Having unwittingly stumbled upon the subject whilst reviewing, I have decided, no doubt foolhardily, to step into the breach, and perhaps stimulate debate on the thorny subject of sexuality.
I have been labelled a homophobe, which I vehemently deny. Homophobia is, by definition, “a hatred or fear of homosexuals”. Well, hatred is a very strong word, and an emotion which I honestly do not feel towards any human being. The only time I felt true hatred was when I watched a thug kick my twin brother in the head whilst he lay helpless. Hatred is an all consuming dislike, an intense ill will towards the object of your hatred. I feel no such strength of emotion towards homosexuals, but neither do I feel a particular affinity, sympathy or empathy. Nor do I fear homosexuals, that would be absurd, what have I to fear? Perhaps a challenge to my fundamental assumptions and viewpoints? Well, that really is going to hurt, truly I should be scared.
What I disagree with is the normalization of what is essentially a sexual perversion, and if that sounds a bit extreme, perhaps that is proof enough of my point. Pervert (in its verbal form) is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “turn a person or thing away from its proper use or nature”. I rest my case, the anal passage’s normal use or nature is not for sexual stimulation, it has evolved for the purpose of defecation. I will preserve my own for this sole purpose, others can utilise their back passages as they wish, but don’t tell me such activity is “normal”.
I’m aware that the intellectual examination of something which is now so intrinsic in our society is to a great extent futile. The battle was lost some time ago. Yet, I can foresee a creeping normalization of the more, shall we say, peripheral sexual practices, following in the wake of homosexuality. Transvestism, violent sex, so called sexploitation, sadomasochism, and who knows what next, we start with buggery, next its bestiality, then its paedophilia. The silent majority, who find the idea of homosexuality distasteful, can no longer say this in public. Under our current laws it can be construed as incitement to hatred, and is effectively covered by race and bigotry laws. The battle is lost.
The word “normal” has been stolen from the English language too. Nothing is now normal, nothing abnormal. Everything is acceptable. The pendulum has swung too far to the libertarian, so at the age of forty, I already feel alien to a world that bends backwards to accommodate every perversion, eccentricity, every minority faction, at the expense of the oppressed majority.
Anarchy and chaos are sure to follow. To quote the left-wing, Spanish Civil war propaganda poster – “If you tolerate this, then your children will be next”.
Oli (13/11/06) |
Written by Witzl (1585 comments posted) 13th November 2006 | I've just gotten off my soapbox, creaky old knees and all, and now I have to climb right back up onto it.
Oli, our mouths are generally used for talking and eating, and yet we have incorporated them into our sexuality in ways that I hardly need describe. I can't see that this evolvement, if you will, can be described as perversion.
My mother, good, thoughtful person that she was, would have agreed with you. She hated to see the pendulum swing too far one way, and I can understand that feeling. I too deplore the oversexualization of children -- little girls getting make-up kits for Christmas, kiddy discos for children not even ten. Anyone who tries to defend pedophilia is despicable in my eyes, and I am not a fan of violent sex, gay or straight.
But, perhaps because I lived in San Francisco for so many years, where even if you wanted to, you could not avoid mixing with people of unconventional sexual orientation, I cannot see that heterosexuals are any less inclined to any of the above-mentioned perversions than homosexuals. Pedophilia is practiced by both hetero- and homosexuals, and the same can be said for sadism and masochism.
The gay men and lesbians I knew in San Francisco -- and New York -- were just people. Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Democrats, Republicans, smart, stupid, kindly, cruel, liberal and conservative -- just plain old people. No doubt some were perverts, but then most of us have encountered heterosexual perverts too.
As for our children, some of them are going to be gay whether we like it or not. What we can do is protect them, encourage them and support them. And we are not supporting them if we tell them that, should they be inclined to choose same-sex partners because of their own proclivities, they are perverts.
| Old arguments
Written by ellipinnock (1753 comments posted) 13th November 2006 | I would not support the normalisation of violent, abusive secual practices etc. However, when a significant proportion of our population are homosexual (genotypically defined for many) I would not have them growing up believing themselves to be deviant, perverted etc. That is a terrible label to give an adolescent whose sexual orientation may well be beyond their control. Without bending over backwards to the God of political correctness would you really brand them thus?
Elli | Frustrated?
Written by Fledermaus (3238 comments posted) 13th November 2006 | A little frustrated Oli?
As long as homosexuals are consenting adults, what's the big deal? | A long history
Written by patterjack (1159 comments posted) 13th November 2006 | As a fresh faced plump 20 year old I could not get on a Sydney tram without having my bum felt , or a hand placed on my thigh. Pheromones or something must have been to blame , as nobody else among my friends was getting the treatment.
Then i met another student , who taught me more English than any University lecturer had done -- I owe a first class honours degree to him and the long discussions that we had during the week and at the weekend sometimes when I stayed over at an artist's flat next to his. ( She was out sleeping with a boyfriend ).
