Something Happened On The Way To The Bathhouse: The Rise Of LGBT Sex-Shaming

Something has gone very wrong on the road to LGBT freedom. This month is not only LGBT History Month but it is also marks my 16th "gayaversary" since I embraced my sexuality, which probably means it is as good a point as any to look back on my personal views on where LGBT rights are going.

When I came out to myself (10.25am, 26th February 1998 outside room 12 at the Harvey Grammar School, I've always been a stickler for being precise about such things...) LGBT rights were in a bit of a funny place.

On the one hand the fights over Section 28 and an equal age of consent were still raging. Fighting over adoption and civil partnerships had barely even begun and the idea of same-sex marriage would have been ludicrous to all but the most optimistic. Even a couple of years later the atmosphere was tense enough for my then boyfriend and I to have stones thrown at us in the streets of Folkestone for daring to hold hands.

And then on the other hand there was a thriving scene. The gay bars and clubs were always heaving in Canterbury and Pink Cadillacs, hidden away in the countryside outside Ashford, was bustling. Cruising was still very much a thing. 10 years ago you could still pull off into a lay-by near Detling at any time of the day and be assured of seeing some rather naughty things in seconds. Right there by a busy road. In the day time. In 1999 there would be some serious controversy over a TV series named Queer as Folk but it was allowed to show some pretty exciting gay sex scenes regardless.

Could you imagine men cavorting on the side of the road as openly as they did in Detling now? Sure cruising still happens, and in lay-bys, but the sort of daytime unashamed cruising seen in the late 1990s/early 2000s is a thing of the past. The controversy in 1999 over Queer as Folk was just that it showed gay sex. Nowadays the Guardian's Comment is Free would be filled with articles complaining about its depiction of an adult male and underage boy having sex. I'd expect the Stonewall Chief Executive of the day would be calling for a follow up episode where the adult male is arrested and jailed lest such a depiction may corrupt our youth (or in Stonewall parlance they are "overly sexualised").

Now we have won many victories both legally and culturally. Coming out, as an adult at least, is a lot easier (if not always easy). We have won legal victory after legal victory. Our opponents, such as the recently formed and increasingly powerless Coalition for Marriage, have changed from being the "voice of the majority" (as they once claimed) to being defenders of an under attack Christian minority (with just enough truth to be more believable than their previous claims). But as things have become ever more easy, and as we approach attacking important issues like bullying, the opposition to LGBT liberty has come more from our own "LGBT rights organisations" than from anyone else. This is not without historical precedent, of course.

The Mattachine Society spun out of the far-left in the United States in the early 1950s. It sought to "Educate homosexuals and heterosexuals toward an ethical homosexual culture paralleling the cultures of the Negro, Mexican and Jewish peoples". It was opposed to "subversive elements" and attempted to portray homosexuality as ordinary, non-offensive and American. Though it did help lay the groundwork for what was to come, its slow, prudish pace and its alienation of those who didn't fit its apple pie image lead to it being swept away following the Stonewall riots by a more inclusive radical LGBT movement who made huge strides towards freedom in the pre-AIDS era and ultimately leading in those last few, in hindsight, blissful years before the epidemic to the elevation of people like Harvey Milk.

In the early years of the "gay cancer" "scare" a new conservative brand of homosexual rose as the free sex culture was ravaged by the illness. They called for less sex not from prudery but out of a sense of survival. Ultimately they failed to "rescue" many from the evil that had set itself among the LGBT population because they ignored human nature, focussed too much on closing bathhouses rather than safe sex and thus never won the hearts and minds of gay men.

By the time safer sex education began to make itself more assertive and brought AIDS to the level it is now at, LGBT rights groups were back on the track of fighting for more conservative aims such as, ultimately, marriage equality. Post-civil partnerships here in the UK, Stonewall adopted the same tactics as the Mattachine Society of presenting gay people (ignoring bisexuals and trying to pretend transgender folk don't exist) as thoroughly respectable members of society. Through education, and through their growing corporate links with Government bodies and the police, they have begun to work on neutering the sexuality of LGBT people.

You may think that last sentence is the stuff of conspiracy nuttery. You may think I've finally jumped off the deep end. But one read of Stonewall's latest efforts (supported by, of all folks, O2 and happily shared on Twitter by several police forces) to "protect" LGBT young people online reveals their disdain for any sexuality that doesn't involve some sort of long-term relationship and "love". Ruth Hunt's opening words reveal much about their attitude:

Unfortunately, as we’re increasingly aware, the internet has a darker side. Young people are encouraged to develop an overly sexualised view of relationships as a result of the widespread prevalence of pornography and many young people are creating sexual images of themselves.

