THEGAYUK

Author: Peter Richard

  • Five ways not to be racist on gay dating apps

    No Blacks. No Asians. No Queens.

    I bet you already know where these quotes come from. I am also pretty sure you’ve seen them. Yes, these are common quotes from Grindr profiles. What’s worse is that I imagine you can think of more Grindr, Gaydar, GayRomeo profiles with further offensive and racist remarks on them.

    But surely we can discriminate on who we fancy? Of course.

    We must have the right to decide what shape, size and colour the dick is we choose to squeeze, suck or sit on? Without a doubt.

    And if I want to say what I don’t like then it saves time doesn’t it? Perhaps.

    So if I don’t fancy a black or white guy then I have the right to say so, don’t I? Maybe.

    But there are ways of saying things.

    So… Here are 5 things not to do on gay dating apps.

    1) Do not use racist language. We all know what they are. No one thinks you’re big or smart or edgy for using them. And being practical, not many guys invite racists round to their houses.

    2) Put what you like, what you ARE into. It’s more positive and inclusive and appealing to a wider range of people. Saying you like something, or love something is much more attractive than associating you with ‘No this’, ‘No that’ or other negative concepts.

    3) Be polite. If someone messages you that doesn’t give you butterflies in your stomach (or lower) then just say thanks but no thanks. Most people will get the hint, and if they don’t just block them. It’s easier than resorting to a racist rant.

    4) Be inclusive. Try not to see people as one dimensional. Not all ethnicities are the same. Look at your arm – it everyone with that similar shade the same as you? Do they eat the same food, socialise in the same way, believe the same as you do just because your skin matches? Of course not, so don’t apply this ignorance to other arm shades.

    5) Challenge yourself. How many of your friends are the same as you? Do they all look the same, come from similar backgrounds? Most are probably the same age. How about bringing some diversity to your life? Speak to someone new, someone with maybe a different experience, a different outlook, a different skin colour – they might be able to shed new light on life. How does your coming out experience compare to the Asian guy 200 meters away or the polish guy four roads away or the twink smiling at you at the bottom of your screen?

     

     

    A version of this article first appeared on THEGAYUK.com in July 2013

     

  • OPINION | #HateDoesNotPay: Russian’s Shortsighted Homophobia

    So Putin hates homos. We all know that – he has made it very clear and the Anti-Gay legislation plaguing Russia has been referenced across the LGBT and mainstream medias. The human rights and social welfare implications are dire but what about a colder, less humane, and perhaps purely financial interpretation?

    So, let’s ask – do we reckon Putin has thought this through? Does he understand the social and economic impact state-sponsored homophobia will have on the country? Does he hate money as much as he hates homos? I doubt it.

    The pink pound is estimated to be worth £6 billion per year in the UK, and over £350 billion of pink money was spent globally in 2012. Russia is missing out on this trade as discerning gay consumers will not be flying to Moscow or St.Petersburg, and many will also be boycotting Russian products at home. Indeed Chief Executive Officer for SPI (which owns Stolichnaya Vodka) Val Mendeleeva has publically explained that although some ingredients used to make Stoli do come from Russia, “the Russian government has no ownership interest or control over the Stoli brand that is privately owned by SPI Group.” It is interesting to see that he has made it very clear the company “fully support and endorse your [lgbt community] objectives to fight against prejudice in Russia. In the past decade, SPI has been actively advocating in favor of freedom, tolerance and openness in society, standing very passionately on the side of the LGBT community and will continue to support any effective initiative in that direction.” Clearly the boycott, even if slightly misdirected, does have an impact. Perhaps that is an angle Russia might listen to?

    And what about the labour force contributing to such businesses? How productive are people when they cannot be themselves? Various organisations have argued that 6-10% of the UK population is lesbian, gay or bisexual. Assuming that the UK is roughly representative of other European countries (and not a homo-hot-spot) then that means there could be 8.6 – 14.3 million lesbian, gay or bisexual Russians. Even a conservative medium estimate leaves over 10 million employees not giving 100% to their work, social or personal lives.

