Gays Who Deny Their Sexuality Are Not Cowards. Discuss?

[PeaceBlondie]

why should gays go around telling everyone 'IM GAY" straight people dont say in conversation im staight ,its intirely up to the person who and who he does'nt tell ,this is the 21st century not the 19th ...........

Most of us gays don't mention our boyfriend, our male lover. I'll bet that in many conversations, you and most other straight men say terms like "my wife," or "my girlfriend," and maybe even "Hey guys, look at those hooters/rack/tits/breasts/headlights/etc. on that girl over there!! Wouldn't it feel good to wrap your legs around that!!"

why do you assume im straight

Since you asked, I assumed you were straight because you appeared to be a homophobic straight man in your comments! Or, you appeared to be unfamiliar with what straight men say, especially when they think no gay man is listening. While most of the straight men I have known don't intentionally come out with macho studly female-penetrating comments, they unwittingly reveal their heaya-ter-oh-sexsh-ooality more clearly than most of us display our gayness when we're trying to be ourselves without swinging handbags. Yet they make fun of us being hoooo-mo-sexssh-oo-als for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with our behavior.

So I'll apologize for assuming you're straight, and I'll start assuming you're gay. So, is that you in your avatar?

[Scott]

Much of the difficulty isn't just about being gay or straight, it's about being able to have a conversation. The guys I work with constantly talk about their wives or girl friends and the waitress and the....etc...etc.. Just sit in the middle of a conversation and say something like, "boy doesn't he have a nice basket!" and see what the response is. Usually it's "Are you gay or something?" I respond with both...gay and something.

In striving to have true friendships there is a level of honesty that is required. Society's default position is that people are straight. When they are talking about wives and girlfriends, I wouldn't ask "are you straight?", but any reference to males will prompt the "are you gay? question.

It's difficult to have a friendship or a conversation with any depth in which you don't mention the most significant person in your life. It's even more difficult to have that relationship define you to others in way that you would rather not be defined.

[geriatrickid]

It's incredibly arrogant and disrespectful to label people that choose to keep their private lives, including sexuality, private, as cowards. I am grateful and appreciative of those who are discreet as I don't need to know someone's sexual identity nor do I need to hear about someone's sex life, whether hetero, homo or otherwise. It's not because I'm the evil bogeyman, but because it doesn't interest me. My gay friends share the same sentiment. We truly don't care and don't consider it anyone's business.

I don't know what the fuss is about guys discussing girls boobs or whatever. Some people have high sex drives. My very str8 friends also make comments about good looking guys or someone's endowment and no one says, oh my you must be gay. My gay friends remark on a girl's beauty regularly, usually accompanied with an elbow in my ribs and telling me to have a look.

Maybe this issue is once again an "age" thing. People under the age of 35 today are far more accepting of others and don't make it an issue. I don't dispute that it's probably stressful with the older crowd or young teenagers exploring their sexuality but the consolation is that the angry prunes usually die at an earlier age and the teens grow out of it once they get their first b/f or g/f.

[peter991]

Maybe it just comes down to: I'm not gay, but my boy-friend is.

Peter

[MercMan]

As a newbie to this forum, I would like to add my comments, to this topic in the best way that I know how.

IF, by my own individual choice that I do not "scream" out to the world that I am gay, then as it has been said before, that is my choice. I do NOT opt to walk around with a T shirt on, advertising that I am gay, no more than I would advertising anything else. I am just not into printed T shirts.

To my friends here in Australia, that know me, they are aware of preferences. But to my family, even after all this time, they do not.

During the 70's and 80's, irrespective of the changes that were happening in the world, to admit to anyone that you were anything but straight, would spell doom for your career and your personal life. So I, as an individual, chose to remain, in the closet to enjoy life, the same as anyone else could.

Going to a gay bar was unheard of. I had to be contented with going to a straight bar and on most occassions, there were amples of gay men going to them anyway.

I don't think, even in today's society that anyone needs to have to identify with any particular life style. We are all individuals for various different reasons, and therefore should have that democratic right to decide on whether or not, we reveal our sexual preference.

And that's just my opinion

[foolforlove]

I think a critical point is being missed in this thread.

Many of the responses here equate (focus) on "gay = sex act/bedroom".

But "gay" is a much bigger concept than the gender of the person you want to have an orgasm with.

Is the person you love still the one you love, even when you aren't in the middle of a sex act?

If you are a boy, and fall in love with boys, this has effects on almost every part of your life. It touches on who you want to

bring to an office party; who you want to bring home to meet your family; who you want to take a vacation with; etc.

For example, you work at job that offers health insurance to you and your "spouse". If you are boy-girl, thats wonderful. If you are boy-boy, then no health insurance for him. Hello? is that fair? smell the coffee. you are being cheated. because your straight colleagues are getting paid more (subsided spouse insurance) than you are. and in fact, you as an unmarried employee are paying for that subsidy. so not only are you getting less, you are paying for this colleague's privilege to have a spouse covered.