I'm not sure how much LGBT history Ruth Hunt has read but "overly sexualised" is one way to describe most out, and quite a few closeted, young and old gay men pre-AIDS. Harvey Milk wasn't some angelic being who lived with one man all his life. He cruised from an early age and even in those final years as a San Francisco supervisor he still played the field. And she relies on some dubious logic widely subscribed to by conservatives and feminists that 1) pornography is demonstrably bad (some studies suggest it may even have positive effects and help reduce violent crime) and 2) that young people are needing special protection from the evils of sex (another issue very much disputed).

As you can imagine, if their document starts off from this premise things can only get worse. I'll let you read the whole thing yourselves but here are two particularly telling parts which I find indicate a disturbing dislike of teenagers exploring their sexuality.

"There is a 14 year old lad who has managed to download Grindr (a ‘social media’ app – let’s be more honest – it’s an app for men who have sex with men to meet and hook up for sex). Well this 14 year old has been nipping out of his bedroom window, sideling over to the local park at midnight and made himself available to all and sundry after agreeing to meet them on Grindr. Clearly he has put himself at a huge risk of HIV and all the other STIs and of course statutory rape." MSM (Men who have sex with men) Communities worker (South East)

Sharing this piece of sex-shaming really gets to the heart of Stonewall's fundamental beliefs. Grindr is a source of great evil, and 14 year olds shouldn't be enjoying sex. There are risks to sex, absolutely, and kids should be made aware of them so they can make their own choices about their life and have the means to protect themselves. BUT the language used here to illustrate Stonewall's dislike of "inappropriate" unsafe sex is deeply concerning and would, I'd imagine, frighten any exploited teen away from seeking help if their sexuality is going to be discussed in such a matter. It should be a moment of great shame for Stonewall to endorse such horrific views.

Worse though was this one paragraph which, when thought through, opens up a world of terror for young gay people.

Report sexting and online abuse to the police or CEOP. If your child has come across illegal content, report this to the Internet Watch Foundation. You can help your child feel as safe and supported as possible by asking if they need extra support to deal with what has happened. They may want to talk things through with a gay support group or confidential counselling service like ChildLine.

Report sexting to the police is a piece of advice suggested a couple of times in the document, I've taken here the least concerning use of it. Imagine the scenario. You are a 15 year old closeted gay teen. You have been sharing pictures of yourself with your current boyfriend (who is also 15) for a few weeks. One of your parents finds pictures of you and him on your phone. Following Stonewall's advice they contact the police. Your first experience of discussing your sexuality with your parents comes with a police escort. The teenager would certainly need support and the assistance of ChildLine after that particularly scarring experience, of that I have no doubt. His boyfriend will need that support too! The problem for Stonewall is that their links with the Government and police are now so strong that they are unable to offer even a minimum of common sense advice to parents such as "discuss this with your teen and discover whether this is exploitative or damaging". They can't do this because that is not the legal advice they have received. Instead they side with criminalising our youth, risking them getting prosecuted in some cases, over supporting LGBT youth and their families with really useful advice on staying safe whilst maintaining a healthy sexuality.

The slow creep of a leftie conservatism into the LGBT movement has left us at the stage where Pink News expresses surprise that lots of gay men prefer sex without a condom. Well of course they do! That doesn't mean they are then going to be unsafe, if they are told the possible consequences and given the means to take personal responsibility for their bodies. It is just an expression of fact, not some salacious, indecent belief.

The strength of Grindr, taking over where Gaydar left off, and other sex apps underlines that the LGBT rights leadership in the western world is out of step with the real lives of many gay men and women. We have still not gotten to the stage where we accept LGBT people all have different moralities and lifestyles, and our "leaders" still try to force a conformity on us that does not fit.

I take great pride, and a deep personal satisfaction, in my 10 year monogamous relationship with the man I have been blessed to spend the last decade with. But I take no less pride, nor less personal satisfaction, in my early years as a 14 - 21 year old screwing around, cruising, dating and having fun. Some people are monogamous, some people are not. Get over it. And start supporting them with whatever choice they make!

