Does he want no Muslim audience at all?

Children’s television shows like Peppa Pig should feature more homosexual characters, one of the two contenders to lead the Liberal Democrats has said.

Norman Lamb, who is battling with rival Tim Farron to succeed Nick Clegg, said it was not “out of bounds” that characters on the popular Channel Five programme should be homosexual.

Sigh. And it’s not as if we really need to bring sexuality into programmes for three year olds, is it?

90 thoughts on “Does he want no Muslim audience at all?”

  1. “Daddy Pig, what are you doing with Mr. Dog?”

    “Hello Peppa, I’m, errr, splashing in a muddy puddle”

  2. For some multicultural balance: some wolves who throw the gay characters off a tower before slaughtering everyone else.

  3. No, I’m sorry. Just No. That whole thing reads like a loaded question lobbed into the end of an interview.

  4. Not the first time a Lib Dem MP has shown an interest in wanting to sexualize prepubescent teens, allegedly.

  5. Since children are not sexual beings their media is normally absent of sexual material, and quite appropriately so. How then can one have characters of a particular sexuality in an asexual medium?

    Was Mr Benn gay? Or Roobarb? It should be a meaningless question, like asking David Copperfield’s blood group. They do not have this characteristic, as characters.

    That’s what annoys me about Bert and Ernie and teh gheys. They are not gay characters. Or straight characters. They aren’t sexual at all.

  6. I dunno Justin.

    If I were to be asked that question, loaded or not, I think I would say that I had no idea as to the sexuality of the characters in a children’s TV programme that I didn’t watch.

    If pressed I might add that I didn’t believe it was a matter upon which a public servant such as an MP should express an opinion.

    If further pressed I might say that kids are taught gayness in schools, and that maybe they should get a break from it at home, and that actually since they could not have sex it could only be hinted at, and did the interlocutor mean by making them effeminate or something, in which case leave me alone you homophobe.

    If further pressed, and by now desperate, then, yes, I might say ‘But what about children from er faith backgrounds which er do not er approve of certain er modes of lifestyle and would be er excluded by er sorry I have to take this call.’

    This twat said none of that because in his heart of hearts he either thinks it’s his job to teach your kids about gayness or he hadn’t got the balls to take on Peter Fucking Tatchell and stare the bog-brush haired bastard down.

  7. So Much for Subtlety

    And it’s not as if we really need to bring sexuality into programmes for three year olds, is it?

    There is a reasonably large number of Gay activists who think that sexuality is a social construct and look forward to the day in which homosexuality is normalised to the point it will disappear. Everyone will have sex. With everyone else. It will just be normal.

    So naturally they need to get at the three year olds.

  8. “In an interview with PinkNews, Mr Lamb said he wanted more television companies to “address” why there were not more visible lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters on their children’s programmes.”

    ‘Visible’ how, exactly?

  9. @Ljh “For some multicultural balance: some wolves who …”

    Quite, but it must be a “lone wolf”. Even if a dozen appear at once, there is never a pack, just a dozen lone wolves.

  10. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “Bumsex, presumably.”

    Well, given that we are all going to have to put up with anal sex on children’s TV shows, and it may just be me, but, you know, I think I would have to say better Peppa Pig than any other show.

    In fact it might even be improved somewhat.

    I would say better that than Doctor Who except 1. since its “re-imagining” it looks like it was written with an implicit Gay agenda anyway and 2. they already got there with their own spin off.

    The only other show that would be better would be Rastamouse. Not because it needs butt plugging. But because it would lovely to watch the Afro-Caribbean community’s response.

  11. you’ve got mummy and daddy pig without thinking this “brings sexuality into a program for 3 year olds” so why not have “daddy and daddy badger” and “mummy and mummy squirrel” – I don’t think anybody is suggesting we see them having sex.

    My three year old loves Peppa and I wouldn’t care in the slightest if some of the couples in it were same sex. Might even help get used to the idea that some people are gay, get over it, as opposed to mercilessly persecuting anybody who shows even the vaguest sign of being a homo like we did when I was growing up.

  12. and are you really suggesting that we shouldn’t put things on telly because Muslims don’t like ’em? What has got into you?

  13. So Much for Subtlety

    Luis Enrique – “Might even help get used to the idea that some people are gay, get over it, as opposed to mercilessly persecuting anybody who shows even the vaguest sign of being a homo like we did when I was growing up.”

    I don’t think that children are mercilessly persecuted because they are Gay. I think they are mercilessly persecuted because they are a bit odd. They are often also Gay because they are a bit odd. There is simply no way of stopping nasty little sh!ts, which is what most children are when they are not closely supervised, persecuting, mercilessly, the odd.

    Trying to recruit three year olds won’t change that.

  14. Luis

    Fine, but in the ‘father and father’ instance there is an actual mother, and in the ‘mother and mother’ instance there is an actual father. Do we get to show those too, or do we just pretend that reproduction took place parthenogentically?

