Prescriptive sexualities hinder natural human sexuality

Ever the controversialist, I decided to once again tackle common-held perceptions of sexuality which are oft perpetuated in both ‘hetero’ and ‘homo’ camps.

Yesterday, with the obvious intention of commencing debate, I posted the following comments on Twitter:

One of the biggest enemies to the acceptance of human homosexuality has been the coining of the term ‘homosexuality’.

I understand why some want to identify themselves as ‘gay’, but it is as unnatural as calling yourself ‘straight’.

It didn’t take long for one of my more loyal Twitter followers from Scotland to take me on:

You are one of the wisest men on here, but I couldn’t do anything to a woman. I fell asleep in biology too.

I am not implying that anyone has to be sexual with both sexes, but identifying with A sexuality is unnecessary and unnatural.  

So does this mean you are open to a bit of cock on the right person or am I being crass?

Tis rather crass. It means I don’t feel the need to tell anyone or anything. Its between me and whoever I’m having sex with.   Thing is: If you’re asking, not sure you’ve fully understood my point.

It’s almost betraying ourselves to have any dealings with a women. Tho most of us can French Kiss & do titties.

While that may be how you feel, I don’t think you represent all ‘gay’ men.  Idea of ‘betrayal’ to your sexuality is exactly my point.   I worry that this view is as unhelpful to a real expression of human sexuality as those who denounce homosexuality.  

It’s not just that though, we may have the same childish, romantic memes but it really isn’t going to happen.

 I’m sorry, I’m not sure I entirely understand your point.

But that’s because you are straight, you don’t get put the same process.

I have not grown up ‘straight’. I have not grown up ‘gay’. ‘Gay’ people do not have a monopoly on homosexuality.   I have made conscious effort never to define myself as a sexuality. So have been through my own ‘process’, as we all have.  

No, I am all for hetero/homo respect which you represent but some things you just have to have grown up gay to understand.

No-one ‘grows up gay’. ‘Gay’ is the identity and refuge one finds that is most accepting of the preferences you have.  We all grow up in a heterocentric world and ‘gay’ is only a reaction to this. How we each relate to it is our own process.

OK so what do I term myself in ways the people who might have a mutual want understand?

Why do you need a group of people to understand? Go to a ‘gay’ club, join a ‘gay’ dating site. That is their function, but it is unnecessary to let this be an identity or limit your natural human sexuality even if it means you only ever have gay sex.  

I hate watermelons. But I don’t let my preferences define me or preclude from liking watermelons in the future.  

I don’t but where else am I going to see a male stripper (a rare species in Scotland).

In a gay club. I’m not saying don’t go to ‘gay’ clubs and do things where people who wish to explore their homosexual side go.  Equally, if you’re into swinging, you go to a swingers’ club.  Sharing a preference with like-minded people is absolutely acceptable.

I don’t get this one.

OK.  I like apples and oranges.  I prefer oranges but I like both, as do many people.  Some prefer one or the other.   Is there any point in my life where I’ve ever felt the need to exclaim I am mostly into oranges and allowed it to define me?  

I recognise many people think I am making a mute point, but I actually think its an important one that few people recognise.

I absolutely understand how finding a community that accepts them & shares a preference is helpful to ‘gay’ people in feeling  they belong and are embraced.  However, the perpetuation of the idea of ‘gay’ does not help the wider population and its acceptance of homosexuality as a normal sexual act for anyone to explore.  That ‘gay’ people have added to division in society and taken exclusive ownership of, and monopolised a side of human sexuality which is simply that, just one side of it.  Instead, the identification of an individual as being either ‘gay’ or ‘straight’ has created narrow-mindedness in both camps to the natural human inclination for what is commonly described as ‘bisexuality’. And yet too often those in ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ communities deny its existence.

I also received the following comments on Facebook to my original points:

Your comment sounds rather glib. Do you have the faintest idea what it is like to be a gay person in a heterosexist, hetero-majority world, in which your innate and perfectly natural sexual feelings towards the same sex are still viewed as abhorrent and perverse by many? To know that half the planet (at least) thinks you have no right to exist? To live with the intense shame of a gay identity about which you have no choice? For many, being able to positively identify as gay is part of a long and tortuous journey out of shame, oppression and humiliation. Please don’t belittle it.