A Century of Mormonism in Great Britain - Richard L. Evans

I finally got round to reading this rather interesting 1937 book and it was just as eye-opening as I was hoping for.

We need only look at last year's "The Mormon Candidate" documentary on the BBC to see how American the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is perceived as, especially in this country. To be fair, the LDS Church has often played on this as they've integrated into the American mainstream. But you'd be surprised, I think, if you know just how important the United Kingdom has been for the survival and continuation of the Church. And, perhaps more importantly, the Church has had a huge effect upon 10000s of British citizens and on communities across the country.

This book is written from the standpoint of a believer and is full of prose praising the Lord for all the wonderful things that helped spread the message in the UK. But if you can get around that you'll find A Century of Mormonism in Great Britain rather illuminating on the early work of Mormon missionaries in this country and of the rather amazing expansion of the Church (followed by an equally impressive emigration of believers to first Nauvoo and then to Salt Lake City).

At one point there were more Latter-day Saints in the UK than there were in the USA! Without the influx of British emigrants it is quite possible that Joseph Smith's church may have floundered as many believers began to apostasise (over allegations of polygamy and other doctrinal disputes). The British believers, having made a gigantic leap of faith in leaving their homes thousands of years ago were both more devout and less able to change their mind once they arrived. It is no surprise that Utah now has the largest percentage of people claiming English descent in the United States.

This "American religion" turns out to be far more complicated than one might think. Certainly this book will help me continue to expand the Wiki article on the Church in the United Kingdom.

When LGBT Activists Become The Bad Guys

Lots of people know about the Stonewall Riots but less people know about the homophile movement, including such groups as the Mattachine Society, who were around at the same time. The reason for this is that the Stonewall riots were not approved of by these more mainstream LG organisations. This disapproval ultimately cost the homophiles the support of LGBT people in great numbers as they, rightly, regarded the Stonewall riots as just violence against unjust actions by the local authorities.

Ever since then there has been a great deal of conflict between LGBT folk willing to take radical action (such as Peter Tatchell and OUTRAGE) and those who work in less provocative ways (like Stonewall, although I suppose being absolutely useless is pretty provocative to some). From the Compton's Cafeteria riots and the Stonewall riots, we have incidents such as the White Night riots, the various antics of the UK Gay Liberation Front and more frivolous incidents such as when lesbian activists invaded the BBC newsroom. We should not overlook the importance of these radical (and often violent) actions in support of LGBT rights. Most of the great leaps forward have come through peaceful legal or political action, but these radical actions kept the spirit alight during the darker days. There is a time and place for both types of action.

But things are really coming to something when radical action involves spray-painting "Tastes Like Hate" on a fast food outlet, or bullying people in entry-level jobs (whilst lying about your sexuality, Harvey Milk would NOT be proud) or it involves being dicks to a homeless guy reading a Bible. When did our righteous anger at injustice become so petty, so hateful and so anti-intellectual? Radical actions these were not.

We need a new rule for LGBT activism: don't be dicks. Look at how the least appealing members of the anti-LGBT movement act and DO NOT COPY THEM. It's really quite straight forward. Do sit-ins, kiss-ins, protests and marches. Be respectful but clear and direct. You don't need to be angels but try not to be the sort of person any decent individual would cross the road to avoid.

It really isn't that hard, is it?

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Invasion of the Falklands: An Ungentlemanly Act

30 years ago today, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. I think sometimes we forget the actual event, focussing more upon the war that followed and it's aftermath. But there was plenty of heroics that day among the islanders, their Government and their defenders most of who tried to act with honour despite the overwealming odds against them.

Many people see the Falklands War as some sort of British imperial expedition, a throwback to a bygone era. But what it really was a reaction against a dishonourable, cruel and nasty act carried out against (nearly) defenceless civilians. With the current sabre-rattling in Beunos Aires I think many countries have completely forgotten what Argentina did and how unnecessary the deaths that followed (on both sides) were. The United Kingdom, in my opinion, acted correctly in seeking to liberate the islands from their invaders and acts correctly now in protecting the right of self-determination of the islanders.

907 people died because Argentina was unable to live in peace with her smallest neighbour. Let us ensure no more die needlessly again. Peace must be the aim because war carries far too heavy a price.

For a rather brilliant, and not too propaganda-ish, dramatisation of the events of 02 April 1982 take a look at An Ungentlemanly Act below.


 

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Prime Ministers Who Never Were...