    With Russia’s economy showing signs of weakness, workers need to perform better and be happy to invest back into goods and services. With industrial output declining in early 2013 (for the first time since 2009) and foreign direct investment subdued, perhaps Russia’s unpredictability and lack of commitment to the rights of its nationals is having a cost. Further economic issues, such as inflation, increased in the second half of 2012 and is set to remain high for 2013.

    Furthermore, if you had the choice wouldn’t you leave? And who has those choices in life usually? Is it Russia’s affluent? Perhaps they will be able to escape first and take their money somewhere else. And is it a stretch too far to assume that not all Russians are homophobic? Galop, London’s LGBT community safety charity, highlights that over 1000 homophobioc hate crimes take place in London each year – does that mean everyone in the capital is partial to a bit of gay bashing? I’d hope not! And would Putin carry out the attacks we see in the news personally?

    But who will ask these questions of him? Is anyone able to pose these questions? #hatedoesnotpay @VladimirPutin

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION: To Porn Or Not To Porn

    Manstreaming – The Inevitable Mainstreaming of (Gay) Porn

    Who doesn’t have sex? Everyone has it – but maybe not every session is pretty enough to watch – does that make it better? If one’s personal style of fornication is good enough to capture on film should one be punished for it? And if someone does decide to film themselves ‘at it’ does that undermine them so much that they lose all the skills, talents, credibility they had before?

    Should they be disqualified, expelled or fired?
    To all these questions I say no – and you will too in a few years I bet! Why? Because porn is not such a big deal anymore – everyone is dabbling with a cheeky photo or two; a furtive flexing of pectorals, cheeky flashing of the bum or a full on close-up of your cock in all its glory (shot from below to make it look bigger). We’ve all had a go at some amateur pornography.

    Celebrities, like everyday human beings are also at it. The difference is we hear about it and see it. Everyone knows that One Night in Paris is more than a blog on trip advisor. Eric Dane, of Grey’s Anatomy fame, has had a go (with his girlfriend and a beauty queen no less) and of course dear old Colin Farrell. Dustin Lance Black, Oscar winning screenwriter for Milk, thrilled us with his homemade movie, brokebacking with his then-boyfriend. Everyone’s had a go and it’s turned out ok for most of them right? Ok, ignore Tulisa for now…

     

    But who really cares?

    Some people clearly still do.

     

    It emerged this week that Jeppe Hansen, the Danish ballet dancer otherwise known as Jett Black, was dismissed by his Royal Ballet school in Canada, when he was outted as a cute, toned, blonde twink who gets penetrated on the side – duh! Their excuse that he didn’t declare his sideline income is weak at best. How else is a starving artist meant to eat? Indeed Keppe/Jett argued that the school’s interpretation of art was limited and they didn’t see the artistic qualities of spreading your legs if not wearing ballet shoes. But what about the rest of us? I’d go and see a ballet dancer perform, especially if I can watch the naked encore at home! What other ballet offers that?

    What about porn which is already in the mainstream? Twitter’s Naked Sunday is fast becoming as traditional as avoiding church or slaving over a roast. TOWIE’s Kirk Norcross also engaged in a bit of homemade, manstreaming nudity and we would be none the wiser if it hadn’t been snapped and leaked – shame (and thank you). He was slightly embarrassed but questioned – who hasn’t? Once again I return to my prior point – he looked good, so we watched. If he didn’t would we have even bothered to?

    Paddy O’Brien, the irrepressible, cockney porn star, models for banglads.com, an underwear retailer – makes sense to me! Or how about the former marine who turned to gay porn and then made it into mainstream Hollywood? David Bradberry has gone from shaking Bill Clinton’s hand, to shaking a few other things and will soon be going Below Deck (seriously) on Bravo TV. Brent Corrigan cameos, Francoise Sagat in arthouse film Man at Bath, the list is a long one.

    Porn is sexy and sex sells. So what is the problem about? Everyone’s doing it – it’s mainstream. Go out and make some (safe, legal) porn – just don’t be too good at it and don’t email it to your boss.

    So what do you think? Would you ever do gay porn?

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | Out of line, online; Racism and gay dating

    No Blacks. No Asians. No Queens.

    I bet you already know where these quotes come from. I am also pretty sure you’ve seen them. Yes, these are common quotes from Grindr profiles. What’s worse is that I imagine you can think of more grindr, gaydar, gayromeo profiles with further offensive and racist remarks on them.

