What is your opinion on men who say "I'm not into the gay scene"

[belamyi]

 

[Callum]

I'm not into the 'gay scene'. I don't go to gay bars, I don't celebrate Pride, I don't attend LGBT-related events. I'm not closeted either - I just don't care to attend them.

 

[BrownBoi89]

If they're not into the scene that's cool, but as for me I am quite into the scene at the moment, so it would be hard for me to hang out with or date a guy who wasn't interested in going out on occasion.

 

[belamyi]

No, it is not as neutral as that, either. Indecent behaviors are often associated with many bars and some Pride events. Gay men have the right to be publicly modest just as much as straight men may choose to be. Often, endorsing a certain night spot is fairly judged to be equal to endorsing the reputation of the patrons of that spot. If those patrons choose flamboyance, public promiscuity, or any of a range of social behaviors that may be unwanted by some more conservative gay men, then disclaiming association with that culture is a valid flag in a profile. It may be a simplified way of saying "socially conservative," which is not the same thing as politically conservative or closeted.

Church-going or saying that you believe in God also gives away to certain people as a bigot or some half-hearted, if not hypocritical, homosexual. Your fear comes only from the fact that the prejudice against "flamboyant" gay places is still an overbearing feeling even for those who are not actually full-fledged gay-haters. The problem is that, no matter how much things have changed, even gay activists are still permeated with the prejudiced values and concepts of the prudes and haters, and even if they fight them and seek to free themselves from them, those values they hate are still the center of their lives, even if it is only to attack them.
Gay people won't be really "free"until they don't just gain to themselves a respectable place in society from which to give vent to their own version of overbearing prejudices against bisexuals or people who don't like clubbing as another version of church-going, but they build a general view of the world, a wider one than the peevish religion-based or merely chauvinistic ones, which includes sexuality and everything that apparently is not directly related to the fight for rights.

Although I have no support for bars at any rate, and have never enjoyed them, there is no confusion on my part. Gay bars DO have a different atmosphere, and it is not neutral when considering gay or straight.



No, it is not as neutral as that, either. Indecent behaviors are often associated with many bars and some Pride events. Gay men have the right to be publicly modest just as much as straight men may choose to be. Often, endorsing a certain night spot is fairly judged to be equal to endorsing the reputation of the patrons of that spot. If those patrons choose flamboyance, public promiscuity, or any of a range of social behaviors that may be unwanted by some more conservative gay men, then disclaiming association with that culture is a valid flag in a profile. It may be a simplified way of saying "socially conservative," which is not the same thing as politically conservative or closeted.

I can choose all day long to never want to go to a club, but I would never politically oppose the right of other men to go, or for the club to exist.



I would think you share my disdain for shopping and endless material acquisition, or the elevation of buying as some sort of recreational pleasure.

I would be surprised that you, too, dislike beer, but I wouldn't assume that you disliked it for the same reasons as I do.

I would think you wore a baseball cap because you didn't like to keep your hair prepped, or you felt more accepted fitting in as a good ole boy, or because you couldn't let go of your youth. To be honest, I wouldn't think that much of a cap unless you wore it indoors, and then it would register as a break with respectful traditions.

I would find dislikes in a profile as useful as likes; it is helpful to know that a potential mate hates opera, despises French cuisine, and avoids eating meat. Some of those preferences are blatantly contemptuous of some things I like, and others just implicit. In both cases, it tells me that I have to decide if I think I can compromise in that area.

Lots of guys look down on my Southern accent, but I wouldn't take that dislike in a profile to mean I couldn't overcome their bias.

If I were to meet a man who posted that he is not into the gay scene, I wouldn't expect him to be a difficult date. "Not out" would give me pause for thought, but not a deal breaker, as we all have to start somewhere.

As for designer clothes, I wouldn't recognize any of them: I have a practiced eye for not learning earmarks of the bourgeoisie.

It's not, AT ALL, necessary to start going through a list of likes and dislikes to discover the degree of compatibility with someone. In fact more often than not you only need a look and his body shape, grooming and demeanor will tell you everything you need to know about how he is, what he likes and what he does and how he behaves in life.
On the other hand, that someone apprarently shares your likings often indicates that he doesn't actually share them, but that you only agree in the form to completely disagree in the content. I don't actually share any likings with anyone, and I am more likely to feel much closer to someone loving Joan Jett than to some idiot calling Tchaikovsky's or Wagner's work "classical music" or Puccini's "opera",and who would listen Mozart played by Karajan and Bach by Glenn Gould.
As for clothing, I simply meant overpriced, undercrafted, übermarketed rags.