Another example. Your boyfriend gets sick and goes in the hospital. You want to visit him. But the hospital says "oh he is so ill, we only allow family members to see him". His relatives say "oh he and Joe are just friends" "they are just roommates". so you don't get to see him when he needs you most? ouch.

Worst case. Your boyfriend gets hit by the bus and dies. Now what? the motorcycle, house, and everything in it you have together, they are whose? you are now co-owner with his relatives, for at least the portion of the items you can prove you paid for (got the receipts?).

For those that say their straight friends/co-workers don't go around saying "I'm straight". Uh, yes, they DO. My straight male friends say it all the time! I know which ones like girls with short hair, or long legs, dark skin, light skin, etc. (In fact, if you've ever watched a "nature show" on TV, you know that all creatures display colorations and mating dances to advertise their interests and attract a partner. To do hide and do otherwise is actually against the natural order).

Yes there are circumstances where "coming out" is not advised, where people make reasoned choices about risks/benefits.

But to make blanket statements about privacy and too personal is to deny the many dimensions that the gender of the person you love interacts with all areas of your life. In fact, I think its safe to say that this approach does damage to yourself, because it re-enforces that your same-gender relationships aren't valid or good in the shadow of the tsunami of values/beliefs thrust on you by the overwhelmingly heterosexual world.

I'm not advocating that people be "activists"(whatever that means!), but at least examine that gay is more than who you have sex with.

[endure]

I think a critical point is being missed in this thread.

Many of the responses here equate (focus) on "gay = sex act/bedroom".

But "gay" is a much bigger concept than the gender of the person you want to have an orgasm with.

Is the person you love still the one you love, even when you aren't in the middle of a sex act?

If you are a boy, and fall in love with boys, this has effects on almost every part of your life. It touches on who you want to

bring to an office party; who you want to bring home to meet your family; who you want to take a vacation with; etc.

For example, you work at job that offers health insurance to you and your "spouse". If you are boy-girl, thats wonderful. If you are boy-boy, then no health insurance for him. Hello? is that fair? smell the coffee. you are being cheated. because your straight colleagues are getting paid more (subsided spouse insurance) than you are. and in fact, you as an unmarried employee are paying for that subsidy. so not only are you getting less, you are paying for this colleague's privilege to have a spouse covered.

Another example. Your boyfriend gets sick and goes in the hospital. You want to visit him. But the hospital says "oh he is so ill, we only allow family members to see him". His relatives say "oh he and Joe are just friends" "they are just roommates". so you don't get to see him when he needs you most? ouch.

Worst case. Your boyfriend gets hit by the bus and dies. Now what? the motorcycle, house, and everything in it you have together, they are whose? you are now co-owner with his relatives, for at least the portion of the items you can prove you paid for (got the receipts?).

Depends on where you live. In the UK all the above are yours by right if you enter into a Civil Partnership.

[foolforlove]

Depends on where you live. In the UK all the above are yours by right if you enter into a Civil Partnership.

Doesn't matter where you live if you won't/can't tell anyone else.

If, as some posters say, this is no one else's business and wish everyone would keep it to themselves, then I doubt they will be declaring a Civil Partnership.

Edited September 25, 2007 by foolforlove

[Tyke]

Depends on where you live. In the UK all the above are yours by right if you enter into a Civil Partnership.

Doesn't matter where you live if you won't/can't tell anyone else.

If, as some posters say, this is no one else's business and wish everyone would keep it to themselves, then I doubt they will be declaring a Civil Partnership.

It's not a matter of either denying or revealing your sexuality - it's a matter of being free to choose who you reveal it to. I don't go around telling everyone that I am gay just for the sake of it or to show solidarity with other gays to further the cause of gay rights etc. Nor do I feel the need to admit it to someone who asks me. However, I do sometimes tell friends - and more recently to new acquaintances. But it's up to the individual what and to whom he reveals his sexuality and in my opinion free to deny it. Likewise, I would have no hesitation to enter into a civil partnership if that was right for me. It may go in a register but that doesn't mean the people who you want to conceal your true sexuality need to know - they would have to search out the info - I doubt it all goes in the newspapers or on TV! Of course I wouldn't invite them along to the ceremony.

[peekint]

Seems a bunch of hooey about "choosing who to reveal to" "not everyone needs to know" "none of their business" etc., doesn't it?

I don't know ANY of my straight friends who think about whether or not they should "choose" to whom to reveal their desires, decide "who needs to Know", or think their straightness is "none of someone's business". They just are who they are - they don't hide their boyfriends, pronouns, etc...

"hey, what'd you do last night?"

straight guy answers:

"I went out with my wife/girlfriend to see the new Harry Potter film"

...

closet gay answers:

"I went to see the new Harry Potter film with a friend..."

