It Is Time To Contact The Lords and Ladies About #EqualMarriage

With the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill heading for its Third Reading in the House of Commons, it is time to start contacting the members of the House of Lords.

Peter Tatchell called for people to start lobbying the Lords yesterday, which was rather coincidental as that is when I began contact the Lords myself. I've already received a positive response from Lord Attlee, and I hope to receive more! The Lesbian and Gay Foundation have also called for lobbying of the Lords to begin.

I second Peter Tatchell's suggestion. We need to lobby the Lords and make sure them see that there is a substantial number of people calling for marriage equality in this country, despite what some might have you think.

You can see how to address a Lord or Lady here and their contact details can be found here. There is a letter/email template text at the bottom of here, but I think it is always best to personalise the letter to make it a bit more obvious you aren't just a robot!

No one really knows how the Lords stand on this issue. Most assume the vote will be tight. So get writing, telephoning or, if you happen to see them and you doing it politely, asking them in person to ensure the members of the House of Lords know marriage equality isn't something the "metropolitan elite" thought up but is something desired by many people across our fair land!

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

Dear Anti-Marriage Equality Activists: Thank You!

Once upon a time I was concerned at the lack of visibility of the issue of marriage equality. Hardly anyone in this country, LGBT or straight, seemed to care. I lamented that most were satisfied with civil partnerships, and the actions of campaigners like Peter Tatchell or individual members of the public like myself did not seem to be changing the situation all that much. Even after the Liberal Democrats adopted marriage equality as an official policy, most folks seemed unenergised. However, thanks to you rabidly anti-equality folks out there, the issue has exploded on to the political scene!

Every time someone says marriage equality is equivalent to slavery or might lead to polygamy, you push yet more undecideds into the marriage equality camp. They didn't care about it until you attempted to suggest same sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex ones. Thank you so much for that.

Every time someone says marriage equality isn't important, you incense just enough "don't knows" into active support. And every time you waste Parliamentary time during an irrelevant debate to suggest we shouldn't waste Parliamentary time on the subject, you point out the stupidity of your argument and force people to stand against you. After all, if you opposed it because it was unimportant you surely wouldn't want to bang on about it so much in debates that aren't about it! Thank you for undermining your own arguments. It's really helping.

Every time you parrot the lie that civil partnerships and marriage are the same and there's no need to call them the same thing, you cause free-thinking types to ponder whether that's actually true. You open up the debate to the truth, which was so hard to get across beforehand. Thank you for helping us get the message out there.

Every time you complain that it'll force churches to carry out same-sex marriages, you remind people that there are plenty of churches and religions that are currently forced not to! And when you bang on about this during a consultation only relevant to marriages not conducted on religious premises, you remind people that you don't know what you're talking about. Thank you for standing against religious freedom, it reminds people that this consultation doesn't go far enough!

Every time you call it "gay marriage", you remind us that we're not just fighting for "gay rights" but for the rights of bisexuals, transgendered people and, this might alarm you, everyone else. Thanks for promoting diversity!

When marriage equality becomes law, I'll always remember your help in making it so much easier. Without you I think this issue would've been swept under the carpet a long time ago. My warmest thanks indeed!

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

Campaign For Marriage Is Doing Far Better Than They Should Be

So the Coalition Against, sorry, For Marriage's campaign is doing well. Oh, I'm not too worried that they are about to tip the balance against the Government's civil marriage equality plans. But they are doing far better than they should be.

Their petition against marriage equality has, at the time of writing, just under 65,000 signatures. The campaign for equal marriage has just over 10% of that number signing up. They've also got vocal supporters who are much more able to get press coverage of their authoritarian views. Be it Ann Widdecombe suggesting marriage equality is being foisted on an unwilling populace, or Peter Bone who thinks the idea is "completely nuts", they are the ones getting all the attention. They even have Labour MPs like Joe Benton and Jim Dobbin signing their petition (Gordon Brown and Jack Straw next perhaps?).