 

[Willie Boy]

I'm not into the 'gay scene'. I don't go to gay bars, I don't celebrate Pride, I don't attend LGBT-related events. I'm not closeted either - I just don't care to attend them.

I am much the same way. I am bisexual and don't hide it. But I don't feel the need to be flamboyant and announce it to everybody in every room I walk into either. I am a normal human being.

 

[Knucklehead]

Why would that have to be true?

Are hikes dull?

Are museums?

Are concerts?

Are square dancers dull?

Are camping trips dull?

Are amusement parks dull?

Are road trips dull?

Are hot dates making out dull?

Are cinemas and exciting new movies dull?

Are off-road outings dull?

Are ski trips dull?

Are Jetskis dull?

Are motorcycle rides dull?

Are classes taken together dull?

Are triathlons dull?

Are hunting trips dull?

Are trips to buy plants at the nursery dull?



It isn't fair to limit the definition of fun or exciting to bars and/or the scene. Many of us find life plenty exciting and fun without including bars or clubs. Alternatively, we're not sitting in the study with a good book and pining to be at the ball.

Respectfully offered.

All of that sounded cool,EXCEPT the square dancing!..

 

[belamyi]

Your reduction of humanity to visible stereotyping is appalling. The idea that the only things that matter about people are physical condition and grooming is by definition superficial.

Your reductionist certified intellectual capacity would be appalling if it were not that common. I realize people seem to be terribly shocked at the prospect of being an open book (and I don't mean I'm a very good reader of that kind myself), so that their clothes and even their silence or their lies wouldn't cover them, but the truth is that how we look tells AN AWFUL LOT of how we are, and even of our personal and familiar background.
I also realize that, as a rule, people, even those with a college degree, are superficial enough to assume and firmly believe that merely observing is already judging. Now tell me where did I say or imply that looks are all that matters.
You are mistaking the method for the use... and it may also piss you the fact that someone doesn't need through weeks, months or years of illusion and self-deceit to realize that someone maybe a very nice person, but that said person is not one's soulmate or any sort of ersatz. I always found amusing and even pathetic that the most important thing for a couple to remain together is something that is never thought of until the day before the definitive breakup like, say, having kids, and it usually is because they need to "sit down and talk" directly about it, as if they were having a momentous meeting in a conference room, as if they could have never noticed direct or indirect attitudes of the prospective soulmate towards the matter.

And please, if anyone feels or dares to suggest the "if you never try", I'll suggest myself to try something better, because I don't need to swallow fresh diarrhoea or a lively doggy to know that I won't like it

Chew that and I'll respond the rest of your post when I have more time to read more of your appallingly superficial and judgemental misreadings.

In the meantime, you are invited to enjoy these musical moments>

 

[AndrewC88]

I don't think that is always the case. There is often the expectation on hookup sites that everything is equally valid, as long as a penis or asshole is involved on the other end of the equation. To be sure, this sort of distancing from "the scene" is more often seen in ads for LTRs. The mere fact that the poster is not into the scene (read "bars") often means he is alternatively going to a hookup site in hopes of meeting other men, which exposes him to a lot of traffic he doesn't want.

A lot of guys are simply saying, "I don't relate to the theatrics and drama of clubs, RuPaul's Drag Race, or queeny displays."

It doesn't mean the guy is a homphobe. It doesn't mean he is ashamed of queens. It doesn't mean he doesn't see effeminate as a valid choice for a man. It DOES mean that he doesn't identify with that profiling of gay men, and doesn't want to be misunderstood to be anything other than just an average guy, but one who is sexually attracted to men.

There is yet a lot of pressure by many gay men to have everyone get the combo pack when it comes to being gay. We don't all want fries with that.

Took the words out of my mouth. Fabulous post

 

[belamyi]

I'm afraid the fear only exists in your mind, as I'm well-attuned to my motivations, and fear is not there. Fear is not part of the equation, although convenient as the immediate accusation against those who will not accept gay men who simply do not share the more hedonistic preferences of the party crowd.

Gay people seem as free as anyone in society these days, save for the right to marry and some accompanying status in the law.

Tarring more moderate social values as some sort of repressed religion in disguise is an effective red herring viscerally, especially among gay men who already are programmed to go into defense mode at the mere mention of religion.

Flamboyance is not code for gay-hating. I know gays of all stripes, and my dislike for flamboyance far exceeds any just exhibited by vain, self-important displays by queens and flamers. ALL such behavior chiefly purposed to gain public attention with the artifice of outrageous displays is offensive to my personal ethic, and it is not born in morality. It is simply too self-absorbed and intrusive.

I do not fear it. I do not fear being seen with it. I simply dislike it, just the same as I dislike drunkenness. Both are behaviors and can be disliked without being feared.