    But surely we can discriminate on who we fancy? Of course.

    We must have the right to decide what shape, size and colour the dick is we choose to squeeze, suck or sit on? Without a doubt.

    And if I want to say what I don’t like then it saves time doesn’t it? Perhaps.

    So if I don’t fancy a black or white guy then I have the right to say so don’t I? Maybe.

    But there are ways of saying things.

    If you in fact only like Arabic men, regardless of your own racial or ethnic identity then why not say so rather than banishing other minorities outright. Equality and Diversity principles do not dictate that you have to be tokenistic in your relationships or sexual exploits but it does support a community where everyone feels included. With the social battles fought by the LGBT community in the past sixty to six hundred years surely we can be slightly more embracing of difference.

    Not into camp. Not in fairies, sorry.

    This is another angle of exclusion on ‘social networking’ apps frequented by the predominantly gay and bisexual male. Campness is labelled as undesirable, separated from the profile holder. He isn’t into it, he doesn’t like it. If you are camp he doesn’t like you – it’s there for you to read. How does it make you feel?

    Maybe you do sprout wings and poop glitter? But that’s who you are – should you change it for the faceless, headless body? No, but it makes you feel badly about yourself and he still hasn’t found himself a date because the butch bull he is looking for actually doesn’t like guys who bully and discriminate.

    So in summary, let’s start with the basics: How not to be a racist in five easy steps.

    1) Do not use racist language. We all know what they are. No one thinks you’re big or smart or edgy for using them. And being practical, not many guys invite racists round to their houses.

    2) Put what you like, what you ARE into. It’s more positive and inclusive and appealing to a wider range of people. Saying you like something, or love something is much more attractive than associating you with ‘No this’, ‘No that’ or other negative concepts.

    3) Be polite. If someone messages you that doesn’t give you butterflies in your stomach (or lower) then just say thanks but no thanks. Most people will get the hint, and if they don’t just block them. It’s easier than resorting to a racist rant.

    4) Be inclusive. Try not to see people as one dimensional. Not all ethnicities are the same. Look at your arm – it everyone with that similar shade the same as you? Do they eat the same food, socialise in the same way, believe the same as you do just because your skin matches? Of course not, so don’t apply this ignorance to other arm shades.

    5) Challenge yourself. How many of your friends are the same as you? Do they all look the same, come from similar backgrounds? Most are probably the same age. How about bringing some diversity to your life? Speak to someone new, someone with maybe a different experience, a different outlook, a different skin colour – they might be able to shed new light on life. How does your coming out experience compare to the Asian guy 200 meters away or the polish guy four roads away, or the twink smiling at you at the bottom of your screen?

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | Now, but, then

    “It’s a funny old world…” Supposedly the words of Margaret Thatcher to her cabinet on her resignation and, well, I suppose like many, I have found my thoughts turning more reflective points in the last month.

    I’ll state here and now that I was a great admirer of the Iron Lady and, yes, I voted to keep her in back in 1987. We’ll none of us pretend that she was perfect and I’m sure someone will mention Section 28, but how many will recall that she was one of the last three surviving Tory MPs who voted to decriminalise us in the 1960s?

    I think then, perhaps rather naively, that I was rather surprised to be on the receiving end of some really nasty homophobic abuse at a point when so much has changed since that vote almost 50 years ago. We know now that sexuality is innate, not chosen, as hard wired as the colour of one’s eyes. I firmly believe that, had such scientific proof been available when our only scientist Prime Minister was in office, Section 28 would never have been passed. Yet, although knowledge has changed, attitudes haven’t and thank brings me back to the abuse I received.

    It was such a modern form. Not for me the cat-calling in the street, or sneers in the staff room (they wouldn’t dare!); it was over twitter of all places, about as public as one can be in the social media. Now I am no shrinking violet, but there are words one should never use, and that was used in the insult, as was an emoticon of a pile of poo – how erudite! His parents must have been so proud. Yes, I was somewhat shocked and felt “yucky” afterwards and it did make me wonder how it must feel, in this day and age to be confronted face-to-face. For those of you wondering, yes I did forward the tweet both to Stonewall and my local police, strangely though, it appears I would have to make a complaint over the telephone and that’s where I hit that barrier that stops so many from reporting hate crimes. I was embarrassed and too ashamed.