Thanks to the neutering of the debate due to the introduction of civil partnerships, we don't have supporters in the public eye who are even half as devoted to marriage equality as their opposite numbers are devoted to defeating it. It's not an issue that get's the LGBT friendly types excited. We don't have someone of Lady Gaga's stature in popular culture calling for it. We don't have politicians doing more than offering their support. We don't have champions willing to get dirty for it. The best we have, and I shake my head as I type this, is Ben Summerskill! The only truly pro-marriage equality story to make the big time news wise was Lynne Featherstone's recent show of support, and that's only because she's a Minister (the story getting into the news that is, her support isn't questioned!). Peter Tatchell, hero that he is, isn't forgotten but the media tend to ignore him unless he is 1) violently attacked or 2) arrested and I hope he doesn't need to do either of those two things in the name of marriage equality in the UK!

Even worse, we still have the radical anti-marriage folks (who I have sympathy with but they want to BAN marriage where as I want to make it a private matter) playing right into the campaigns evil plans! Just check out Julie Bindel, she of transphobic fame, getting all upset at the time wasted on marriage equality. She might think it's wasted time, she doesn't need to campaign for it, but for some of us it's about being able to marry the one we love! I know, romance is dead and all that...

Who is going to be to marriage equality what Ben Cohen and Gareth Roberts have been to the campaign against homophobia in sport? We need a hero!

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

Marriage Equality: What Are We Waiting For?

It's time for a little update on the fight for marriage equality in the UK.

With regards to last summer's civil partnership consultation, it looks likely that Lynne Featherstone, Lib Dem and Minister for Equality, will announce religious civil partnerships can go ahead. It's not really a massive announcement as the consultation was never really about IF they could go ahead.

Both the Telegraph, linked to above, and Pinknews' follow up story on this suggest that the Government is also considering full marriage equality. I'm reluctant to completely believe this as the Telegraph story seems more to be drawing conclusions from the general direction of the debate over the last year (Simon Hughes answer to my Yoosk question and Peter Tatchell's involvement in the Equal Love campaign are mentioned for instance) than from having any real insider knowledge.

Based on this I think my temporary period of going easy on the Coalition over this must come to an end. Expect to see me beginning to irritate Coalition ministers and Government civil servants once more.

In other news, the aforementioned Equal Love campaign's move to take their case to court was delayed in December due to an error by Camden Council.  Hopefully it should be able to move forward again this month. Based on previous outcomes of similar trials, such as this Austrian one, I hold little hope that the actual bid will be successful BUT understand how useful the threat of a successful bid can be in getting British Governments to change their ways. It worked well with Labour on the age of consent and military service after all! Let's hope Minister's pay attention.

The most important thing of note with regards to the future of marriage equality in this country is an amazing change in language. Thanks mainly to the Stonewall fiasco last year and the Equal Love campaign getting plenty of media attention (plus lots of questions on the subject to politicians!), the phrase "civil partnerships" when mentioned in the media or in speeches can rarely be heard without the caveat that some think they are inadequate or that some are fighting for marriage equality. Given I've spent the five years before last year's general election pulling my hair out at the total lack of voices supporting marriage equality, I can say without question that this bodes very well for the prospects of reform. You can see it in the Telegraph article I linked to above, or in Ed Miliband's latest speech on the subject over the weekend (nice to hear this from a man who once said this to me), or in Stephen Gilbert's remarks in the adjournment debate in the House of Commons just before Christmas.

Not much appears to be happening in Scotland on the subject right now, but there is a symposium on marriage equality on the 27th January. It'll be interesting to hear what is discussed and see if there's likely to be any progress on the matter in the Scottish Parliament this year. The Scottish Parliament elections will be an excellent opportunity to get some answers from candidates on the subject.

So the next couple of months should see a few news stories in the national media mentioning marriage equality and perhaps some surprise Government announcement (yeah, right) soon. Let's hope for progress!

