Thursday, January 26, 2006
Who dear? Me dear? Gay dear? No dear!
Bermondsey by-election, 1983 | Wikipedia
Readers with long memories may remember the Bermondsey by-election of 1983. The Labour Party candidate was one Peter Tatchell. Tatchell was under attack from his own party, the tabloid press, and the liberal party. Liberal party campaigners sported badges saying 'I've been kissed by Peter Tatchell' (some have said this was a protest at Tatchell's attempt to go back into the closet) and the liberal candidate released a leaflet describing himself as 'the straight choice'.
All ancient history, you might think. It was the 80s, after all, and attacks on gay lefties were all the rage. The liberal candidate has even apologised. So why do I mention it now? Well, I first heard the story from a friend who always refered to the liberal candidate as 'slimy Simon' and his major objection was that he had won the by-election on the back of a homophobic campaign, despite himself being a closet pouf.
Roll on 23 years, to another election. Slimy Simon is standing for leader of his party. In fact, it looks like he might win: his opponents are some bloke we've never heard of before, Ming the Merciless, and Mark Oaten, who pulls out of the race after admitting to a 6 month affair with a rent boy.
(Incidentally, notice, it's a 'rent boy', not a 'male prostitute', since this way we can continue to hint that homos are only one step removed from paedos. And is it an 'affair' when you pay the other person? And what were the acts he engaged in that the Screws of the World said were 'too disgusting to report'? I digress...)
Slimy Simon, meanwhile, is 54 and unmarried, and rumours about his sexuality are still around. When the Independent asks him if he is gay, he says "The answer is no, as it happens. But if it was the case, which it isn't, I hope that would not become an issue." The Guardian asks as well, and is told "I'm a single guy, which is why I guess it's easy for people to speculate. I'm not going to go into details of relationships but I made a statement, made it clearly and it hasn't changed since last week."
Which makes it all the more strange that it has now changed since last week. in a statement issued today Hughes says: "I am perfectly willing to say that I have had both homosexual and heterosexual relationships in the past." And he added "It is not just me. There are lots of people who have tried to keep their private lives private. I wasn’t just doing it for me but for many others who are in the same boat." Excuse me? How does anyone benefit from Hughes previous denials (except himself)?
Well, that clears that up. Not gay. Bisexual. Although i still can't help thinking that his earlier denials were intended to make people think that he is straight, not an attempt to make a distinction between bisexual and gay. And the 'perfectly willing to say' part seems slightly at odds with the facts.
So, today's moral dilemma comes in the form of a multiple choice question (feel free to tick as many options as appropriate):
Which, if any, of the following make someone unfit to be LibDem leader:
Some people reckon the LibDems ousted Charles Kennedy because they thought a leadership election would put them on the front pages and boost their popularity in the same way Cameron's election did for the Tories. Well they were right on one count.
Readers with long memories may remember the Bermondsey by-election of 1983. The Labour Party candidate was one Peter Tatchell. Tatchell was under attack from his own party, the tabloid press, and the liberal party. Liberal party campaigners sported badges saying 'I've been kissed by Peter Tatchell' (some have said this was a protest at Tatchell's attempt to go back into the closet) and the liberal candidate released a leaflet describing himself as 'the straight choice'.
All ancient history, you might think. It was the 80s, after all, and attacks on gay lefties were all the rage. The liberal candidate has even apologised. So why do I mention it now? Well, I first heard the story from a friend who always refered to the liberal candidate as 'slimy Simon' and his major objection was that he had won the by-election on the back of a homophobic campaign, despite himself being a closet pouf.
Roll on 23 years, to another election. Slimy Simon is standing for leader of his party. In fact, it looks like he might win: his opponents are some bloke we've never heard of before, Ming the Merciless, and Mark Oaten, who pulls out of the race after admitting to a 6 month affair with a rent boy.
(Incidentally, notice, it's a 'rent boy', not a 'male prostitute', since this way we can continue to hint that homos are only one step removed from paedos. And is it an 'affair' when you pay the other person? And what were the acts he engaged in that the Screws of the World said were 'too disgusting to report'? I digress...)
Slimy Simon, meanwhile, is 54 and unmarried, and rumours about his sexuality are still around. When the Independent asks him if he is gay, he says "The answer is no, as it happens. But if it was the case, which it isn't, I hope that would not become an issue." The Guardian asks as well, and is told "I'm a single guy, which is why I guess it's easy for people to speculate. I'm not going to go into details of relationships but I made a statement, made it clearly and it hasn't changed since last week."
Which makes it all the more strange that it has now changed since last week. in a statement issued today Hughes says: "I am perfectly willing to say that I have had both homosexual and heterosexual relationships in the past." And he added "It is not just me. There are lots of people who have tried to keep their private lives private. I wasn’t just doing it for me but for many others who are in the same boat." Excuse me? How does anyone benefit from Hughes previous denials (except himself)?
Well, that clears that up. Not gay. Bisexual. Although i still can't help thinking that his earlier denials were intended to make people think that he is straight, not an attempt to make a distinction between bisexual and gay. And the 'perfectly willing to say' part seems slightly at odds with the facts.
So, today's moral dilemma comes in the form of a multiple choice question (feel free to tick as many options as appropriate):
Which, if any, of the following make someone unfit to be LibDem leader:
- he has a drink problem
- he has an affair with a prostitute
- he does 'indescribably vile' things with male prostitutes
- he get's into parliament on the back of a homophobic campaign against another candidate
- he get's into parliament on the back of a homophobic campaign whilst falsely pretending to be straight
- he apologises for the homophobic campaign as though it's not something he had anything to do with
- he's bisexual
- he's bisexual but pretends to be straight when someone says 'are you gay?'
- he tries to lead a party which champions gay rights without having the guts to be out about his sexuality
- he tries to lead a party which champions gay rights without having the guts to be out about his sexuality and then has the nerve to claim that his lies were 'for other people in the same boat'.
Some people reckon the LibDems ousted Charles Kennedy because they thought a leadership election would put them on the front pages and boost their popularity in the same way Cameron's election did for the Tories. Well they were right on one count.
posted by MR @ 10:55 AM 
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
You make a very valid point there about 'rent boys' versus the term 'male prostitutes'. Of course, in earlier times the phrase was 'mollies' or 'molly boys' and the truth is, the majority of rent boys are exactly that because the gay scene treats youth as a commodity much like butter, coffee, and cigarettes. Hell, you can even buy a form of faux youth when older if you've enough cash to pay for Botox or for your face to be pulled up five inches.
You do get a progression of terminology. Older male prostitutes - generally the upper limit seems to be late 30s, providing you've got tits that could defeat an army and a stomach you could iron your shirt on - tend to be termed 'escorts', the most curious term if ever there was one.
Language - the words we use and, specifically, the words the press use - has so much power over the way people then interpret news stories, and think about the world they live in. x
Post a Comment
You do get a progression of terminology. Older male prostitutes - generally the upper limit seems to be late 30s, providing you've got tits that could defeat an army and a stomach you could iron your shirt on - tend to be termed 'escorts', the most curious term if ever there was one.
Language - the words we use and, specifically, the words the press use - has so much power over the way people then interpret news stories, and think about the world they live in. x
Links to this post:
<< Home