    I realised that I did not want the interference and the intrusion into my world. What if they decided that I was in the wrong for sending a silly message to someone? What if my job came into play – I have to be very careful… What if the police simply did not believe me or thought I was wasting their time? It was, after all said and done, no more than an insult, something I had learned to deal with every day of my secondary school life in the 1980s. But I still felt the same shame I had felt then, somehow, my 44 year old self could no more confront the modern insult than the punch, the trip, the “accidental shove” and mutterings, or the cat-calls of “Are you a gay Christian?” (The “Not The Nine O’Clock News” sketch) bellowed from a common room window. And that was IT, the nub of the problem – fear.

    Back at school, the fear was discovery, I didn’t come out until my late 30s, after a failed marriage and two children; but what was the fear now? The most peculiar part is that I do not actually know. I am always fearful of the impact upon my career, having seen a colleague be forced to fall on his sword because of online indiscretion. I think it was a fear of being judged by others. That is now the fear I must overcome.

    To my long-term shame, I did not go to the Police. I let the fear overcome me and for that I am sorry. I feel I have let-down those who have been subjected to face-to-face abuse. Were I to make a resolution, it would be not to allow my fearful, 1980s teenage self to overcome what I thought was my twenty-teens forty-something person. And to the writer of the abuse, while you may have deleted your tweet, it did go to the LAGLO, Stonewall and was reported by a friend, braver than I. Courage will overcome abuse.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OP ED | Action (Wo)Man

    Tesco has become the second major retailer to be criticised in recent months for gendering the sale of its children’s toys.

    Boots previously displayed science toys for boys and ‘domestic games’ or Tea Sets for girls. Clearly boys or men do not drink tea and girls cannot be expected to understand the science behind every day things? It is not only sexist, it is socially damaging

    Segregating toys by gender, and denying children the chance to develop their interests, damages formative education and perpetuates gendered constructs into later learning. The World Bank’s 2012 report on Gender Equality and Development argues that it is “stereotypes within the education system, norms governing gender roles in the household that constrain a woman’s choice of occupation.” Indeed, early learning impacts educational and academic choices and leads to limited talent pools for ‘atypical’ occupations.

    Children’s author Megan Peel writing in the Guardian highlights that “Boots is a science-based company that employs many female pharmacists, opticians and chemists and should know better than to discriminate in this way.” Indeed Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) suffers from low representation of women in their sector and therefore compete for the few candidates in order to attract a diverse workforce. A 2011 report by the U.S. Department of Commerce found only one in seven engineers is female and less than 20 percent of bachelor’s degrees in computer science go to women, even though female graduates hold 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees. Industry news site The Engineer suggests that women constitute just 8.7% of professional engineers in the UK – much lower than China where more than a third of engineers are women. So Tesco’s defending of their chemistry sets as ‘for boys’ and toy cookers as being ‘for girls’ is aggravating existing gender imbalances; which are clearly socially constructed.

    What also perplexes me – why is it always down to the women to challenge unconscious bias? I watched the BBC Breakfast covering this story and Suzanna Reid proudly asserted that ‘there is nothing wrong with a boy playing with dolls’ but she was met by a stifled sneer from Bill Turnbull who quickly deflected to a spokesperson from @LetToysBeToys. Even the sample of ‘everydaypeople’ spoken to on the street reflected a very gendered approach – one man said that he didn’t expect a boy to play with Barbie while a young mother (her baby boy in tow) said ‘if he wants a doll, he’ll have a doll!’ Why do men feel they have to police gender?

    This also has further implications for the LGBT communities. Men feel they are expected to reinforce the differences between them and women, with gay and bisexual men seeming to blur these boundaries; whether through alternative choice of toys, clothing or employment.