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

The Year In Marriage Equality

Time for a look back on the year through the eyes of the struggle for marriage equality in the United Kingdom. What a year it's been!

In January, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg came out in favour of marriage equality being the first leader of a major party to do so.

In April I gave up hope for any change, based purely on fact I had no visions of anything other than a Tory or Labour Government being in power after the upcoming general election. I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised to find out how wrong I was, although that was more to do with events rather than being factually inaccurate (I cannot imagine marriage equality being mentioned under majority Governments of the big parties).

In what can only be described as a breakthrough, not more than a week after I wrote the piece above, marriage equality was mentioned in the general election. Sadly it was mainly just a lot of flip floping from the Tories. By the end of the election it was clear that only the Lib Dems supported marriage equality.

Of course we all know what happened in May, with the Coalition coming to power. In June they released an LGBT policy document that finally pushed me to step up my game.

Using every avenue I could find I decided to get marriage equality mentioned EVERYWHERE I could.

I used Your Freedom to create a rather popular policy suggestion. I wrote letter's to Lynne Featherstone, Ed Miliband and David Miliband. I used Yoosk to ask questions of the Labour leadership candidates and Simon Hughes. The response from Simon Hughes got national media coverage, the Labour leadership candidates all eventually came out in support of marriage equality and LabourList agreed marriage equality was now the "next step". At the end of July the Government held sit down talks with "interested parties" to discuss the future of civil partnerships.

It was at this meeting that Stonewall finally made a PR wrong step which would snowball over the summer.  Their inability to make a decision on marriage equality helped bring the issue to a wider audience and created real anger in the LGBT community. This prompted other strange reactions, such as Chris Bryant's weirdly forgetful piece in GT on the subject. A man who told Parliament he doesn't want marriage for same sex couples suddenly claims to always have supported it. Hmm...

Marriage equality became official Lib Dem policy in September and one of the parties new recruits, Stephen Gilbert MP, became marriage equalities champion at Westminster.

In October Stonewall finally came out in support of marriage equality and one of the biggest moves of the year occurred with the Equal Love campaign's launch. Lead by Peter Tatchell the campaign has spent the time since then trying to get heterosexuals civilly partnered and same sex couples married. They are now taking their battle to the courts.

In a nice end to the year, marriage equality was mentioned, by Stephen Gilbert, in the adjournment debate in the House of Commons.

What's the future look like? Rosy, but not certain. The fight must continue. Equal Love UK are doing the hard work but we should all get involved in continuing to push for marriage equality. If we do 2011 might just be the year we've been waiting for.

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

Stonewalled - The Strange Case Of The Charity That Doesn't Care

LGBT rights are, thankfully, in the best state ever in our country. The dark days of the 1980s and 1990s, when early gains seemed to be just a false start, are long gone. That doesn't mean we're quite at the point where we can all go our separate ways and congratulate ourselves on a job well done but it's a positive place to start this particularly depressing blogpost.

Now, of course, LGBT rights aren't exactly at the top of the agenda for the Government (silly little things like wars, depressions and partisan attacks keep getting in the way) but you'd think those who claim to speak for the "LGBT community" would still be championing the current "big issues".

Stonewall has been there fighting for just about every major LGBT (I'm going to keep mentioning the T, but Stonewall DON'T campaign on behalf of transgender people, a mark against them in my opinion especially when they dare use the name "Stonewall"!!) piece of legislation announced under the Labour Government (let's pretend Labour did that all out of the goodness of their heart to avoid arguments). See their own website for examples. All very commendable. So why have they taken their eye off the ball just as the endgame becomes visible over the horizon?

Of course, there's always been plenty of criticism of Stonewall. Peter Tatchell was criticising them in 1994 for perceived complacency. Chris Morris considered them part of the real gay mafia. There was controversy over an award nomination for Julie Bindel (a campaigner who has made some very controversial remarks about transgendered folks). And let's not forget this year's controversy over David Laws.