See? The straight guy made no conscious effort to REVEAL, the gay guy made a conscious effort to HIDE

So we're not talking about REVEALING or not. We're talking about HIDING (dissimulating, lying, etc.) or not.

That said, we have not yet reached the point in society where everyone everywhere is equal. In some sense, it still does take courage to live a lifestyle in which you don't hide. So, there will be those who have the courage and resolve to be themselves, and others who will spend that energy in other ways, or fight other fights.

I must say it seems to me it takes very LITTLE courage to be true to yourself in Thailand (much like in San Francisco). It takes a very LOT of courage to be yourself in Idaho, USA, where the consequences of being yourself could include bodily injury! There are many places in the world in-between.

I try not to look down on those who choose to hide themselves or to think them cowardly. I try to be understanding of the social environment in which they survive. (Though why anyone would to choose to STAY in an environment which is so hostile that you have to pretend to be that which you are not, I fail to understand)

Instead, I feel it my duty to support and encourage people NOT to hide. What little progress in Gay rights made since Stonewall has been entirely because straight folks have learned just how many of us there are. They've learned we're not mysterious, monsters, or maniacs. They have learned that we are their sons, daughters, friends and coworkers - and that's how they're learning not only to tolerate us, but to accept us.

Edited October 3, 2007 by peekint

[Tyke]

Seems a bunch of hooey about "choosing who to reveal to" "not everyone needs to know" "none of their business" etc., doesn't it?

I don't know ANY of my straight friends who think about whether or not they should "choose" to whom to reveal their desires, decide "who needs to Know", or think their straightness is "none of someone's business". They just are who they are - they don't hide their boyfriends, pronouns, etc...

"hey, what'd you do last night?"

straight guy answers:

"I went out with my wife/girlfriend to see the new Harry Potter film"

...

closet gay answers:

"I went to see the new Harry Potter film with a friend..."

See? The straight guy made no conscious effort to REVEAL, the gay guy made a conscious effort to HIDE

So we're not talking about REVEALING or not. We're talking about HIDING (dissimulating, lying, etc.) or not.

That said, we have not yet reached the point in society where everyone everywhere is equal. In some sense, it still does take courage to live a lifestyle in which you don't hide. So, there will be those who have the courage and resolve to be themselves, and others who will spend that energy in other ways, or fight other fights.

I must say it seems to me it takes very LITTLE courage to be true to yourself in Thailand (much like in San Francisco). It takes a very LOT of courage to be yourself in Idaho, USA, where the consequences of being yourself could include bodily injury! There are many places in the world in-between.

I try not to look down on those who choose to hide themselves or to think them cowardly. I try to be understanding of the social environment in which they survive. (Though why anyone would to choose to STAY in an environment which is so hostile that you have to pretend to be that which you are not, I fail to understand)

Instead, I feel it my duty to support and encourage people NOT to hide. What little progress in Gay rights made since Stonewall has been entirely because straight folks have learned just how many of us there are. They've learned we're not mysterious, monsters, or maniacs. They have learned that we are their sons, daughters, friends and coworkers - and that's how they're learning not only to tolerate us, but to accept us.

Apart from a brief mention of Thailand, most of your examples, mind set etc, seems to be from the USA. Try telling this to other asians, africans, carribeans (chinese, Indians, Kazahkstanis, Iranians, Jamaicans, Saudi Arabians etc, etc - almost any society outside the west and you will soon realise people have much more important priorities, not necessarily less courage, than to go around revealing they are gay to people they consider don't have a business knowing. Indeed mention 'Stonewall' to them and see what their reaction is. These people are not cowards because they don't pander to western, particularly USA activist ideas. They think differently (thank God) and their ideas of loyality, social cohesion, familial duty etc are less selfish than those in the west and more uniform. Of course those gays in intolerant societies who do go around revealing they are gay are extremely brave but it does not necessarily follow that those who deny their sexuality are cowards.

[peekint]

Apart from a brief mention of Thailand, most of your examples, mind set etc, seems to be from the USA. Try telling this to other asians, africans, carribeans (chinese, Indians, Kazahkstanis, Iranians, Jamaicans, Saudi Arabians etc, etc - almost any society outside the west and you will soon realise people have much more important priorities, not necessarily less courage, than to go around revealing they are gay to people they consider don't have a business knowing. Indeed mention 'Stonewall' to them and see what their reaction is. These people are not cowards because they don't pander to western, particularly USA activist ideas. They think differently (thank God) and their ideas of loyality, social cohesion, familial duty etc are less selfish than those in the west and more uniform. Of course those gays in intolerant societies who do go around revealing they are gay are extremely brave but it does not necessarily follow that those who deny their sexuality are cowards.

Yes, I do confess I am American. Further, I was an activist in San Fran at the time of Harvey Milk (oops, revealing my age, too - perhaps I better be more careful about what I REVEAL! It's bad to be old, isn't it?)