It was unfortunate that I was put in the position at the end of our year in having to refuse his confession of love for me , together with proposition.
At another university later I had to gently talk another student OUTof my bed , when he joined me while we were alone in a hostel .
In my later casual career in amateur and semi/professional drama I met dozens of actors who were gay ; one of them I consider to have been one of our Oz best .
Some of my co-lecturers and friends were gay.There were a lot of lesbiansamong them too I wonder what the highly reiigious heads of administration would have done had they known . They were discreet people .
All the homosexuals that I have come to know have been intelligent , thoughtful , kindly --- and entirely accepting of my heterosexuality . .
Not a paedophile or animal lover among them.
patterjack
| Very Interesting...
Written by Talisker (1321 comments posted) 14th November 2006 | Of course, nowhere in my piece did I suggest that I had ever met an unpleasant gay person. I haven't.
Also, although I deliberately "mentioned" bestiality and paedophilia in the same article, this does not mean that I associate them with homosexuality. I suggested that the bounds of what is considered normal and acceptable by society are being extended, and that the acceptance of homosexuality was a forerunner of this.
It never fails to astound me, that when an emotive issue is raised for debate, otherwise balanced and highly intelligent contributors leap to defend targets not even under attack!
In my mind, I can seperate how I feel about individual homosexuals from my vews about shifts in societal norms, very easily. Perhaps I have a singular skill in this respect - in keeping the issue unclouded by sentimentality.
Having said all that, can you really be sure that non of your homosexual pals had other deviant tendencies? You must be one hell of a confidant. Also, by thus suggesting that sexual deviance is restricted to the heterosexual population, you take the argument one stage further in another direction entirely.
Personally, I believe that the demonisation of the paedophile has been dangerously overplayed. There is a part of that seed in all men, thankfully in most it remains dormant. But that is another controversial article which can wait.
Thanks for all the responses.
Oli
| A pointless reply
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3298 comments posted) 14th November 2006 |
I’m afraid hiding behind dictionary definitions isn’t going to fool anyone. OK so according to the dictionary you are not a homophobe, big deal. Anyone reading that will know just what you are.
“Pervert (in its verbal form) is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as turn a person or thing away from its proper use or nature”
So what does that prove? Eating an egg does that; by nature they are supposed to turn into hens not act as protein for us. That makes most of us perverts according to your dictionary. And we have taken penicillin and turned it away from it’s proper use or nature. So to lead a “normal” life most of have to be perverts.
You quote the dictionary is if it held some moral force. It just a definition and they can change and do.
If you are prejudiced at least have the honesty to admit to it an not justify it with dictionary definitions, that is pathetic.
“Yet, I can foresee a creeping normalization of the more, shall we say, peripheral sexual practices, following in the wake of homosexuality”
Why can you? what reasons do you have for forseeing this. What do you mean by normalization? Why does it matter if happens anyway? You are trying to use scare tactics. Are you hinting something bad is going to happen? Just what? And there are plenty of heterosexual practices that are “peripheral” and unproductive and there is a creeping normalization there too. But that doesn’t seem to bother you.
“The silent majority, who find the idea of homosexuality distasteful, can no longer say this in public”
I think you just have haven’t you? Is that the police knocking at your door…no?- thought not.
All this is unimportant. The real reason for my reply was
“next its bestiality, then its paedophilia”.
….by saying that you subtly (and unfairly) link homosexuality with paedophilia the same thing has been done in the past by the Sun and the BNP. You keep some strange company, my friend. Check the news; just as many of the paedophiles have been heterosexual anyway. Can you prove you’re not one? See how easy it is to link it to someone? It just creates fear and hate.
“Anarchy and chaos are sure to follow”
Reactionaries like you have been saying that about every change in history. It was certainly said about allowing women to vote and I expect you are unhappy about that too. They said it about the abolition of hanging. They said it about relaxing the Sunday trading laws, about pub opening times…… Oh what's the point?
| I refuse
Written by patterjack (1159 comments posted) 14th November 2006 | I will not enter into a You said / I did not say type of argument.
It does not work in emails , as it is too easy to weasel out of what was implied , though not openly and brutally stated.
I suggest instead that you read your original article and try to look objectively at the impression you have given to others --intended or not .
patterjack | Errant nonsense
Written by Talisker (1321 comments posted) 14th November 2006 | BBS - "Can you prove your not one?" i.e. a paedophile - what on earth are you on about? I never suggested anyone else was a paedophile, and I never suggested that there are more gay paedophiles - why not actually READ the article. Its about societial attitudes, thats all. If you read it differently, then you are misreading my intention. But I think thats what you WANT to do.
Brian, nothing was deliberately implied, I promise you. I've tried to be clear about this. You're right to retreat from an argument you can't win, you clearly read my article, like BBS and no doubt many others, with your PC spectacles on. I deliberately avoided personalising or sentamentalising the issue, but others would wish to do so by reviewing an article I didn't write, but which they are arrogant enough to tell me I "implied". My goodness, I despair.