Perhaps these examples illustrate that they never had their eyes on the ball in the first place. Chris Morris' 1999 article above is pretty damning. But let's pretend they did, and give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's try to forget all the criticism and see what they are concerned about right now.

Think about a list of current British LGBT concerns. I've tried it myself (the order given no way implies "priorities, I think all are as important as each other). As you can imagine marriage equality is the top of my list. Followed by the gay blood donation ban. Then there's also homophobic physical and verbal violence, homophobic bullying at school. Employment issues are also a factor but I think that's slowly coming under control. Plus a whole raft of transgender issues, including employment discrimination, that I think are of huge importance.

So what has Stonewall been focussing on? Well they do have a campaign about homophobic bullying in school. And they spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with (and ranking) employers. Strangely you need to pay for that service, which I don't think is at all charitible (I notice Stonewall also trades as a company). They have a guide on how to report homophobic crime (and domestic violence). But both the school bullying campaign and the homophobic crime campaign seem lacklustre, without any sort of drive or determination to solve the problems. Just a quick glance at their "Stonewall News" on the front page of their website shows no mention of any recent crimes. Instead it talks about Will Young supporting them at a concert, about their sponsorship of Black Pride, recent surveys on TV portrayals of LGB people and what's the most gay friendly sport. And they announced their 600th diversity champion! Woo... that's more money for them then...

The earliest story on the front page is July 12th. Shall we see what's happened in the the real LGBT world since then? A man in Leeds was knocked unconscious in an attack, Stonewall attended a meeting with the Government about the future of civil partnerships, police released details of another homophobic attack in Bottle and AA Gill insulted Clare Balding. What has Stonewall said on these? Nothing that I can find.

I decided to look at another LGBT charity, the Lesbian and Gay Foundation, who also offer some for profit activities just like Stonewall. Their website is filled with issues, including about those mentioned above. They have a major campaign called Enough is Enough going on to combat homophobic violence, and they asked the readers of their website (not just those who support them!) to give feedback before the marriage equality/civil partnership discussion that they attended along with Stonewall. The comparison between these two organisations shows how starkly they differ and how far Stonewall has fallen behind.

The problem with Stonewall is it openly "prioritises" issues. Replies to myself and others have often said that their policy isn't against marriages, but they just don't think it's a priority. So what do they think is a priority? Taking money from businesses for consultations? Doing surveys about television programmes and sports? Aiming to get celebrity sportsmen to come out?? Is that what their priorities are?

Whatever good Stonewall have done in the past, and I really think you should read those criticisms above, they no longer represent the LGBT rights movement. They are out of touch, dangerously, and simply do not respect the community they were meant to protect. Worse, when they are criticised, they often respond in a very defensive manner (not dissimilar to how a business would respond) and rarely appear to even take the criticism onboard, let alone act upon it. For example they were sent a letter following Ben Summerskill's ill-thought out commentary on the David Laws scenario (I was one of the signees). Their response was badly written, rude and really quite awful. And we're not the only one's who seem to be "Stonewalled" when voicing an opposing opinion, as seen here.

The worst part of it all is that any criticism of Stonewall is often strongly denounced by celebrities or ordinary folk (even you, Dear Constant Reader, will no doubt tell me off for this piece!) who continue to maintain a nice view of this organisation thanks mainly to the deference shown to Stonewall in the media and by politicians and seem not to notice how unresponsive and insular it is. It cares little for those who defend it.

It's time we woke up and realised there are other organisations out there fighting for LGBT rights AND for non-violence. Stonewall must not be held up as some sacred cow, beyond reproach from any criticism. We must ask tough questions of it. And I would suggest that given it gets £2000 from each corporate member, we might be better sending our money to one of the other LGBT groups out there and helping them raise our concerns instead.

