Why would David Cameron make anyone gay?

1.5% of Britons say they are gay or bisexual: Number hasn’t increased in past year despite Cameron’s drive for equality

I can’t imagine anyone at all being so insecure in their sexuality that David Cameron’s actions might change it.

Even if he was in the habit of chatting up the birds I’m sure a simple “No, ta” would be sufficient rather than turning into a rug muncher.

Number is a quarter of the six per cent claimed by lobbyists and Whitehall

That’ll annoy all the right people.

18 comments on “Why would David Cameron make anyone gay?

  1. It’s not the surveyees that lie but the surveyors. The higher single-digit and double-digit figures tend to come from asking anyone if they have ever had a remotely homosexual experience ever even once and claiming such as fully paid-up gayers.

    Obviously, a single post-adolescent fumble in the showers at uni doesn’t make one a gayer, but if that’s another “one of us” (rather “greater than or equal to two of us”) to those who still feel oppressed they will get counted. It might make some gayers if they try it and realise they prefer it. And obviously Camoron has nothing to do with it.

    There isn’t any need to massage the statistics any more.

  2. It’s because they’ve adopted an essentialist view of homosexuality; indeed the whole idea of a “sexuality” is effectively essentialist. Rather than various types of sex being something you do, they represent something you are. This curiously a change in Christianity that came during/after the Reformation in which being Christian switched from a something you do to something you are. Judaism and Islam are still a something you do (though paradoxically being Jewish is a something you are. Is. Whatever).

    So anyway, if you’ve ever had a fumble with another of the same gender, this is held as a manifestation of your homosexual essence, not simply something you did. There is really no room in this philosophy for peoples sexual tastes to be flexible. If after twenty years of marriage to a frigid harridan you start fancying men, you always were gay, as with the fashion for middle aged Tories to leave their wives to explore their homosexuality.

    The whole debate was framed some years ago as between seeing it as a “choice” or as an “essence”, thus squeezing out what seems to me to be the better model, which is that it is a “taste”. Tastes are not choices; I do not know why I like the things I do and dislike the things I do, I just do. But neither are my tastes fixed and immutable essences.

    Part of my reason for banging on about sex so much is that I think we need a complete paradigmatic rethink.

  3. Surveys have shown that 1-in-4 statistics includes a refernce to 1-in-4 people; that’s a frightening number!!

  4. @Ian
    Do think the fun thing would be to redefine the default norm as bi-sexual. Hetros then get a pass as repressed but reproductively viable & we get a chance to label the gayers as sick preverts. All in the cause of diversity, of course.
    But can’t get my head around your pre/post Reformation thing. Pre-Reformation not being Christian (defined as Roman Catholic where the Pope’s writ ran) got you on the local’s winter fuel allowance along with the faggots.

  5. BIS-

    It’s nothing to do with not being Christian. Everyone was a christian. But it was a matter of doing things; rituals, attending church, etc. If you did them, you were a Christian, as in Islam where following the rules makes you a muslim. After the Reformation it shifted away from rules following into something you *are* regardless of what you do. You could be a Christian but not follow the rules, or follow the rules but not be a Christian, because of the way you are inside.

  6. Sorry BiS, but as one of The Gayers, that’s going too far.

    Playing sticky-biscuit or a bit of co-masturbation as a teenager doesn’t make you bi-sexual any more than it makes you Jewish.

    One thing that is fairly common in teenagers is sexual curiosity, in co-ed environments it will be mixed, in single sex environments it will lean towards homosexuality, but this is largely about sexual impulses finding an outlet rather than the gender of the whole.

    If there is a default setting for human beings, then it is heterosexuality. At 1.5% of the population, which is a fair assessment in my view, all forms of LGBT sexual identity are a rounding error.

    Attempts by Stonewall and other groups to say the percentage is higher by including forms of sexual curiousity are just about rent-seeking. There is simply no evidence for it.

  7. @ BIS

    Ian is in the right of it here; it’s not just about the theory of ‘the elect’ (not, as often assumed, confined to mental anabaptism but shared in essence by Calvinism and some presbys too) it’s summed up in the sacraments. Left footer sacrements are about doing things; good works (removed from prod sacrements) going to mass, confession, penance, &c &c, do these things and ye shall be saved. Protestants are all about being saved.

    That’s the funny thing about Catholic guilt – it’s finite and measurable and can be assuaged. Protestant guilt less so. I’ve often wondered if that’s why it’s the protestant countries (Germany, Netherlands, UK) who are quite so fucked up about sex; if you’re Italian, Spanish or French and you shag someone you shouldn’t you can just say sorry (in the right way) and it’s all forgiven till next time. Not for the protestants. Ho, no.

  8. That’s interesting, though, that the lobbyists claim 6%. Twenty years ago, they claimed 10%. So truth is making some headway.

