BBC, Books, Internet, LGBT, London, Politics

Telegraph Jack

I flung open the closet door in the same year that ‘Going Straight’ first aired on the BBC. It was a time when the age of consent for gay men was 21* and the number of gay bars in London could be counted on the fingers of one hand. The Fourth Estate – redtops and broadsheets alike – was routinely beastly to the down-trodden embryonic gay community and the police raided at will. It’s no surprise then, that my politics were a little leftish and I thought of myself as standing on the outside looking in. Now in my fifth decade, I find myself published in the Telegraph, that most ‘establishment’ of newspapers – only online, mind you. Read my Bumpy Rite of Passage. I’ve sold out for a sell-out.

*In fact it was only legal for two men to get down and dirty if they were alone in a private dwelling. Also, lesbianism was never a crime, presumably because most of the (male) public school lawmaking hypocrites not knocking off the boys on the side were rather turned on by the thought of their nannies at it.  

15 thoughts on “Telegraph Jack

  1. I don’t know what’s more obscene: the double standard of “ok for women but not for men” or the fact that there’s such bias at all.

    If you check that omniscient source of knowledge known as Wikipedia, you’ll find some interesting facts about acceptance of LGBT by country. One interesting fact is that, even in the most non-progressive countries, sex between woman was not illegal. But: it was for men. I have a theory.

    Among other reasons, sex between women is “tolerated” (I hate that term; it’s so condescending) because a lot of (powerful) men find it a turn-on. Woman as sex objects = lesbians = ok-as-long-as-I-can-watch.

    Ok. off my soapbox. Like your new pic, by the way. 🙂

    Like

  2. I imagine in times past the definition of sex was penetration with or by a male organ. What it penetrated didn’t count; women didn’t have the necessary equipment and so the unimaginative (powerful) male didn’t define lesbians as having the kit to do anything “naughty”! The large bosomed but otherwise sexless nanny would never do anything so questionable!

    Like

  3. what a brilliant marketing strategy, Jack; broadening your appeal into the very heart of ‘Blimpdom’ – I bet this grouping will clamouring for signed copies ;-D

    Like

  4. Hi Jack, I was going to point out according to an old BBC History Magazine podcast I was listening to the other day Queen Victoria didn’t think women could have sex with each other, but I believe I got beaten to the punch. The fact cropped up as part of an interview concerning gay servicemen in WW2 (from late Jan or early Feb, I think, in case you’re interested)

    I enjoyed the Telegraph piece. Don’t worry about selling out though,That won’t happen until you’re in the Daily Heil. Even then it’s worth writing for them so all the middle-England miseries can read about themselves in their favourite paper.

    Like

    1. I’ve always though the Victoria thing was a bit of a myth but maybe it’s true. Great story if it is. Hey, if the Daily Bigot wants to pay me, I’ll let ’em! I’ll search for thay WW2 thing. Thanks

      Like

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s