    The Gay British Crime Survey 2008 conducted by Stonewall highlights that the majority of victims of homophobic hate crime are young gay men, administered by males under the age of 25. For me gendering toys is homophobic and misogynistic, the two often linked. Every gay friend of mine at university had a My Little Pony. In fact when I had my tonsils out as a child I was rewarded with a toy of my choice – and what did I choose? Yes, a My Little Pony. Despite some initial reservations, my parents did not deny their child his wish and I feel that their support for my ‘different’ behaviour has helped my creativity and ability to seek out what I really want in life, rather than what I feel is expected or demanded of me.

    Institutional gendering of toys perpetuates negative and limiting constructions of gender. They also reinforce the binary of male or female, thus excluding those along the gender spectrum leading to the disproportionately high levels of isolation, depression and suicide amongst the transgender community. The National Centre for Transgender Equality (NCTE) estimates that between 30-50% of the transgender community has attempted suicide at least once. Although this is not immediately correlated with gender construction alone, it does highlight one barrier to be overcome by those transitioning between one gender and the other, especially when considering the young.

    The EverydaySexism.com site lists reams and reams of cases where prejudice against the gender spectrum is enacted on a daily, and often unchallenged, basis. Much of the examples are ignored or disregarded as too widespread, low-level or unchangeable. But if we all do not challenge these consistent inequalities and unfairness then they will not change. It is not ‘petty’ to demand equal pay (as it was deemed until 1975), women and men are not simply ‘acting up’ if they do not want to be spoken about as sexual objects and it is not acceptable as a mother or father to deny your daughter a science kit or your son a tea set; if they prefer an Action Man or Barbie then at least you have a child who knows and speaks their mind – isn’t that what a self-fulfilled adult is all about?

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, its management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OPINION | Ages of Ignorance

    Although the ‘yoots’ of today are feared by much of the majority culture, it is often believed that it is the older generations who hold ‘outdated’ homophobic views.

    But are the young really more liberal? Do Generations Y and Z hold more enlightened beliefs when it comes to sexual orientation and (trans)gender diversity?

    With the announcement this week that Paris Brown, Youth Crime Commissioner for Kent Police, will escape criminal prosecution I can’t help but question whether she is simply a misguided, isolated individual or worryingly representative of her demographic. Were violent, racist, homophobic and drug endorsing rants on Twitter really just “showing off”? Using homophobic language such as “fags,” the 17-year-old also tweeted that she wanted to “cut” someone.

    Despite a welcomed apology and publicly denying she is homophobic, it is her excuse which leaves me concerned.

    Brown insists she “can’t imagine that [she is] the only teenager to have done this.” Even Kent Police’s local Crime Commissioner Ann Barnes defended her, going so far as to suggest “many young people go through a phase during which they make silly, often offensive comments and show off on Facebook and Twitter.”

    Really? So we should expect and excuse this? If that is the expectation of a police commissioner then what hope do we have for other ‘average’ young people? Do we really think it is common and acceptable to make offensive and aggressive comments on social media or indeed in schools, the street – at work? Especially as she wasn’t simply teenager in their room on a computer or smartphone; she was paid to support and represent the diverse communities that Kent, and other forces, serve. She was in a position of responsibility.

    Was this behaviour just typical of the young as dismissed by her lawyers and employer? I really hope not as it means we have an even harder task on our hands. Indeed Stonewall’s annual Equality Walk taking place again in Brighton this year will need to raise even more money if Brown is your average teenager.

    The walk aims to raise awareness and funds to help tackle homophobic bullying in schools, an institution that produces many average teenagers, many just like Brown. It is truly timely and necessary work they are doing. But to reach this group is it not pertinent to represent them, much like Kent police attempted to do with Brown in the first place? How many school-aged, young people are actually designing the ways which Stonewall and teachers engage with them? To catch a monkey you need to think like one (and it’s not always slowly).

    At the Stonewall Equality Dinner last week Deputy Chief Executive for Stonewall Laura Doughty highlighted that “[h]omophobia remains a huge problem in Britain’s schools… We know we face a huge challenge in making homophobia thing of the past.”

    The event was supported by several key figures in the LGBT and wider community – but how many were from this target, younger generation? Although integral to the fight for equality there needs to be more resilience amongst the fundraising elite.

    Where is the next generation of campaigners at these events? Sir Elton John, Graham Norton, Gok Wan and Clare Balding but no sign of anyone actually part of the young communities they are also seeking to support. I should imagine that Ian McKellen doesn’t need protecting from homophobic bullying in school anymore.

