Calgary SSP gay life

[Tarsus]

It seems like there are quite a few homosexuals that are SSP members in Calgary and in other cities too. I'm curious if it's more than the typical population average.

This is just a curiosity and nothing more. I'm not anti-homosexual in any way shape or form. My brother is a homosexual, and when I showed him the site he was interested right away.

FYI before anyone brings up something about a phallic connection to skyscrapers, I already asked my brother and no that's not it.

[Bigtime]

I think this has been mentioned before in the Canada section in the "Post your picture" thread. SSP does seem to have a larger gay membership than say Calgarypuck. Just as an observation (totally non-scientific).

[O-tacular]

Funny how the only posts in this thread so far are from straight guys. I can think of at least 3 openly gay Calgary posters off the top of my head. There may be more though.

[Wooster]

Cities, city-building, urbanism are things that gay people are generally into. This is an online community that talks about those things, so it's no surprise it attracts gay people. It's called skyscraperpage, but we know that the topics are broader than that.

[ByeByeBaby]

I think it's all those big, long, erect towers thrusting into the sky.

[kw5150]

Someone is trying to get his brother a boyfriend. Post his picture NOW, just kidding. Someone wipe this thread from existence

Originally Posted by Tarsus

It seems like there are quite a few homosexuals that are SSP members in Calgary and in other cities too. I'm curious if it's more than the typical population average.

This is just a curiosity and nothing more. I'm not anti-homosexual in any way shape or form. My brother is a homosexual, and when I showed him the site he was interested right away.

FYI before anyone brings up something about a phallic connection to skyscrapers, I already asked my brother and no that's not it.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by Tarsus

It seems like there are quite a few homosexuals that are SSP members in Calgary and in other cities too. I'm curious if it's more than the typical population average.

I have the same curiosity about SSP Negroes and Mohammedans.

Is it still 1959? Damn Windows 8 telling me it's 2013!

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

I have the same curiosity about SSP Negroes and Mohammedans.

Is it still 1959? Damn Windows 8 telling me it's 2013!

I was wondering if someone would respond like this.

My take on this: I think it's more noticeable because it's extremely rare for someone to chirp on a message board "hey, I'm Black" or "hey I go to church X" - but you definitely see people saying "my boyfriend" when it's a dude, or people saying things like "as part of the gay community", or something. I dunno - other than that SSP picture thread in the Canada section, I have pretty much no idea what any of you look like. Age I can sometimes guess based on life situation (or some of us "old" - term used very loosely in my case - farts griping about our ages), but that's about it. I have no idea of race, colour or creed. But I do know of many, many gay forumers here. It just seems to come up more often than most other personal identifiers. Except parents. You always know who's a parent.

As to "why" there might be more than the average (if this is even the case)? Again my take: as some pointed out, urban issues and urban types *might* be more represented in the gay community. I'm not actually sure that that stereotype even holds true. However I'll broaden things to the Internet as a whole - I find that online, there seem to be many more gay people than in "real life". And NOW we ask the real "why" - personally, I think it's because people are more comfortable being "out" online. I don't necessarily think that gay people are more likely to post online, nor on specific forums. I just think there are a lot more gay people out there in general than most people realize - and online, it's more openly out there.

I could be completely full of shit but I've noticed this pretty much since first going online 20 some years ago. Offline, I find that not every gay person is really open about it (I shouldn't have to go into reasons why this may be), but online, most people are pretty up front. But that could just be due to my own personal associations. Perhaps my friends and co-workers think I'm secretly homophobic, so they don't "come out" to me.

I'm really not sure. It's something I find fascinating, because growing up in a small town 30 years ago, I was taught that very few people were gay. So of course like most people, I just never realized how many gay people I knew. Yet today, it seems like there are so many gays out there (online anyway).

And it's also fascinating to me because Rusty is exactly right - I'm not sure why we'd even care. So I'm kind of caught between my observations in an academic sense, and a bit of self-guilt over why I'd even care about someone's sexual orientation. We're talking about skyscrapers, not a pickup bar.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Actually my point was abou the archaic term "homosexual"... used as a noun. People don't do that just as they don't refer to black people as "negroes" and they don't refer to people from India as Hindustani as was once customary.

Sexuality DOES matter, and the fact that we have a thread on SSP members' offspring is testament to that. You don't see this as declaring one's sexuality because it's normative and socially supported to share news of the results of your penile-vaginal intercourse. That doesn't make such discussions irrelevant to sexuality- it's more relevant "sexually" than is my offhand mention of my partner not liking 80th and Ivy.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Anyway, as to Tarsus' query- yes, I suspect that there is a greater representation of gay men (MEN) on SSP than in the general population, and it's because we tend to be, or to become, urban.

Speaking of overrepresentation: When I was 17 I spent a summer in Germany as a participant in the Indiana University Honors Program in Foreign Languages for High School Students. 7 weeks in Krefeld under an honor code to not speak a word of English. Other groups went to France and Mexico, same idea. There were 32 of us in that group and I admin our facebook alumni/ae page for it. I've managed to contact almost every one (no mean feat after more than 30 years- this was summer of 1981), and as it turns out, of those 32, 7 are gay (5 men, 2 women). This isn't orchestra or theater camp. Oh, the American teacher who accompanied us brought his wife and two toddlers along and recently came out (post age 60) too. I can't fathom why there were so many of us in this group but chats with folks from other cohorts in this program show pretty much the same pattern.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

Actually my point was abou the archaic term "homosexual"... used as a noun. People don't do that just as they don't refer to black people as "negroes" and they don't refer to people from India as Hindustani as was once customary.

