To be frank, I won’t be shedding many tears for the homosexuals over this one. Part of the compact made in giving them same sex marriage over a decade ago was that they would settle down and be ‘tamed’ to some extent by domesticity. That was the argument made by powerful campaigners and activists.The decline of in person meetings and a pervasive sense of boredom may have to do the work where monogamy failed.
Even if it was made, I assure you, no-one came and asked me if I agreed to it being made on my behalf.
The culture wars we are in now are largely prompted by Mr Wright’s kind of dishonesty, where someone comes online alleging a specious offer, non-compliance with which gives him a phony platform for his self-righteousness, but which he knows was never made in the first place.
You wouldn’t have been asked, assuming you are British, for the voter didn’t get a say. I was talking primarily about the noxious U.S debate, which fed into the Tories announcing it as a policy in 2011 after they had won the election when Cameron tried to ape the Lib Dems and Labour. The British voter never got asked.
I’m not sure that was the compact. The same-sex marriage debate, insofar as it’s continued today (for example in the churches), is couched quite differently. It’s about gay rights and equality, and the gay agenda being rammed into all parts of society. Marriage is not a sacred commitment, just another institution to be colonised. The author is quite explicit that gay men are promiscuous by nature. Why would that change?
Given that this is so, if Mr Wright had such an offer made to him, he ought have disbelieved it, since the evidence in front of him could never have furnished him with grounds for thinking it true.
I’m fairly sure there was never a ‘compact’ about this and you make the mistake of talking about ‘homosexuals’ as if they were some mysteriously uniform block like ‘Muslims’ or whatever. However there was probably a lot of wishful thinking about possible trade-offs and behavioural changes with little basis in fact on both sides.
It reminds me of something I heard about the ‘bathhouse theory of sex’ with regard to shutting down bathhouses in NYC to combat the spread of AIDS; it was argued that they were primarily used due to existing discrimination against gay men and should therefore be kept open as a political display of support for an extremely beleaguered community.
Now, this contained more than a grain of truth at the time and even now, in our Pride-saturated culture, this would still apply as there are always some men who can’t be open about their sexuality. The clientèle of a gay sauna would even today be far more varied and surprising than you might ever imagine (‘More tea, vicar?’).
The real fly in the ointment was the wishful corollary; namely, that if discrimination were to disappear, bathhouses would no longer be needed. But of course, since it is fun and pleasurable for many men and just plain exciting to boot, this has obviously proved to be a total myth.
However, we are surely at peak sexual saturation point by now, and the future is Japanese; namely, people having less and less sex and no relationships either, unless it’s with themselves.
I am curious as to what man, particularly a Western one, cannot be open about his sexuality. From your comment, that seems confined to the clergy even though multiple denominations make a big to-do about gay or lesbian clerics. Aside from that small group, being gay is treated more as a badge of honor than a detriment.
I’m sure it is a mistake to talk about homosexuals as a mysteriously uniform group, but the ones who advocate this most forcefully are gay people themselves, or at least the vocal activists who speak for them. That’s how we end up with Stonewall, Pride festivals, LGBT history month and the rest of the paraphernalia. The author of this article himself makes some pretty sweeping generalisations about gay men. If they are insistent on it, it’s not surprising that the rest of us follow their lead.
“I’m sure it is a mistake to talk about homosexuals as a mysteriously uniform group” – so who are “they”, then?
I find myself repeatedly being told what gay men are supposed to be like by men and women who are straight (some of whom clearly think I fall short – “you’re too straight-acting to be queer”, said one: my employer recently invited me to train to become an “LGBTQ+ ally” – they clearly think I’m not doing it right).
The author does generalise, but many of the comments here do so even more, which is tiresome, as I could have hoped UnHerd readers could be a bit more intelligent.
“I am curious as to what man, particularly a Western one, cannot be open about his sexuality” is frankly crass – lots of people have to be reticent about who or what they are for all sorts of reasons (rightly) known only to themselves – try being a western gay muslim teenager: even if your family is cool with that, many of your muslim peers won’t be, and that’s just one example.
