God and gays don't mix, right?

Tim Farron has quit his position as leader of the Liberal Democrats citing the suspicion he faced regarding his religion. 

Interview after interview put his views on gay sex front and centre. Sometimes he tried to dodge the question, other times he stressed that he could act secularly as a politician.

Can you truly be a committed Christian and in support of gay rights? It's something that I've struggled with for a long time. Growing up Catholic, coming out was compounded by the question of my faith. 

I remember as I was figuring out how I felt, I was confiding more and more in two teachers. They genuinely wanted to help and at one point, I think they realised I needed more support. That resulted in my pastoral care teacher calling me down and though she was kind, she also said that the ethos of the school made it difficult for them to offer specific support. 

About a year later, things got rough when I came out properly. During that time, religion was the predominant reasoning behind the push back to my coming out. 

I have to say my experiences of priests though had been generally positive. At one point, I tried confessing my sins to my local priest. In hindsight, he probably didn't want to hear in quite exacting detail how I'd lost my virginity with 'Like a Virgin' blasting. He was entirely professional throughout though and when I was done, offered a conciliatory tone. There was no sin in feelings he argued, only the act. 'If you stumble then just ask for forgiveness and God will be there for you'.

He was undoubtedly being kind. But the problem was I didn't want to be forgiven. I had to hide the glee in recounting my coming out story. I knew I wanted to go again. And again. 

That's the problem in a nutshell really. It's probably the reason Farron is stepping down. It's trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Just how can you hate the sin and not the sinner when the sinner sees that sin as fundamental to their character. 

Then again my faith has been fundamental to me too. I've felt myself come back to it time and time again. Coming out as Christian can be as difficult as coming out in a religious environment and in a limited way, I can empathise with Farron's evident anger that people haven't taken his faith at face value. I sense that he's frustrated people seem to think his faith make him homophobic. 

I think though that he's not fully appreciating the experience of faith that LGBT individuals often encounter. It's hard not to pick up on an implicit homophobia when you're being taught in a class - funded by the state - that children can't be brought up as well by a same sex couple as mixed sex one. 

The Christian Church is a broad one though and acting like they all have the same approach to homosexuality is ignorant. St. Mary's Cathedral on Great Western Road is an excellent example of a faith community that is incredibly welcoming to all. 

Farron's departure is sad if he felt that it was related completely to reaction to his faith. It points to a society struggling to reconcile religion and liberialism. Rejection of the more archaic and extremist elements of the Christian faith should be heralded as progressive but I do feel that a place for faith remains in our society and it would be sad for that to be removed completely. 

Postmodernism stole my love of words. For a while.

It's been a while since I last sat down and put words to paper. Electronically anyway. Part of that is that I've been busy but it's also more than that. Over the last couple of months, the idea of writing hasn't been as comfortable as it once was.

Writing is a comfort blanket for me. The words knit together in a powerful collage that becomes more snug than a brand new IKEA duvet. When the world seems to be dashing incoherently yet definitely downwards, writing acted as a reprieve. It demands consistently and insists on a narrative that can be easily digestible.

But in the last couple of months, I've felt a change. It's hard to truly encapsulate what I mean. Nothing has really moved yet in a sense, it's as if heaven and earth have switched places.

The power of words to free me from the constraints of my reality had gone. It just wasn't fun anymore. Before it felt like language was the tool to end all tools. It was the leatherman of communication. It had so many beautiful, unexpected variants that continued to surprise even though you'd owned it for so long.

But then someone took the leatherman and instead of appreciating its beauty and utility, merely used it to brutally and barbarically stab someone to death. Of course, the leatherman is innocent in this. It's merely a multi-tool but by being used in such a horrid way; its beauty is intrinsically stained. More than that, the danger of it is for the first time, manifest. 

In a way I feel responsible. Like a child that harmlessly wants to play in the garden but in doing so leaves the back door open for a burglar, I think I've let down language. Pushing at its edges, laughing at how constructed it all was. Highlighting without any malicious intent, the vacuum of meaning that lies in the abstract. 

And as we stood playing hide and seek with simile and metaphor, Trump slipped into the house. He and his team pillaged every unlocked room. 

It would be an alternative fact to say he did that alone. We are bored of experts after all.

Combine arrogance with ignorance and the result is terrifying. When none of the rules apply anymore, nothing makes any real difference. Actions don't have consequences when those actions are washed away on account of their emptiness.

And in all that, words had lost their magical touch to me. Words were just words with arbitrary meanings that could turn on a dime. 

But then to hell with it, that's completely missing the points. It's not like words ever did have concrete meaning from somewhere divine. They just had what we gave them. 