    Active support from straight allies such as MPs John Bercow, Nick Herbert and Diane Abbott is not mirrored by heterosexual supporters amongst the next generation. Although I appreciate this event is a fundraiser – and perhaps prices out the younger audience – its press coverage sends a message that can appear disproportionate and unrepresentative.

    Looking forward it is important not to dismiss the young as naive and ignorant. They are the next leaders and agents of socio-political change. We cannot afford to ignore the misdemeanours of those in power but we also cannot forget who is next into those positions of responsibility and influence. So as Paris goes back to her average life who is the next Youth Commissioner? Will we have higher expectations of this one? But also, who is next on the invite to the Stonewall awards or popping up in schools to talk to people of their own age?

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • OP ED | Vice Of Reason

    Vices, innately immoral or simply unaccepted activities, can range greatly from the outright degrading to the purely inconvenient. The difference? How it impacts us personally as well as the perception of others. But when does a vice become more than just ‘naughty’ and turns into something actually detrimental and destructive?

    In collaboration with PACE, a London-based charity that promotes the health and wellbeing of LGBT people, I will be looking at common vices and the negative impact these can have (if unregulated) on us all.

    Gambling, overuse of profanity, habitual lateness or the ‘picking’ of various orifices are all common vices; so too is noisy chewing (especially tobacco or gum), staring at desirable people and over-splurging on shopping, just to name a few. So what is your vice? Smoking? Drinking? Drugs? Excessive dieting, gyming or kinky sex?

    Research highlights that there is a disproportionality of alcohol abuse amongst lesbian and bisexual women and body dysmorphia amongst gay and bisexual men. As a community, we are seen as especially prone to these and other vices. One argument is that legislation and policy can impact on LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) mental health associated with a dependency on certain activities or habits.

    One study found a higher incidence of mental health problems among LGB populations who lived in the American States whose policies discriminated based on sexual orientation (1). Despite UK policies which seek to address the inequalities which LGBT people continue to experience, on-going discrimination and prejudice is bound to have a negative impact, manifested through health implications, or a reliance on certain vices.

    Research has suggested that there seems to be a higher risk of substance use dependency associated with minority sexual orientation, but especially among homosexually experienced heterosexuals and bisexual women(2). Research using large population-based samples has indeed consistently demonstrated a higher frequency and intensity of alcohol use amongst lesbian and bisexual women in ‘western’ industrialised societies (3).

    It is important to recognise that some factors that may appear to bolster resilience, like socialising with other lesbians in gay venues, therefore enhancing a sense of belonging and integration, may also act as a risk, as it exposes individuals to the temptation to drink (4) .

    Looking at any gay magazine or scanning TheGayUK website it is clear to see that beauty and physical beauty is important, valued. Body image is widely agreed as especially pertinent to the gay male community. Muscle dysmorphia (MD) or ‘a preoccupation with a misperception that muscles in general are small despite sufficient muscularity (5) can lead to people engaging in body change behaviours, such as dieting, binging and purging, excessive exercise and the use of performance and body enhancing drugs including anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) (6) Prolonged use of AAS in particular can pose potentially serious mental and physical health risks (7). One study has found that compared to their heterosexual counterparts, gay men reported dieting more, being more fearful of becoming obese, and were more dissatisfied with their bodies generally as well as with their muscularity (8). They were also more likely to hold distorted beliefs about the importance of having an ideal physique.

    These are two examples whereby the LGB community is affected by drinking and excessive dieting. There are several reasons why LGB people may employ these – and other – vices:

    •Defiance – to overcome a sense of shame caused by homophobia (9); however, it has also been described as possibly creating vulnerability thus increasing risk of self-destructive behaviours (10).

    •Need for acceptance and connection with others – socialising and wider support for sexuality related issues is important in promoting mental health among LGB youth.

    •Personality factors – self-criticising tendencies, personal insecurity, perfectionism and obsessive compulsive disorders (11).

    •Heightened aesthetic sensitivity and over-valuation of physical appearance – individuals with Body Dysmorphia Disorder (BDD) have been reported to have a more critical eye and greater appreciation of aesthetics especially when evaluating their own appearance (12).

