If you were a smalltown flyover homo
|by Gailan||reply 20||09/10/2013|
We aren't all closeted out here or running away you self-loathing coward. That you would assume those are the normal options says a lot more about you than it does about us.
|by Gailan||reply 1||01/08/2012|
|by Gailan||reply 2||01/08/2012|
You forgot the every popular "marry a foreign woman who needs a visa" which is especially popular with the flyovers.
|by Gailan||reply 4||01/08/2012|
I would rather get fisted in the steam room and make hissing sounds at the young guys in the locker room.
|by Gailan||reply 5||01/08/2012|
Only New Yorkers live with their mothers, since rents are so high.
|by Gailan||reply 6||01/09/2012|
There’s a common perception that gays and lesbians who live in rural communities aren’t as happy as their counterparts living in major cities, researchers say. But a new study shows rural gays and lesbians may have a better quality of life by some measurements than those living in the nation's largest metropolitan areas.
Chris Wienke of Southern Illinois University and Gretchen J. Hill of Arkansas State University looked at the well being of gays and lesbians living across the urban-rural continuum – from the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, to midsized cities, suburbs, small cities and rural areas.
What they found contradicts conventional wisdom that large urban areas are better places for gays and lesbians to live.
“Results from a large probability sample show that rural gay people fare no worse than their urban peers,” the study says. “If anything, results suggest living in the largest cities may be detrimental to gay people’s wellbeing, although more so for lesbians than for gay men.”
The study identified 632 gays and lesbians in three random-sample surveys from 1988 to 2006. Researchers analyzed these respondents’ answers to questions about their happiness, health and job satisfaction and correlated those responses to geography.
Rural gays and lesbians didn’t reveal anything that indicated they were any less happy, healthy or satisfied than gays and lesbians living in larger communities. In fact, rural homosexuals reported better responses to these questions than their peers living in the nation’s 12 largest metro areas.
The pattern was especially pronounced in the respondents’ answers to questions about health. “Gay and lesbian residents of the largest cities were significantly less healthy than those living in any other community type,” the study said.
The authors said the results were somewhat unexpected:
“The finding that gay residents living in the largest cities experience a relatively low level of wellbeing is a bit a surprising. After all, many of the best-known meccas of gay life in the United States are located in major cities, including Greenwich Village in New York, the Castro in San Francisco, West Hollywood in Los Angeles and Boys Town in Chicago.”
The authors theorized that any advantage that comes from living in large cities also comes with a price. “It may be that the benefits of living in extremely large cities are exceeded by the costs,” they wrote. “For gay people, large cities tend to provide more social-networking opportunities, more social and institutional supports and more tolerant social climates. Yet, they also typically have more noise, pollution, traffic, crime and ethnic conflict – stressors that tend to erode wellbeing. Other drawbacks of urban life may include high taxes, inferior public schools, substandard housing and a relatively high cost of living.”
The study had a limited sample size and was confined to U.S. respondents. But the findings were still significant when the authors controlled for demographic differences such as age, education and income levels.
The study, "Does Place of Residence Matter? Rural–Urban Differences and the Wellbeing of Gay Men and Lesbians," appears in the Journal of Homosexuality.
|by Gailan||reply 7||09/09/2013|
Thanks R7 that was worth sharing.
|by Gailan||reply 8||09/10/2013|
R9 = bro
|by Gailan||reply 10||09/10/2013|
If OP is indicative of big city homos, I'll stick with my small town, thanks.
|by Gailan||reply 11||09/10/2013|
OP seems to be posting from the 1950s.
|by Gailan||reply 12||09/10/2013|
I would suggest that once you are partnered, a small town or rural community may be a better life. I know that has worked for us. Finding someone in a small town is more problematic and generally provides you with fewer "fucking and facial" opportunities.
However, once you found that someone special, moving to less hectic and densely populated areas tends to increase your quality of life.
|by Gailan||reply 13||09/10/2013|
This thread really backfired on the OP.
Death to New York.
|by Gailan||reply 14||09/10/2013|
177 responses to the poll is hardly a 'backfire'.
|by Gailan||reply 15||09/10/2013|
I love this thread because it is true. Gay neighborhoods are heavily fortified by people that had to escape an unfriendly hometown.
|by Gailan||reply 16||09/10/2013|
OP likes to project her ingrained homophobia and defensive hauteur in a tandem performance that would make Freud salivate.
|by Gailan||reply 17||09/10/2013|
There's probably a lot to what R7 says. And I'd say you're right, R16. My friend Joe-Mo' always points out obviously 'Mo guys and says things like "that one just got out of town minutes before the sheriff's posse." I point out he came downtown to Fordham from The Bronx. He fails to see the humor. Must admit tho', a lot of guys without any direction I meet in New York seem to have fled from small towns. Fled being key. No racing to a career or goal, just anything to get away from their perceived unhappiness.
|by Gailan||reply 18||09/10/2013|
Or in other words, New York is over.
|by Gailan||reply 19||09/10/2013|
Had I found a partner in TX, probably would have stayed put. Glad I split, though...still kinda tough there, really it seems.
|by Gailan||reply 20||09/10/2013|