – Americans with sense. Will wonders never cease?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]