  15. Ian,

    > How then can one have characters of a particular sexuality in an asexual medium? Was Mr Benn gay? Or Roobarb? It should be a meaningless question, like asking David Copperfield’s blood group. They do not have this characteristic, as characters.

    That’s how it should be, yes. But the BB fucking C changed all that with Teletubbies. I initially thought, when people started going on about Tinky-Winky being gay, well, exactly what you just said. Stop projecting your obsessions where they don’t belong, I thought. And then, years later, I had kids, and ended up watching quite a lot of Teletubbies. And yes, Tinky-Winky is gay. Because the BBC is run by arseholes.

    Also, Dipsy has a slightly darker face than the others, and so is of course constantly throwing hip-hop shapes. Because the BBC’s children’s output really is now made by condescending racists obsessed with identity politics.

    This sort of thing is precisely why Peppa Pig isn’t on the BBC. Astley-Baker-Davis (its makers) used to work for the BBC, and their excellent show The Big Knights was axed. Channel 5’s children’s output is excellent, which is why it is they that got Peppa Pig. If you consider the BBC’s history of great children’s shows, they should be profoundly ashamed that the greatest and most popular kids’ show of the last two generations not only wasn’t made by them, not only was made by people they’d rejected, but quite explicitly could not be made by them according to their current ethos and guidelines.

    Ben & Holly, Astley-Baker-Davis’s other show, contains a character called Redbeard the Elf Pirate, who has an eyepatch. The eyepatch is not always on the same eye, and, in times of danger, Redbeard sometimes lifts it up so he can see properly. Kids love this when they notice it. There is no way in a million years the BBC would allow a children’s program that is making fun of a fake disability.

    The BBC has been thoroughly taken over by fuckwits like Norman Lamb, who literally can’t think of any reason not to put homosexuality in a show popular with one-year-olds. And people like Lamb watch the BBC constantly, making it an echo chamber.

    Everyone at the BBC — and Norman Lamb — should read this.

  16. yes that’s right smfs homophobia no problem at all, just made up by lefties. No evidence that young gay people had a miserable existence in earlier decades. You the right wing version of Polly Toynbee crossed with Seamus Milne.

    recusant, we are talking about a program for 3 year olds, I think just having some same sex couples, with or without children, would suffice.

  17. squander I whole heartedly agree that it’s pure bullshit that children want fast noisy crap. Postgate is a genius.

    (have you seen the new Clangers? not so bad)

  18. Luis

    Once again, fine, but – and not wanting to be obtuse here – how do we show that they are a gay same sex couple rather than two mates? You’re introduction of father-father and mother-mother is one way; are there any others? Without going down a limp-wrist fondness for pink on the one side or a dungareed monkey booted couple on the other.

  19. The BBC have come over all moralistic, well, when it comes to Swallows and Amazons. Titty will now be called Tatty in the new BBC film. Give me strength. I’m surprised Swallows got through!

  20. Noel Scoper – 🙂

    In an interview with PinkNews, Mr Lamb said he wanted more television companies to “address” why there were not more visible lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender characters on their children’s programmes.

    What about pansexual or asexual people, you shitlord?

    Anyway, there were tons of sexually diverse characters in children’s TV when I was growing up:

    * Bagpuss
    * Adam, Prince of Eternia
    * Rod Hull and his Pink Windmill
    * Sooty
    * Jimmy Savile

    He said: “Legislation very clearly says that a loving relationship between two people of the same sex is of equal value, so in everything that we then do, as a society, we need to reinforce that, not deny it.”

    Does it? I’d be suprised if legislation was drafted to say something so profoundly retarded, but haven’t checked. Maybe these days they do write acts of parliament with the same buckets of crayons you get at Pizza Hut.

    Anyway, we’re talking about kiddies TV. They don’t need to know about Mr Slave. They need to know how to cross the road safely, never to touch the oven, and never to talk to strange Lib Dems.

  21. recusant
    yes these do seem like insurmountable difficulties, how will the makers of animated childrens programmes ever successfully depict gay couples?

  22. “He said: “Legislation very clearly says that a loving relationship between two people of the same sex is of equal value, so in everything that we then do, as a society, we need to reinforce that, not deny it.””

    Legislation very clearly says that owning a shotgun and using it to blast pheasants out of the sky is perfectly legal*, of equal value to splashing in muddy puddles, so in everything that we then do, as a society, we need to reinforce that.

    *(subject of course to having the necessary licence, observing the correct season and having permission of the landlord; these issues could easily be covered in a children’s television programme)

  23. > have you seen the new Clangers?

    I read that the BBC were (of course) turning it into an opportunity to lecture kids about environmentalism, and decided it could go fuck itself.

  24. So Much for Subtlety

    Luis Enrique – “yes that’s right smfs homophobia no problem at all, just made up by lefties. No evidence that young gay people had a miserable existence in earlier decades. You the right wing version of Polly Toynbee crossed with Seamus Milne.”

