I never heard the term before George Michael's run-in with the law a few years ago. In this country there are other terms for it, but essentially it involves gay/bi-sexual men cruising and engaging in anonymous sex in rest rooms - hence the term cottaging, or tea-room cruising. Public parks are another domain, and X-rated theaters another venue. Mostly married men/closeted homosexuals patronized these places. Slam, bam, thank you man. Quick, dangerous, exciting, anonymous - non-committal sex.
So why do people like George Michael, who are out and 'avowed' homosexuals keep doing that stuff? (Despite the fact gay people claim it's just not done that much any longer, and all things being 'equal' - there's no need for closeted behavior any longer?) Because they enjoy it. It's like hunting, I suppose. The thrill of the chase, the stalking, the voyeurism, the trap ... it's predatory behavior. It's flattering as well - to be lusted after, by another guy - powerful fantasy there. You can show off too... look what I got.
Why do 'straight' males do it? Especially men who are married? Gay men in committed relationships? Because boys will be boys. Women hate that excuse but I think it's true. They become addicted to the rush. Good will hunting. It's a contact sport as well. As they tell their partners when they find out - "It means nothing. It has nothing to do with love. I love you - not them." Men compartmentalize... that's one way to define male multi-tasking.
Gay men frequently do not understand why the behavior is so disgusting to ordinary people. Especially if it is consensual. It's done in a latrine - it's shitty. It's disgusting.
Mr. Peabody here.
Singing in the choir.
So anyway. Yesterday a friend asked me something related to this, suggesting that homosexuality is a choice.
I believe acting out is a choice, but is the inclination? That's difficult to answer. Here's what I wrote in response.
Mrs. Sherman asked me:
Our "gay" choir leaders at the local Catholic Church are very publicly "out and proud" and thinking about getting married this summer. Both of these men have been married to women for the majority of their lives. They both have grown children and grandchildren and they have many friends in the same situation.
But, doesn't that support the theory that who you have sexual relations with is a choice? They "chose" to be heterosexual, and then they "chose" to be homosexual. Yes? Or no?
We fell in love singing pange lingua ...
Mr. Peabody responds:
It's crazy isn't it? I can't explain it - I don't get it. How old are they and why would they bother getting married? And is every choir director gay?! I sometimes think they are.
Married with children. I used to work with and for that type at another job. They were very promiscuous and nasty - 'toilet trained'.
These men were not interested in relationships outside marriage, and they appeared to love, care for, and support their wives and children.
Other guys - I just don't know. The guys I worked could be 'vicious' - but seemed to have 'happy' families.
I seriously think people are nuts - delusional - we used to call it 2nd childhood. That may not be the right term but they have to be kidding me. Have you seen pictures of some of the fruitcakes getting married to one another. I would be so embarrassed to even say I knew them. Call me a bigot - I don't care.
People hate me for this but I always say - if you're gay don't work or volunteer at church - especially if you're living in sin. It just makes sense - right? And if you want to get married - don't sing in the choir - your moral life is not in harmony.
Is it a choice? I don't know. For some it seems like it is - they are choosing how to act out - that in the case of the married or bi-guys. Some believe they were born that way - I don't know - if so, to me that is like being born with fetal alcohol syndrome or something like autism then. It doesn't make it normal, much less, 'God's gift'. I also think nurture is a more deciding factor as well as experience - sexual abuse, rejection or shaming by peers when young, and so on. A great deal of blame must be placed upon the fact cultural morality has changed, persuading people to consider it a natural variant. That's why the Church is the bad guy - it is the only institution that says it is a disorder.
We have free will. We don't have to act on sexual inclination/attraction outside marriage. We actually have a choice that way.
In lieu of ...
So. Call the Midwife.
I noticed a Catholic blogger was unhappy with the inclusion of a young couple in the latest episode; the wife very pregnant, the husband handsome and gay or bisexual, who was caught cottaging. The episode aired during Gay History month in the UK. It wasn't in the original book - but it played well to contemporary audiences. It told the story about how such offenders were publicly shamed, their court dockets published in the newspapers, the entire neighborhood and parish knowing about it, and so on. I know firsthand how devastating that is. It happened in my life when I was in grade school - my dad went to jail, my schoolmates, even the nuns treated me with contempt. We moved, I had to go to public school. It was in the early 1960's.
The fictionalized episode on Call the Midwife took place in the early 1960's. Homosexuality was a much debated topic at the time, efforts to decriminalize homosexuality were then submitted in Parliament. Up to and including that time, homosexuals were entrapped, arrested, imprisoned, or sent to rehab - the 'perpetrators' often subjected to terrible therapies to 'cure them'.
The complaint about the latest episode was that the writers portrayed the poor wife unsympathetically, while the erring husband was the recipient of great empathy. I didn't get that impression at all. When I read the blogger's review I felt as if we had watched an entirely different program.
Either way - the series, as well as that episode, was well done, well presented, and it really did demonstrate how upsetting to family life that sort of behavior is - even affecting an unborn child, I dare say. The context was completely appropriate and relevant. I did not see it as promoting the gay lifestyle or the gay agenda.
I would be far more concerned with American media outlets in that regard - especially Disney and prime time television programming - network and cable.
Song for this post here.