To which, I responded:

I understand all of that. This is the result of our society’s oppression of the act of homosexuality. I understand the sense of belonging and the need for acceptance within such a thing as the ‘gay’ community for a people who have felt ostracised and discriminated against for their feelings and preferences. However, this does not make it any more a ‘natural’ thing for a human, a sexual being, to do. I understand the reasons behind it, it does not mean that I accept that it is a natural phenomenon or one that is indeed helpful for the population at large to find acceptance for the act of homosexuality and preopenderence towards homosexuality that can be present in everyone. I understand how the need for humans to identify themselves as ‘gay’ has appeared, but I also recognise the divisiveness this further creates and the monopoly that some within that ‘community’ have over the concept of homosexuality rather than allowing all humans to take ownership over that and every other aspect of their own sexuality.

Once again, its always good to have the debate.  What are your thoughts?  Feel free to leave your comments and opinions too.

Respecting Religion

I was deeply disturbed by a recent event that took place at my old university. According to The Independent, students attending a debate about sharia law organised by the Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society at Queen Mary University in London were told they would be "hunted down and killed" by a man who burst into their lecture theatre and filmed them on his phone.  The man had reportedly been motivated by a call to action placed on extremist website, Islamic Awakening.


After I was informed of this, I made the following postings on Twitter:


How long are we going to let religious nutcases who have no evidence for their beliefs, threaten, harm & kill us in our own free-thinking land?  You might be able to bully & beat religion into your own children, but don't fucking dare threaten me with your unsubstantiated bullshit.  The idea that religion, by sheer virtue of being a religion, demands respect is utter nonsense. It requires no more respect than the respect it has for other groups in society. Which is not a lot much of the time.


I was then pleasantly surprised to be joined in a debate by one of my former students who challenged some of my views, particularly the manner in which I had expressed them:


I dunno, that seems to me to be a bit of a generalisation.  I'm anti-religion myself, but to state that religious groups not be respected undermines society's views on tolerance all together, right?  We should respect all groups of people regardless of if what they're saying makes complete sense or it's all utter bullshit.


Its not the bullshit I have no respect for, it is the lack of respect some religions have for others and yet expect respect.  


Sure but that applies to extremists.  It appears (to me anyway) like you're criticising all religious people.


It definitely applies to extremists but, I would argue, also applies to some who might class themselves as moderates too.  


We should absolutely tolerate difference, but for things we have choice over, we must be prepared to justify and be judged for.  Tolerance for the intolerant is surely intolerable even for the most tolerant if the safety and security of all is paramount.   I promote tolerance of difference for things which we have no control over. My tolerance does not extent to hate-mongers.


Which isn't the case because the majority of religious people i know are peaceful, respectful and -to an extent- open-minded.


Many religious people are indeed. But many are not and they use religion to justify their actions.  Those who are peaceful and respectful are so in spite of their religion, not usually because of it.  They are pickers and choosers and ignore the most wicked and brutal parts of their religion.  Which is good for society, of course.  But their moderation comes from a moderate society, not from a religion.   I am not thankful to their religion for their moderation, I am thankful to an enlightened society that has impacted on their interpretation of their religion to justify to themselves and make it seem more respectful and relevant to others.


Exactly, and I commend liberal thinkers who take into account sociological changes when interpreting and practicing their religion and respect them more for it.   The beauty of free people do not have to follow religious texts to the word and can change aspects of it.  I don't think religions should be viewed as institutions set in stone that cannot be changed, so I think it's wrong to criticise religion itself, rather criticise those who are too narrow-minded to accept different views.


I do not disagree with you at all, (think I share a lot in common with you to be honest) but, playing devil's advocate, let me present the following arguments to you:


- If a holy text is, as some believe, the actual word of God, why would it need changing?


- Is not the changing of interpretation to suit modern society simply a PR campaign by some in those religions to make it appear more palatable and spread the delusion of God to people who might otherwise question it?


- Should the fundamentalists not at least have more respect for the fact they are not 'pick and mix' followers?


- If a God-created religion needs changing, isn't it evidence that it was not created by a God at all?  If she has, surely she would have had the foresight to have predicted these societal changes.