    I was going to say that I did not say that, but actually I came close. So for you that is an improvement. I did not say homophobia is not a problem. Child cruelty to other children is. My point is not that it doesn’t exist but that there is nothing we can do about it. However homosexual children and teens do not appear to commit suicide at a rate any greater than anyone else. It does not appear to be a problem – so I guess I can’t complain.

    What I did say is that children tend to pick on the deeply unhappy. And the deeply unhappy often decide the solution to their problem is everyone else. Not themselves.

    It would be hard to think of a homosexual in a previous generation who had a horrible childhood. All too often they seem to say they had delightful childhoods surrounded by loving mothers, aunts, older sisters etc. Anyone know of any Gay people in a previous generation who were any more unhappy than anyone else?

  25. After a brief flirtation with sanity it looks like the Lib Dems are reverting to normality, i.e. Extreme Metropolitan Progressivism, to shore up their core 7.9% of the vote.

  26. “Jees you talk a lot of shit, Luis.”

    Seconded–they will be immersed in it all soon enough without having it shoved in their faces. Let the poor little bastards have a childhood.

  27. What S2 said. A lot of BBC kid’s programs are so anodyne and PC that they’re unwatchable by kids, so my kids end up watching a lot of shows on other channels.

  28. So Much for Subtlety

    Luis Enrique – “Might even help get used to the idea that some people are gay, get over it, as opposed to mercilessly persecuting anybody who shows even the vaguest sign of being a homo like we did when I was growing up.”

    I would estimate that there are roughly ten times as many racist people in the UK than Gay people. Easily. That is, under 10 percent.

    I am sure that Luis will join me in calling for greater social understanding in modern Britain and so Luis Enrique would agree his three year old loves Peppa and he wouldn’t care in the slightest if some of the couples in it were racist. Might even help get used to the idea that some people are racist, and so get over it, as opposed to mercilessly persecuting anybody who shows even the vaguest sign of being a racist like we still do.

    Right?

    After all, vastly more people are dying every year because of the Gay community’s irresponsible attitude to safe sex than all the racists in all of Britain’s history. Well on the mainland anyway.

  29. Also, this:

    If we’re not, it still tells that teenager, who is struggling to come to terms with her sexuality, that there is something not quite normal about how they feel.

    A man who is in the running to become the leader of one of Britain’s major political parties thinks Peppa Pig is for teenagers.

  30. Mr Ecks you really are a marvel. Yes that’s right, having the odd same-sex couple on animated telly programmes for toddlers would be *denying them their childhood*

    others: yes fine there is loads of heavy-handed moralizing about (if you think telly is bad, some kids books are awful) but it is possible to simply have some gay characters on telly and saying no more about it, I do not see why anybody would object to a same sex couple on Peppa Pig. Why on earth should telly on present kids with heterosexual characters?

    (unless of course all this huffing and puffing about ghastly right-on lefties is really cover for homophobia. perish the thought).

  31. At my school, there was a boy who was mercilessly bullied for being gay. He was in fact a Born-again Evangelist, and therefore hated gays more than anyone else in the school. But he was camp.

    There were also, statistically, plenty of actually gay boys. And they weren’t bullied because no-one knew they were gay. How would they know? We were all virgins.

    The reason gay kids are being bullied in school is that they’re being told by clueless grown-ups to come out and be true to themselves. I cannot think of worse advice to schoolchildren. The grown-ups get to congratulate themselves for offering such wonderful advice. The kids have to take the actual consequences.

    The world contains shitheads. The adult world contains effective mechanisms for avoiding and overpowering shitheads. School doesn’t.

  32. > I do not see why anybody would object to a same sex couple on Peppa Pig.

    I object to a politician thinking it’s his job to decide whether there should be a same-sex couple on Peppa Pig. It doesn’t matter whether anybody objects. It matters whether Astley-Baker-Davis object. And no-one else.

    I would not be surprised if Astley-Baker-Davis did introduce a same-sex couple at some point. And I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t either. If they did, I’m sure they’d do it well, because they always do. And I wouldn’t mind. But I would mind if they were forced into it, and I would mind if the rest of children’s television went down the awful banal drearily preachy route the BBC have embraced.

  33. That Janner chap: was it boys or girls for him? Allegedly.

    Come to think of it if he’s demented with Oldtimers he presumably can’t sue for defamation anyway, can he?

  34. right, but his is just a politician saying “I think it would be a good idea if …” there is no sign he thinks it’s his job to decide what should be on Peppa Pig, politicians are allowed to express opinions.

    also, I imagine that if you are gay, it’s pretty miserable having to pretend to be otherwise to avoid being persecuted. maybe the best advice is still to do that, if so that’s pretty depressing.

  35. All I think is today’s children’s tv need more death. A channel showing watership down on a loop interspersed with animals of farthing wood would make children realise that they, their friends and parents can die.