**UPDATE** As if by magic... check out the comments at Pink News on an editorial on marriage. It's really quite sad.

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

Why Religious Civil Partnerships Are An Insult

As I said last month, religious civil partnerships are muddlesome. However following on from today's release of information on yesterday's civil partnership consultation, it looks like the Government is very committed to introducing them whatever people tell them in the consultation.

Well let's look at why that's pretty insulting.

So who has been asking for religious civil partnerships? Well, of course, religious people and those who support their rights (supposedly although, as far as I can see, it's more from Labour MPs and Lords than any cry from the general population). Now last I checked the reason Labour didn't support marriage equality was on religious grounds. Gordon Brown said:

So the provision of ‘marriage’ as opposed to the provision of same-sex or heterosexual civil unions, is intimately bound up with questions of religious freedom."

So I'm sorry if I'm a little sceptical of their motives. Personally I think what is a matter of religious freedom is that religious organisations and religious individuals have no choice over what sort of civil ceremony is carried out as part of their religious ceremony. Even if civil partnerships are allowed religious readings, music and symbols, the religious organisations can't carry out a marriage ceremony on their premises. So this isn't about giving anyone religious freedom. It's about the Government getting the LGBT "community", and those who support it, to shut up.

What problem does this solve? Civil marriages are NOT allowed to have these readings, music etc. So why should LGBT people get that special right (I support everyone getting it, don't get me wrong just not one group over another)? These are scraps thrown at us by the Tories who don't want us to get equality and by our own Lib Dem Minister's who have no reason to argue.

The introduction of religious civil partnerships would be an insult to the following:

1) to transgender people who have to put up with continuing discrimination whilst we take baby steps towards equality. It's okay though, next year we'll have the results of a Government review of transgender rights. I predict they won't equalise marriage but create a situation where one institution (marriage or civil partnerships) transfers automatically to the other when someone changes their gender. That'll end another pressing reason for equality. Another way to shut us all up.
2) to religious organisations who want to perform same sex marriage on their premises. They still won't be able to do anything more than a commitment ceremony. What laughs!
3) to heterosexual people. Those who are just spiritual but not religious can't have civil marriages with religious texts etc. That's discrimination in favour of LGBT people. It's unfair and unjust.
4) to LGB people who must accept their second class status being reinforced rather than equalised.

So sorry if I'm not settling for religious civil partnerships. They don't solve equality issues, they don't solve religious freedom issues, they don't solve international recognition issues and they throw transgender rights under a bus. What an insult.


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

Tory Gay Marriage Overtures Can't Be Ignored

As much as I would love to ignore just about anything the Tories say, we must welcome George Osborne's most recent comments:

The Tories would be "very happy" to consider same-sex marriage if elected, George Osborne has told gay activists.

The shadow chancellor met gay rights leaders including Peter Tatchell ahead of a protest outside Conservative campaign HQ by equality campaigners.

Mr Tatchell said the meeting showed Mr Osborne had "good intentions" but was still "weak on coherent policy".

But let us be clear here, very clear, the phrasing of this is by no ways a commitment to do anything and to me comes across more as an attempt to sooth angry GLBT folk than to actually propose something real. And, although this is more a personal viewpoint, I find the phrasing to be insulting; "to consider" suggests they might deign to offer GLBT people the rights they deserve. How kind of our soon-to-be heterosexual overlords!

Anyway, give them their dues this now leaves the marriage equality question firmly in Labour's ball court. The Liberal Democrats firmly support marriage equality. The Tories are thinking about it (rubbish!). Labour... has so far come out against it! Actively against it, which now puts them at the bottom of the GLBT rights pile. Come on Labour! Keep up. When you're behind the Tories on gay rights you know you are getting out of touch!

I want to make my opinions quite clear, although I think they already are: I believe this Tory promise to be nothing but hot air. I give them credit for saying the right words, but we have no evidence, based on past form, that they will follow through. So for now I continue to say that the only vote in favour of marriage equality is a vote for the Liberal Democrats (or the Green Party but let's not get too carried away!).

