Now I know I'm slightly obsessed by The Guardian, but in this piece, the author

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

To be honest, all linguistic bets are off as far as I am concerned since b used the phrase 'it speaks to' without shame.

I thought he was one of the good guys.

And actually called p a poltroon revealing he had entirely misunderstood the meaning of that word

[Peter]

To be honest, all linguistic bets are off as far as I am concerned since b used the phrase 'it speaks to' without shame.

I thought he was one of the good guys.

I dont like 'one of the good guys'.....a ghastly americanism that speaks to their natural tendency to view history as black and white/good and evil/goodies and baddies.

You shouldn't encourage them.

[Burney]

To be honest, all linguistic bets are off as far as I am concerned since b used the phrase 'it speaks to' without shame.

I thought he was one of the good guys.

I used it in the poetic context of a thing 'speaking to' something within the soul of man. Such a usage is timeworn and acceptable.

Had I used the phrase in the sense of 'It speaks to a wider corporate culture' or similar, I would indeed be the Charlie Uniform you describe.

[redgunamo]

I neither know nor care. I think my point is that surely we are supposed to reach a stage where one's sexuality means precisely that and nothing more. where being gay is precisely as significant in one's thought processes and beliefs as being straight.

In other words, a personal sexual preference rather than a set of beliefs that puts one automatically, and without freedom of choice, into a lobby/pressure group/political party/football team.

Would they quite so readily criticise black people or asians for voting conservative?

Leave the benders alone.

We were actually at that point before your sort arrived and ruined it, the separation of public and private selves. Conservatives understand that culture matters. You actually understand this too but can never admit it, and that is the difference.

[Burney]

We were actually at that point before your sort arrived and ruined it, the separation of public and private selves. Conservatives understand that culture matters. You actually understand this too but can never admit it, and that is the difference.

Well you say that, but there was that unfortunate business where we used to lock chaps up because they were fond of cöck. Granted, we've gone far too far in the opposite direction, but that was an unwarranted intrusion into one's private self, I'd say.

[redgunamo]

Well you say that, but there was that unfortunate business where we used to lock chaps up because they were fond of cöck. Granted, we've gone far too far in the opposite direction, but that was an unwarranted intrusion into one's private self, I'd say.

Oh, different matter entirely, being caught being fond of cock.

[Burney]

And actually called p a poltroon revealing he had entirely misunderstood the meaning of that word

It was WES, actually, and in the sense of 'a mean-spirited wretch', it was entirely apt.

[Burney]

Oh, different matter entirely, being caught being fond of cock.

You did used to get elderly pooftahs who used to speak wistfully of the good old days when it was illegal. They seemed to feel it made it a more exclusive club and added a certain frisson to things.

I don't think they were as keen on the whole 'hard labour' and 'chemical castration' side of things, though.

[redgunamo]

You did used to get elderly pooftahs who used to speak wistfully of the good old days when it was illegal. They seemed to feel it made it a more exclusive club and added a certain frisson to things.

I don't think they were as keen on the whole 'hard labour' and 'chemical castration' side of things, though.

Yes, and they would never have dreamed of making such a big deal out of it. Many were long-term married and had raised families, so were of the view that what difference did it make where else they put their piece; they'd done their duty by their sort and their species.

Trouble now is being "gay" seems to preclude, prohibit, all that and there's no need for it.

[Burney]

Yes, and they would never have dreamed of making such a big deal out of it. Many were long-term married and had raised families, so were of the view that what difference did it make where else they put their piece; they'd done their duty by their sort and their species.

Trouble now is being "gay" seems to preclude, prohibit, all that and there's no need for it.

Yes. Gore Vidal (a chap for whom I've always had a huge soft spot despite him being a bit of a lefty) used to say that 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' were descriptions of acts, not of people. He had a point, I think. It seems rather a shame that we've lost sight of that in our rush to categorise in order to appease the gods of identity politics.