I've tried to wait until seeing the actual programme until making major comment - I know
Simon Fanshawe's companion piece for
"The Guardian" has generated a lot of heat (and too little light) in the last few days. All the same, this will also be a bit of spleen venting on my own behalf, so not the 'review' I originally intended.
Some of the pre-emptive criticism I read was from people who didn't seem to realise this was part of a 'challenging the status quo' series with the same three word prefix and others that just knee-jerk reacted to this being a criticism of ALL gay men (I don't feel it was but can see why it was taken that way - 'the gay scene' was the more accurate target). Those who screeched
'homophobia' and "well he's not really gay then" are actually demonstrating that they're part of the problem Fanshawe is highlighting - this did emerge more effectively in the programme, most especially in the completely amoral sauna employee interviewed.
There is no such thing as a 'gay lifestyle'. Knocking what you perceive that to be does not equate to homophobia. Being gay is purely down to who you choose to have sex with. Period. Everything else is
ghetto-spin . It's ironic that a scene that exists apparently to support freedom of sexual identity often seems inclined to manufacture 'good little identikit queens' in every other respect. We're just a compliant market profile and we're happy about it. We've lost any sense of purpose now that the important battles appear to have been won. The visibility and promotion for the community as a whole had mutated into visibility and promotion for the individual, our 'outlaw' credentials satisfied by
barebacking and
crystal meth. It's completely understandable that Fanshawe, a veteran of the
gay rights struggles of the 70s and 80s, has a sense of "is this what we fought the war for?".
To me, I think it all comes down to 'convention' and 'fitting in' - the rest of the symptoms which so dismayed Fanshawe are circumstantial to actually being male without the baggage and expectations of heterosexual norms but also without proper role models. On the latter point I'm not sure the programme did itself a favour by having such a short contribution with the best gay role model it could conjure up (
Brian Paddick), leaving the arguement for role models to be presented by
Kristian Digby.
I don't think you have to be over 40 to realise the 'gay scene' can be just as alienating and limiting as the world outside it. Having possibly rejected the 'straight world' (including family in worst case scenarios) you don't want to burn another set of bridges so settle far too easily for merging yourself into just another, more arcane set of conventions, prejudices, etiquette and expectations. Having done that, there's no more journey - you're on the Circle Line unless you choose to get off the train. Up until recently there was no 'settling down' option clearly labelled, as there is for heterosexual men who face conflict between friends and partner at a certain point in life and have to decide to commit to one or the other. I'm not saying that's ideal either of course, but at least the option presents itself.
Having spent more than 10 years in London between the late 80s and late 90s I certainly sampled 'the scene' but tended to dip in and out rather than becoming a regular. Eventually I came to realise it was specific short-term things I dipped in for (possiblity of casual sex, maybe a favourite
male stripper) while trying to blot out the aspects I didn't care for like the tenth-rate drag acts, the drugs, the banal music, the poor choice and poor value of drinks, and the suffocating cigarette smoke. Being a non-smoker and a "Doctor Who" fan I also soon discovered that 'straight' pubs (like
Wetherspoons) actually had non-smoking areas and others (like
'The Fitzroy Tavern') held regular DW fan meetings. It soon dawned that I wasn't obliged to be gay man first at all times, and in doing so could always choose between the relative charms of both gay venues and non-gay venues on any given night.
At least I had the choice of going or not (why is the gay scene so concentrated in cosmopolitan conurbations where it's least needed?). Moving back to Scotland it's a whole new ball game - there are only a handful of towns and cities with any gay venues, and despite living so near one of them (Edinburgh) it's just not worth the hassle if you don't have a car, a gay friend
with a car or actually live within the city. Being neither of these I don't fancy making special arrangements just to hang around a place that doesn't want me there. I find them just so parochial and judgemental - new faces are either leapt on as 'fresh meat' or given the "we don't like strangers round 'ere" treatment if you don't make the grade. As I've previously stated here, the smoking ban here may lead to a quickening of the culture change needed via an influx of 'too many' new faces at once. There's always a sense too that some of the biggest defenders of the gay scene aren't actually 'out and proud' at all and would blanche at the idea of visiting a 'straight' venue or putting their face on their Gaydar profile - no so much better to be a big fish in a small pond.
Anyway - why do we still have a ring-fenced 'gay scene' anymore? Do some venues even qualify for the tag when you have areas like
Canal Street awash with straight 'tourists' on some exotic safari? Would it really matter at all if there were no exclusively gay venues? You can arrange a date on Gaydar and meet anywhere you like. Would it not be better if everywhere was mixed with no preconceptions of who was fancying who and who was 'with' whom - where you actually had to communicate rather than assume? Where you rated the venue purely on what it offered? Where the homophobes and
heterophobes could just like it or lump it?
I apply the same logic to this as with my views on faith schools - that ghettoes are divisive, unhealthy all round and need challenging. I didn't agree 100% with Simon Fanshawe last night but he's has a major point that needs addressing and by basically trying to play a bogus victim card and refuse to take on board any criticism we'd not be moving on and evolving as we need to. This is not about moralising - it's about the fact we truly need to get out more - in every sense.
