Steve Davies comes out

[Furball]

It speaks volumes that this story is actually newsworthy.

 

[Cruxdude]

Dude verdict of my post was Rural people assume that when two gay men are in a ***ual relationship they will adopt roles which are traditionally feminine. They believe that gay people can be identified by the way they look and talk. Thinking, for example, that gay men look more effeminate than straight men and lesbian women look more masculine than straight women.

See Teja' post #51.

No my confusion was about people being proud about being the dominant partner and boasting about it. Honestly didn't know about that. Thought all gay people were looked down upon.

 

[lockton2skipper]

well done stephen. great act of courage.

 

[silentstriker]

To Block A Gay-Straight Alliance, Texas High School Shuts Down All Extracurricular Clubs | Change.org News

Apparently many people still don't find it a non-issue.

 

[Sanz]

Problem in sub-continent esp. in rural areas of North India & Pakistan is that Dominant partner is not even considered gay, infact people feel proud, they brag about their so called achievements with frens. It happens in Police stations/Religious places too!!! Discrimination is only against passive member of partnership. I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

We dont have word equivalent to Gay in Indian languages. We have words like Gaandu, Launda, Hijra, Khusra etc which represent only one side of story or completely off topic.

BTW interesting read - BBC : Gay Pakistan - 'less inhibited than West'

The guy is either delusional or extremely lucky.

 

[NasserFan207]

No my confusion was about people being proud about being the dominant partner and boasting about it. Honestly didn't know about that. Thought all gay people were looked down upon.

Its not Pakistan or India, but its still pretty funny. Omid Djalili, starting at 1:20 YouTube - Omid Djalili on HBO (part 1)

 

[stephen]

well done stephen. great act of courage.

While I agree that quoting Burgey is a courageous move sometimes, I don't think it needs particular praise.

 

[silentstriker]

Problem in sub-continent esp. in rural areas of North India & Pakistan is that Dominant partner is not even considered gay, infact people feel proud, they brag about their so called achievements with frens. It happens in Police stations/Religious places too!!! Discrimination is only against passive member of partnership. I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

We dont have word equivalent to Gay in Indian languages. We have words like Gaandu, Launda, Hijra, Khusra etc which represent only one side of story or completely off topic.
'[/URL]

This is very true. The passive "partner" often takes feminine characteristics and I think would be more akin to a trans-***ual person than a 'gay' person we would think of. The dominant partner does not have the same stigma attached to him, especially as the encounters are often one-night pay-for-*** in nature (even though euphemisms and other language is used to mask the reality of that...eg considered 'married' for one night) and often the partner is already married anyway. If a person is gay, often he has no recourse but to become transsexual (which is another problem in itself), and there is no real 'gay couples' (e.g, two men both identifying as men and being identified as men by society) or communities anywhere, except perhaps cities like Mumbai.

There was an amazing documentary I saw on this, which I will try to find.

 

[pup11]

Great stuff this on the part of Davies because like some have said it certainly couldn't have been easy for him, but in regard to his career its still questionable whether he has done the right thing or not.

AFAIC, he looked like the best keeper-batsman in England by some distance and I can't help but think that cricketing reasons alone weren't responsible for him losing his place in the English side, and if that's the case then its really a shame.

 

[Burgey]

Great stuff this on the part of Davies because like some have said it certainly couldn't have been easy for him, but in regard to his career its still questionable whether he has done the right thing or not.

AFAIC, he looked like the best keeper-batsman in England by some distance and I can't help but think that cricketing reasons alone weren't responsible for him losing his place in the English side, and if that's the case then its really a shame.

How can you know that mate? I mean, really, that's just uninformed speculation on your part. have you heard anything to that effect? If you have you should mention it.

Because otherwise all you're doing is sullying, by inference, the reputations of the man's tam mates and the England selectors.

And let's be honest, there are lots of reasons to do that without going anywhere near this issue.

 

[kingkallis]

Problem in sub-continent esp. in rural areas of North India & Pakistan is that Dominant partner is not even considered gay, infact people feel proud, they brag about their so called achievements with frens. It happens in Police stations/Religious places too!!! Discrimination is only against passive member of partnership. I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

We dont have word equivalent to Gay in Indian languages. We have words like Gaandu, Launda, Hijra, Khusra etc which represent only one side of story or completely off topic.

BTW interesting read - BBC : Gay Pakistan - 'less inhibited than West'

I totally agree! This has happened in some of the famous temples of Gujarat only recently and have heard many such stories involving Pathans

 

[marc71178]

AFAIC, he looked like the best keeper-batsman in England by some distance and I can't help but think that cricketing reasons alone weren't responsible for him losing his place in the English side, and if that's the case then its really a shame.