Your reduction of humanity to visible stereotyping is appalling. The idea that the only things that matter about people are physical condition and grooming is by definition superficial. Those are components of a personality, but only speak to an incredibly narrow band of values. Just a few personality traits that are not revealed by appearance: intellect, kindness, empathy, arrogance, experience, affluence or want, mental instability, anxiety, cruelty, vanity, apathy, creativity, analytical ability, playfulness, OCD, adventurousness, immaturity, materialism, artistry, timidity, selfishness, trustworthiness, duplicity, humor, curiosity, citizenship, honesty, spirituality, independence, interdependence, generosity, forgiveness, humility, musicality, diligence, tenacity, ardor, ecological values, thrift, paternalism, friendliness, thoughtfulness, responsibility, pettiness, wit, and the list goes on and on. Some of these traits can be overtly displayed in dress, but more often are not.

It also ill-serves an argument in which one denigrates gay men for disliking partying lifestyles, and then to turn around and put down the musical tastes of entire classes of people. So, contempt for a man's taste or (mis)understanding is an acceptable form of judging others, but simply disliking the out-of-control self-indulgence of clubbers is not? That's a nice double-standard.

Well, now that I read the rest of the post it turns out that you didn't include any new ideas or at least developed the one in the first phrase, you only kept chewing the same bite: you, like people considered "the norm" are superficial enough not to be able too see anything in people beyond gestures and actions corresponding to their expectations, that obviously end up deceiving or upsetting them while, by the same token, they can't see the good or the connection they have with certain other people
Hard, you talk about me judging people, but not only I don't judge, but that I don't judge the way you (and people, maybe "normal" people like you) judge other people.
I am not talking about classifying people and then deciding who interests me and who doesn't, or who I think is more this and this or that. I am saying that IT IS POSSIBLE to know as much and as little from a person by looking at them, by interviewing them, by visting their homes or by talking to them every day, and it is just as naive to ignore that you can't get deceived by years of interaction with someone, and by your own expectations and prejudices over the years, as to believe that there are external definite, univocal (please, don't anybody confuse that with unequivocal) and simple indicators about people's inner character. That shows that it's not one method which is wrong, but most "normal" people who are just as clueless about other no matter how they try to get to know other people.

And you DO show fear when you are "appalled" my what I say: the fact that a certain person can get along with anyone would not be enough for you, but you don't want the other person to know pretty well, before you even start to form your own idea, what sort of relationship you could establish with each other, and how far that could go. Furthermore, you not only want the other person to be just as lost and clueless as you are, but you are so infused with the conviction that that's the only possible and decent human way of dealing with people, that you can't help being appalled and, why not, sorry for someone on whom you detect what is nothing but a reflection of your own satisfaction, no matter how apparently humble, in your convictions.
It would not surprise me that you can't likewise tell the difference between a disastrous affair brought about by the force of passion by one ending so merely by blind cluelessness.

 

[belamyi]

I'm afraid the fear only exists in your mind, as I'm well-attuned to my motivations, and fear is not there. Fear is not part of the equation, although convenient as the immediate accusation against those who will not accept gay men who simply do not share the more hedonistic preferences of the party crowd.

Gay people seem as free as anyone in society these days, save for the right to marry and some accompanying status in the law.

Tarring more moderate social values as some sort of repressed religion in disguise is an effective red herring viscerally, especially among gay men who already are programmed to go into defense mode at the mere mention of religion.

Flamboyance is not code for gay-hating. I know gays of all stripes, and my dislike for flamboyance far exceeds any just exhibited by vain, self-important displays by queens and flamers. ALL such behavior chiefly purposed to gain public attention with the artifice of outrageous displays is offensive to my personal ethic, and it is not born in morality. It is simply too self-absorbed and intrusive.

I do not fear it. I do not fear being seen with it. I simply dislike it, just the same as I dislike drunkenness. Both are behaviors and can be disliked without being feared.

Whaty exists in your mind is the sort of fear that I was not referring to, just another proof of your undersealing to my posts, because of your personal experiences, or the daily prejudices you encounter in your entourage, your country or whatever. As I said above, the sort of fear I was talking of is your fear, your repugnance given the tone of your post, you meet someone who can know more about you and about what sort of relationship you could have together even before you start that same process.
You know, it would be just perfect that you equal what I am talking about to people who reject others at a club because of their looks. Given your previous misunderstanding, I wouldn't be surprised that you and virtually everyone who may be reading this can't read beyond that situation and that conception.

 

[Corny]

So far I have learned about the US:

- america has no gay scene except bars and clubs
- in bars and clubs you only are there for sex
- you have to be flamboyant if you want to be in the gay scene
- you better aren't into the gay scene if you aren't pretty

at least those are the arguments that have been repeated more than once here. And almost all people that disagreed are non-us-americans.