Interesting, and I completely missed it. I suppose it's not a word that comes up all the time anymore, but it didn't flag as "archaic" to my eyes at all. But now that you point it out, you're correct - I can't think of many recent times where I've seen it used as a noun. It's possible the OP was not sure exactly which term to use (I've been attacked for my liberal use of the term "gay" before).

Sexuality DOES matter, and the fact that we have a thread on SSP members' offspring is testament to that. You don't see this as declaring one's sexuality because it's normative and socially supported to share news of the results of your penile-vaginal intercourse. That doesn't make such discussions irrelevant to sexuality- it's more relevant "sexually" than is my offhand mention of my partner not liking 80th and Ivy.

With all due respect, I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying (and granted, I was rambling even more than usual). I was in no way, shape or form spouting the usual "why do them damn gays have to keep telling me they're gay with their pride parades and such, we don't have a straight pride day!".

My point was that in day-to-day conversation, I find it far less likely for a gay person to even mention their boyfriend (or girlfriend, although I'm still never sure if I can use the word "gay" to describe lesbians, or if I have to use the awkward LGBT designation to be completely inclusive here). Online however, I see it all the time. It's more "accepted" to be openly gay online, at least in the circles I frequent. So on the surface it appears as though gay folks are over-represented on most forums.

You're right in that straight people trot out their sexuality continuously; it's completely ingrained in our culture. It's actually one reason I've been frequently mistaken to be gay, because I don't really sit around talking about the wife and kids constantly. Plus I love using the term "partner" just to confuse people, especially my relatives.

[Bigtime]

Rusty: Suggest we call this thread "Gays, in my SSP?"

[CorporateWhore]

I always prefer to hear the word "homosexual" in the voice of Stewie Griffin.

[Radley77]

I grew up in a small-town country culture; my aunt laughed at cripples, my peers would talk about killing gay people, and my German social studies denied the holocaust.

As a young (and repressed gay man) with bigger dreams; cities and visible felt skyscrapers were beacons of hope. It's no secret that a lot of gay people end up migrating to places where they will be accepted.

Calgary has offered much more than my biggest dreams could imagine; I'm humbly grateful and proud to call Calgary home.

[93JC]

I couldn't care less. I just wanted to ask...

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

Actually my point was abou the archaic term "homosexual"... used as a noun. People don't do that just as they don't refer to black people as "negroes" and they don't refer to people from India as Hindustani as was once customary.

... when did the word 'homosexual' become 'archaic'? O_o

Too formal maybe, like 'women' vs. 'females', but 'archaic'? More than a bit of a stretch to compare it to 'negro' and 'hindustani'.

If it is archaic then what is the current acceptable nomenclature ()? 'Gays'?

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Calgary has offered much more than my biggest dreams could imagine; I'm humbly grateful and proud to call Calgary home.

That's awesome to hear!!! (The part I quoted and not the first part you mentioned)

My cousins live in Vancouver and everytime I visit there is one person in their group of friends that always remarks "Calgary is such a homophobic city, Vancouver is such a gay friendly city." I know they are just trying to get under my skin and bragging but it ALWAYS pisses me off. And I can't really back it up since I only had one openly gay friend but he sadly moved to Vancouver.

...Vancouver is a nice city but the people can be such pompous jackasses

[sync]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

...Vancouver is a nice city but the people can be such pompous jackasses

yup i take barbs for being from calgary every single time i'm there.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by 93JC

I couldn't care less. I just wanted to ask...



... when did the word 'homosexual' become 'archaic'? O_o

Too formal maybe, like 'women' vs. 'females', but 'archaic'? More than a bit of a stretch to compare it to 'negro' and 'hindustani'.

If it is archaic then what is the current acceptable nomenclature ()? 'Gays'?

I'm amazed you have to ask about any of this.

"Homosexual" is archaic EXACTLY like "negro" is. Neither are inherently offensive; both are in practice. I'm talking about using "homosexual" as a noun, not an adjective.

For me, the currently acceptable nomenclature is "John." That's my name. I use "gay" as an adjective to describe myself when it's appropriate to do so, but I don't refer to myself as "A GAY" as if that's my sole identity.

Why? Because that's the way it is.

[Jimby]

I think the forum on SkyscraperPage is more of a gender than orientation thing. Males of any orientation like it and females of any orientation seem to be scarce.
Anyways, this thread made me think of Daffyd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E27v-jmRmx0

[93JC]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

I'm amazed you have to ask about any of this.

"Homosexual" is archaic EXACTLY like "negro" is. Neither are inherently offensive; both are in practice. I'm talking about using "homosexual" as a noun, not an adjective.

For me, the currently acceptable nomenclature is "John." That's my name. I use "gay" as an adjective to describe myself when it's appropriate to do so, but I don't refer to myself as "A GAY" as if that's my sole identity.

Why? Because that's the way it is.

So if I describe myself as a heterosexual I'm being offensive?