Much of the public discourse around gay rights is now deranged, but don’t blame me or make generalisations based on that derangement. A bit of intellectual humility and a bit more generosity of spirit wouldn’t go amiss. If you’ll stop stereotyping me, I promise I’ll stop handing out advice on how “you straight folks” should all behave in the wake of decades of heterosexuals trashing “traditional” marriage (citing a point once made by the eminent Jospeh Ratzinger) . . .
I have students who are gay and Muslim, and it is indeed awful. But the issue is the Muslim part, not the Western part. I think that’s what the poster was saying.
As someone who holds to ‘traditional’ marriage, I totally agree with you on your observation of how marriage has been gutted by heterosexuals within the last 60-odd years.
It had already been reduced to a civil partnership by the time the Tories handed it to you guys. Almost a bit of an insult, don’t you think?
Yes. In practical terms, we are usually talking about the extreme activists who revel in the identity and associated activities. If the ordinary LGB person wants to disavow the activities of the leadership of their community they are welcome to try and do so, but they seem perfectly content with them as it stands. A crying shame.
Then why did you read this article anyway? You clearly aren’t a fan of the homosexuals, and it seems even think they’re one of the prime reasons for the destruction of civilization, so why not just ignore them and refrain from reading this article.
What are you raving about? This is an article I am interested in otherwise I would not have bothered commenting. I would not discourage homosexuals from commenting on articles about, for example, pregnancy, by the same measure. This is not an identity politics hellhole like the Guardian comments section where you have to ‘stay in your lane’. I won’t even dignify the other nonsense in your post with a response.
Andrew D
1 month ago
Is UnHerd going to give us a gay story for every day of Holy week?
Who knew that life involved trade-offs? Oh, that’s right; anyone capable of basic thought. Sure, technology makes finding a sex partner easy. It makes the hunt cheap, too, and not in the monetary way. One might say the same about single bars and clumsy attempts at picking up a partner, but the “advertising,” so to speak, was right in front of your face.
Decisions were made on the evidence at hand, not a bunch of questions and metrics that are no more a guarantee of a good match than the old way. Also, the bar scene did not always end in hookups. Sometimes, it was phone numbers that led to dates, which involved conversations since no one had a smartphone, and a chance to see if there was anything there. Or you struck out and went home.
And how would you know? Have you met every woman ever? I hate to break it to you but quite a few women just wanna have sex. I know that might be news to you
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago
“frission” or “frisson”?
Nick 0
1 month ago
Is there such a word as “frission”.
Combination of friction and frisson maybe?
Dumetrius
1 month ago
And as if by divine plan, Grindr is having a major outage today.
Laurence Hemming
1 month ago
The author does generalise, but many of the comments here do so even more, which is tiresome, as I could have hoped UnHerd readers would be a bit more intelligent.
“I’m sure it is a mistake to talk about homosexuals as a mysteriously uniform group” – and then the commenter starts immediately to speak of a uniform “they”.
I now find myself repeatedly being told what gay men are supposed to be like by men and women who are straight (some of whom clearly think I fall short – “you’re too straight-acting to be queer”, said one: my employer recently invited me to train to become an “LGBTQ+ ally” – they clearly think I’m not doing it right at the moment).
Then I read “I am curious as to what man, particularly a Western one, cannot be open about his sexuality”, which is frankly crass – lots of people have to be reticent about who or what they are for all sorts of reasons (rightly) known only to themselves – try being a western gay muslim teenager: even if your family is cool with that your muslim peers won’t be, and that’s just one example.
Much of the public discourse around gay rights is now deranged, but don’t blame me or make generalisations about me based on that derangement. A bit of intellectual humility and a bit more generosity of spirit wouldn’t go amiss. If you’ll stop stereotyping me, I promise I’ll stop handing out advice on what “you straight folk” should “all” do in the wake of decades of the entirely heterosexual trashing of “traditional” marriage . . .
Samantha Stevens
1 month ago
As a woman, I don’t understand the desire for anonymous sex. And I would say that NONE of what the author writes about gay men is true about lesbians because they are women. There are consequences for a person of any orientation when promiscuous, be it through an app or in a bar. Diseases, rape, physical harm from a stranger. I don’t get it. So forgive me if I don’t lament its demise.