Today I finished reading The Prime Ministers Who Never Were... a collection of counterfactual history essays imagining what the Governments of people who never became Prime Minister might have been like.

Full disclosure: I love alternative history. Some might ask what's the point, but I find it is often quite an illuminating intellectual exercise which helps you see the effects of what actually happened in a different way. Also they can be extremely fun.

The book is actually very interesting, with examples from the early 20th century right up to date. Whilst it's obviously very much influenced by the current political scene today (lots of coalitions and the Alternative Vote gets a mention in just about every other story), there's plenty of interesting perspectives on the what-might-have-beens. Some, such as Phil Woolas' entry on J. R. Clynes, read more like love letters than real counterfactuals whilst others, such as regarding John Smith, leave you wishing the real thing (Tony Blair in this case) was the counterfactual!

It got me thinking about the various counterfactuals we'll be able to come up with all too soon regarding the 2010 election and it's aftermath. The Lib-Lab Coalition, the Tory minority Government, Prime Minister Clegg. It makes me giddy!

I think the greatest "what if" of the 2010 election is what would've happened if Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats had remained in opposition afterwards and spurned any advances from the other parties. Would the country have hailed Clegg as an honourable man or have disparaged him for failing to cease the moment and do something positive rather than sit back and carp from the sidelines? We'll never know...

Anyway... read the book, it's fabulous.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

WWII: Fails all round.

History is complicated. It's difficult to use it as a message as whatever you say can be misinterpreted. Even with that in mind David Cameron's comments were misjudged.

"I think it is important in life to speak as it is and the fact is that we are a very effective partner of the US but we are the junior partner," he said.

"We were the junior partner in 1940 when we were fighting the Nazis."

Let's get the real historical mistake out the way first. 1940 was a complicated year. The fall of the Western European Government's, the Battle of Britain, the Invasion of Greece, and the beginnings of the North African theatre (to name just a few events!). But in no way we a "junior partner" in the war at that point. After the Fall of France, it was us, the Dominions, our Empire and the few brave souls in the "Free" forces of Europe left. The USA may have been helping us materially, but it was not in a partnership with us at that point. That didn't come until the end of 1941 and only then because Hitler declared war on the USA (not the other way round!).

The "junior partner" comment rankles. And even if 1940 was a slip, it's still controversial. However it's only controversial because of the image we have built up of our country during the war (more on that in a minute) and because of the strains in the special relationship that have come about in the last decade. Let's be brutally honest with ourselves. We have a lot to be proud of regarding our contribution to the victory in Europe. Without us, I would argue, the war would have perhaps been unwinnable and, certainly, much longer. But by the end of 1944, and definitely in 1945, we were becoming an irrelevancy as the two great superpowers of the later 20th century arose from their slumbers. We, and France, were afforded influence only as a courtesy, and because of the USA's need for allies for the future. Let's not beat around the bush there. We were very much the grateful, junior partner.

So David Cameron's comments were factually incorrect, misjudged but do contain a kernel of honesty about our position with regards to the USA.

I suppose David Miliband thought he could play for some political points after Cameron's gaffe. Alas, he also displayed (probably because of the Twitter character limit) a wanton disregard for historical fact.

1940 was "our finest hour". We stood alone against fascism. How can a British PM get that wrong? Its a slight not a slip.

I think the millions of people who fought on our behalf from many countries around the world, after the fall of France in 1940, would have something to say about the "we stood alone" myth. This myth arose thanks to Churchill's inspiring speeches during that dark time of our history. It also comes from an arrogance that we display towards the former empire which we seem to have so quickly forgotten.

Let's be clear, there were many countries with us in those dark days. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, etc. etc. Their blood was spilt for us, and OUR freedom. To so quickly make ourselves into martyrs is an insult to the memory of those brave people who came to our aid for no other reason than the bonds of Empire (some more willingly than others, we must admit!).

We did not stand alone. Isn't that the more inspiring story? Through familial ties and imperial loyalties we managed to pull through and together, the free democratic dominions,  the United Kingdom and the soon to be free imperial possessions faced down the gravest military threat the world has ever known and kept them from our shores long enough to allow events to turn in our favour.

You know, David Cameron's slip was regrettable. But Miliband's slight against those who gave their lives on our behalf is perhaps the more insulting slip.

