Gay Abandon – Some Things About Homosexuality That I Don’t Quite Understand
There’s not enough love in the world. There’s lust aplenty of course, otherwise there wouldn’t be seven billion of us. But love, not quite so much. So the success –albeit partial- that the gay community is enjoying in getting their right to be married recognized is very encouraging. Don’t quite get the logic of anyone, gay or straight, wanting have the Government and the Revenue Service people as silent partners in their relationship, but there’s no denying that there are fiscal advantages.
Maybe the reason some homosexuals are clamouring for gay marriage is the same reason some of them are also clamouring to serve openly in the military. They just want to be allowed stand side by side with their fellow human beings and take their lumps along with everyone else. Some gays- along with like-minded heterosexuals- choose to give the whole potential financial and emotional quagmire that can be marriage a very wide berth. As Jimmy Carr once famously said: “Gay Marriage will inevitably lead to Gay Divorce. And that could get bitchy.”
However, all of the above is about my scepticism on marriage, not a problem that I have with Homosexuality. Homosexuality is just a fact of life and a fact of love. People fancy who they fancy and if they happen to fall in love and want to marry each other then society should not stand in their way. But there are some behaviours exhibited by Gays and Lesbians that I don’t quite get. I don’t object to them, because they’re not really harmful as such, but I can’t quite puzzle out the motivation behind them. In fact, I feel about it sort of the way I feel about women insisting that “Sex and the City” is a comedy. I don’t object to that assertion, I just don’t get it. I’m not saying that there are no moments of humour in Sex and the city. But there are moments of dark humour in Schindler’s List, and no one would try to classify that as a comedy. Well, Frankie Boyle might, at a push.
The first thing is the compulsion some lesbians feel to ape the worst aspects of male dress sense and behaviour. I may be missing a point here, but I always thought that the main point about being a lesbian was that you fancy other women. So why would you want to dress like a welder? Even welders only dress like welders in order to secure lucrative welding contracts. When I was younger, I just assumed that this was what the naturally bulkier lesbians did because they do actually look marginally more stylish in dungarees and boots than in a frock and high heels. But later on in life, I met girls who came out of the closet and then watched aghast as they shaved off their long hair and put on four stone deliberately.
There is of course an understandable historic reason for this sort of behaviour. Back in less enlightened days, when young ladies stepped out together, one of them had to dress like a man. In order to go to pubs and clubs, even in Soho, one girl had to be a “Butch” and the other one had to be a “Femme”. Sometimes the Butches would even put on little false moustaches. It didn’t really fool anyone of course, but it did help keep an uneasy truce between the lesbian community and the police. This behaviour was about survival and therefore completely natural and understandable. It’s not necessary now though, so I’m a little puzzled as to why it continues.
The second cause of confusion to me is what homosexual men refer to as “Cottaging”. This is a rather overly lyrical euphemism for sex in public lavatories. Now, when the actress Mrs Patrick Campbell was asked about her opinion about two fellow actors- both male- getting a little too “affectionate” with each other, she famously replied “My dear, I don’t care what they do as long as they don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses!” Very magnanimous of her, given she said it in 1910 but I don’t think getting it on in the fucked up primaeval swamp that is the average British public convenience was quite what she had in mind.
Not that human beings fucking is something that would frighten horses anyway. It’s odd things like empty crisp packets and white carrier bags that make our equine friends rear upon their hind legs. If your alfresco sexual escapades involve empty crisp packets and white carrier bags, then I’m afraid even the omni-sexual internet doesn’t have a website to cater for your tastes. Though I could be wrong.
Cottaging evolved for the obvious reason that when men congregate in public toilets, they tend to get their cocks out. And when men get together to have sex, they also tend to get their cocks out. Sex between men was an offense punishable by imprisonment. So the logical place to get together for sex was one where there might at least be a slim chance to explain why you were holding your dick in your hand.
But sex between men is no longer illegal. So why continue cottaging? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t like to put anything in my mouth in a public lavatory. Not even a cream cake. In fact, especially not a cream cake. Plus, sex in a public place is still illegal for everyone. Though they do usually just give you a fine, and the judge handing out the penalty tends to do so with a slight trace of a smirk on his face.
Having said all this though, the only Gay community I have any experience of is the British Gay community. So maybe the reason all this stuff is still here is just tradition. After all, there’s no reason for Beefeaters to wear their red uniforms with the ruffs around the neck. Except perhaps to fleece dollars out of American tourists. So perhaps I should relax and take the view that Winston Churchill did.
When Winston was PM, he was shown a story in the papers by one of his breakfast attendants that involved one of his MP’s being caught “In Flagrante Delicto” with a Royal Cavalry Guardsman in one of London’s public parks.
“Really?” said Winston “Jolly cold last night, wasn’t it?”
“Coldest night of the year”, replied his attendant.
“Makes you proud to be British” Winston said with a wry grin.
© Copyright Michael Grimes 2013