I also don’t understand people for whom their sex lives is so primary to their identity that they think about it ALL the time. In a happy marriage, it is a wonderful part. But there are kids to care for, a house to tend to, and a job one must work at to pay for it all. And if you care about the world, there are so many causes in which to participate. My passion is disability rights because I have an autistic daughter.
Perhaps these hedonists should get off Grindr and save the whales.
As a man I concur. I find these casual sex people to be pathetic. The fact re people who somehow did not mature beyond an obsession with their genitals. It is some sort of developmental disorder.
No one gives a shit about your autistic daughter. Quite frankly there are far more important matters.
Sisyphus Jones
1 month ago
Is it really necessary to have pictures like the one attached to this article attached to this article? We had a lively discussion recently about how it has become socially unacceptable to mention that people – normal people, sane people, people who don’t care what other people do in their bedrooms – are reflexively repelled by the sight of two homosexual men touching each other. You all probably know this. So why make it a regular thing on Unherd if not to troll people for having a perfectly rational reflex? Moderator person. Email me.
Jack Robertson
1 month ago
Now Jarryd, be very careful mate, you’ve come perilously close to blurting out the truth about the real source of the erotic power of casual gay sex, which pivots precisely on its transgressive, risky, illicit nature. Commodifying and mass marketing that was always going to smooth the tangier edges off it. Thanks a lot, Joel.
Obviously I can only speak as an impeccably red-blooded cis-het Aussie bloke – my Grindr profile would probably describe me as an amalgamation of Chris Hemworth, Clive James and Shane Warne, say – but in my experience at least, while receiving oral sex from a woman within the loving, committed and publicly-celebrated sanctity of a traditional marriage can be workmanlike enough, nothing can really beat a zipless blow-j*b from a strapping young tradie’s apprentice in a toilet cubicle in a suburban RSL of a midweek lunchtime. Almost enough to make a bloke consider turning cheerful.
It’s the incongruity of naughty sex that makes it naughty right. By definition you can’t codify, commodify and quality control that. This silly headlong rush on the part of the political gay lobby these last several sex-dulling decades, for ‘equal rights and social acceptance’ – more accurately, the equal right to frustrated, middle-class conformity and the permanent nobbling of any further possibility of authentic erotic transgression – has always puzzled me. Again, admittedly, speaking strictly as a straight guy, FWIW. But seriously, ‘LGBTQAI+’ community’: what on earth is the actual point of non-het/queer/transgressive/non-conforming casual sex with a big-c*cked, hard-bodied, highly-f**kable complete stranger one will never see again…if it’s first to be rendered consumer-safe, digitally-efficient, socially-approved and government-regulated?!?
To me that’s about as erotic as your dear old mum n’ dad giving you your first stick mag on your 13th birthday. Or it would be. If I wasn’t so straight.
2 plus 2 equals 4
1 month ago
Articles like this always move me to be thankful that my peak dating years were from the late-1980s to 2000, when I met and eventually married my wife. The last generation before online dating and later apps took over.
Meeting people by chance in pubs, bars, clubs, and lectures lacked the efficiency of processing and selecting such a wide range of potential partners as apps allow. But it feels like the modern way of doing it becomes a lot more work and trouble in the end.
I’m not gay and never have been, but I guess in Grindr’s defence, it probably has removed some of the risk of being beaten up for “leading on” the wrong guy in a bar or club. Someone with experience would have to confirm that though.
Arthur King
1 month ago
Look at me. Look at me. My life is focused on sex with strangers. /sarc. Enough of these purile topics dear Unherd editors. Boring stuff.
To be frank, I won’t be shedding many tears for the homosexuals over this one. Part of the compact made in giving them same sex marriage over a decade ago was that they would settle down and be ‘tamed’ to some extent by domesticity. That was the argument made by powerful campaigners and activists.The decline of in person meetings and a pervasive sense of boredom may have to do the work where monogamy failed.
I don’t remember any such undertaking!
Even if it was made, I assure you, no-one came and asked me if I agreed to it being made on my behalf.
The culture wars we are in now are largely prompted by Mr Wright’s kind of dishonesty, where someone comes online alleging a specious offer, non-compliance with which gives him a phony platform for his self-righteousness, but which he knows was never made in the first place.