    And this will make those who experience death of a close person while young not feel so alone.

  36. So Much for Subtlety

    Luis Enrique – “also, I imagine that if you are gay, it’s pretty miserable having to pretend to be otherwise to avoid being persecuted.”

    You imagine. You don’t know. You are very sure for someone who is only imagining. I imagine that schools are so pro-Gay these days that boys are happy to identify as Gay for all the social approval.

    Gay children, if such things exist, do not have a higher suicide rate than anyone else. Gay adults do, but there is no reason to think children do. This is just homosexual activists exploiting heterosexual guilt to further their agenda. The “if you don’t give me what I want, I will hold my breath” (or self harm in this case) argument.

    And I take it your views on social acceptance do not extend to the poor, persecuted, marginalised racist community in the UK? No time for Nick Griffin on Blue Peter?

  37. So Much for Subtlety

    Rob Harries – “All I think is today’s children’s tv need more death.”

    I would watch Peppa Pig’s Big Fat Cajun Barbeque.

    Not sure I would let any child do so though.

  38. So Much for Subtlety

    Luis Enrique – “I do not see why anybody would object to a same sex couple on Peppa Pig. Why on earth should telly on present kids with heterosexual characters?”

    OK, you don’t like racists and don’t want them on children’s TV. How about Tories? There is a decided lack of Tory couples on children’s TV. In fact on TV in general. Outside cowardly officers and mass murderers of course.

    There are probably slightly fewer schizophrenics in the UK than Gay people. So how about some seriously depressed couples on children’s TV? Eeyore is not enough. We need to see children chanting “don’t slash across, slash down”, right?

  39. > right, but his is just a politician saying “I think it would be a good idea if …” there is no sign he thinks it’s his job to decide

    He used the word “legislation” twice in his reply. It was, in fact, the first word out of his mouth. He mentioned being “consistent” — which, coming from a politician, in the context of legislation, always refers to enforcement. It’s illegal to refuse to put a slogan on a cake. So what can consistency mean here?

    And, as I said earlier, he demonstrated his authoritarianism the moment he didn’t reply with “Why are you asking me? I don’t make the show.”

    > I imagine that if you are gay, it’s pretty miserable having to pretend to be otherwise to avoid being persecuted. maybe the best advice is still to do that, if so that’s pretty depressing.

    Yes, of course it is. School is depressing. But it’s not particularly a gay issue, because it’s not just gays who are targetted. You also have to pretend, for instance, not to be clever. And not to like certain kinds of music. Or the wrong TV programs. And not to go to church. And to love football. It varies with different areas of the country and different schools, but it’s shit everywhere. Welcome to Planet Earth.

  40. @Luiis

    ‘as opposed to mercilessly persecuting anybody who shows even the vaguest sign of being a homo like we did when I was growing up.’

    Who’s this ‘we’? Were you a bully?

  41. smfs you really are a weirdo. only you could convince yourself that somebody in favour of a few more gays on children’s telly ought to think the same way about racists.

    squander two – oh right, I only skimmed the link, if he’s talking legislation I am with you on that.

    on the other thing, I hope there is scope for children’s attitudes towards being gay to change over time

  42. So Much for Subtlety

    Luis Enrique – “smfs you really are a weirdo. only you could convince yourself that somebody in favour of a few more gays on children’s telly ought to think the same way about racists.”

    Thank you. I try. My point is that I don’t. I know you do not feel the same way. I just want you to admit it. And think about why it is you want to encourage homosexuality but not racism. Isn’t the blood of a bullied racist child just as red as the blood of anyone else? Don’t her tears matter as much as the next child’s?

    “on the other thing, I hope there is scope for children’s attitudes towards being gay to change over time”

    Why? We have a non-problem. Why do you insist on a solution? There is no evidence Gay children are suffering. On the other hand we have a whole range of societies where homosexuality was normalised to the point that apprentices had a reasonable expectation of being sodomised by their employers. Egypt for one. They tend to be low trust places with pathetic military records. I expect their prisons are not fun either. What precisely about this should we be imitating?

  43. smfs you are demented, I am going to withdraw please feel free to tell yourself this reflects the superiority of your arguments

  44. Zorro: “Mr Ecks you really are a marvel. Yes that’s right, having the odd same-sex couple on animated telly programmes for toddlers would be *denying them their childhood*”

    Childhood is just that a time of innocence–all too soon to be ended by life. Life is quick enough without meddlers like you or the political pork putting their oar in. Not so much as one.

  45. Rob Harries – This.

    Children’s TV and films used to be distressing.

    Watership Down – the joys of seeing cute little bunny rabbits being killed by dogs, cats, trains, farmers, or other rabbits.

    When the little redheaded boy runs outside to say good morning to his magical pal in The Snowman, and finds him melted into a puddle of dirty slush. Then stands there, utterly bereft – too shocked to even cry – holding his dead friend’s scarf while not-Aled-Jones sings mournfully. As Noddy Holder says, “Iiiittttssss Chrrriiiissstmaaaasss!”