Maybe this gives you some food for thought ..
Especially when from what I have read in other threads, it's still a taboo to say .. kiss your bf elsewhere in public except in big towns...

 

[NineOfClubs]

I'll start.

One thing we must say right away is that the bar culture in the US is significantly different than it is in Europe. In Europe, they go to socialize; they have sing-alongs, play darts, and some pubs (not gay ones) even have swing sets in the back. It's not so uncommon in Europe for the boss to invite his employees out for a drink.

In America, for the most part, drinking still has a stigma, so people who go to bars go there to either 1)get drunk or 2)get laid or 3) both. Personally, I don't like alcohol that much, and drinking makes me very uncomfortable. People get crazy, get mouthy, get into fights, and do things that they often regret the next day.

And then the "bar queens" get into catfights, and try to sleep with each others' boyfriends, and so on. And then there are the headgames, the drama! Norma Desmond would have loved the American bar scene.

I found it to be a very unhealthy scene.

Not for me, thank you. I'd rather read a good book, or cook a gourmet meal for small groups of friends.

If you're not of the bar scene then how is it that you can comment on it?

I've been to plenty of "pub" style gay bars where it's all about shooting pool or playing darts. Regulars having a good time.

If it weren't for gay bars, many of you would still be living in the glorious 40's and 50's.

They were instrumental in fighting homophobia and advancing "the cause".

 

[fetaby]

Maybe this gives you some food for thought ..

Hope springs eternal...

 

[HunterM]

I'm not into the gay scene. I'm not into the gay making a scene. I'm a drama free guy.

 

[NineOfClubs]

I know about the bar scene because I used to go.

In your 20s, you do a lot of things that, later on, you feel a little bit embarrassed about, like dabbling around with Dianetics, or going to gay bars, or giving yourself wine enemas, or getting drunk and puking on the railroad tracks ....I even dropped acid in my 20s once.

Yeah, I group going out to gay bars along with this other foolishness, because I'm a nerd, Nine.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, Nine-O. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

I'm just saying it isn't the scene of depravity so many of you are portraying.

Hell, there have been times I went out looking for such depravity, it's not there.

If you want that sort of thing, the answer today is internet....

 

[fetaby]

Maybe the "darts" places aren't as well known? Or as common?

OR it could be that people are willing to put up with what they consider "drama" to get a piece of ass, or dick, and aren't going to these places to socialize, drink beer, and make friends.

Between this thread and the "what do you consider gay" thread, it's very simple.

Gay is sex, the gay scene is the place to get sex. While the tactile version is out there, it has shifted online...

 

[Nomenclature]

from what I have read in other threads, it's still a taboo to say .. kiss your bf elsewhere in public except in big towns...

Sadly, i'm not even exaggerating when I say this: In most areas of the U.S., You would risk getting refused service, asked to leave, harassed, beaten up or even killed if you made out with your boyfriend in a public place in America, depending on where you are. It's true that there are a lot of gays in bigger cities, but they're generally within their own "gayborhoods": The Village, Boystown, West Hollywood, Wilton Manors, etc. It's okay to kiss another guy in public here, because you're mostly going to be around other gays, anyway.



It's likely to stay like this for at least another generation or two; Blacks were given the right to integrate into society and interracial marriage 57 and 44 years ago, respectively. . .yet blacks still face discrimination and racism, even today. Gays in America are finally getting some equal rights today, so unless any magic happens, we can realistically look forward to another 57 years of people giving us a hard time.




God Bless America!

 

[bulge]

99, 9999999...........% of guys having M2M sex are not into or in the gay scene. So what?

 

[Bent-On]

A couple of days ago I watched a Dutch program on national television that dealt with the 'gay scene' in Amsterdam, and how it's 'dying' apparently. The footage was shot at a 'gay party', that was held to raise awareness concerning the issue. They brought the worst clichés together; trannies, queens, a fashion run-way, half-naked models, terrible clothes, etc.

And they wonder why the 'scene' is dying?

 

[belamyi]

A couple of days ago I watched a Dutch program on national television that dealt with the 'gay scene' in Amsterdam, and how it's 'dying' apparently. The footage was shot at a 'gay party', that was held to raise awareness concerning the issue. They brought the worst clichés together; trannies, queens, a fashion run-way, half-naked models, terrible clothes, etc.

And they wonder why the 'scene' is dying?

It´s not just "the gay scene" properly, it's the whole partying era that has been fading away for the past, say, seven years. This generation had fun, now they are bringing that same mindlessness from party to family pseudomindframe.