    The same crappy surveying technique is used to claim that 1 in 3 women are victims of domestic violence and 1 in 3 people are “affected by” mental illness — that “affected by” having started to morph already into “victims of”. “Did he ever swear at you? Yes? That’s domestic violence, that is. Verbal violence, but still violence.” “Have you ever met someone who said they felt depressed? Yes? Ah, you’ve been affected by mental illess. What a tragedy.”

  9. Careful now Timmy, about cherry-picking from the sentence, which does include “…say they are….”.

    The implication of “the promotion of same-sex marriage and full gay equality by David Cameron and the Coalition” is not that it will change someone’s sexuality, but that it might at least make people more open to state their preferences.

  10. “Calvinism and some presbys”

    Whee, another commenter who shreds their “right to comment on religion” card. Talking about “presbys” as distinct from Calvinists being the error here, of course. Like talking about Roman Catholics and Jesuits as though one were not a subset of the other.

    “if you’re Italian, Spanish or French and you shag someone you shouldn’t you can just say sorry (in the right way) and it’s all forgiven till next time. Not for the protestants. Ho, no.”

    Think this is a bit of a mis-reading. May be fairer to say that for RCs, there is something you can do (confess to a priest, a few Hail Marys; lifelong Prot here so not a clue really what goes on) and you’re promised that having done that you’ll be forgiven. In Protestant understanding there is still forgiveness! But it’s both easier and harder, because “doing” and “believing” are joined: forgiveness is promised and all you can “do” is believe the promise. Easy to do, hard to believe; or something like that. At the end of it, you have a similar distinction to the one you started with, but it’s not quite so simple as your presentation.

  11. “Easier and harder” being the key point really, because one cannot choose to believe, any more than one can choose to love or choose to like something. Hence, the point about “something you are” rather than “something you do”.

    Which also brings us back to Calvinism and Election. If you aren’t elected, you’re stuffed. Which also tends in certain types of personality towards something mentioned on a thread here before; degenerating into effective if not overt Antinomianism, since a person who believes himself elect is heavenbound regardless of his actions.

    Yes, Tony Blair, it’s you I’m looking at.

  12. Whee, another commenter who shreds their “right to comment on religion” card. Talking about “presbys” as distinct from Calvinists being the error here, of course. Like talking about Roman Catholics and Jesuits as though one were not a subset of the other.

    errrr…no.

    ‘Presbys’ used there to describe the wider – and ironically rather catholic* – family of Reformed churches and sundry alliances with congegationalists, lutherans, methodists and Uncle Tom Cobleigh an’ all. ‘Calvinism’ used to describe the teachings of yer man John.

    You want to argue the two are one and the same, and I’ll not bother cause they ain’t. There was a man called Calvin and he said some stuff and he influenced Scottish Presbyterianism and that in turn exported round the world. Yes, that I’ll happily concede.

    And yes, one could probably talk about sections of the wider Roman Catholic church having somewhat different interpretations to the SoJ. And the Dominicans would stand behind you shouting “right on, Brother!”

    *see what I did there?

  13. Mr Galt
    As I said. In fun. The endless attempts to classify people get tedious. The idea of classifying that section of people containing the most ardent classifiers out of the classifying business is amusing. They being the only ones to suffer. The rest of, us, including most of the gay population i would imagine, really don’t give a stuff. Do we? Life’s too short.

  14. Something is making more people Gay:

    Younger people were more likely to say they were gay, with 1.7 per cent of those aged between 16 and 24 calling themselves gay or lesbian, and another one per cent of the 16-24 age group said they were bisexual.

    That is about twice as many as the general population. I might think that is due to Gay propaganda in schools. But no doubt it would be homophobic to think so.

  15. sam – “I’ve often wondered if that’s why it’s the protestant countries (Germany, Netherlands, UK) who are quite so fucked up about sex; if you’re Italian, Spanish or French and you shag someone you shouldn’t you can just say sorry (in the right way) and it’s all forgiven till next time. Not for the protestants. Ho, no.”

    But why do you think that means the Catholic countries are less f*cked up? You mean powerful men can get away with a lot more. That is not the same thing is it? Berlusconi is having a great time, but his attitudes look pretty f**ked up to me.

    No doubt Berlusconi’s life would appeal to certain teenage boys, but they think of themselves as Berlusconi. Not as the Latin boys who can’t get girls at all and sleep with each other. Not even the boys whose girlfriends won’t put out but will agree to anal sex. Forget their mother fixations and all that implies. The grass is not always greener.

    The bigger question is which is better for society. It goes without saying that the Protestant countries are more successful and nicer places to live in virtually every respect. But where would you rather live – in a country where Roman Polanski is prosecuted or in a country where he is honoured? Would you rather live in a country that thinks Profumo should resign, or where Berlusconi is the most successful Prime Minister since Mussolini?

    The Latin approach is to look at something like Frederic Mitterand’s boast that he likes f**king Thai boys and shrug. At least we jailed Gary Glitter. Who is really the more f**ked up?

  16. The catlick countries are hugely fucked up about sex, especially gay sex. The general lack of it as SMFS says, plus the cavalier attitude to (male) infidelity, which seems hardly non-fucked-up to me.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.