And that's still true now. Even if these words are now being used to mean the opposite of what they did before. The trend before was to string them together as a tool that would be in turn used to create order.

Now the reverse is true. Words are now assembled by ruthless architects hoping to create most complex route in the myriad of dead ends of a maze. And do you know what, well good for them. 

They can use the words in whatever which way they want to. I don't mind. I'm going to keep on writing. The game might have changed but if we're playing with no rules surely I can play by the old ones.

Why we need an ‘Exclusively gay’ moment

This week, the world continued to astound in all the wrong ways with the Russia saga continuing to pour on in the States and alt-right candidates such as Milo being nominated as Glasgow Uni rector, a short rest bite did appear in the middle of the week. The live action remake of ‘Beauty and the Beast’ would feature an ‘exclusively gay’ scene.

Now for a film that has had me, shall we say, slightly worried about its ability to convey the greatness of its original; this news made me far more amenable to the film. Now of course, the cynic can say that this is the total point – the pink pound is notoriously powerful and since being gay is less controversial now, films can capitalise on it without much controversy.

I’m sure that is a factor but I’m sure it’s very small compared to the legitimate, sincere reasons for its inclusions. The film is a watershed and it’s not even a particularly revealing scene. The sexuality of Lefou will be revealed because he dances with a man, not a girl. It’s incredibly important for a company like Disney to take this bold step, especially at a time like this when hard fought civil rights are being questioned on all fronts.

Guy Lodge expresses in the Guardian that he isn’t all impressed by the choice of Lefou to be the first irrefutable gay character in the Disney franchise. He notes the villainous nature of the character as well as his unrequited love for a straight man being hardly ‘the recognition that gay viewers have been waiting for.’

But I think he misses the point here, personally I think it’s brave to make Lefou a gay man. Gay people, just like their straight counterparts are complex people. We love and hate, often follow political agendas which are not liberal and see our sexuality as one facet of ourselves. Lefou, in the film version, does come around to the beliefs of our protagonists and therefore will not project the idea of gay people as villainous but will allow for a well-developed character.

Lodge makes the good point that Disney has indeed had a long history of appealing to the LGBT audience through coded language. Many of the animated films resonate with young children who feel different but don’t though why. I always had a visceral reaction to ‘The Fox and the Hound’ and when I was younger I thought it was scary. Now, watching it I think it’s because something inside me, even at that age, resonated so strongly with Tod. Him being ostracised from a world in which he so desperately wants to belong was so powerful to me. As was the fact that he would go on to find happiness even though it wasn’t how he had imagined.

But that time of coded messaging deserves to be in the past now. Lodge talks about the characters that minority audiences deserve and I argue that we deserve open ones. It will not be an easy decision for Disney to make. They appeal to a large family audience and this twitter poll, by the conservative Glenn Beck, shows that many will boycott the film just because it has a gay character. 

Part of me can understand that. Parents just don't want to explain this lifestyle to their children, in many cases it comes from a unwillingness to discuss sexual relations in general rather than any specific homophobia. 'They'll learn in their own time.' But the truth is that some children will be brought up in a homophobic environment which rejects the notion of same sex attraction. Oftentimes, well meaning people will talk about how 'they don't mind but they don't want it thrown in their face'. But the world is full of straight people throwing that lifestyle in the face of children. As these children approach puberty and begin questioning their sexual orientation, it can be incredibly confusing. Coded messages in films only perpetuate the idea that being gay is the 'love that dare not speak its name'; a taboo that should only be discussed out of sight and under the cover of darkness.

Hopefully though, this is a watershed moment for Disney. Perhaps by tipping their toes in the water, they will find that a community is waiting patiently to be embraced. A community that wants to share its stories of princesses that want to be princes without hidden messages or backhanded illusions that it’s okay to be different. We deserve films that say loudly and clearly, we exist and we are here.

A gay music video porno - what more could you want?

A couple of weeks ago, artist Brendan MacLean made a fun, explicit music video about gay semiotics called 'House of Air'. It’s strangely poppy and upbeat all the while unrelentingly visually representing various kinks.

No question, it’s pornographic in nature. Though in a weirdly non-sexual way. The depiction of urophilia – that’s being peed on if you’re not up on the lingo – is done in such a matter of fact way I felt like I was in a sex education class. Well, if I’d ever had any meaningful lessons on sex education, anyway.  