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

The Sexual Cleansing Of Iraq

Most of us LGBTs have heard of what has been going on in Iraq... Maybe it's time we did something?

Watch the video:



Read the Peter Tatchell comment.

Get involved... before it's too late.

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

Banning Dissent?

When Geert Wilders was banned from the UK, because he might incite hatred against a certain group and this create a public disturbance, I felt a wave of discomfort come over me. What was being said was "we are so fucking scared that a bunch of violent extremists might be so upset at what he preaches that they might cause trouble". And to avoid that the UK Government decided to remove the freedom of movement of an elected representative of an EU state within the EU. Unless he was calling for death to all Muslims then I can't see why he was banned. The reggee singers who preach murder against homosexuals have not been banned, so why him???

But now the Government has gone a step further banning the Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church, famous firstly for www.godhatesfags.com, from entering the UK to protest a play. So probably homegrown religious crazies are ok to protest against Jerry Springer The Musical and get it stopped but it's not ok for these folks to come over from America and try the same thing?? How does that make sense? As a gay man I beg for the Government to rethink this decision (not that they read this nor that my feelings will ever reach their ears). We should have the right to confront the Phelps, not just the lesser members of the WBC, here in this country and show them that their hatred is NOT the way forward. Whilst they celebrate the death of homosexuals, and others, they do not actively encourage violence or murder. And unlike some other minority groups it is unlikely their precence will push our countries now rather integrated LGBT community into acts of general violence. So what is the reason for banning them???

At least my favourite person has his brain switched on:

Peter Tatchell, from gay rights group OutRage!, said: "The Phelps are odious, homophobic bigots. They give Christianity a bad name.

"Objectionable though they are, I don't agree with them being banned but since the Home Secretary banned the Dutch MP Geert Wilders at least she is being consistent by also banning these Christian preachers of hate.

"It makes it all the more odd that the Home Secretary has not banned Jamaican reggae singers who incite the murder of gay people.

"Why are they allowed in to the country but not the Phelps?

"Inciting murder is even worse than inciting hatred. Why the double standards?"

I think the site Phags for Phelps has the right idea... allow them the freedom to spout their nonsense because every word shows homophobia up for what it is... STUPID.

Homosexuality does not work that way!

Peter Tatchell has attacked singer Katy Perry because he finds her latest song to be demeaning to gay people. I feel that whilst he's right to attack her, it's a free world and she can be as homophobic as she likes. Sadly I don't think she realises that she is being homophobic. I don't mind if you know, but when you're too stupid to realise, it's a bit much.

"We live in a very metrosexual world," she said.

"You know, a girl might walk into a bar, meet a boy, and discover he's more manicured than she is. And they can't figure it out. Is he wearing foundation and a bit of bronzer? But he's buying me drinks at the same time!

"I'm not saying you're so gay, you're so lame. I'm saying, you're so gay, but I don't understand it because you don't like boys!"

When will people understand... you cannot be homosexual without fancying the same sex. Being manicured or effete is not a sign of homosexuality. It is a sign of vanity and self obsession. It's quite a different thing. I know that's hard to conceive if your brain is very tiny, but all those prissy men you see walking around preening themselves are vain, some might be gay as well but that's beside the point.

I think it's most amusing that some people don't realise just how many gay men there are out there... because most gay men are not a stereotype and act just like most other men (i.e. completely unpredictably and doing all sorts of random things, almost as if they were real individuals... shocking). Some people will just never get over the fact that being gay does not make you fashion conscious nor vain. These two things may sometimes collide just in the same way you might get a gay man who is also obsessed with football. Or, as so often happens these days sadly, you get some gorgeous straight guy who is just boringly obsessed with how he looks. Which is not a sign of homosexuality see?

My opinion guys... the less well kept an appearance the better in bed. ;) Nothing better than a guy who looks gorgeous and doesn't even know it or care. Yum yum.