    •Dealing with loneliness and poor self-esteem (13).

    •A fear of rejection – excessive body image concerns are associated with fear of rejection for one’s appearance(14).

    •Challenge experiences of bullying – experiencing negative comments in childhood is also a predictor of poor self esteem in adulthood (15).

    •Shame, internalised homophobia and the need for validation (16).

    •Overcoming pressure to conform to culturally constructed ideals (17) .

    Do you know why you have your vices? Does the above resonate with you? These theories hopefully provide food for thought and highlight some reasons as to why we, as a community, are disproportionately engaged in a variety of vices, some of which can have lasting, negative effects on us mentally and physically. Although it is generally now regarded that same sex attraction is compatible with psychological good health (18) . LGB people have been found to be at higher risk of mental disorders, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self-harm when compared to heterosexual people(19).

    However, research also indicates that being LGB (or having a transgender identity) is not in itself associated with mental distress and increased rates of mental illness. Indeed it is the negative impact of transphobic, homophobic and heterosexist cultural norms which can spur the discrimination, bullying, marginalisation and stigmatisation of LGBT people, causing ‘minority stress’ (20). So, are your vices an escape? Are you trying to compensate for societal or other rejections? Are these vices simply a bit naughty or something more?
    For more information visithttp://www.pacehealth.org.uk/services
    1) Hatzenbuehler et al, 2010

    2) Cochran and Mays, 2009

    3) King et al., 2008; Rosario, 2008

    4) Gruskin, 2006

    5) Pope et al., 1997, cited in Maida and Armstrong, 2005, p.75

    6) Grieve, 2009 citing Olivardia 2001

    7) Thiblin and Petersson, 2005

    8) Kaminski et al., 2005

    9) McDermott et al., 2008

    10) Amadio, 2006

    11) Pavan et al., 2008, p.4741

    12) Lambrou et al., 2011

    13) Chaney, 2008

    14) Calogero et al., 2010

    15) Wolke and Sapouna, 2008

    16) Downs, 2005

    17) Blond, 2008; Grieve, 2007 cited by Grieve 2009

    18) King, 2004; McFarlane, 1998

    19) King et al., 2008

    20) Eisenberg and Wechsler, 2003; Meyer, 2003

  • OPINION | Infamous 5 – the Reform Section 5 campaign

    I’m curious about the genuine aims of the campaign http://reformsection5.org.uk which is seeking to remove the potential to criminalise ‘insulting words or behaviour.’

    The campaign wants to influence the Home Office to amend Section 5 of the Public Order Act but I am perplexed as to whether this group, a disparate band of crusaders, is keen to promote positive, free speech or simply want the right to insult whoever they want without consequence.

    Is Section 5 really so abused by the authorities? Does it actually limit our ability to challenge each other? Or is abolishing the rights of the public to be offended and ‘insulted’ in favour of a right to freedom of speech justified?

    The Public Order Act 1986 is an Act of Parliament which was designed to stop actions which can undermine the order and safety of society. It criminalises ‘disorderly behaviour,’ and aims to prevent the use of ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ or the use of signs and displays which are likely to cause ‘harassment, alarm or distress.’ Sections 1-4 of the Act cover several elements including riot, violent disorder, affray (fighting), fear or provocation and causing intentional alarm or distress.

    It is Section 5, with a particular focus on ‘insulting’ language and behaviour, which has curiously united several, often warring factions of British society; I struggle to remember a time where The Christian Institute, National Secular Society and indeed Peter Tatchell have agreed to such an extent.

     

    Why would any group protest against a piece of legislation which, if removed, would essentially allow their critics the right to undermine and verbally abuse them?

     

    Is it that this law truly undermines freedom of speech as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights? Not necessarily. Are the irregular and carefully selected examples used by the campaign representative of the law’s use? I doubt it. Even the website’s choices are not accurately representative of the situations cited.

     

    Let’s look at one which may impact TheGayUK readers. The campaign describes ‘an elderly street preacher [who] was convicted under Section 5 for displaying a sign which said homosexuality was immoral.’ Actually, the sixty nine-year old’s sign said ‘Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism’ which could be a call to action, a threat, an incitement.