Oli  | Dictionary
Written by Talisker (1321 comments posted) 14th November 2006 | BBS - disregard the most authoratitive, definitive source of information on the English language if you will. No doubt it helps when you can invent your own meanings.
| Now that is complete bollocks
Written by patterjack (1159 comments posted) 14th November 2006 | All my life i have been on the outer because of my lack of PC --and at times it cost me dearly -- so don't bloodywell tell me I read it through PC spectacles .
I am well enough trained in literary appreciation to recognise weasel words when I see them. And tone and intention .
And I am well enough versed in polemics to know that once the attitude that you take comes into play I might as well ignore any attempt at argument as it would be fruitless .
Arrogance !!! -- sweet Moses on a bike -- pots and kettles.
patterjack |
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3298 comments posted) 14th November 2006 | "No doubt it helps when you can invent your own meanings"
Hey everyone needs a hobby. At the end of a hard day there is nothing more relaxing than sitting by the fire, inventing my own meanings. Sometimes I like to go for long walks and deliberately misinterpret peoples innocent intentions, it makes the long winter evenings fly by.
cheers
BBS
| Brian.
Written by gerardconnolly (1186 comments posted) 14th November 2006 | Did Moses really ride a bike?
Confused. Saffron Walden. | Hehehehehehe
Written by Talisker (1321 comments posted) 14th November 2006 | Come, come Brian. Clearly a raw nerve touched. When you replied initially to my piece by listing and feteing your homosexual aquaintances, rather than addressing the issue raised, you exposed yourself to such accusations.
You may consider yourself immune to influence by the PC brigade, I wouldn't be so bold.
Methinks he doth protest too much.
Polemics? I thought they were feret like creatures
 | She's turned up - - - - oh dear
Written by Josie (2732 comments posted) 14th November 2006 | Just to say:
I quote: "It never fails to astound me, that when an emotive issue is raised for debate, otherwise balanced and highly intelligent contributors leap to defend targets not even under attack! "
You are so right when you say this Oli. Remember my poem: "Remember Christ in Christmas" - when I just tried to explain simply the life of one man and his simple message - - - and how people jumped on me? You being one of them I am very sorry to say. And all because people don't quietly read what is actually said. I just have to point out this as I was the one who was offended that time. | PS Jesus forgives
Written by Josie (2732 comments posted) 14th November 2006 | and so do I. Let's move on!
PPS I worked for the Police in the 1960s when homosexuality was a punishable crime. We had a teenage boy brought into our Police Station who had been caught cross-dressing in his sister's clothes. Instead of studying for his O levels, he was sent for psychiatric treatment. Things have moved on, and so have we, or have we? |
Written by Fledermaus (3238 comments posted) 14th November 2006 | "It never fails to astound me, that when an emotive issue is raised for debate, otherwise balanced and highly intelligent contributors leap to defend targets not even under attack! "
As a friend of mine has written on her toilet wall:
" When they expelled the blacks, I didn't do anything, for I am not black.
When they attacked the Jews, I didn't speak, for I am not Jewish.
When they beat up gays, I didn't react, for I am not gay.
When they discriminated against women, I shrugged, for I am not a woman.
And when it was my turn, there was no one left to protest on my behalf." |
Written by Talisker (1321 comments posted) 14th November 2006 | Batty bat!
Imagine writing on your toilet wall! The words are worthy, but not relevant. Can't you see blind bat? The blacks, Jews, gays and women arguably WERE under attack. I was not attacking any group. Did you read the article?
|
Written by Fledermaus (3238 comments posted) 14th November 2006 | "The words are worthy, but not relevant."
That was a reply to your comment, not to your article.
Whereas the article is concerned, you make a valid point that more and more things seem to become 'acceptable', but I think that homosexuality was an unhappy example, especially since you soon after mention things which most people (I presume and hope) find repulsive. That's probably exactly the kind of point you whished to make, but I could very well imagine people could take this the wrong way. |
Written by Phil (6645 comments posted) 14th November 2006 | Phew, read this last night and was about to comment when my note book battery packed up - power lead at work. What a response. You did say you wanted to stimulate debate - it worked!
Well Oli, I agree and I don't. (My arse hurts from fence sitting) I hate the normalisation of some practices: the sexualisation of children etc - but I wouldn't link these in any way with homosexuality. For me, it's just an accident of birth. No-one gets hurt, no problem.
On a personal level, I cringe when I picture the act, but that's what makes me heterosexual, I suppose gays cringe when they picture what I do (less recently more's the pity!) But they are just people living their lives the only way they know how. Time to roll out an old maxim (but it's true) - my very best friend is gay and it's never impacted on our friendship in any way.
Very interesting piece Oli. At risk of provoking you, I did feel there were certain implied links - but so what?
All the best,
Phil. |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
Previous item