Regarding cultural issues, I do have some awareness of cultures outside the USA. I haven't lived in the USA since the early 80's - I've lived in France, Hong Kong, China and Thailand over the past 25 or so years, returning to the USA only to see Mom and Dad.

That's just some context to avoid any assumptions you might make about my background, and not really pertinent to my point of view.

You see, you've missed the point.

"...don't have a business knowing" are the words you used, and those words have nothing to do with cultural values. Neither do "loyality (sic), social cohesion, and familial duty". I suppose you are arguing that it is Gays' familial duty in some cultures to procreate with a woman and have sex in Bathrooms or Down Low and that, in certain cultures, that is "less selfish" and promotes "social cohesion". Again, I use the word Hooey.

Lets go through your "Values" oriented countries a bit:

"asians, africans, carribeans (chinese, Indians, Kazahkstanis, Iranians, Jamaicans, Saudi Arabians...)"

asians - already strong and growing Gay culture in Korea and Japan, see below about Chinese

africans - Nigerians and Zimbabweans hide because they'll be imprisoned and castrated. Big family value there

carribeans - Jamaica is notorious for gay beatings and Reggae anti-Gay artists who condone violence against gays - another great

"Loyality" (sic) to family reason to hide, hmm?

Indians - there are accepted Indian castes containing transexuals and homosexuals, and a growing gay rights movement

which INCORPORATES family values and indian traditional beliefs

Kazahkstanis, Iranians. Saudi Arabians - In Iran, you can be hung for being caught engaging in Gay sex. In Kazahkstan and Saudi Arabia

being Gay is punishable by stoning. We must then believe, then, that folks stay in the closet in those countries

because of their desire to build a cohesive culture?

Chinese - In the last 25 years, I've watched (and, a bit, participated in) the re-emergence of Gay culture in China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan. I can't think of any culture more "Family Values" oriented than the Chinese. Taiwan is very close to sanctioning Gay Marriage (and will likely be the first Chinese country to do so). Both Hong Kong and China have had Gay Marriage tabled, and both have enshrined in law the rights of people regardless of sexual orientation. Singapore is a bit behind, but there is a very active discussion of Gay people and their roles in families; even Lee Kwan Yew advocates the abolition of all anti-Gay laws.

I can refer you to movies from almost all the predominantly Chinese countries that showcase the current struggle with family values (it's not much different from the one that went on in the West). You'll have a better understanding of peoples reasons for HIDING and NOT HIDING there if you watch them.

So,where are we?

Don't look at the issue from the point of REVEAL, as if being Gay is a bad thing to be hidden - like Herpes, a missing testicle, or toe fungus. It's not. Being Gay is a state of being which affects all aspects of life. If you just live who you are, you are not revealing anything, you are just being honest. I just can't start with the basic assumption that Gay= Bad, in any culture.

On the other hand, if one lives in one of the dangerous countries you mentioned - Iran, Saudi, Jamaica, etc. - one needs to actively HIDE in order to avoid severe consequences meted out by repressive governments and uneducated hooligans. You wouldn't be a coward not coming out there, just interested in self-preservation. You also wouldn't be hiding just to be nice to your mother!

HIDING has nothing to do with being loyal, socially conscious or dutiful to family, in any culture. It has to do with fear of consequences.

Out Gay people don't REVEAL, closeted Gay people HIDE. It's not for us to judge an individual's reasons for HIDING (walk a mile in my shoes?), but it is for us to encourage them to try not to HIDE, for their benefit and the benefit of ALL Gay people, regardless of culture.

[Tyke]

I think u have missed the point. The question I posed originally was whether gays who deny their sexuality are (necessarily) cowards. It was not a question about whether denying ones sexuality holds back any activist agendas or not. To use some kind of analogy, brave soldiers don't always attack. Sometimes they hide and retreat and even surrender to protect their fellow soldiers (and themselves)(except if they were Japanese in WW2, and look what happened to them!). Whatever the effect a gay's actions might have or not, they may well deny their sexuality in order to protect their (and their family's only) source of income, avoid family 'shame' etc. Judging this to be cowardly is where u have missed the point again. It could well be done in a perfectly altruistic manner. Gays don't always think of themselves, u know - the denying bit may have nothing to do with consequencies for themselves, except maybe retaining a bit of privacy.

[peekint]

I think u have missed the point. The question I posed originally was whether gays who deny their sexuality are (necessarily) cowards. It was not a question about whether denying ones sexuality holds back any activist agendas or not. To use some kind of analogy, brave soldiers don't always attack. Sometimes they hide and retreat and even surrender to protect their fellow soldiers (and themselves)(except if they were Japanese in WW2, and look what happened to them!). Whatever the effect a gay's actions might have or not, they may well deny their sexuality in order to protect their (and their family's only) source of income, avoid family 'shame' etc. Judging this to be cowardly is where u have missed the point again. It could well be done in a perfectly altruistic manner. Gays don't always think of themselves, u know - the denying bit may have nothing to do with consequencies for themselves, except maybe retaining a bit of privacy.