    The Plague Dogs – “Daddy, I want the video with the cartoon doggies on the cover!” 2 hours later… “B-B-BUT W-W-WHYYYYY?????”

    When The Wind Blows – came with a free razor blade with every cinema ticket.

    Granpa – taught bawling infants that everone you love will die.

    Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory – “Awww, there’s a river of chocolate and now the kiddies are going on a whimsical boat ride… wait, why does Wonka look insane? HOLY FUCK, THERE’S A CENTIPEDE ON THAT MAN’S FACE! AAAARRRGGHHH!”

    Labyrinth – 80’s era David Bowie, dressed as 80’s era Tina Turner with a stuffed codpiece, steals babies and seduces underaged girls in his M.C. Escher nightmare castle.

    Pinocchio – “Daddy, why are the boys getting drunk and turning into donkeys? I don’t like this film.” “Shhh, son. I put whisky in your ribena and your ears are getting longer as you speak.”

  46. So Much for Subtlety

    Steve – “Labyrinth – 80’s era David Bowie, dressed as 80’s era Tina Turner with a stuffed codpiece, steals babies and seduces underaged girls in his M.C. Escher nightmare castle.”

    Hang on, that is actually what happens. Jennifer Connelly was about 15 in real life and was playing a 15 year old character. Whom David Bowie very successfully seduces if I remember correctly.

  47. So Much for Subtlety

    Steve – “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”

    I can see the remake now – “Willy Wicker Man and the Chocolate Factory”

  48. SMFS – I can see the remake now – “Willy Wicker Man and the Chocolate Factory”

    Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee are no longer with us, and Gene Wilder is nearly 100. 🙁

    So the true horror would be that it’d star Johnny Depp and Benedict Cumberbatch.

  49. That whole thing reads like a loaded question lobbed into the end of an interview.

    Yes. Here‘s the interview. All the same, it would have been more sensible of him to say that very young children just don’t notice. (I remember being surprised when my older sister told me Andy Pandy was a boy.)

    Jennifer Connelly was about 15 in real life and was playing a 15 year old character. Whom David Bowie very successfully seduces if I remember correctly.

    I think you imagined that bit. Though you could read the whole thing as an allegory along those lines.

  50. SJW – I think you imagined that bit. Though you could read the whole thing as an allegory along those lines.

    Eh? She’s dancing in a wedding dress and he sings this to her:

    How you turn my world
    You precious thing.
    You starve and near exhaust me.

    Everything I’ve done,
    I’ve done for you.
    I move the stars for no one.

    You’ve run so long.
    You’ve run so far.
    Your eyes can be so cruel,
    Just as I can be so cruel

    In the extended edition, the film ends with the policemen from Holy Grail kicking in the door of Bowie’s castle.

  51. SJW,

    >> That whole thing reads like a loaded question lobbed into the end of an interview.
    > Yes. Here‘s the interview.

    I’m struggling to see why you used the word “Yes” there. Turns out the question wasn’t a throwaway lobbed onto the end of an interview, perhaps catching Lamb unprepared, but was right slap-bang in the middle and was a follow-up to the piece he wrote in which he said:

    Furthermore, it is deemed inappropriate to show same-sex couples on children’s television – in a manner not dissimilar from the treatment of mixed-race couples a generation ago.

    Our broadcasters must realise that sexuality is not, fundamentally, about who you want to have sex with – but who you are, and who you love.

    Why would a young person, perhaps questioning their sexuality, know that there was nothing wrong or strange about being gay if everything they had ever seen told them otherwise? I have written to the heads of the main TV channels demanding action.

    It was Lamb who raised this issue, not Pink News.

    Seeing the full interview, I take back my comment that “legislation” was the first word out of his mouth. I also take back my claim that he only used it twice, as he used it a hell of a lot more than that. As for whether he wants to gently encourage program-makers or use the force of law against them, he also said:

    We must do the exact opposite. We must make sure every part of government – especially schools and local authorities, are promoting the total equality of same sex attraction, relationships and, yes, sex.

    … We must have compulsory sex and relationships education in all state schools, including faith schools, in a way that makes no assumptions as to whom those learning will choose as their future partner.

    Which gives us the necessary context to know exactly what Lamb means by being “consistent”. And which also answer’s Tim’s question about what he thinks about Muslims.

    And he really did respond to a question about Peppa Pig with a comment about teenage viewers. The fuckwit.

  52. I recall claims of attempts to homosexualise kids in 60s/70s kid’s TV shows – characters named Seaman Staines, Master Bates? Anybody know if that was a hoax or for real?

  53. Our broadcasters must realise that sexuality is not, fundamentally, about who you want to have sex with

    Likewise, your musical preference has nothing to do with what music you want to listen to, and other arguments that are deranged.

