Sense and Sexuality

by Fairy Cake

Well, girls. It looks like it’s just us and the Guardian against the world.

After another panic-attack inducing trip to the newsagents, I am unsurprised to see another shamelessly-homophobic article screaming out from the pages of a supposedly open-minded newspaper.  The most recent offender?  The Times, who published the story of Patrick Muirhead, entitled “The Day I Decided to Stop Being Gay” just over a week ago.  For those of you who haven’t read this trashy abomination…take a second…

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article6990013.ece

It is not the topic of the article which bothers me.  Gay men fall in love with women all the time – just like straight wives ‘jump the fence‘ after 15 years of playing house with hubby.  It is not Patrick’s story that disturbs me.  It is way his story is told.

The whole thing reads like a Jan Moir masturbation fantasy.  Respectable ex-BBC pilot denounces homosexuality following fatherhood epiphany in local barbershop.  Clearly embracing his new-found, and let’s face it, rather questionable interest in women isn’t enough; Patrick systematically humiliates and demotes the male gay community, devaluing the idea of same-sex parenthood, and throwing around enough tired stereotypes to make Graham Norton wet himself.

Muirhead suggests that his swift embroilment in the raucous, racy homosexual lifestyle hindered the development of any dormant interest in women.  Interesting point, there Mr. Muirhead.  But I imagine any remote feelings of attraction towards the opposite sex back in the day would have been dry-humped to death by the randy Alsatian that is your Catholic guilt.  Woof woof, it would say.  I smell something that is not going to send me to hell.

If you were as “unconvinced” of your sexuality as you say you were, why didn’t you just…well, I don’t know…stop fucking men?

I guess pelting Muirhead for this unfortunate piece of writing is pointless.  In fact, if anything, we should waft our deepest sympathies in his general direction.  Because throughout the story, Muirhead fantasises about creating the perfect family, but very rarely expresses any genuine lust for women. Scouring the article, I can only find one direct reference to our hero fancying a woman, and it is;

“I liked Olga. She was pretty.”

Yep, when it comes to the ladies, Paddy is seeking nothing more than the female equivalent of a nice handbag. Vessel-like. Attractive. But ultimately, just an accessory.

Underneath all the spite and the bitterness, it is clear he is simply a man who has never accepted himself. The desire to bring up a child has just given him another excuse to repress everything he sees as wrong with himself.

Muirhead will be spared. But I’m afraid the Times will feel the brunt of my anger. As a queer person living in the 21st century, I feel privileged.  Privileged to be open and proud of my sexuality in front of friends and colleagues. Privileged to know that, if on the rare occasion I do leave the house, there are bars and haunts who will welcome me and my gay entourage with open arms.  Pleased to be able to write about my queer experiences in a public forum without being hunted down by inbreeds with rotten vegetables.

Which brings me to a question.  In a world that has come so far, why did the Times insist on publishing something so backward?

As I mentioned previously, the content of the article is not problematic.  But permeating every sentence is a rabid kind of homophobia. Patrick suggests that the acceptance of his previous lifestyle in the modern world is a transgression of all that is good and proper; that gays everywhere should abandon their true feelings in favour of a lifestyle that is “morally correct”.

I can only assume that the person editing Pat’s testimonial agrees with him on these points.  It seems opinion pieces are a easy way for national publications to avoid the PPC’s strict laws on editorial content.  By publishing articles like this, newspapers are not only giving credit to these obsolete prejudices, but fuelling the arguments of evangelists and ignoramuses everywhere, who want queers back in the closet; safely back in Narnia where they belong.

This particular indiscretion seemed to, miraculously, cause less of an uproar than the homo-bashing parade that was Jan Moir’s ‘A Strange, Lonely and Troubling Death…’.

I fear that, if this trend continues, queer people could begin to accept this kind of homophobia-lite.  These careless hacks and editors are tentatively pushing our buttons, seeing how much straw they can pile on before they break the donkey’s back.  They need to learn; this is not a game of queer Buckaroo.  Our legs are strong and our voices are loud.  And we can kick hard.

If you have seen something homophobic or offensive in a published article, please take the time to contact the Press Complaints Commission using this form, and let them know.