Sorry, I neglected to notice that I was responding to the one who posed the question. Frankly, I ignored the wording of it, because it is phrased as one of those classic "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions - the question presupposes certain premises.

Instead, I chose to avoid the underlying assumption that there are only two possibilities - cowardly and not cowardly - and focus instead on the process of denying sexuality (REVEALING vs. HIDING), and the motivation for denying sexuality (fear of consequences). I never got into the silly question of cowardly or not - that's a rather pseudo-macho and unhelpful label, inside or outside of any "agenda".

So, all I get from your comment above is that you would add one more motivation - some sort of misplaced altruism.

Of course, calling it altruism implies there is something inherently wrong with being gay, as does saying "I do it for altruistic reasons" imply that one thinks himself wrong to be gay.

"I won't let people know I'm Gay because that's bad, and there will be bad consequences for myself or others, so if I HIDE I'm really doing a good thing to make up for the bad thing."

Certainly, in instances where there is persecution ( http://365gay.com/Newscon07/10/100407saudi.htm ) and bodily danger, or perhaps grave financial consequences as you posit (though I'm yet to find a case in which the fear is genuine, instead of fantastic), it would be foolhardy not to HIDE.

In other instances, since I can't believe the underlying assumption - "it's wrong to be Gay", I can't accept "altruism" as anything but a sham motivation. Instead, it's just a psychological construct which helps the individual rationalize and reduce cognitive dissonance resulting from his own self-loathing.

Finally, as to your last comment, I would welcome examples of Straight folks who pretend to be Gay in order to be altruistic and retain "a bit of privacy"?

....

....

hmmm, didn't find any.

For "privacy" substitute "ability to privately do something I think is bad"

[Tyke]

Sorry, I neglected to notice that I was responding to the one who posed the question. Frankly, I ignored the wording of it, because it is phrased as one of those classic "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions - the question presupposes certain premises.

Instead, I chose to avoid the underlying assumption that there are only two possibilities - cowardly and not cowardly - and focus instead on the process of denying sexuality (REVEALING vs. HIDING), and the motivation for denying sexuality (fear of consequences). I never got into the silly question of cowardly or not - that's a rather pseudo-macho and unhelpful label, inside or outside of any "agenda".

So, all I get from your comment above is that you would add one more motivation - some sort of misplaced altruism.

Of course, calling it altruism implies there is something inherently wrong with being gay, as does saying "I do it for altruistic reasons" imply that one thinks himself wrong to be gay.

"I won't let people know I'm Gay because that's bad, and there will be bad consequences for myself or others, so if I HIDE I'm really doing a good thing to make up for the bad thing."

Certainly, in instances where there is persecution ( http://365gay.com/Newscon07/10/100407saudi.htm ) and bodily danger, or perhaps grave financial consequences as you posit (though I'm yet to find a case in which the fear is genuine, instead of fantastic), it would be foolhardy not to HIDE.

In other instances, since I can't believe the underlying assumption - "it's wrong to be Gay", I can't accept "altruism" as anything but a sham motivation. Instead, it's just a psychological construct which helps the individual rationalize and reduce cognitive dissonance resulting from his own self-loathing.

Finally, as to your last comment, I would welcome examples of Straight folks who pretend to be Gay in order to be altruistic and retain "a bit of privacy"?

....

....

hmmm, didn't find any.

For "privacy" substitute "ability to privately do something I think is bad"

Peekint,

If I was a school teacher you would fail the test because either you did not read the question or answered another one you made up yourself. You can't conveniently put forward the answer to a different question you had prepared beforehand! Although I would now change the original wording, that is not possible so either leave it alone, answer the question posed or set up another one yourself.

Actually, the privacy bit was about denying, hiding, not revealing or whatever construct you want to call it, because it's none of their damned business.

Regarding your statement that 'altruism' is a mere psychobabble construct for denying one's gay sexuality, perhaps I could use a made-up example.

A young gay man named Ahmed takes care of his very sick mother and siblings in a village in rural Kazakhstan The family is very poor and depend entirely on Ahmed's job at the local brick factory where he has worked since he was a small boy. There is no other work in the town and most young men there crave for such a job.

Ahmed's boss is a wicked man and hates gays and expresses quite openly that anyone he suspects is gay will lose their job. Every day he asks all his workers if they are gay. Every one of them always denies it. Ahmed is not afraid of him, nor of telling him he is gay, but knows it would be disastrous for his family if he lost his job. He has also never told his family and friends that he is gay in case his boss finds out indirectly from them.