Let this be a lesson. Using a conflict, that brought so much pain and misery to millions, to make a political point is probably a mistake.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The End Of History

Today marks 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. It happened so suddenly that Helmut Kohl, the German Chancellor, was out of the country and even George Bush Snr. admits that nobody in the west had even an inkling of what was coming despite the refugee crisis that proceeded it's collapse. Whilst the fall of the wall does not mark "The End Of History" as proclaimed by Francis Fukuyama, it does, for me, mark the end of a period of history. And I'm not talking about just the Cold War. It serves as a bookend to a era started by another singularly unexpected event... the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand back in 1914. The outbreak of the First World War was the opening salvo in a European civil war which brought misery to our continent until finally the Berlin Wall fell and brought about the beginning of the end of a dark era in our history.

And just as few people know much about European history in the years leading up to the First World War (the early years of the 20th Century are fascinating mainly for bearing very little resemblance to the world that was to follow... the First World War changed everything), the history of the Cold War ends (for many) at the point of the wall falling. Few remember the bloody events in Romania in December 1989 and fewer still know the story of the final collapse of the Soviet Union two years later. The fall of the Berlin Wall may have been just one event among many but it served as a mental shorthand for everything that followed (and a little of what proceeded it).

Despite this, it really was a momentous event in it's own right... brought about by a bureaucratic slip up at a press conference and seen through peacefully thanks to the determination of the East Berlin populace and the good sense of the East German guards who finally stood aside. If even one of them had decided to make a stand, however unlikely that might seem, we might look upon this date as something quite different.

20 years ago, our continent finally set about healing long held wounds and began the process of moving forward again into a new era... that is why we should be proud of the achievements of the people of Berlin that day. And very grateful too.



This blogger works for nothing but the joy of writing but always appreciates things bought from his wishlist

Doomed To Repeat It

I know I hold gay people to higher standards than heterosexuals but one article in GT this month has really upset me.

As it's now the 40th anniversary of the legalisation of homosexuality, GT is running several articles to celebrate the occasion. One of the articles involved a panel of young and mature gay guys (Terry Sanderson, yay! His columns are awesome) who were born before and after this historic event.

I'll quote the opening remarks from two of the younger people....

Terry Bryan (born 1980): I only found out a few days ago that it used to be illegal for people like us to be what we wanted to be. From what I gather, the law changed in 1967 and homosexuality was legalised.

Julian Gregory (born 1984): I didn't realise it was so recent.

I felt ill at that point and kept having to stop reading out of sheer disbelief.

The younger guys then blame the education system for their lack of knowledge (I'm going to be polite and not use words that might offend, much as I want to) and the mature guys back them up. Turns out the Government is to blame for these guys not knowing their own history.

I was born in 1983. I've known I was gay all my life but I finally accepted it in 1998. At which point I went out of my way to find out every fascinating fact about homosexuality from its sociology to its history to its current legal status. I followed with interest gay news stories, and read newspapers such as the Guardian to keep informed. Why? Because if I was going to be something, going to accept that I was a gay man, then I wanted to know everything there was to know about it. By the age of 16 I was acutely aware of the unequal age of consent and Section 28 plus the history of the Stonewall Riots and 1967. And here's the thing: I'm not some bloody genius child. I did badly at school. Yet I still know about this.

It wasn't hard to find this stuff. I didn't need to go to the library or search the net. Just reading a daily newspaper and watching the daily news taught me most of the easy stuff. GT informed about the missing bits. By the time of the internet I just needed to get everything into a sensible order.

We even had textbooks at school (even though it was a far from tolerant boys school) which mentioned the law change in 1967 and it's ethical and moral ramifications (including my favourite ever speech by Archbishop Tutu).

So I don't think it's the Government's fault. In fact I think these people are just uninterested in their past and that scares me.

I remember Pride 2003 and I was with Ben and we saw something about Section 28 and he asked me "What's that?". I'd never even contemplated the idea that a gay guy wouldn't know what Section 28 was. I just felt scared a little bit at that moment. But I quickly decided he was just a one off.

And now 4 years later I realise he isn't just a one off. Most young gay guys don't know their history because they don't want to know. And that bloody terrifies me, because history has shown us great steps forward (such as under the Weimar Republic) can be brutely and swiftly crushed. We must be ever vigilant, ever careful to defend our freedoms, ever watchful of the current political climate.

And, basically, to forget what those who went before us suffered in our name is disrespectful. We have a duty to remember the bad times so that we can enjoy these good times even more.