What is a 'typical ' boy?

I rarely venture out of the kitchen for fear of putting my foot into something nasty.
However, I wish to say that G&T has always behaved decently when in the company of us lot in the kitchen. He has a warm sense of humour that is welcome and appreciated. Penstemmon I find your assessment of G&T to be unkind and unwarranted.

And rephrased and enlarged on his deleted post in a later one, being careful NOT to say "dislike" certain behaviour, but to say "made me feel uncomfortable" and to explain why. That too was deleted, which is what I feel is unfair.

Dickie has expressed what will appear to many who didn't read either post - that it must have been a very bad homophobic attack because it was deleted. That has escalated into treating a mild degree of discomfort into a full-on abusive rant - which would not be the case if the later post had stayed. A sledgehammer to crack a peanut.

Soop I am basing it on his sexist remarks. I do not like sexism or people who espouse it and then get huffy if their attitude is challenged. I do not find casual sexism amusing!

Just to say I did not see either of Dickies deleted posts.

Is it putting a child 'in a box' if a parent considers the possibility they may be gay/have autism/be deaf/have poor eyesight? None of those four situations are 'faults' they are part of that child and may need specific help /support to enable the child to grow and develop with confidence and each potential. We are happier to acknowledge the latter two need intervention but often not the former. Society has prejudices and hang ups that hinder children getting specific help.

He was very critical of G&T, without reading either of his posts. I did not report his posts, but HQ clearly did not appreciate them.

I don't like casual sexism either, but I differentiate between risque joshing between old friends and the over-familar tone sometimes adopted on here by new male posters towards the mainly female members. It reminds me of girls being hit on in pubs by complete strangers.

That is exactly why I find it wrong! I am no prude but I do find the casual comments about women's sexual appeal inappropriate and the snigger snigger attitude towards gay/camp people as 'uncomfortable' as watching a couple (any combo!) smooching and groping away in public! They use of 'they' when referring to a minority group is often (not always) making a sweeping stereotypical generalisation. I find that lazy/ignorant!

Uh oh. Another rash of HQ Sunday Delete Finger.

Keep arguing, elegran. How about we lobby HQ to reinstate the posts you're defending?

I don't think sexual comments about women's sexual appeal are any more inappropriate than ones about men's sexual appeal, a good number of which I've seen on Gransnet. We are sexual animals. Sexual appeal actually does matter. It evolved because it's useful.

Well said hopeful1

thatbags the women in question had just won gold medals. There were other attributes that deserved comment not just about their physical appeal. In personal contexts of course people admire physical attributes. I am talking casual sexism.
I agree re women commenting on men in that way too!!

I don't consider intervention and 'putting in boxes' one and the same thing, Penstemmon.

I don't like casual sexism either; had my fill of that. Agree we're sexual animals, B, and of it's usefulness, but don't find nudge, nudge, wink, wink suggestive comments useful.

I don't like casual sexism either way, pen, but I think ignoring it with dignity such as Nadiya Hussain talks about with regard to the casual racism she's been subject to is the best approach. Others won't agree probably but I think that behaving as if unaffected by such stuff is a good approach, and probably more effective in the long run.

Crossed posts, ffinn. I agree about innuendo not being useful. Unfortunately, people being people, I think a certain amount is inevitable.

But what about a serious discussion without sniggering about why it is necessary for SOME gay people to overdo the display of the characteristics of one sex or other (or what is assumed to be their characteristics)?

Is it because they were discouraged as young children from showing any of those characteristics, so they go th whole hog when they are free to? That takes us back to the OP. If a wider range of behaviours were accepted and not commented on by nosy neighbours and "friends", would children develop their own innate sexuality without being extremely camp or butch?

(Using "they" is really unavoidable when you are talking about one section of the population. I know that there are many variations of individuals under that banner, but it gets tedious to use a long-winded description every time. )

Elegran I will ask the gay men I know what they think re 'camp' behaviours as I do not know enough to put forward an informed opinion.
ffin maybe I do not fully understand what others mean by 'putting in a box'.

Here is an interesting discussion. "Why are so many guys in the U.S. theater scene gay?"

www.quora.com/Why-are-so-many-guys-in-the-U-S-theater-scene-gay

A man I used to know reckoned that most boys go through a period of gender confusion when they reach puberty. Then they could go either way, depending on the people they happen to meet.
I'm not sure all men would agree with that though, or whether it applies to girls too.

A small PS to say that an earlier post of mine has been deleted - not because it was bad, but because it repeated something. Just saying, in case anyone thinks I have been abusive. (I can't actually remember what it said)

I think so many men in the theatrical scene are gay because it is one of the few areas where you can openly be gay without abuse. Do people honestly believe that that there are no men in the premier league who are gay? Off course there are, but it is still not seen as acceptable to come out.

Has GandTea heard yet why his posts were deleted. Or has that been established now?

TriciaF I am not sure that being gay is a choice any more than the colour of your eyes is a choice! I do think young people will experiment with sex and that for some will include sex with same sex partners but if you are not gay/bi it will not 'turn you' gay & just as many gay men/women will also have sex with opposite sex partners will decide it is not right for them!
It does not seem surprising that there are apparently more gay men in the arts..it is generally a less macho world and so it may have felt a safer place to express yourself than the building/ engineering / sports etc industries. Having spent some time at Bletchley Park this weekend and reading more about Alan Turing there and the sad and tragic end to such a clever man purely because he was gay was very sobering. Sadly lives are still being lost because of intolerance.

Gay and in possession of some serious state secrets (possibly) - but we will never know what happened in the final months of Turing's life.
I remember once, Matthew Parrish on R4 - interviewer asked him something to the effect - was there a little bit of homosexual behaviour going on in Westminster - to which he responded that there was not a little - there was a lot.
Many young men were introduced to homosexual behaviour in England's public school system...
I think the difference between the Arts and other walks of life is that it has long been more acceptable to be openly gay in the Arts and taboo in other walks of life. Think of John Brown who used to run BP who did not 'come out' i seem to recall until after he left that job.

Many undiagnosed Asperger boys are quiet, geeky and don't like football. "Gay" is a general insult these days for anyone who is a bit different.

GNHQ have not explained how my post broke any rules and will not re-instate it. I have been out all day, it would seem that there have been some comments about me that have been deleted, but the damage to my character has been done, as they say mud sticks.

As it appears that I will not be given the right to defend myself (even a rapist gets that right) I will be leaving.