Now, Ahmed has a rich American boyfriend called Harvey, who he knows is a good man but he is a gay activist who lives in the capital Almaty. He wants Ahmed to live with him there and if he does he will make sure he is happy and without the need to work to take care of his mother. However, he puts 2 conditions on this offer. First, Ahmed must tell his boss that he is gay, and secondly he must live with Harvey in Almaty and not return to his village again. Ahmed refuses because he wants to be with his mother before she dies.

The question is, was Ahmed being altruistic by denying he was gay?

Edited October 7, 2007 by Tyke

[elkangorito]

A young gay man named Ahmed takes care of his very sick mother and siblings in a village in rural Kazakhstan The family is very poor and depend entirely on Ahmed's job at the local brick factory where he has worked since he was a small boy. There is no other work in the town and most young men there crave for such a job.

Ahmed's boss is a wicked man and hates gays and expresses quite openly that anyone he suspects is gay will lose their job. Every day he asks all his workers if they are gay. Every one of them always denies it. Ahmed is not afraid of him, nor of telling him he is gay, but knows it would be disastrous for his family if he lost his job. He has also never told his family and friends that he is gay in case his boss finds out indirectly from them.

Now, Ahmed has a rich American boyfriend called Harvey, who he knows is a good man but he is a gay activist who lives in the capital Almaty. He wants Ahmed to live with him there and if he does he will make sure he is happy and without the need to work to take care of his mother. However, he puts 2 conditions on this offer. First, Ahmed must tell his boss that he is gay, and secondly he must live with Harvey in Almaty and not return to his village again. Ahmed refuses because he wants to be with his mother before she dies.

The question is, was Ahmed being altruistic by denying he was gay?

I think "yes", he was.

[peekint]

Peekint,

If I was a school teacher you would fail the test because either you did not read the question or answered another one you made up yourself. You can't conveniently put forward the answer to a different question you had prepared beforehand! Although I would now change the original wording, that is not possible so either leave it alone, answer the question posed or set up another one yourself.

Actually, the privacy bit was about denying, hiding, not revealing or whatever construct you want to call it, because it's none of their damned business.

Regarding your statement that 'altruism' is a mere psychobabble construct for denying one's gay sexuality, perhaps I could use a made-up example.

A young gay man named Ahmed takes care of his very sick mother and siblings in a village in rural Kazakhstan The family is very poor and depend entirely on Ahmed's job at the local brick factory where he has worked since he was a small boy. There is no other work in the town and most young men there crave for such a job.

Ahmed's boss is a wicked man and hates gays and expresses quite openly that anyone he suspects is gay will lose their job. Every day he asks all his workers if they are gay. Every one of them always denies it. Ahmed is not afraid of him, nor of telling him he is gay, but knows it would be disastrous for his family if he lost his job. He has also never told his family and friends that he is gay in case his boss finds out indirectly from them.

Now, Ahmed has a rich American boyfriend called Harvey, who he knows is a good man but he is a gay activist who lives in the capital Almaty. He wants Ahmed to live with him there and if he does he will make sure he is happy and without the need to work to take care of his mother. However, he puts 2 conditions on this offer. First, Ahmed must tell his boss that he is gay, and secondly he must live with Harvey in Almaty and not return to his village again. Ahmed refuses because he wants to be with his mother before she dies.

The question is, was Ahmed being altruistic by denying he was gay?

Haha! Thank God I'm not in school any more. I did regularly point out to my profs when they asked loaded or poorly phrased questions, and it often got me in trouble, but I still managed to graduate summa from an ivy league.

Regarding your Dickens-novel type example, which presupposes so many conditions as to border on miraculous: there is very nice fellow on the net from Kazakhstan who perhaps answers your question for you ... ( http://gaykazakh.com/ ) He's really a rather delightful author! These are his words:

"Coming out of the closest in our glorious nation is easy today.

"It is remaining alive that is tricky part. I make the joke. Most of the stonings are non-fatal these days.

"Long gone are the homophobic laws and the days of making us wear the burka and parading around the town the goat penis around our necks. In fact, since these punishments were repealed back in 2004 it has been comparatively safe to be out and in the life. In my town most people very friendly and now take their pent up rages out on the local Uzbek family. "

...

Anyway, no, I don't see anything altruistic here. I guess the REAL altruistic thing would be for Ahmed to go live with the American Sugar Daddy (more likely a Flem, I would think, in Kazakhstan) and give up his selfish desire to be with his mother before she dies, rather than having oodles of cash to take care of her medical needs properly so she could live longer and join him in Amaty.

...

I do apologize if the above is a bit facetious, it's meant as satire (I'm not sure you would have gotten that). In the end, it's your thread, and if you want to have it black and white, "coward or hero", or whatever, I suppose it's time for me to take my leave and wish you well. Sometimes you just have to drop a class if the teacher is too pedantic, right? hahaha!

Thanks for opening an interesting thread.

[Tyke]

Haha! Thank God I'm not in school any more. I did regularly point out to my profs when they asked loaded or poorly phrased questions, and it often got me in trouble, but I still managed to graduate summa from an ivy league.

