This event, to be held at St Johns Waterloo on Sat 30 September is very intriguing and potentially fantastic. It's a church fete where "gay men and women can show off their skill as cooks, gardeners, craftspeople and collectors." The organisers' tongues are in their cheeks and they say they are "putting out a call for stallholders to display their wares, and inviting the public to join us and sample the goods, swap tips and recipes, and discuss our complex relationship with gender role-models."
As one of the organisers, I'd like to thank Andrew for the plug and just say that if anyone would like to get involved - either as a stallholder, or contributing something to the bring & buy etc - then drop us a line at [email protected]
There is a serious point to the event, besides just having a lot of fun, meeting people and eating cakes. We're trying to explore other aspects of LGBT identities, the non-sexual areas of nurturing, homemaking, our relationship to gender stereotypes etc.
You'll find full details on this and the rest of our autumn/winter season at www.homoculture.org.
<sigh> Read the whole sentence: "nurturing" is the first of a list of "non-sexual areas" of life. He just means gay folk are often identified (even by themselves) in relation to sexual matters, and it can get a bit wearing. In a way, your accidental misreading sort of proves it.
Oh, and yes you are dead right: the theory will be no more heavy-handed than the sponge cakes.
"<sigh> Andrew H", but I DID read the whole sentence. It's there in Rupert's post above (and he's apparently organising it, so I thought it was OK to take him at his word. Apparently not. Thanks for being so needlessly sarcastic nonetheless.)
Hmmm. You could disguise the theory by printing interesting and thought provoking phrases on the inside of the cake wrapping. That way people could digest the theory in bite sized chunks along with their (hopefully yummy) cakes. (oh, I am certainly Captain Pun today :o))
Would you like to go with me?
Wherever I'm going
Are you *really* asking?
Is that your *real* answer?
Sorry Ivanhoe. I assumed your post was being a bit mischievous about Rupert's grammar, rather than genuinely thinking he was referring to "the non-sexual areas of nurturing" as something in itself, which makes no sense. So I replied in the same sarcastic spirit.
I am boring myself now, but surely Gareth was right first time, and Rupert means "the non-sexual areas of life, like nurturing, homemaking, our relationship to gender stereotypes etc."