You wouldn’t have been asked, assuming you are British, for the voter didn’t get a say. I was talking primarily about the noxious U.S debate, which fed into the Tories announcing it as a policy in 2011 after they had won the election when Cameron tried to ape the Lib Dems and Labour. The British voter never got asked.
Yes I remember Cameron was never pro gay before it benefited him.
Regardless, homosexuals can’t be asked to ‘settle down’ by an election, either in the US or in the UK.
Mr R Wright, can you tell me how would homosexual people be asked to ‘settle down’, via a vote of British or indeed, American voters?
Where ? In an election? You do know that homosexuality isn’t a criteria for voting ? In either country?
Are you just muddying the waters because you’ve been caught talking b0ll0cks?
Sure looks like it.
I think the term you’re looking for is bigot. And I agree, R Wright is a bigot.
More to the point, R Wright was caught lying and then trying to confound the issue.
I’m not sure that was the compact. The same-sex marriage debate, insofar as it’s continued today (for example in the churches), is couched quite differently. It’s about gay rights and equality, and the gay agenda being rammed into all parts of society. Marriage is not a sacred commitment, just another institution to be colonised. The author is quite explicit that gay men are promiscuous by nature. Why would that change?
Given that this is so, if Mr Wright had such an offer made to him, he ought have disbelieved it, since the evidence in front of him could never have furnished him with grounds for thinking it true.
Some gay men, clearly not all, just like st8 men
Marriage is not a sacred commitment, just another institution to be colonised. – To be destroyed you mean
I’m fairly sure there was never a ‘compact’ about this and you make the mistake of talking about ‘homosexuals’ as if they were some mysteriously uniform block like ‘Muslims’ or whatever. However there was probably a lot of wishful thinking about possible trade-offs and behavioural changes with little basis in fact on both sides.
It reminds me of something I heard about the ‘bathhouse theory of sex’ with regard to shutting down bathhouses in NYC to combat the spread of AIDS; it was argued that they were primarily used due to existing discrimination against gay men and should therefore be kept open as a political display of support for an extremely beleaguered community.
Now, this contained more than a grain of truth at the time and even now, in our Pride-saturated culture, this would still apply as there are always some men who can’t be open about their sexuality. The clientèle of a gay sauna would even today be far more varied and surprising than you might ever imagine (‘More tea, vicar?’).
The real fly in the ointment was the wishful corollary; namely, that if discrimination were to disappear, bathhouses would no longer be needed. But of course, since it is fun and pleasurable for many men and just plain exciting to boot, this has obviously proved to be a total myth.
However, we are surely at peak sexual saturation point by now, and the future is Japanese; namely, people having less and less sex and no relationships either, unless it’s with themselves.
I am curious as to what man, particularly a Western one, cannot be open about his sexuality. From your comment, that seems confined to the clergy even though multiple denominations make a big to-do about gay or lesbian clerics. Aside from that small group, being gay is treated more as a badge of honor than a detriment.
I’m sure it is a mistake to talk about homosexuals as a mysteriously uniform group, but the ones who advocate this most forcefully are gay people themselves, or at least the vocal activists who speak for them. That’s how we end up with Stonewall, Pride festivals, LGBT history month and the rest of the paraphernalia. The author of this article himself makes some pretty sweeping generalisations about gay men. If they are insistent on it, it’s not surprising that the rest of us follow their lead.
“I’m sure it is a mistake to talk about homosexuals as a mysteriously uniform group” – so who are “they”, then?
I find myself repeatedly being told what gay men are supposed to be like by men and women who are straight (some of whom clearly think I fall short – “you’re too straight-acting to be queer”, said one: my employer recently invited me to train to become an “LGBTQ+ ally” – they clearly think I’m not doing it right).
The author does generalise, but many of the comments here do so even more, which is tiresome, as I could have hoped UnHerd readers could be a bit more intelligent.
“I am curious as to what man, particularly a Western one, cannot be open about his sexuality” is frankly crass – lots of people have to be reticent about who or what they are for all sorts of reasons (rightly) known only to themselves – try being a western gay muslim teenager: even if your family is cool with that, many of your muslim peers won’t be, and that’s just one example.