MacLean has written an excellent article for the Guardian, which I heartily recommend. His link to the youtube video is now null and void as Youtube have removed the video this past week. I don’t think this is much of a surprise, it cites its rules on pornographic and sexual scenes and in all fairness, you don’t get more sexual than someone being shat on. (Apparently though, the poo wasn’t real)

What I don’t really get is the outrage. He's received multiple death threats over this. I honestly can't think of a bigger over reaction since Taylor Swift and Tom Hiddleston broke up. It was uploaded with the age explicit tag and no one has ever argued that it is inappropriate for children. It isn’t aimed at them. So the whole 'what about the children' argument doesn't really ring true. The video is a tongue in cheek look at an important issue – gay semiotics.

Especially back when the original essay - 'Gay Semiotics' - that the video is based on was produced, the need for a secret code for gay men was high. A way for communicating desires outside the mainstream and behind the back of an ignorant and regressive system of laws. It’s the same reason that the language polari was used as late as the sixities by British gay men to discuss their sexual urges.

Hal Fischer released the essay in 1977 with labelled pictures so that no one was confused. It is very breezy and to the point in its nature but incredibly important in documenting an integral part of the gay identity. The video by MacLean does a service to the community by ensuring that we do not forget the history of our community and the coping mechanism that were devised to survive in a less forgiving time.

Then again, the deep seated hatred that MacLean has been subjected to since releasing the video suggests that we’re not as forward thinking and open as we’d like to believe. I’ve already referenced the upbeat, friendly vibe of the music video and I imagine that this is the key reason that so many were up in arms. It is crystal clear that zero shame is present in the video, it is a celebration of semiotics and sex.

Regardless of the backlash that he’s received, he and his team should be proud of themselves – and I think they are. They’ve created a video which is fun and empowering. I’m under no illusion that I’m lucky to be alive and living in a city that is open and tolerant of my sexuality. However a pervasive heteronormativity often filters through and it’s wonderful to have videos like this that challenge that. A reminder that we do have our own culture and one that we should be proud of!

The video is here and I cannot recommend giving it a watch more. Probably wait until you’re home though if you’re at work, with kids or on public transport.  

Prejudice through ignorance is no excuse

We often see the level of prejudice and kindness of a person as interconnected. The received wisdom being that as the former increases, the later will decrease. We like to believe that we are friends with people that are free from bigoted views such as homophobia, sexism and racism. And ourselves, well we’re definitely beyond such low mindedness.

But are we? It’s a fact that stereotypes abound and that we’ve probably used at least one. The difference between calling the French moody and all immigrants workshy might seem stark but really they’re only different ends of the same spectrum. One that places generic feelings above all else. An angry man on Question Time, a couple of weeks ago, who seemed angry enough to storm the gates of the Bastille himself raged against facts because of the experiences he had seen and heard himself. I got uppity as I watched him, rolled my eyes in disbelief and tweeted my outrage at him. The irony that I was using him to reinforce my beliefs about angry old white men went right over my head for quite a while.

More than ever, people are dissenting from the voices of experts and looking for people that will speak their mind and be the voice of them – the people. Who doesn’t want to think that they’re part of the majority? And we all have public figures that we think take our views and distill them in a beautifully conveyed message that would be the envy of even Moses and his commandments.

Katie Hopkins is one of those people. And she expertly exemplifies that whole spectrum thing. Hopkins is a bit of a regular on This Morning, she’ll come on for a segment which is somehow hotly controversial but also pretty pointless and seem to divide the nation. Sometimes she does things akin to a stereotype about the French, probably tongue in cheek and harmless. Like that time when she got on the TV and was making ridiculous claims about not letting her children play with kids with certain names.

Now, most people watching that knew she was talking utter garbage. Children don’t choose their own names so how can it be an indication of their behaviour. And yet she was also theatrical and a little bit funny. It was such a low stakes debate that it didn’t really matter that she was being completely out of order. Plus, whilst she was pushing it to the absolute limits, the whole judgement on a name is not a new phenomenon. I’d definitely heard more than one snide, offhand comment from a teacher along the lines of ‘of course they’re called that’.

The problem is that when Hopkins has the legitimacy to go on and spout rubbish about names then she also has the legitimacy to talk about things far more dangerous than names. Like in December when she had a go at the NHS funding drugs that would prevent HIV. She acted innocent, asking for someone to explain why they were funding it when surely this was just an expensive way to increase other STI. It didn’t matter that none of that makes sense, that it’s documented that more routes for protection do not increase other infections. In black and white, it seemed to add to five so why on earth would it actually be equal to four?

Prejudice is being beaten down in our society in many different regards but it still seeps through in a few ways. Hopkins is an example of that, the frankness that she expounds allows her to bulldoze the rules against prejudice that generations before us have carefully created. This frankness is second only to one other emotion that trumps the normal protocol that protects against bigotry.