  54. Labyrinth had undertones of seduction, but it was more about growing up; Jarred was offering Sarah the chance to be an adult. But the idea of adulthood was based on silly childish fantasies — hence the overblown wedding dress — and, crucially, was being offered to her as something that made you free of responsibility: Jarred’s whole purpose is to get her to give up her baby brother, after all, something an adult would never do. Ultimately, Sarah realises that she can truly grow up by refusing the offer and putting her responsibility for a baby ahead of her own selfish desires. If you’re going to read sex into it, make of that what you will.

    Also — and I can’t believe this needs stating — Jarred is the bad guy. He’s evil. He steals babies. He kills children. Even if he is trying to sexually seduce Sarah, that can only be read as condemnation of sex with underage girls, not approval of it.

  55. And, to trot out my usual, there is a great difference between a fifteen year old and a five year old.

    As to children’s stuff and how it used to be darker before PC, the movie Return To Oz is a great example. It’s very scary and grim; and rather good also.

  56. S2 – the interview is quite interesting:

    “Our broadcasters must realise that sexuality is not, fundamentally, about who you want to have sex with – but who you are, and who you love.”

    Eh? Why do broadcasters need to realise that?

    And is he correct? I’d say that sexuality, fundamentally, is more about what you do than what you feel. Feelings are harder to classify than actions.

    Lamb seems to think sexuality is a mixture of born-this-way inclinations and “who you love”. Assuming he’s being honest (never a sure bet with a Lib Dem, especially given their record of saying one thing to the gays and another to the Muslims), this is mushy thinking.

    I’m sure some people are born with a strong propensity to be attracted to the same sex. Others may form homosexual relationships due to the circumstances of their upbringing. It’s a complex subject.

    He goes into Hallmark card sentiment mode with “who you love”. What an absurdly fluffy and meaningless thing for a 50-something man – a trained lawyer, no less – to say.

    What kind of love are we talking about? There are many forns of love that have nothing to do with sexuality. The love of a parent for his child. Or a cat owner for his delightful kitty. Or of two old friends.

    And the types of love that are related to sexuality are still distinct from sexuality.

    When a girl walks in with an itty-bitty waist and a round thing in your face, you get sprung – not because you love her (though you may well do), but because you notice that butt was stuffed.

    Sexuality, then, is about who you shag and who you want to shag. It’s a happy coincidence if they also happen to be someone you love.

    So when he says:

    “The legislation very clearly says that a loving relationship between two people of the same sex is of equal value”

    I’m pretty sure that’s complete bollocks. I’m not sure what legislation he’s referring to, but it most likely says nothing of the sort. “Love” isn’t something we can legislate for, much less make legal value judgements about.

    It gets worse:

    There are still ways in which people don’t experience equal treatment – when you’re growing up, if all of the forces out there still presume that the normal thing is the male-female relationship, then, as a teenager, for example, it puts you under enormous pressure and strain.

    I’m sorry for any gay people who feel under pressure, but male-female relationships are the normal thing.

    Is it really homophobic now to recognise that hetetosexuality is normal, that well over 90% of the human race prefers to have sex with the opposite sex, that this shouldn’t surprise us, since the biological purpose of sex is to produce offspring?

    So, I think we celebrate the massive advances we’ve made, but we recognize that there’s still a long way to go.

    Naturally. This is why we should say no to the SJW’s. There’s always a long way to go. They won’t stop till we stop them.

    For example, he wants to force the LGBT agenda on little kids in Christian and Jewish faith schools (no mention of Muslim schools, natch):

    Because your parent happens to be a devout Catholic or a Jew, whatever it might be, should not deny you the chance to understand yourself and who you might be and to encourage you to believe that there’s nothing wrong with you.

    And he wants to ban therapy to “cure” gays:

    “I want it banned. I don’t want this to take place in our society. […] I’m totally open-minded to statutory regulation. If you have as a condition to regulation that anything that treats sexuality as an illness cannot be allowed as therapy.”

    So, a “liberal” wants to use the power of the state to stop consenting adults from undertaking some types of sex therapy sessions.

    And note this would also make it illegal to try to “cure” paedophiles.

    O tempora! O mores!

  57. S2,

    “We must do the exact opposite. We must make sure every part of government – especially schools and local authorities, are promoting the total equality of same sex attraction, relationships and, yes, sex.”

    This is the sort of reason I’m an arch free-marketeer.

    The problem with most interpretations of this is that you end up with something that looks like The Bureau from The Day Today where there’s a gay character and the only thing about him is that he’s gay.

    My kids have met a few gay people. We had a gay couple living across the road. One of them was a web designer and sometimes we’d talk shop in the street. My kids knew a couple of men lived together. They didn’t know they *lived* together. To them it was like Bert and Ernie. But then, we didn’t exactly tell them what my Uncle’s “friend” meant. He lived with a woman in a house and when we went over, the kids had tea and cakes and played with their cat.

