Now that's just seriously creepy...


Apart from the fact that Joe isn't a fantasy figure for many teenage girls. Because they're not completely blind, and can see he's almost certainly gay. If they do like him, it's not because they think of him as a fantasy figure, it's because they like him and his voice. Joe core vote is among the over-50s, not teenage girls.

He appeals to a totally different fanbase than Lloyd, for instance.

To do with probability.

They are right though. If he's kept quiet about it, it's definitely because of either of those two reasons that the other user gave.

So denying homophobia exists is the same as saying it won't be tolerated.

Strange argument.

Sureley an awareness of the truth is a good thing? It can then be addressed rather than ignored or used?

Why to YOU think the red - top papers love the gay speculation so much?

I don't see any straight speculation - funny that.

What a tedious thread.:yawn:

We might as well have shouted to crown Stacey as winner for being the first Jew to win a reality TV event!

You've been the one arguing that the truth about contestants sexuality should be suppressed, whatever the damage it causes.


They don't much in relation to X Factor. There's hardly been any. The strongly rumoured gay relationship among contestants hasn't been mentioned once by them (despite every journalist in the business knowing about it).

Yes but I was talking about the speculation about sexuality being used negatively, and in a broad way.

But, to develope your point - it doesn't matter if people speculate about Joe, because it won't damage his fanbase?

Are you sure that's okay?

What about if it did damage his fanbase - would it still be okay? To speculate without evidence, when it might not be true even?

[quote=Rhumbatugger;37251860]
That wasn't my argument and you know it.


Awareness is certainly good but even better is a challenging of these ideas. The more people say that being gay is weird/other/different then the more those ideas are perpetuated.


Because many people (including many posting here) believe that being gay is wrong/deviant/perverse and the red tops pander to bigots.


QUOTE]

Because being straight is considered normal and straight people don't grow up with a lack of role models to look up to so they look for them where they can find them.

You seem to like attacking folks who disagree with your position and a lot of people disagree with your position it seems. Much of what you write is inaccurate or badly written nonsense.

I will keep an eye on my fundament. Thank you for the advice.

Well, it didn't seem to damage Lloyd's fanbase much really, and there was far more talk and speculation about him than Joe for most of the series (and his fanbase really did have a lot of teenage girls etc viewing him as a fantasy figure, unlike Joe)

But no, I think gay speculation is inevitable when you have contestants like Joe, Danyl, or Lloyd. It's hardly going to surprise anyone. I don't think certain topics should be off limits just in case it makes a few bigots stop voting for them.

You seem to be quite happy with people speculating he's straight, I note...

[quote=Eejit;37251908]You've been the one arguing that the truth about contestants sexuality should be suppressed, whatever the damage it causes.

No I haven't.

I have questioned the motives of those who would take it upon themselves to 'out' someone. It's up to the person concerned, and only they know if they are straight or not.

It's not up to anyone else to do it, and when people do, it seems to be for ulterior motives, and certainly not 'not caring about them.'

Are you a Joe fan then Eejit? And want him to be happy and secure in what you believe is his sexuality?

Do you think endless speculation or outing him will help him as a person?

Exactly. Why should it matter?

To say Joe should get the job based purely on his sexual preferences is discrimination, pure and simple.

If someone posted on here and suggested that someone should win because they are straight, there'd be uproar and the poster would probably be banned...

No, I don't like attacking people, but I will stand up and say uncomfortable things if I think it's important enough.

I'm fairly sure that you can understand my style of writing Tumblin', so that shouldn't be a problem. If there are particular things you would like to question that's fine.


As for your fundament - well done for taking the advice,

Rachel Adedeji said in her Holy Moly interview that Joe's straight, she would know so that should be enough proof for anyone. Let's all stop focussing on something that doesn't even matter anyway.

You do realise you are trying to suppress a natrual curiosity?

It's almost a national pasttime in the UK.

Not sure how she would know and it is hardly proof.

I don't think he is gay. I haven't seen or heard anything to make me think he is. If we didn't discuss things that didn't matter on here, there would be little discussed

Look, the majority of people are straight. There is such prurient interest in whether someone is gay, that when people say they are straight, even that can look like they are 'lying' or 'in denial'. It's a game of attack, for many, it is not concerned with the person and their choices.

Unless someone says they are openly gay, then I will presume they are either straight or don't want it to be addressed.

That's fine by me, as their sexuality is their damned business, and we have no business forcing the 'role model' role on them.

Can someone please tell me WHY it matters?

Can someone also please explain WHY we should apparently be voting for him based on his preferences as opposed to his musical abilities..?

I don't understand...

Not all gay men are camp, just like not all straight men are butch. Joe may be gay but so far, there is evidence to the contrary. If he IS gay, time will tell if he so chooses to speak about it.

As I've said many times before on here. We're free, happy and open to mention sexuality and speculate on such things if the speculation insinuates heterosexuality. When it insinuates or suggests homosexuality, we're told it doesn't matter and are encouraged to be quiet about it and even threads on the subject get closed, in contrast to the "omg Olly and Stacey xxx" - threads.

I can't actually think of anything more profoundly homophobic than that, whether it's deliberate or not.

It is human nature to be interested in the sexuality of other folk.

Some people want to discuss it. Some people want to fight about it. Some people sell newspapers speculating about it.

For some people it matters a lot.

So you are saying positive discrimination is OK and that people should vote for Joe purely on the basis of his perceived sexuality?

If so, I think you should grow up!

Althought both Freddie Mercury and George Michael were in the closet long enough to build up a huge following.

I think gay people are understandably looking to cling to good role models.

For many, many years and even today, gay artists try so hard to distance themselves from their sexuality because it's seen, still, as a "negative" thing. Yes artists do 'come-out' these days but many of them don't and even those who do, most take absolutely years and years and try and put people off the scent by their publicist releasing stories about them being involved in a 'three in a bed romp' with two members of the opposite sex.

It's just really a case, I think, of people wanting their sexuality to be treated equally and not like some dirty little secret that the artist is ashamed for anyone to know.

I'll grow up once you learn how to read what I've said and not just make up some rubbish in response which bears no relation to what I've actually said.

Deal?