Fear and uncomfortableness is the one that reigns supreme in allowing people to indulge in deep rooted prejudices that sit in the back of our heads. It’s most clear in the horrible discrimination faced by Muslims who only want to live their lives but are targeted by people who have turned to hate through fear. These feelings of fear and uncomfortableness are often the catalyst for discrimination against people that are HIV positive.

Like I said in the beginning, people don’t fit into neat categories. Especially in regards to dealing with illnesses. It’s totally natural to be afraid of illness. Often in fear, we say and do things that we will later regret. No one thinks that they’re fighting for the cause that will be remembered as narrow minded and backward. Fear corrupts in a way even stronger than power because it doesn’t bend to anything remotely sensible. It relies on misinformation and darkness because in the shadows, insecurities can transform into massive monsters. Only too often fear of the illness will bleed over to people will the illness.

Compassion is always important. By understanding that most people are prejudiced through ignorance and fear, it’s easier to reach out and change opinions. It needs to be a two way street though. Ignorance makes people more comfortable in voicing opinions which don’t stand up to reason. I’ve heard people say without batting an eyelid that ‘they’re not prejudiced, they’re just uncomfortable’ being in the same gym as someone that was positive. This isn’t okay. It puts an irrational insecurity above the very real emotions of another person. We should be allowed to use the same gyms as you without feeling apologetic all the time. We have nothing to be ashamed about. The prejudice that exists in the air is impossible to absorb though so you spend a good amount of time questioning absolutes that you know to be true.

I remember drinking with a guy and explaining undetectable means untrasmittable. After I’d set out in detail that you could never get HIV from a person with an undetectable viral load he told me that whilst he knew that now, he suffered from hypochondriac so couldn’t possibly sleep with a positive individual. It was as if this somehow insulated him from his bigoted standpoint.

Holding views like this don’t make you a bad person but they are wrong. We need to challenge ourselves before we start preaching to others and the best way to do this is to confront our own prejudices and bigotry. By doing this we can break down stigma and get to a place where we can confront people’s prejudices without any blame being thrown about and reach a society where people are judged on their actions, not how they look or their disabilities. Once we’ve done that, we also must be ready to call out people for being prejudiced when they are. Even if they insist that they’re not really or that they have their own reasons. Bigotry is bigotry and whatever the reason its wrong. When we are able to admit that, we can save ourselves from the shackles of self hate it inevitably creates.

Conflicted

Conflicted feelings. They are the worst. And I’ve been full of them this week. Every time I look at the news I can feel myself breaking in two like a Kit-Kat.

The most powerful example of this was on Thursday when Obama gave Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom. It was brilliant to watch and warmed my heart after that press conference the day before. The way Obama surprised him and then Joe teared up and they all hugged and had the best time. But then a little sinister voice in my head wouldn’t let the good times sail by without exception.

The thing is it all came off very best pals. You could basically hear them scream ‘You were the greatest’, No, you were the greatest’. Obama even granted him it with distinction. Don’t get me wrong I one hundred percent believe Biden has been an exceptional Vice President but if Bush had given this honour to Cheney then I’m under no illusion that I’d be screaming my discontent from the rooftops. Then again, Biden never shot anyone with a rifle whilst serving so he probably deserves it more.

Then over the weekend, civil rights icon John Lewis announced he wouldn’t be going to the inauguration next Friday. Again my heart was rallying in support for Lewis’ idealism. Trump, to him, is not a legitimate President and so he will not be attending the swearing in. Now I completely agree with him that ‘the Russians participated in helping this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton’. However, Trump still won the majority in the electoral college and that – as seemingly unfair and illogical as it is – is the only criteria that he needs to be a legitimate President.

American democracy is founded on a system of checks and balances so for the democracy to work; every part has to its job. For me, it is important that congress use the appropriate and formal frameworks in place to challenge the policies of Trump. Congress must watch him like a hawk and if he does anything which threatens the legitimacy of the office then they should impeach him. But to cry foul and not engage in institutions and ceremonies from the very beginning threatens your legitimacy when something tangible comes up. It will be easy to label you as nothing more than an obstructionist hell bent on bringing an innocent man down.

Even writing that paragraph brings to the fore that discontented feeling within me. As I type I can literally hear my body scream ‘but actually being obstructionist is exactly what the Republicans did to Obama.’ And it is absolutely true. Obama was ridiculously hounded throughout his first term. They demanded that he prove that he was born in America. Not to mention that you’ll find no shortage of small minded behaviour from the Grand Old Party over the past eight years. Mitch McConnell once even filibustered his own bill when the Democrats attempted to work with him. Not to mention the blatant refusal to engage with Obama’s supreme court nomination this past year because they were playing out the clock in the hope of a Trump presidency.