    Equally, the campaign misrepresents the Vegelenzangs case as simply ‘a conversation with a Muslim guest about Mohammed and Islamic dress for women’ in which they actually undermined the hijab as ‘bondage.’

    In fact, of the three thousand convictions between 2001-2003 under Section 5, the site can only name a few where the law was seen to be stretched or maybe misinterpreted. Does that mean the law should be abandoned or elements dropped?

    Perhaps it should be a case of advising and guiding the public, police and courts on how the law should be used. The Police have been accused of misusing the powers in Section 14, notably during the 2009 G-20 protests in London where journalists were forced to leave the protests – but that still exists!

    Another argument of the campaign is that ‘insults’ are not important. Leader of the UKIP Party in the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage even feels that ‘people must be free to insult and be insulted’ – glad I don’t know/socialise with/work for him! Several other endorsers of the campaign rightly highlight that higher levels of harassment and discrimination are criminalised elsewhere by the Act or the New Equality Act 2010.

    Further Sections of the Public Order Act also require any protests to have provided written notice to the police who can still impose conditions or indeed prohibit a procession if it will cause ‘serious disruption to the life of the community.’

    Section 16 Part 3A of the Act specifically protects the public from words, signs and actions which may incite harassment based on race, religion and sexual orientation.

    So maybe we are all still protected without Section 5 but it has to be of this level.

    Do you want to be protected from a protest outside your house? Of course. But what if your neighbour decides to greet you with an insult each morning and won’t stop if you ask them to? Should we all be able to withstand a few insults? Sure. But how many insults are too many? Look at the disproportionate rate of LGBT teen suicide – is that one way of telling us that insults hurt?

    But does it have to get to that level before the authorities notice or can help?

    Let’s get down to what matters here. What is this all about? Do we really care – and will it impact me? I think it will and I’ll tell you how. I am concerned that the broader legislations above do not cover the more creative abusers. If a fellow bus, train or tube user decides that you might like to be reminded that you are in fact ‘gay’ does that mean they should be arrested? They weren’t inciting hatred, just stating the obvious perhaps? Or what if ‘poof’ is their choice today but not accompanied by any further undermining or personal perspective on whether that is a good or bad thing – can we complain?

    Could the police do anything?

    A street preacher can point at you menacingly as you hold your partner’s hand. He can’t be arrested for that. But what if that was the first time you did it and it put you off, or it was detrimental to your relationship, your confidence. Or what if someone else sees this and suppresses their feelings, or worse it reinforces or activates any latent homophobia?

    What if you observed these actions and no one was the target or victim? David Davis, MP for Haltemprice and Howden, wants to know ‘who should decide who’s insulted?’

    I say we all have that right.

    I say insulting behaviour is the grey area that homophobes like to operate in – they think they can get away with it. Is it acceptable to be offended? Of course it is. But, if the law is changed and you complain to a police officer there’s not much they can do about it.

    We all have the right to campaign, protest and provoke thought but do we have this right at the expense of others? I’m curious as to how insulting materials have to be before they are considered a criminal offense or of inciting hatred.

    Is undeterred or unchallenged hurtful language a sign of more physical and violent aggression to come? Gordon Allport (1954) argues that ‘anti-locution’ or badmouthing, insulting and stereotyping is the start of discrimination on his scale for the manifestation of prejudice.

    This then escalates to avoidance, discrimination, physical attack and extermination. How much protection do we need from each other, and at what stage? Maybe it is more about everyone taking responsibility. We should all challenge disorder which may be in the public, and our own, interest as the first level before it escalates.

    What if someone decided to mimic you, standing there looking fabulous with your oversized man-bag draped over your arm? People might laugh – everyone is having a good time – who could be insulted? They are free to insult you, and if you were a reasonable, stable human, you would appreciate it as their right. Or is that what the Reform Section 5 campaign would like to believe? Maybe the campaign should be challenging why people feel the need to insult each other, rather than trying to facilitate for more of it.

     

    Opinions expressed in this article may not reflect those of THEGAYUK, it’s management or editorial teams. If you’d like to comment or write a comment, opinion or blog piece, please click here.

  • COLUMN | Grow Your Own

    Grow Your Own

    (more…)