Regarding your Dickens-novel type example, which presupposes so many conditions as to border on miraculous: there is very nice fellow on the net from Kazakhstan who perhaps answers your question for you ... ( http://gaykazakh.com/ ) He's really a rather delightful author! These are his words:

"Coming out of the closest in our glorious nation is easy today.

"It is remaining alive that is tricky part. I make the joke. Most of the stonings are non-fatal these days.

"Long gone are the homophobic laws and the days of making us wear the burka and parading around the town the goat penis around our necks. In fact, since these punishments were repealed back in 2004 it has been comparatively safe to be out and in the life. In my town most people very friendly and now take their pent up rages out on the local Uzbek family. "

...

Anyway, no, I don't see anything altruistic here. I guess the REAL altruistic thing would be for Ahmed to go live with the American Sugar Daddy (more likely a Flem, I would think, in Kazakhstan) and give up his selfish desire to be with his mother before she dies, rather than having oodles of cash to take care of her medical needs properly so she could live longer and join him in Amaty.

...

I do apologize if the above is a bit facetious, it's meant as satire (I'm not sure you would have gotten that). In the end, it's your thread, and if you want to have it black and white, "coward or hero", or whatever, I suppose it's time for me to take my leave and wish you well. Sometimes you just have to drop a class if the teacher is too pedantic, right? hahaha!

Thanks for opening an interesting thread.

Well I asked if Ahmed was altruistic, not if he was bright!

And your answer touches on the age-old cynic's idea that altruism is actually selfishness in disguise. Seems poor Ahmed can't do anything right.

Thanks for the gay Kazahkstan link, very funny but he is a take-off of Bhorat.

And no, I know things are not black and white - that's the reason for posing a rather simple and provocative question. At least some can query the question itself, as you have finally done, although I put limits on the provision of an answer to an altogether different question.

Good luck!

[elkangorito]

As per this online dictionary; http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...3&dict=CALD

"altruism

noun

willingness to do things which benefit other people, even if it results in disadvantage for yourself:

She's not known for her altruism."

I agree that Ahmed was altruistic, according to the dictionary meaning BUT, in actual fact, I think he was quite selfish. I think he did, what he did, to avoid social rejection...his actions had little to do with the well being of his mother. Another case of "ego".

To me, a selfish person is one who runs around trying to score "brownie points" for being good or nice. In todays world, these people are perceived as being "caring", when all they are really doing is satisfying their own egos. These same people are usually full of fear - fear of rejection from everyone & everything. They will do almost anything to hear somebody say, "He is a really nice bloke for doing/being....."

Conversely, my idea of a caring person is one who satisfies himself (& not his ego) BEFORE trying to help others. Afterall, how can one help another if one is not 100% (not faulty)? These people are generally labelled as "selfish".

This may be digressing a touch but here is a small story;

In late 1999 & after 2 previous trips to Argentina, I decided to go to Argentina to live with my boyfriend (Shit!!! I've just "outed" myself. Oh well.) A week before I left Australia, this happened;

One night in Sydney (Australia), while visiting a friend whose name was Phil, he told me to make sure that I kept in touch with Eric on a regular basis. Eric is an elderly gay man, who is known & loved by Phil & I. (Eric has a really interesting "life story" too). Anyway, my response to his statement was something like, "I will contact Eric however & whenever I please."

What happened next was a shock.

Phil flew into an unimaginable rage & shouted, "You are the most selfish person I have ever met. Get out!!"

Strangely, Phil & his boyfriend, told everybody at the local pub (gay) what had happened, obviously hoping to boost their egos by "teaching that selfish bastard a lesson". The response that he & his BF got, however, was far from this. Most people (not all) basically asked them, "Who died & made you God of Robs (I'm Rob) life?"

Mind you, this is the same man (Phil) who accused me of a similar thing some years before.

Eric & I shared a house together. Without going into the details, Eric & I got on very well together...much like a father/son relationship. Unfortunately, Eric had previously had 3 heart by-pass operations & for those not familiar, "early" (1970's to 1980's) heart by-pass operations were only given about a ten year warranty before they went bad. So by the time that he & I were living together, his "ticker" was on the downhill run.

Eric loved to mow the lawn & his worsening heart condition made this act increasingly difficult. At no time did he ever ask me for help (frequently, I wasn't around when he was mowing the lawn). Unbeknowns to me, he had complained to Phil that I was of no help to him ("pride" can be a dangerous thing). The result of this complaint was a visit from Phil, who proceeded to tell me what a selfish, bad boy I was.

My reply was simple...I asked Phil if he had any knowledge of people with bad hearts & if he was prepared to help Eric. Of course, an answer was not forthcoming...just another accusation.

So, was I selfish? Was Eric selfish? Was Phil selfish?