Much of the public discourse around gay rights is now deranged, but don’t blame me or make generalisations based on that derangement. A bit of intellectual humility and a bit more generosity of spirit wouldn’t go amiss. If you’ll stop stereotyping me, I promise I’ll stop handing out advice on how “you straight folks” should all behave in the wake of decades of heterosexuals trashing “traditional” marriage (citing a point once made by the eminent Jospeh Ratzinger) . . .
I have students who are gay and Muslim, and it is indeed awful. But the issue is the Muslim part, not the Western part. I think that’s what the poster was saying.
Gay and Muslim? Not as unusual as you might think especially in the Arab world.
Some people prefer sheep, although don’t go into details.
As someone who holds to ‘traditional’ marriage, I totally agree with you on your observation of how marriage has been gutted by heterosexuals within the last 60-odd years.
It had already been reduced to a civil partnership by the time the Tories handed it to you guys. Almost a bit of an insult, don’t you think?
Yes. In practical terms, we are usually talking about the extreme activists who revel in the identity and associated activities. If the ordinary LGB person wants to disavow the activities of the leadership of their community they are welcome to try and do so, but they seem perfectly content with them as it stands. A crying shame.
Vicars who like a puff of T are quite the problem, but if caught in a sauna, a ban follows.
Then why did you read this article anyway? You clearly aren’t a fan of the homosexuals, and it seems even think they’re one of the prime reasons for the destruction of civilization, so why not just ignore them and refrain from reading this article.
What are you raving about? This is an article I am interested in otherwise I would not have bothered commenting. I would not discourage homosexuals from commenting on articles about, for example, pregnancy, by the same measure. This is not an identity politics hellhole like the Guardian comments section where you have to ‘stay in your lane’. I won’t even dignify the other nonsense in your post with a response.
Is UnHerd going to give us a gay story for every day of Holy week?
I wasn’t gonna say anything but best comment of the week so far.
I hope so
And what would be wrong with that. You’re not compelled to read the article.
This is what I do. Unfortunately, the title gets into my eyes and causes a gag reflex, but everything is fine.
Hope so
Comment moved.
Who knew that life involved trade-offs? Oh, that’s right; anyone capable of basic thought. Sure, technology makes finding a sex partner easy. It makes the hunt cheap, too, and not in the monetary way. One might say the same about single bars and clumsy attempts at picking up a partner, but the “advertising,” so to speak, was right in front of your face.
Decisions were made on the evidence at hand, not a bunch of questions and metrics that are no more a guarantee of a good match than the old way. Also, the bar scene did not always end in hookups. Sometimes, it was phone numbers that led to dates, which involved conversations since no one had a smartphone, and a chance to see if there was anything there. Or you struck out and went home.
it makes ‘finding a sex partner easy’ for gay men
Straight people have their own apps
Men and women on dating apps are obviously involved in a very different dynamic than a couple of promiscuous gay guys on Grindr
And how would you know? Have you met every woman ever? I hate to break it to you but quite a few women just wanna have sex. I know that might be news to you
“frission” or “frisson”?
Is there such a word as “frission”.
Combination of friction and frisson maybe?
And as if by divine plan, Grindr is having a major outage today.
The author does generalise, but many of the comments here do so even more, which is tiresome, as I could have hoped UnHerd readers would be a bit more intelligent.
“I’m sure it is a mistake to talk about homosexuals as a mysteriously uniform group” – and then the commenter starts immediately to speak of a uniform “they”.
I now find myself repeatedly being told what gay men are supposed to be like by men and women who are straight (some of whom clearly think I fall short – “you’re too straight-acting to be queer”, said one: my employer recently invited me to train to become an “LGBTQ+ ally” – they clearly think I’m not doing it right at the moment).
Then I read “I am curious as to what man, particularly a Western one, cannot be open about his sexuality”, which is frankly crass – lots of people have to be reticent about who or what they are for all sorts of reasons (rightly) known only to themselves – try being a western gay muslim teenager: even if your family is cool with that your muslim peers won’t be, and that’s just one example.