Of course, that’s exactly what happened. The genuine compromise candidate in Merrick Garland will be thrown to the wind and by February, we will no doubt have a conservative with a horrid track record on women’s right as the nominee. But two wrongs don’t make a right. I don’t even say this as a moral argument. Twain’s advice on arguing with a fool comes to mind – don’t do it because they’re more experienced and will win. If both parties decide to play the obstructionist game, then absolutely no one wins but the poorest and most vulnerable suffer the most.

Obama, perhaps the best politician of his time, completely gets this. It was bittersweet watching his farewell address. In all that he said, I could find myself cheering him on. Part of me feeling guilt that I may not have fully appreciated what I had before I lost it. Even in a mostly sentimental speech he reminded us that everyone – even if the middle aged white man – has challenges to face and that we move forward as a society when we recognise that.

The contrast between the outgoing President and the incoming one is startling. Trump’s press conference on Wednesday was one point in the week that I did not feel conflicted at all. As it went on, I only became more anxious at what awaits America over the next four years. Regardless of his feelings towards a particular news organisation, he cannot refuse to take their question. If he continues to do this as President, it is an obvious threat to American democracy. It was a shocking moment and the surprise from the assembled press was visible even through a television screen. Added to that was the presence of Trump supporters who would loudly clap and boo when required.

The truth, though, is that this man will be the President on Friday. Action will be needed to reduce his ability to reduce his harmful behaviour. ABC news asked the question that the CNN reporter was denied. It is small acts of defiance like this that must be taken. It will require everyone to do their jobs and ensure that they are not being undermined. If they are then we must all work to protect them.  

Fearing Infection

Illnesses and diseases are, by their very nature, not very nice things. They cause pain and stop people from achieving their full potential. They’re also quite scary, especially when you throw in the fact that most of the time we don’t actually know much about them. Nothing sparks more panic than an illness that’s contagious. Think about the images of men and women in protective white suits and restrictions on travel when another mass panic grabs the world.

On a more local level, we’ve probably all become a little bit paranoid in the winter months, making silent note of anyone that has a pervasive cough and tactically deciding not to sit beside them. Those people seem ill and are having a rough time of it. t’s perfectly sensible that we don’t want to get sick. That being said, we don’t regularly single these people out or point blank refuse to sit beside them if need be. This is, however, the case for people with sexually transmitted infections.

In Britain especially, sex is something of a taboo subject. It’s a subject matter that’s often characterised as shallow and seedy. A thing that should only be talked about with close friends and otherwise never discussed. Make it about STIs and people stop the discussion all together. Silence though, is one of the worst things that can happen. Not talking about something is a sure way to make a scary thing gain momentum. In the darkness, it grows and grows and grows. Ideas about how people get it move from fact to fiction. Suddenly, it’s only a certain type of people that get the disease.

The Terrence Higgins Trust knows this only too well. They’re a charity that campaigns on various issues regarding the prevention of HIV and promoting safer sex. Founded after the death of Terry Higgins, one of the first men who died from AIDS in the UK, it sought to humanise the issue at a time where the British press were labelling it as a gay disease. While thirty years on people in Britain very rarely die from AIDS, the stigma around gaining HIV is nonetheless still very much prevalent in our society. It was only last Summer that the Daily Mail freaked out about Prep being available on the NHS, calling it a lifestyle drug. The language may not be as blunt as back in the eighties but the meaning is obviously the same. People that are more promiscuous are the type that are likely to get HIV and if they do become positive then they'll have deserved it.

If we pause to think about it, this level of subtle, implicit shaming around STI bounds. Often, we’ll hear people discussing if someone is clean. They never talk about whether they’re not, but it follows that if the person isn’t then they’re dirty. It creates an idea that people with HIV are less worthy than people without it. Quickly, this leads to no one wanting to identify as having HIV for fear that they’ll be alienated from their peers. The stigma of any STI and especially HIV is perhaps the most dangerous element now because it hides the light and stops people from seeking out the help and support that they need.

It’s important to get checked regularly and fortunately testing is available in a multitude of ways. Sandyford is the sexual health clinic and whilst it might appear scary, it really isn’t. However, if you’re still not entirely comfortable going there then you can always speak to your GP and have your bloods taken in your local practice.

We’re all hoping that every test we ever take will come back as negative, but don’t fear the results. Even if you find that you’ve tested positive for HIV, it’s not the end and you will not be left alone. Not only does the NHS have excellent support systems in place, but wonderful charities such as the Terrence Higgins Trust will be there to support you.