Dude, You're In My Face

FuelMix has frequently said in this blog that the days of Fagland as an exclusive ghetto - particularly in the West - are numbered. The economics of fag purchasing power simply don’t support it. It’s no exaggeration to say that Faglands are dying (metaphorically and literally) and many establishments there have turned “straight-friendly” just to survive. It’s also no exaggeration to suggest that many gay businesses in Fagland are owned by straights. (Thank God. For more on what FuelMix says about fags in business, see the “Gay Business” label on the right).

But it takes 2 to tango. In his site visits to the Faglands of the world, FuelMix noticed a turf war in the behaviour of some fags towards non-fags who ventured there. Frequently FuelMix has seen fags camp it up more, ratchet up the public displays of affection and act more queer. It was seen as sport, a source of hilarity an “in your face” attitude towards straights – even though it was strangely aggressive.

The average ghetto fag will squeal from here to the nearest porn theatre that he has nothing against straights. But the fact remains that heteros are muscling into the ghetto socially and commercially. And that makes fags feel threatened. The whole idea of a fag ghetto was safety in numbers. If that’s being diluted by hetero yuppies moving in, trendy straight restaurants, cocktail bars, and the accompanying price inflation that comes with it, of course a fag will resent it and probably act up in the presence of heteros.

And you think that baiting straights with an “in your face” fag aggression doesn’t constitute a “hate crime” or provocation?  Think again. It all depends on the facts.  A hetero has just as much right to the protection of “hate crime” legislation as a fag – even if the hetero is in the fag ghetto.  FuelMix has cringed witnessing fags just pushing the envelope of provocation, almost goading the hetero to lash out - so THEY can allege a "hate crime". Remember, a generic fag can't feel validated unless he screams that he's being violated.

Originally published 7 October 2008.
Amended and republished 15 April 2013.