I would speculate that the only non-cricketing reason that may have come into force was that his head was so full of the pressure of having come out half way (so to speak) that they didn't think that he was mentally fit for a World Cup tournament - it would not surprise me one bit to see him back in the ODI side in the summer.

 

[silentstriker]

How can you know that mate? I mean, really, that's just uninformed speculation on your part. have you heard anything to that effect? If you have you should mention it.

Because otherwise all you're doing is sullying, by inference, the reputations of the man's tam mates and the England selectors.

And let's be honest, there are lots of reasons to do that without going anywhere near this issue.

It's interesting because (and I'm not insinuating at all that it has hapepned) it'd be impossible to prove. No one comes out and says it, but there are ways to discredit someone by using euphemisms and 'code words'. You can say someone is not 'tough enough', or, 'weak', or 'doesn't help the team dynamic', or whatever to mask the reasons - and many times it's not deliberate, it's simply the culture people have grown up in (racism has a very long history of using code words like that). Even a few jokes at the player's expense (as many have done in this thread) can sometimes do a lot to change the perception of other people subconsciously - making them question or think slightly less of the player. That's all it takes. Jokes about race are generally not considered polite in a professional setting, but homophobic ones are still very much in style.

 

[four_or_six]

For information purposes - a small number of posts in this thread have been deleted whilst under review by moderators for now.

I don't want to label and posts or posters as unacceptable by doing this, as I said, they're under review. But just to clarify - homophobic jokes are not acceptable on the forum.

 

[silentstriker]

To the people who wonder why this is still an issue and then proceed to make homophobic jokes...

Exhibit A, mates. That's why people don't come out.

 

[pup11]

How can you know that mate? I mean, really, that's just uninformed speculation on your part. have you heard anything to that effect? If you have you should mention it.

Because otherwise all you're doing is sullying, by inference, the reputations of the man's tam mates and the England selectors.

And let's be honest, there are lots of reasons to do that without going anywhere near this issue.

Its nothing mate, but I read somewhere that Flower and Co. wanted Prior back because of the 'spirit' he brings into the side with his role behind the stumps, now obviously if Davies wasn't in England's ODI scheme of things then I find it pretty weird why they would want him to play in the first ODI in the ODI series against Australia.

I personally see no merit in choosing a guy like Prior in the LO format but the reason to pick him ahead of Davies could be on the lines of what marc mentioned, or it could simply be a case of the management not feeling too comfortable having a gay bloke in a team of full of straight men and obviously there is no way to prove either theory.

I know it sounds harsh but that's the kind of world we live in and there is no shying away from the fact that even today in this day and age people are discriminated on the basis of race, HIV or their ***ual preferences.

 

[zaremba]

there is no shying away from the fact that even today in this day and age people are discriminated on the basis of race, HIV or their ***ual preferences.

This is true. Not least by religious folk who seek to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against people on the basis of their ***ual proclivities. Thankfully a frankly heroic campaign is currently being fought by the Courts in England against this (much to the annoyance of the usual suspects among the right-wing press) underpinning which is the acceptance that treating people less favourably on grounds of their ***ual orientation is every bit as wrong and every bit as illegal as race or *** discrimination.

Sorry, have veered a bit off topic there, but hey

 

[Howe_zat]

True, Tom. The tabloids seem unable to distiguish the loss of unnecessary privelidge with discrimination. Which is odd, as you'd expect them to know all there is to know about discrimination.

A reminder, I think, of what Davies is up against when he takes them on.

Anyway, this is not the time or place to moan about them.

 

[Burgey]

Its nothing mate, but I read somewhere that Flower and Co. wanted Prior back because of the 'spirit' he brings into the side with his role behind the stumps, now obviously if Davies wasn't in England's ODI scheme of things then I find it pretty weird why they would want him to play in the first ODI in the ODI series against Australia.

I personally see no merit in choosing a guy like Prior in the LO format but the reason to pick him ahead of Davies could be on the lines of what marc mentioned, or it could simply be a case of the management not feeling too comfortable having a gay bloke in a team of full of straight men and obviously there is no way to prove either theory.

I know it sounds harsh but that's the kind of world we live in and there is no shying away from the fact that even today in this day and age people are discriminated on the basis of race, HIV or their ***ual preferences.

Yeah I understand that, but I tend to come from the school of thought that you give people the maximum benefit of the doubt concerning their motives.

Except Murphy.

 

[GotSpin]

To the people who wonder why this is still an issue and then proceed to make homophobic jokes...

Exhibit A, mates. That's why people don't come out.

How were my jokes homophobic?

They were jokes taken from the 12th man. Don't see how that would stop people coming out.