Hmm... I guess, because personally I view all religions as different interpretations of one 'higher entity',   I pretty much disregard the validity of 'holy' texts.  So when I look at them I'm more inclined to be focusing on positive aspects they promote, and disregard the more negative as mere views of the time that they were written, which is why I, on the whole, respect religion but condemn religious fundamentalism.


But if you disregard the texts you disregard the whole basis of Judaism, Christianity & Islam and simply say that their belief is a belief in a higher entity and that is all. Which clearly gels with your own interpretation, but isn't that you basically saying that each of those religions is based on utter bullshit except for the fact they believe in a higher entity?  Therefore expressing, as I was, a lack of respect for much of the basis of each of the main religions in this land.


I think any religion is just a human attempt to conceptualise and understand a higher entity, or 'God', so I wouldn't call the basis of religion 'utter bullshit', just an attempt to rationalise the world as we know it and I think it's a false dichotomy (A level English ;) ) to say you either respect or disrespect religion as a whole.


But your belief is not in a religion but in a higher entity. So if a text, which is the basis of these religions, is simply a human effort to rationalise the world as we know it at the time that we know it, isn't that therefore a nice way of saying it is 'utter bullshit'?  That it is man-made twoddle and the only leg they, rather shakily, stand on is a belief in an unproven higher entity?


I know of some interpretations of some religions for which I have more respect for.  But I do not respect them automatically because of their religious status.  Religions too often have an untouchable status in our society which elevates them to a level which some seem to think excludes from criticism and ridicule.  'Religions' are, after all, no different from 'cults'.  The differences are only in numbers of followers and length of life-span that has granted them greater acceptance in society.


 I'm not saying I disrespect religion per se.  I'm saying they should not just expect respect because they are a religion.  Of course, I do not class all religious people under the same light or, indeed, all denominations of a given religion.  


Clearly, I would not class you as someone who is religious.  Believing in a higher entity does not make you religious.


So what would your view be on the Danish newspaper that depicted the prophet Mohammed?


Denmark is not a Muslim country.


Denmark is a democracy.


Why should rules that people who choose to be Muslims follow be imposed on those of us who choose not to be Muslims?  If visitors to Saudi Arabia must accept the principles of a violent and brutal Sharia legal system, then those who choose to reside and visit Denmark must accept that it is a free-thinking and democratic system with its own laws, none of which are dictated to them by any religion whatsoever.   


Its funny how so many newspapers in Islamic states will make anti-semitic comments or characterise Jewish people, but the moment a newspaper in a non-islamic state pokes fun at their religion the reaction of some muslims is of threats of death and violence.
As a citizen of the UK who chooses to continue to reside here, the only laws I follow are the laws of the land.  I am not Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, etc.  Anyone from any of those religions tries to impose their rules on me they can (with no respect whatsoever) fuck right off.


I can't really comment on islamic newspapers because i've never seen one LOL, but, in regards to the Danish one, surely that was an issue of disrespect for a religion, despite the fact Denmark is a secular state, the press should still have respect for a rule which is so highly regarded in the q'ran, although perhaps religions and religious people (even  though the number of people who think like this is small) should be open to criticism.  But i think it would lead to a lack of  intolerance to other religions.  Wait i've lost my train of thought :S


Ah, but this is exactly the crux of my argument: Why should any religion command respect just because those who believe it might be offended? This is ridiculous.


This is a religion that often has no respect for anyone who dissents from it in lands where Islam is the official religion.  That will stone, hang, beat, lash anyone who does anything they deem as 'wrong'.  


The West is too often too scared to criticise precisely because of the extremists (not only in Islam) who are nothing more than bullies, brutes and psychopaths who believe they have a god on their side.  


Should we have to cower to them because of this?   


 Should we have to tip-toe and be victims of their bullying tactics or should, like the brave editors of the Danish newspaper, actually say, 'look, you live by your rules I live by mine! Don't like them, fuck off to a land where you agree with the rules.'


Too many people use the West as a money-making entity but have zero respect for our brand of tolerance and throw it right back  in our faces.  You want to live in a land where people are not free to criticise others, or express themselves sexually or according to their own religious beliefs or even possess none, as free/equal women, then please, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran or numerous other Islamic states.  You have options.  This land is for people who CHOOSE to live somewhere not dictated to by religious dogma.


Practice what the hell you want in this land, but don't impose it on others.    


Any religion worth its weight in gold (or any other matter) should have no problem with being questioned. Its only because it fears people knowing too much or being able to question too much that it imposes such rigid and intolerant practices.  Any religion that imposes such practices is not a real religion.  If 'believers' only believe because they are bullied into it through coercive means and abusive practices, then its not a belief, is it?  Its an imposition.
Religion, where it fails, bullies and abuses, must be exposed.


We should never be too scared to stand up to the hypocrises of religion. 


Very, very, very true.


Noooooo! Don't give in that easily!!!!


Can we continue this after my economics homework is done? :'(

YOUR QUESTIONS: You were a terrible teacher. What's your opinion on my opinion?

Its your opinion. It is not something I can say is correct or incorrect. That is the nature of an opinion. If I was to reflect on my own experience as a teacher, I would admit to several faults and areas that need to be improved upon. I did indeed accept and receive some criticism while I was a teacher and was grateful to receive it. However, at the time, I had no-one tell me I was a 'terrible' teacher and would argue that is something of an exaggeration, even if I was not great at my job. Opinions are much better expressed and considered more credible if and when provided with evidence. Anyone can express an opinion, it takes a bit more of a brain to back it with evidence.

YOUR QUESTIONS: Why are you so rude to everyone?

Why are you so rude to everyone? Whatever the question is, you always have a snooty, arrogant and elitist tone in which you think you're better than other people. You always seem to put people down. It kind of bothers me how you're rude for no reason.

I cannot help if this is the way you interpret me. I give honest responses. I try not to insult anyone. If I come across as snooty and arrogant well, I've realised that there's not an awful lot I can do about that. As long as I am being myself, being truthful about who I am, you cannot account for how others will perceive you. You cannot please all people all the time. I'm not going to go through life worrying about what everyone thinks. As long as I am content with myself that I have done nothing to intentionally harm anyone, then that is all that really matters and as long as those people who really know me and do not base our friendship on what they read, hear or see on Facebook, Twitter, in a paper, on the radio or on TV, all of which is open to mis-interpretation, spin and mis-respresentation, can stand by me and continue to call me their friend, then that is what is most important to me. I am not on a PR campaign here. What you think, is of your concern, not mine. I do not force anyone to like, follow or support me and I will certainly never do anything with the express intent of making people like or agree with me. That would be wrong.

Johnny on Johnnies in La-La Land

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

'The Johnny Anglais Show': 21 - 18th January 2012

On THE JOHNNY ANGLAIS SHOW tonight at 9pm-11pm (GMT) / 4pm-6pm (EST):

- Condoms: should they be compulsory in all porn?
- Should teachers always practice what they preach?
- Does you marriage need a sex contract?
- Are the notions of 'respect' and 'offence' complete nonsense?
- Mastermind: what would your specialist subject be?

PLUS all the top sex stories from around the world on THE SEX NEWS at the top of the hour.

http://www.spreaker.com/page#!/show/the_johnny_anglais_show

www.johnnyanglaisofficial.com

Johnny Anglais is the voice of 'The Plant' in 'Little Shop of Horrors'

Johnny Anglais plays the voice of 'The Plant'/'Audrey II' in a high school production of 'Little Shop of Horrors' in 2010.

(Apologies, sound quality is not brilliant)

'Confessions of an X-rated teacher - Episode 13: 'Sniffing Socks & Touring Tirana'

Before flying off to work in Tirana, Albania, Johnny is probed by his foster son while tidying his room and preparing for his trip.

Last night's 'THE JOHNNY ANGLAIS SHOW'

On tonight's THE JOHNNY ANGLAIS SHOW at 9pm-11pm (GMT):

- Long distance relationships: do they ever work?
- Which invention has ruined society the most?
- What is your New Year's sexual resolution?


AND Santorum and contraception, condoms in porn, and rapist of men's mag reader?


PLUS 'The Sex News' with Randy McSeaman and more prizes to give away!


All of this, and more, on THE JOHNNY ANGLAIS SHOW:


http://www.spreaker.com/page#!/show/the_johnny_anglais_show


Skype in to studio: thejohnnyanglaisshow