Much of the public discourse around gay rights is now deranged, but don’t blame me or make generalisations about me based on that derangement. A bit of intellectual humility and a bit more generosity of spirit wouldn’t go amiss. If you’ll stop stereotyping me, I promise I’ll stop handing out advice on what “you straight folk” should “all” do in the wake of decades of the entirely heterosexual trashing of “traditional” marriage . . .
As a woman, I don’t understand the desire for anonymous sex. And I would say that NONE of what the author writes about gay men is true about lesbians because they are women. There are consequences for a person of any orientation when promiscuous, be it through an app or in a bar. Diseases, rape, physical harm from a stranger. I don’t get it. So forgive me if I don’t lament its demise.
I also don’t understand people for whom their sex lives is so primary to their identity that they think about it ALL the time. In a happy marriage, it is a wonderful part. But there are kids to care for, a house to tend to, and a job one must work at to pay for it all. And if you care about the world, there are so many causes in which to participate. My passion is disability rights because I have an autistic daughter.
Perhaps these hedonists should get off Grindr and save the whales.
The 1950’s has been calling looking for a missing Haus Frau!
As a man I concur. I find these casual sex people to be pathetic. The fact re people who somehow did not mature beyond an obsession with their genitals. It is some sort of developmental disorder.
No one gives a shit about your autistic daughter. Quite frankly there are far more important matters.
Is it really necessary to have pictures like the one attached to this article attached to this article? We had a lively discussion recently about how it has become socially unacceptable to mention that people – normal people, sane people, people who don’t care what other people do in their bedrooms – are reflexively repelled by the sight of two homosexual men touching each other. You all probably know this. So why make it a regular thing on Unherd if not to troll people for having a perfectly rational reflex? Moderator person. Email me.
Now Jarryd, be very careful mate, you’ve come perilously close to blurting out the truth about the real source of the erotic power of casual gay sex, which pivots precisely on its transgressive, risky, illicit nature. Commodifying and mass marketing that was always going to smooth the tangier edges off it. Thanks a lot, Joel.
Obviously I can only speak as an impeccably red-blooded cis-het Aussie bloke – my Grindr profile would probably describe me as an amalgamation of Chris Hemworth, Clive James and Shane Warne, say – but in my experience at least, while receiving oral sex from a woman within the loving, committed and publicly-celebrated sanctity of a traditional marriage can be workmanlike enough, nothing can really beat a zipless blow-j*b from a strapping young tradie’s apprentice in a toilet cubicle in a suburban RSL of a midweek lunchtime. Almost enough to make a bloke consider turning cheerful.
It’s the incongruity of naughty sex that makes it naughty right. By definition you can’t codify, commodify and quality control that. This silly headlong rush on the part of the political gay lobby these last several sex-dulling decades, for ‘equal rights and social acceptance’ – more accurately, the equal right to frustrated, middle-class conformity and the permanent nobbling of any further possibility of authentic erotic transgression – has always puzzled me. Again, admittedly, speaking strictly as a straight guy, FWIW. But seriously, ‘LGBTQAI+’ community’: what on earth is the actual point of non-het/queer/transgressive/non-conforming casual sex with a big-c*cked, hard-bodied, highly-f**kable complete stranger one will never see again…if it’s first to be rendered consumer-safe, digitally-efficient, socially-approved and government-regulated?!?
To me that’s about as erotic as your dear old mum n’ dad giving you your first stick mag on your 13th birthday. Or it would be. If I wasn’t so straight.
Articles like this always move me to be thankful that my peak dating years were from the late-1980s to 2000, when I met and eventually married my wife. The last generation before online dating and later apps took over.
Meeting people by chance in pubs, bars, clubs, and lectures lacked the efficiency of processing and selecting such a wide range of potential partners as apps allow. But it feels like the modern way of doing it becomes a lot more work and trouble in the end.
I’m not gay and never have been, but I guess in Grindr’s defence, it probably has removed some of the risk of being beaten up for “leading on” the wrong guy in a bar or club. Someone with experience would have to confirm that though.
Look at me. Look at me. My life is focused on sex with strangers. /sarc. Enough of these purile topics dear Unherd editors. Boring stuff.