    I’ll probably have a discussion with them when they’re 15 about the permutations of men and women living together. How it can just be a couple of friends sharing a house, and the kids will say “oh, please Dad, we figured this out, DUH!”.

  58. > As to children’s stuff and how it used to be darker before PC …

    No, Steve was wrong about that. We were talking about TV and he listed a load of films. Kids’ TV never contained a lot of death. Kids’ films still do — in fact, they’ve got a lot darker than they used to be. The Toy Story films are all fundamentally about death — the third quite explicitly so — Up is all about death and loss and hopelessness, the How To Train Your Dragon films are both very dark and the second one is about death and the nature of murder, the Kung Fu Panda films are dark and the second one’s got loads of death.

  59. Stig,

    Exactly. My kids have met my lesbian friends and relatives and got on perfectly well with them. Why wouldn’t they? The very idea that we need to give children explanations of people’s sex lives before they’ll accept them is bollocks.

    I should add that there are in fact plenty of unmarried grown-ups in kids’ shows, Peppa included, so why does Lamb think none of them are gay? How does he know? What he means is that none of them are crying at soap operas and flouncing like turkeys on trampolines. Which is surely rather prejudiced on his part. Isn’t it?

  60. Pogle’s Wood is terrifying nightmare fuel.

    I think Toy Story is overrated. I finally got around to watching it a few months ago, and while it was of course a milestone in CGI, the story is pants, particularly the lack of concern regarding the logic of the toys being alive, and Sid being cast as a villain for “torturing” toys which, so far as he is aware, are just bits of inert plastic. And if Buzz Lightyear doesn’t know he’s a toy, why does he play inert when humans are around? And…

  61. Ian,

    Sid is a villain from the toys’ point of view. The toys’ point of view is the entire point of the film. It is also made clear that Sid is also nasty to other children, but that’s almost incidental. And it’s not as if he receives some terrible punishment like being killed. He just gets scared. And he turns up briefly in the third film, looking very cheerful. The toys’ aim was merely to stop him harming them, not to visit some terrible vengeance on him. And it worked.

    The toys are quite pragmatic about the world they live in, and they just try to do their best with the cards they’re dealt. Taken together, the three films are about how living at the mercy of gods can either drive you mad or push you to achieve great things and help others. Toy Story 3 is about tyranny, but even the murderous tyrant has been driven that way by the gods.

    There’s a lot in there.

    Agreed that it’s far from Pixar’s best film, but it started something great.

  62. SMFS-

    Heading waaaay back up the thread, I just want to answer this-

    There is a reasonably large number of Gay activists who think that sexuality is a social construct and look forward to the day in which homosexuality is normalised to the point it will disappear. Everyone will have sex. With everyone else. It will just be normal.

    This is where I believe the “conservative analysis” gets it basically wrong, and where I strongly differ. It tries to fit modern progressives into a libertine, 1970s mould as if there is continuity, whereas I would argue that there has been a swing both to libertinism (peaking in the 1970s-ish) and then a reaction back against it, represented by the current wave of Progressives, who are anti-libertine.

    Regarding this context, the hedonist “1970s gay” has been increasingly replaced by a sober, family-model gay, its very antithesis, and the definition of homosexuality as a sexual practice gradually remodelled as a non-sexual (in terms of physical, biological fucking) “essence” (as indeed we see in Lamb’s description).

    For much of Christian history, the ideal was not heterosexuality and family, but celibacy; marriage was something second best you did if you couldn’t manage the celibate ideal. Why celibacy? Well, you were breaking the cycle of life and death at the point of reproduction, with the intention of immortality. I think an argument can be made that the post-christian Progressives have replaced a celibate ideal with a homosexual ideal- a same sex marriage being superior to a heterosexual one, with a lesbian one being best of all (they are notoriously celibate relationships). In other words, Teh Gheys have been carried along on a bandwagon driven by women who are lesbians not due to a lust for other women, but in order to reject heterosexual intercourse, and these chaste Boston Marriages thus take the position of spiritual superiority once occupied by celibacy.

    The one thing I am really sure that the Proggies do not want is a sexual free-for-all. Which is indeed the driving force behind the damnatio memoriae of the 1970s we’re currently witnessing- notably any number of elderly pooves can be flung under the bus in the pursuit of that. The New Gay with his husband and children and suburban propriety is rapidly disconnecting from the bum-grabbing queen of yesteryear.

  63. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Children’s TV if the 60’s and 70’s could be pretty scary. Carrie’s War, for example, was disturbing, and there was a series called The Changes, where people turn against technology and destroy it, that scared the ever-living fuck out of six year old me.

    An acronym from the Libertarian stable, akin to TANSTAAFL, that I have been trying without success to promote is NALFOG, meaning Not A Legitimate Function Of Government. Whether it’s trying to foster acceptance of loving same-sex relations in young people by destigmatising them, or thrusting the perversions of the Godless sodomites in the faces of poor innocent kiddies, it is NALFOG to get involved. This Lamb character should do one thing and one thing only, and that is wind his fucking neck in.

