hotel bans heteros and lesbians- Page 2

[DAME]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 1:27pm

Here.. I found a link for the place we stayed in. As you can see.. I did not pay to spend the weekend with women.

Ohh.. and don't forget to click on the photo album link.

inn

Updated On: 5/29/07 at 01:27 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 1:29pm

Dame, I totally understand wanting private places for just gay men to hang. I also know the benefits of that.

I just think the "no women in gay bars" gets into some troubled waters. We shouldn't penalize lesbians, bi women, and straight women who are our friends because of the bad habits of a certain type of women (and men) who invade the bars with inappropriate behavior. We have to fight behavior, not gender.

And, Lord, I could use a gay resort/cruise about now myself.

[Mamamia Sammy2]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 1:34pm

Now we know why Dame and TheatreDiva get along so well!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 1:39pm

Can we PLEASE declare a moratorium on the use of the word "hags"?

It is an ugly term with an even uglier attitude behind it.

That goes for "fag hag," as well.

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE!

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 1:43pm

"homo clingers-on?"

[erikaamato]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 1:44pm

Just to explain why I wanted to go to the clubs in WeHo. My best friend in LA (now deceased, a victim of AIDS), was gay, and we just loved going dancing together. And since he wasn't all that comfortable coming to "straight" clubs with me, we went to the gay ones - his "turf," so to speak. I was always one of the only women in the joint. This was in the early-to-mid 90's.

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 1:46pm

I don't think anyone intends that term to be nasty, PJ, although it SOUNDS nasty.

The gays are very into nomenclature though...how do replace that term?

[erikaamato]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 1:47pm

PJ: I actually agree with you about the term... I was using it somewhat facetiously, as I know that's what many people in the gay community call straight women who happen to be friends with gay men. Personally, I always found it insulting, but was told that it was just harmless fun, so I let it go.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 1:48pm

Mo gal?
Queer peer?
Daddies girl?

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 1:50pm

Grace - as in

"This is my Grace".

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 1:52pm

Ha! My ex-roomie and I used to be "Will and Grace of Bushwick"

[erikaamato]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 1:53pm

Cheeze: I was totally going to say that. I think that one's pretty nice.

[DG]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 2:20pm

I find this a little sad. 'Back in the day,' when I was going out-and-about, the thing that distinguished gay bars from the others is that you could be whoever or whatever you wanted to be. Go to a straight place, and you'd see only male-female couples on the dance floor (MAYBE some female-female, but that was only if they were seen as straight girls giving the straight boys a thrill.) On the odd occasion when two men would try to dance together, they were asked to stop at the very least - or just leave altogether.

BUT, in a gay bar, you could and would see anything - and that inclusiveness is what made it special.

The only thing I DO get is in the gay resorts where a sexual atmosphere pervades. Not that it HAS to occur, but the atmosphere keeps it available 'just in case.'

Which brings me to the fact that I'm not really understanding what this place is. The word 'hotel' is in the name, but they don't open til 8pm and it has a 'nightclub atmosphere'? Are there rooms? Is it a bar, club, bathhouse or what? And if patrons really are getting harrassed, then why aren't security measures pursued, instead of moving in the direction of exclusion? What exactly is going on in there that straight people shouldnt see, whether they would want to participate or not?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 2:27pm

Spooge.

[DAME]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 2:29pm

Spooge?

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 2:37pm

Thta's not the point DG--if you look at their website, the first thing you notice is that advertise a place where all is gay--they're appealing (or trying to appeal) to those people who don't live in a city with a strong gay community or who are not yet comfortable being gay themselves--I think that's to wjhom they primarily appeal.

Here in NYC we have Fire Island nearby, P-town not so far away--most gay people don't live near a mecca like that and these "resorts" fill a need (lord, what kind of zingers will that prompt?)

I think their theory is alot like having a dog park for little dogs--the little ones get nervous and feel better when they're amongst their own kind--this place is a special case I think--not like a regular bar.

But DG does bring up a good point--is the gay bar the place for anything goes-free to be you and me or is it just a place for the gays?

And DG--YOU KNOW that gays don't act the same when they know it's not ALL gay...at least not in my experience...

[chicolini]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 2:53pm

But lil, to continue your dog park analogy, is it right that a park completely ban large dogs? My dog gets spooked by large dogs, but we frequent a park that happens to get a smaller-dog crowd. If a big lab comes by and my dog gets too freaked, we leave.

It's a roundabout way of saying I don't agree with banning entire classes of people from anywhere. If it's a private establishment they might have legal right to exclude anybody they want, but that still doesn't make it morally right.

Racism, sexism, all those -isms (no dirty jokes intended) are wrong no matter what group is discriminated against.

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 3:05pm

Is it RIGHT? Maybe not...is it the best solution? Probably.

For both kinds of dogs....and by dogs I mean men.

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 3:33pm

I thought I posted here earlier, but apparently I didn't.

This reminds me of a mini-fight we put up in the mid- to late-90's against some couples-only hotels for openly discriminating against Gay couples.

If it's a bathhouse, fine. I think if it'a club, the crowd will naturally wean out. You can also have rules to "reserve the right of admittance" and kick out anyone not respecting other people. But to outright deny service to an entire group? How would we feel about a club that openly denied service to gays?

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 3:40pm

"How would we feel about a club that openly denied service to gays? "

You mean like churches, the military, the Red Cross (blood donation) or someplace else?

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 3:41pm

Acceptable replacements for the term "fag hag":

Fairy princess
Fruit tart
Queen bee

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 3:42pm

"or indeed we question their behaviour in the venue and if they come across as being heterosexual"

This is the statement that is most concerning to me. What is coming "across as being heterosexual". What level of "gay-ness" do you have to portray? Is that not just feeding into stereotypes?

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 3:44pm

You mean like churches, the military, the Red Cross (blood donation) or someplace else?

EXACTLY! WE fight for inclusion in these organizations/clubs, yet we are very happy to discriminate ourselves.

[lildogs]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 4:25pm

Not exactly the same thing, Day.

"The landmark decision by a civil tribunal gives the establishment -- which does not offer accommodation -- the right to refuse entry to people considered a threat to the safety and comfort of its patrons.

Helen Szoke, the chief executive of the Victoria state government's Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, said the Peel Hotel's gay clientele had experienced harassment, hostility and violence."

I doubt very seriously that McFeely was "very happy" to discriminate against the hets and the lesbians--he won the RIGHT to refuse admission to those he deems a threat to his business/clients--since he had problems before.

With the military, church, etc, they discriminate against ALL gays on ideological bases.

This guy is "discriminating" because his clientele has ben threatened or harassed and he wishes to protect them from harm.

Gay bars are targets for violence and hatred, whereas the churches, military bases and blood mobiles don't really have "bashing" issues.

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 5/29/07 at 5:03pm

Yet we fight for inclusion into these 'dangerous' places, lil.

I understand the right to kick-out anyone who makes your place an unsafe place. Most places post a "reserves the right of admission" policy. I'm ok with that. Most places naturally select their crowds.

How would we feel if a straight bar posted a clear "No Gays" allowed.