People with bad hearts quite often have a low quality of life because they are reluctant to change their life according to their abilities/disabilities. Many people are too "proud" to admit that they can no longer do something that they once could do with ease. Many people simply want the people around them to change to their requirements because this is easier than changing your own habits.

When the dust had settled some years later, Eric apologised to me & actually thanked me for giving him the option of learning a new way of life...a life he possibly wouldn't have had if I had succumbed to the emotional blackmail. Quite simply, he learnt to live again in a different way & his quality of life was markedly better.

What's the moral to this story? Being "altruistic" is not always a good thing...especially for yourself. But NOT being perceived as being altruistic is even more difficult. Being truly "caring" is normally much more personally difficult than simply reacting "nicely" to a bad situation. Anybody can mow a lawn for somebody but are they prepared to go through the trauma of helping another learn a new way of life?

I think that altrusim, by & large, is egotistical & serves nobody but the altruist. It takes true guts to really help people, not guilt & fear.

[PeaceBlondie]

Congratulations to elkangorito for his courage. It took me a bit longer!

///Added before going to bed: And I wonder if one or more of the posters in this thread were trying to encourage someone to come out of the closet. Don't do it before you're ready, don't wait too long, and you can do it in stages.

[elkangorito]

Congratulations to elkangorito for his courage. It took me a bit longer!

///Added before going to bed: And I wonder if one or more of the posters in this thread were trying to encourage someone to come out of the closet. Don't do it before you're ready, don't wait too long, and you can do it in stages.

Thanks Peace but it's not I who deserve any thanks...Eric did it all on his own (with a little help from his REAL friends).

[endure]

People do what they need to do to get by. If it's important to them to come out they will do. If coming out threatens their existence they won't. It's not cowardice, it's pragmatism.

[elkangorito]

People do what they need to do to get by. If it's important to them to come out they will do. If coming out threatens their existence they won't. It's not cowardice, it's pragmatism.

Now THIS is something to which I can relate

[JUDAS]

Certainly and interesting and thought provoking read. IMO if someone's sexuality creates an unpleasant reaction in others then under most situations these people are not worth knowing. A person's value in society lies in their contribution to others well being and not their sexuality. I would be much happier in the company of a "gay" person who cares about others feelings than a cold hearted hetrosexual who treats the opposite sex as something to be conquered.

Just my opinion ...

[Tyke]

A person's value in society lies in their contribution to others well being and not their sexuality. I would be much happier in the company of a "gay" person who cares about others feelings than a cold hearted hetrosexual who treats the opposite sex as something to be conquered.

Just my opinion ...

JUDAS,

just to be the devil's advocate, why, then, mention a persons sexuality in this statement anyway? What would u prefer, a cold hearted gay who treats the same sex as something to be conquered? There are loads about.

[PeaceBlondie]

Indeed, we should not let our well-deserved paranoia (that there actually are people out there who want to kill us ) blind us to the fact that there are many affirming straight people around the world who tolerate or accept minority sexual behaviors. All my sisters with an IQ over 90, some of their male partners, lots of Thai teachers, many farang and Thai friends, are supportive. And gays have no exclusive franchise about being sensitive and caring.

[lazeeboy]

why should gays go around telling everyone 'IM GAY" straight people dont say in conversation im staight ,its intirely up to the person who and who he does'nt tell ,this is the 21st century not the 19th ...........

Most of us gays don't mention our boyfriend, our male lover. I'll bet that in many conversations, you and most other straight men say terms like "my wife," or "my girlfriend," and maybe even "Hey guys, look at those hooters/rack/tits/breasts/headlights/etc. on that girl over there!! Wouldn't it feel good to wrap your legs around that!!"

why do you assume im straight

Since you asked, I assumed you were straight because you appeared to be a homophobic straight man in your comments! Or, you appeared to be unfamiliar with what straight men say, especially when they think no gay man is listening. While most of the straight men I have known don't intentionally come out with macho studly female-penetrating comments, they unwittingly reveal their heaya-ter-oh-sexsh-ooality more clearly than most of us display our gayness when we're trying to be ourselves without swinging handbags. Yet they make fun of us being hoooo-mo-sexssh-oo-als for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with our behavior.

So I'll apologize for assuming you're straight, and I'll start assuming you're gay. So, is that you in your avatar?

no thats my boyfreind ..

[himachal]

I love all this righteousness about proudly trumpeting one's sexuality and avoidance of denial. How about the bi person? Should he or she loudly sing from the highest mountain about that?

right you are! what about me and my funny feelings when i look over the fence and see my neighbour's goat? why should i tell anybody about it?

Naam, you really should tell the goat!

[himachal]

It's an individual's prerogative. The last thing this world needs is gays who are judgmental about other gays. We all have enough problems in life...pointing fingers at each other is ridiculous.

Hear, hear!

[Bluelotus]

The only thing worse than closet cases are people who out them