  64. “I’m totally open-minded to statutory regulation.”

    Course he is. And in every area of life no doubt. Prick.

  65. Squander Two. You have this bit wrong:
    “Ben & Holly, Astley-Baker-Davis’s other show, contains a character called Redbeard the Elf Pirate, who has an eyepatch. The eyepatch is not always on the same eye, and, in times of danger, Redbeard sometimes lifts it up so he can see properly. Kids love this when they notice it. There is no way in a million years the BBC would allow a children’s program that is making fun of a fake disability.”

    Have you seen Octonauts? Kwazi is a pirate cat who like Redbeard has an eyepatch he lifts up to use his telescope. What channel is it on? Cebbies.

  66. @Luis

    ‘Interested – ooh nice gotcha well done’

    I’ll take that as a yes, then.

    I wasn’t, personally. Nasty people, bullies, and so many of them seem to end up on the left.

  67. “Watership Down – the joys of seeing cute little bunny rabbits being killed by dogs, cats, trains, farmers, or other rabbits.”

    ‘Or other rabbits’. That was the worst bit.

  68. We all know that this slippery eel will say something quite different to the Weekly Haram next week, so on balance just the normal lying politician. But if you were to wonder where on the axis of nuttiness he balances, you would lean more towards Pink News than the other bearded ones.

  69. > Have you seen Octonauts? Kwazi is a pirate cat who like Redbeard has an eyepatch he lifts up to use his telescope.

    Is Kwazi a figure of fun? Is this done in a way that takes the piss, or is it just pretty cool?

  70. “So the true horror would be that it’d star Johnny Depp and Benedict Cumberbatch.” – Depp is a very good actor, but I dislike the other one.

    At school we had the brothers Huntbatch – no prizes for guessing what we called them. (for those that don’t get it immediately, it will come, and like a crossword clue you will just know you’ve go it right.)

  71. So Much for Subtlety

    Social Justice Warrior – “I think you imagined that bit. Though you could read the whole thing as an allegory along those lines.”

    Go and watch the Ball scene again. There is no way that that is not an allegory of seduction. Sure, they don’t show it, but it is one of the most eroticised non-sexual relationships in children’s TV.

    Squander Two – “Also — and I can’t believe this needs stating — Jarred is the bad guy. He’s evil. He steals babies. He kills children. Even if he is trying to sexually seduce Sarah, that can only be read as condemnation of sex with underage girls, not approval of it.”

    I can’t believe that this needs stating but the bad guy is often the sexual interest. Even when he is not intended to be, he often is. Girls like Bad Boys.

    I am not sure it is condemnation of anything much but if it is a condemnation of running away with a bad boy rather than facing your responsibilities, so much the better.

    Ian B – “As to children’s stuff and how it used to be darker before PC, the movie Return To Oz is a great example. It’s very scary and grim; and rather good also.”

    Jim Henson’s previous film The Dark Crystal was significantly darker. I doubt it would get made these days. But it is not just children’s films. Even adult films cannot tolerate death any more. At least not of anyone who isn’t wearing a red shirt. The film makers still want the emotion and pathos of a death scene, but they don’t have the actual courage to kill anyone. A good example being the Avengers film where Tony Stark takes a nuclear weapon through the portal to blow up the alien Army on the other side. Logic suggests he should die. They want us to feel the emotion of him dying. But magically he doesn’t. Twice. Three times perhaps.

    How many named characters die in the Expendable films? Only a few of the bad guys from what I can see. Oh, and a young man who had his throat cut.

  72. So Much for Subtlety

    Machiavelli – “The BBC have come over all moralistic, well, when it comes to Swallows and Amazons. Titty will now be called Tatty in the new BBC film. Give me strength. I’m surprised Swallows got through!”

    Arthur Ransome was a close friend of Lenin. Given that and the title, they probably thought it was a piece of lesbian Agit-prop.

    And when they have finished re-writing it, it probably will be.

  73. > But it is not just children’s films.

    Not only is it not just children’s films; it’s not even children’s films. Modern kids films are full of death and loss and suffering. I gave examples earlier.

    > Even adult films cannot tolerate death any more.

    Again, bollocks. You can pick a couple of examples, sure — but there have always been films whose makers can’t face death. But I can raise you Looper, Oblivion, Hours, Man Of Steel, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Slow West, Interstellar, The Prestige, Sabotage, The Place Beyond The Pines, Master & Commander, The Way Back, The Bourne Supremacy, Kingdom Of Heaven, Serenity, Stoker, The Cabin In The Woods, Contagion, The Last Samurai, The Drop, The Mexican… If you had a point, this wouldn’t be so easy.

  74. Squander. Kwazi is a bit ridiculous as he is always imagining that monsters are causing whatever is the issue but he is brave, loyal and the third most important character.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *