Let’s recapture the Stonewall spirit

Let’s recapture the Stonewall spirit

Gay politics is at risk of becoming an elitist and intolerant project.

Niall Crowley

Topics Politics UK USA

It’s Pride, if you hadn’t noticed. It’s the season when the corporate logos turn rainbow-coloured. Along with our smartphone apps, Twitterfeeds, Facebook timelines, online search engines, supermarkets, coffee shops, banks, cash machines, bacon sandwiches, train stations, construction sites, Premiership football crests… the list goes on.

Then there’s politicians, charities and various state bodies and other institutions. The Pride flag is flying ‘proudly’ above town halls across the country. In London, borough councils have even repainted zebra crossings in the colours of the rainbow, just so mayors and local councillors can pose for photos, Beatles-style, to raise our awareness about how much they care about diversity and the LGBTQ+ community.

‘Paint the whole world with a rainbow’, went the song to the classic toddler TV show Rainbow, and this year it seems that we really have. The way things are going, one day Pride could be bigger than Christmas.

For many thousands of people – gay and straight and those inbetween – Pride is a fine excuse for a big summer party. And there’s nowt wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with adding a bit of temporary colour to the world. That’s why we love to decorate our streets and homes with Christmas lights and decorations.

Perhaps most significantly, this year’s Pride, or ‘Gay Pride’ as it was originally known, coincides with the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, an event which gave rise to the gay civil-rights movement. In the early hours of 28 June 1969, police raided the Stonewall gay bar in Greenwich Village, New York City, sparking several days of rioting. People who were sick of continual police harassment finally broke and started a fightback, drawing the support of many people in the surrounding community. It was certainly not the first time the gay community had bravely stood up to police and the authorities. In 1966, two days of rioting erupted after police raids on Compton’s Cafeteria in San Francisco. As the writer Don Milligan explains, Compton’s was a late-night hangout for ‘transsexuals, transvestites, and street hustlers’ (ie, rent boys) and it was largely those people who led the resistance against police brutality.

But Stonewall helped give rise to something bigger and longer lasting. Within months of the riots in Christopher Street, all kinds of groups, newspapers and initiatives sprang to life. New York’s first Gay Pride march took place a year to the day after the Stonewall riots. That same year there were marches in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco. London’s first Gay Pride came two years later in 1972.

Stonewall was a popular revolt, a cry for freedom, and it’s right that 50 years on we remember and celebrate it. But we should also reflect on what has changed and how far have we come since then.

Undeniably, life in all kinds of areas – work, community, education, leisure, etc – has got much easier in the West for lesbians, gays and trans folk over the years. Social attitudes have changed; families, friends and communities are far more accepting of homosexuality.

One of the surest signs that homosexuals have come in from the cold is that corporates and other institutions are falling over themselves to cosy up to the gay community. ‘Nobody knows you when you’re down and out’, the old song goes, ‘but when you finally get back up on your feet again… Everybody wants to be your good old long-lost friend.’ Naturally conservative corporates would never have publicly associated themselves with those once considered beyond the pale – social outcasts, perverts and deviants.

Then we have the politicians, the law and the state. Discriminatory laws against homosexuals were eventually repealed, though, of course, discrimination continued long after 1969. On the whole, state institutions, politicians and the law followed the people, not the other way around. But today, it is almost taken as common sense that those in authority – the political and media class, state institutions and supra-national bodies – are the ones defending homosexuals and trans people against a bigoted populace.

This gets things the wrong way round. Genuine popular change comes from the bottom-up. And it’s worth remembering that the authorities were never the friend of gays, and it was the police who stormed Stonewall. If anything, the way in which gay rights has been institutionalised has brought its own problems.

There are no doubt many good, decent people working in gay organisations, organising Pride, running support groups and so on. But the transformation of the fight for gay rights into today’s diversity / LGBTQ+ paradigm has left us with something that is dogmatic, preachy and often intolerant – the opposite of how it all started out 50 years ago.

Anyone who dares to criticise, even mildly, anything to do with gay politics is likely to be branded a homophobe. When a handful of users of Barclays online banking raised objections to the app logo being turned rainbow-coloured earlier this month, they were castigated in Pink News as ‘homophobic’. Some of them were, some of them weren’t. But if LGBTQ+ campaigns are about raising awareness and changing hearts and minds, then why are activists so ready to denounce, in the strongest possible terms, anyone who raises even the slightest objection? Advocacy groups like Stonewall (UK) seem to think that they even have the right to castigate the public and tell them what to think. ‘Some people are gay. Get over it!’, screams their slogan on the side of London buses.

When you tell people that they’re stupid and bigoted, is it any wonder that some people react against that? When you bombard them with rainbow flags at every turn, effectively politicising public and personal spaces – their phones, laptops, even their sandwiches – is it any wonder that they develop ‘flag fatigue’? It doesn’t mean they’re bigoted. But if the intention is to turn people off and lose their good will, then these excessive, preachy campaigns are doing a good job.

Fifty years ago, people were essentially fighting to be left in peace, to be able to enjoy the same freedoms as their fellow citizens, and live their lives without interference and harassment from the authorities. That democratic impulse was something that many people in wider society could relate to and support. Today’s campaigns are not only more preachy and intolerant — they’re also making demands for recognition and privilege. Unlike the campaigns of 50 years ago, they don’t want the state to leave them in peace — they want its support, its funding, and its protection.

Fifty years ago in New York City, pretty much the only external support the gay community had was the Mafia. Until the gay community started to fight back, it was mobsters who kept the police and the courts away, paying them off so that the Mafia-owned gay bars and clubs could remain open. Stonewall bar was owned by the Genovese family and, according to American historian Thaddeus Russell, Genoveses even funded the Gay Pride parades in New York.

It is no understatement, then, to say that much has changed over the past 50 years. Yes, life has imporoved for homosexuals, and society has become more open, but the transformation of gay-rights politics into diversity / LGBTQ+ politics, into something resembling a state- and corporate-sponsored morality that is increasingly difficult to question – that is not something that benefits any of us, gay, straight or trans.

So let’s party at Pride and celebrate the Stonewall riots, and also remind ourselves that real change comes from below, not from the moralists in power.

Niall Crowley is a writer based in London.

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Harry Blower

26th July 2019 at 4:48 pm

“In the early hours of 28 June 1969, police raided the Stonewall gay bar in Greenwich Village, New York City, sparking several days of rioting.”

Gay sex had already been decriminalised for 2 years in the UK…

Marvin Jones

6th July 2019 at 3:47 pm

Is the LGBT and Stonewall lot condoning the buggering of young boys by the thousands of Catholic priests, and the others come to that.

Winston Stanley

7th July 2019 at 9:18 pm

All of the insight is coming from Britain, from us, they can have a cry about it in NYC if they like b/c some person don’t like it. But whatever.

James Knight

5th July 2019 at 5:08 pm

No mention of how many of the original gay rights campaigners were not interested in same sex marriage and were often hostile to the institution. Yet now, just to question same sex marriage is tantamount to a criminal act. History has been re-written.

Neil McCaughan

5th July 2019 at 3:54 pm

Indeed. Stonewall Jackson was one of America’s greatest historical figures, and deserves to be remembered for his exemplary service – and success – in the War of Northern Aggression.

Gerard Barry

5th July 2019 at 3:13 pm

This article is brilliant. I’m a gay man who happens to work for a company that – like so many others nowadays – is literally obsessed with “diversity” (inclduuding inclusiveness of gay people). While I’m obviously glad to work for a company where my being gay won’t be a problem (although it’s sort of irrelevant as I’m not “out” at work), thw whole thing leave me feeling rather cold. Not least since they also make no bones out of the fact that they want to have fewer white men in management positions. I may be gay but I’m still a fucking white man and I’d rather not be discriminated against for it. High time that employers and the political world gave up identity politics for once and for all. Freedom and respect for the individual, not pandering to supposedly oppressed “minorities”, that’s what I want.

Alex Ander

5th July 2019 at 2:48 pm

The whole thing is pointless now. Ever since gay marriage was legalised, the LGBT cause has become branded and commercialised and is fundamentally a way for global companies to virtue signal and market themselves. And it’s a bit pathetic now because actually many more important human causes that need effort, money and attention drawn to them than someones sexual preference.

gershwin gentile

5th July 2019 at 12:59 pm

“You can kiss my rich, happy black ass” Richard Pryor.

William Murphy

5th July 2019 at 8:31 am

The author omits one obvious group in his sentence: “Anyone who dares to criticise, even mildly, anything to do with gay politics is likely to be branded a homophobe”. Obviously you cannot object to anything said on behalf of The Religion Of Peace, as that would be 200% Islamophobic. As we have seen in the recent demonstrations around schools in Birmingham. Even the local gay mayor dare not directly mention the religious motivations behind the protests and has to resort to futile huffing and puffing that the protests do not reflect the “modern, tolerant, inclusive place that Birmingham is”.


Others make heroic efforts to square the circle and insist that they are opposed to Islamophobia and homophobia…


Winston Stanley

5th July 2019 at 7:10 pm

Christian parents also kept their children home from that school in Birmingham, * and Christians have done the same elsewhere. **

The issue is not this or that religion, or even sexuality, it is about the balance between the rights of parents and the rights of the state to educate and to form children, which is always going to be a difficult balancing act, unless everyone “just happens” to agree with the state.

Obviously parents have a right to protest in a democracy, regardless of their religion, the same as everyone else, and they have done well to claim and to exercise that right. It shows that Muslim parents, like Christian parents, are integrating well into liberal democratic society.

* Muslim and Christian parents withdraw children from UK school in protest over LGBT content in lessons https://barnabasfund.org/en/news/muslim-and-christian-parents-withdraw-children-from-uk-school-in-protest-over-lgbt-content-in

** Parents Keep 700 Students Home to Protest LGBT Elementary Curriculum https://www.christianheadlines.com/contributors/michael-foust/parents-keep-700-students-home-to-protest-lgbt-elementary-curriculum.html

James Knight

5th July 2019 at 10:08 pm

It is not such a difficult “balancing act” at all. Many of the teachers at my infant school came straight out of the 60s melting point. They believed in equality and the idea that “it’s what’s inside that counts”, i.e. the content of your character. Nobody dragged identity politics onto the curricula or looked upon us as the next generation of sex offenders or domestic abusers, as now occurs under the guise of “relationship” education. Nor did they foist on ever younger children a creepy obsession with sexual consent. In addition to all that teachers were quite capable of challenging prejudice and bullying if it arose, rather than trying to “program” children and reducing education to didacticism. There was no notion of special “protected characteristics”, because if you believe in equality it is not required.

I’m sure many of these teachers believed in letting “kids be kids”, which is exactly the slogan of these parents.

Hana Jinks

6th July 2019 at 12:27 pm

Well-articulated James.

I’m not even sure that “sex” should be “taught” in schools, much less the inculcation of perversion, given that it’s supposed to be something that’s between a husband and a wife.

Japanese people are aghast that their authoritarian state imposes “ethics and morals” classes upon their children.

Winston Stanley

7th July 2019 at 7:34 pm

Did my well-referenced reply to James do a vanishing act?

Anyway, the long and short of it is that James’ points are largely irrelevant and that polls show that the UK public supports the policies of schools on relationship and s/x education, including alternative relationships. Even the pope is for RSE these days, although he is against tr/ns.

Winston Stanley

7th July 2019 at 7:56 pm

Hana, I can respect your manner, that you put your opinions in the subjective, “I think”, “they think”. That shows some humility, I have great hope for you. It when people give their opinion, and somehow, it is supposed to be the “true” and the “good” just b/c they reckon that it is, that it raises my eyebrows. One expects a confusion of the subjective opinion with the objective reality from religious people, not yourself included obviously, but one does not expect that the professedly irreligious. If “God is dead” then let us be honest about it, one person’s opinion on morality is worth no more than anyone else’s, nothing in fact, which is likely why God got invented in the first place, as a referee and a goal keeper. We are left with democracy, add up what everyone thinks and divide by zero, and a certain humility of self-assertion is becoming in that circumstance. So, I have nothing to disagree with, in so far as you say that is what you think, there is no arguing with that, either you do or you don’t and you who am I to say that you don’t? That is why I am tolerant of different cultures and their different opinions, b/c it is all divide by zero at the end of the day. blah blah blah

Hana Jinks

8th July 2019 at 6:36 pm

But didn’t God invent us?

Heaven is very different to here. We’re exhorted to look upwards, rather than be rooted here. The Truth is in Heaven, and it’s a Christian theocracy. Democracy is easily exploited by the devil. He’s used pc to decimate our societies, and silly polls reflect this. Would you be in favour of bestiality if enough people were conditioned to vote for it?

Hana Jinks

8th July 2019 at 6:44 pm

I either speak the truth or l don’t. Unless you think there should be 7 billion truths.

I dont know why has Jesus revealed Himself to me and not you. He hasn’t revealed Himself yet to any of my family or friends yet either, but I’m sure He’d like to.

John Holmes

5th July 2019 at 6:28 am

I think there are far bigger issues ahead affecting the LGBTQ+ community. Take a look at the recent clash of “oppressed” groups in Birmingham. I have a sneaking feeling a rainbow flag will make people “targets” of an increasing religious resurgence in our country, all be it, not the same faith that done so many wrongs in the past.

Tim Hare

5th July 2019 at 6:24 am

The opposite of injustice and discrimination is not pride but justice and equality. Once you have those things you have all that any human being needs and you should then get on with whatever you hope to do with your life.

Pride makes no sense. If being homosexual is as natural as heterosexual then why would you be proud of what nature has given you. Either being homosexual is all your own work or it is a natural occurring phenomenon. It can’t be both.

Transwomen Are women

5th July 2019 at 11:57 am

A more apt title; “Stonewall happened, here’s why you should fight for homophobia”

Tim Hare

5th July 2019 at 6:18 am

Accepting things that are wrong for the sake of peace is not getting on with our lives. Our lives should be about righting things that are wrong. Burying our head in the sand is not living.

There is no such thing as ‘gayism’ because there is no such reality as being gay. Gayness is just a mental construct by which those who indulge in homosexual behavior seek to legitimize that behavior by pretending it is an inherent trait of certain human beings. It is not like race or gender which are human traits that everyone accepts. We accept race and gender because they are based on human biology. ‘Gayness’ is not based on biology but on behavior. Some people indulge in homosexual behavior therefore it must be an inherent trait of humanity. This is the argument that some many have unquestionably accepted and are being bullied into accepting by those who indulge in homosexual behavior.

Crutch Bender

5th July 2019 at 6:58 am

Gayism is definitely real. Likewise paedophilia and other such conditions. The natural default is heterosexuality, which means anything else is a deviation or even a perversion. That said, and as explained, we tolerate certain perversions. If those doing the deviant stuff are both consenting then let them get on with it, is the way it goes these days.

Tim Hare

5th July 2019 at 8:59 am

Race and gender are not conditions or perversions of some other natural phenomenon and yet we have racism and sexism. Your reference to ‘gayism’ suggests that it is just another type of discrimination. By calling it an ‘ism’ you are giving it a credibility that it may not be entitled to. You would have to agree that it is innate like race and gender to claim that homosexuals can be victims of the same type of discrimination as people of race or a particular gender.

Of course what consenting adults do in private is their own business but the point of the article is that their behaviour in public is becoming overbearing and aggressive.

In Negative

5th July 2019 at 10:25 am

“There is no such thing as ‘gayism’ because there is no such reality as being gay. Gayness is just a mental construct by which those who indulge in homosexual behavior seek to legitimize that behavior by pretending it is an inherent trait of certain human beings”

How much weight here are you giving the word “pretending”? If you are giving it the lightness, say, of an actor pretending to be Hamlet or an adult pretending to be a parent, I’d say you were probably incorrect.

When you say that there is no inherent gayness, but only ‘those who indulge in homosexual behaviour,’ would I be right in saying you think the inclination towards heterosexual sex is identical to the inclination to homosexual sex? It’s just that the former is right and the latter is wrong?

Personally, I have no overt desire to have homosexual sex. The idea is slightly repellant to me. Is that where your notion of the wrongness of homosexual sex is derived from? Your own repulsion to it? I have a lesbian mate that is similarly repulsed by the penis and the idea of heterosexual sex. Why is my repulsion right and hers wrong?

Reversing this, I really wouldn’t fancy a society of homosexuals making my own inclination towards the opposite sex into some kind of deviant practice. I certainly wouldn’t want it to be socially expected that I put aside this repulsion and be morally obliged to have sex with other blokes. In this sense, something is a good deal more ‘real’ than just ‘pretending’.

I certainly don’t believe in the permanent existance of ‘sexuality’. Like everything these things come and go. But I think in our current time it is certainly permissible to talk about ‘gayness’ and ‘straightness’ and for the time-being, we are not at the threshold of its disappearance. We might be approaching it though. My own feeling is that sex is being virtualised and becoming more conceptual, but for the time-being, I think talk of the sexualities continues to make sense.

Tim Hare

5th July 2019 at 11:11 am

By pretending I mean trying to rationalize homosexual behavior by attributing to it some kind of natural reason for existence.

“would I be right in saying you think the inclination towards heterosexual sex is identical to the inclination to homosexual sex?”

I would say there is no such ‘inclination’ towards sex at all. There are sexual feelings and people do have sex but that is not what attracts them to each other. They are attracted by a need for intimacy with certain human characteristics which they have projected onto others rather than appropriated them for themselves. They are looking to be close to something rather than someone.

There is no such thing as sexual orientation or inclination there is only a desire to find those missing parts of our humanity which we have repressed for some reason or another. Sex is something people do with someone they like but we can like people of both sexes equally as much. We are not ‘oriented’ toward one gender or another. Sex often ‘happens’ because people want to get as close as possible to those human characteristics they have repressed.

The fact that you find homosexual behavior ‘repulsive’ may well be because of some natural instinct within humans to procreate. Homosexuals may also find their behaviour repulsive but such is their emotional need that they deny such revulsion and ‘pretend’ that it is all in accord with human nature.

In Negative

6th July 2019 at 2:51 pm

For some reason, I appear unable to reply to @TimHare, so I’ll reply to me instead.

At the meta level, I do believe this is an appealing way of describing what it is underpins ‘sexuality’.

“I would say there is no such ‘inclination’ towards sex at all. There are sexual feelings and people do have sex but that is not what attracts them to each other. They are attracted by a need for intimacy with certain human characteristics which they have projected onto others rather than appropriated them for themselves. They are looking to be close to something rather than someone.”

I reckon I am largely on board with this. That ‘sexuality’ and its variant constructs – homosexuality, transsexuality, heterosexuality, etc. – are essentially metaphoric/aesthetic expressions of something much deeper. I assume that for you, the thing to which people want to be closer is of divine origin?

This is fair enough, but I have a number of questions/problems with your position. In the first place, I wonder why you think heterosexuality is any better than homosexuality? If sex is the ritualised/symbolic means by which you gain intimacy with something deeper (be it human or divine) why is a heterosexual system of finding this communion more valid than the homosexual means? Surely they are both equally perversions or distractions?

Secondly, doesn’t contact with this deeper thing (divine or human) necessarily need some sort of metaphorical/symbolic system of signs and gestures by which we reach it? Whether you are kneeling at an altar, praying in your stone cell or beating your submissive in the dungeon of your Sadean chateaux, are these not all symbolic ways of making contact with the ‘thing beyond’? Why afford any one set of symbolic expressions greater weight than another? Does it matter at all how communion is achieved so long as one recognizes that it’s a deeper communion that one seeks?

Thirdly, aren’t we here too in the realm of taste? Is it actually the case that all people can reach the same essence by the same gestures? Is it not possible that some people genuinely have no idea what I mean now when I say ‘essence’? Freud once, when asked how his explanation of God accounted for the feeling of ‘infinity’ that comes with divine reflection, replied that he had never had such a feeling of infinity. Imagine that? What an extraordinary difference in spiritual kind. So is it not perfectly possible that for some the meaning of sex is just sex? That they see nothing beyond it. And that’s not to even get started on trying to fathom the different kinds of ‘something’ that sex may grant access to. There are so many Gods out there. Or are you going to demand we all limit ourselves to one true God? One ring to rule them all?

In short then, isn’t it better we concern ourselves more with our own mysteries than trying to ascribe codes to others by which they should interpret their own mystery?

Tim Hare

7th July 2019 at 1:34 am

“I assume that for you, the thing to which people want to be closer is of divine origin?”

No, it has nothing to do with the ‘divine’. It has everything to do with the human. What people are seeking is the repressed parts of their own very human nature and instead of looking within and analysing why they have been repressed they try to find them in other people. They want a ‘relationship’ with those things but that is not the way to find human wholeness. When you are in a relationship to find things that you need to find in yourself then you are there for the wrong reasons and you will make a mess of it.

They might be seeking beauty or youth or nurture or strength, but they have to be found within and not in someone else. While ever you are seeking those things from others your relationships will fail.

The point is that there is no such thing as a sexual orientation. Some people are looking for ‘male’ characteristics and others for ‘female’ ones and that is what drives them in one direction or another. The reality is that there are not male or female characteristics – only human ones.

If a person had no need to look for repressed characteristics in others would they still have sex? If the conditions were right they would. Would they want sex with someone of the same gender? Probably not because the conditions are not right. Genitals are meant to go together so that new life can be created. That is also the most pleasurable sexual experience and it is the most pleasurable in order to ensure that it takes place and the species continues. Who would consciously choose a less pleasurable experience? Who would accept that they are forever sentenced to a less pleasurable experience by their ‘sexuality’?

If you are looking for sex at all then you are going to be looking for the best that sex has to offer and that cannot be had in homosexual behaviour. If you are looking for your repressed human characteristics then you will accept second-rate sex.

Hana Jinks

6th July 2019 at 12:34 pm

God didn’t make us gay, Tim. Homosexuality is an evil spirit that some are tempted by.

The reason l don’t call you that silly nickname any more is because you aint so silly.

Crutch Bender

5th July 2019 at 12:17 am

Despite all the gay politics and posturing, normal heterosexual people still feel that gayism is an alternative to the default natural condition. Thus gayism is tolerated and even accepted in much the same way we tolerate and accept lies and lying. Everyone tells lies now and then if only for the sake of not upsetting others. Same goes with gayism. Though it’s wrong we accept it for the sake of peace and so we can move on and get on with our lives. Everyone knows this.

In Negative

6th July 2019 at 4:45 pm

“… normal heterosexual people still feel that gayism is an alternative to the default natural condition…”

As a normal heterosexual person, I don’t feel anything of the sort.

I don’t know that there is a ‘default natural condition’ and I don’t think there is any good reason to allow the feelings of a ‘normal heterosexual’ majority to define and establish a ‘default natural condition’. Your condition is your condition. What a bore, to try to establish a natural order. If you can find a community in your departure from the normal, good luck to you.

Crutch Bender

6th July 2019 at 8:19 pm

Eh? Are for real? No default natural condition, you reckon? Lol!

Have you ever even seen a member of the opposite sex naked? If so then should understand why what you say is more than tad confused.

Check it out. See how male and female naturally fit together, like a key in a lock or hand in a glove. Thus the very fact of what our physicality manifests categorically shows you’re deluded.

Spelling it: our eyes are for vision. That’s their purpose, their default state, so to speak. You can pluck your eyeballs out of your head and use them as ear-rings, sure, but that’d be an unnatural use of your eyes, certainly not their default state. Duh!

Likewise, you can consume your dinner by shoving food up your nose, course you can, go for it, but don’t try and make out doing so is normal or natural, because it’s not normal or natural it’s a perverted way of consuming food, a deviation from the natural default way we’re supposed to eat. Duh!

In Negative

7th July 2019 at 2:51 pm

“See how male and female naturally fit together, like a key in a lock or hand in a glove. ”

Male and male can be naturally fitted together; female and female can be naturally fitted together; man and dog can be naturally fitted together; man and vacuum cleaner; female and power shower.

It is true enough that there is a reproductive function with the penis and vagina and you can certainly argue that this gives heterosexual sex an edge. There’s also the better general mechanics. I accept all that. What I don’t accept is that the fitness of these organs for sexual and reproductive action should confer on the mind a proper way of responding to them. They are there, they have these properties, but this says nothing about any correct way that my mind should respond to them. The mind, as ever, is quite elastic, quite free. Developing in the petri-dish of new technologies, it is increasingly free of biological (and therefore natural) determinants.

There is a part of me wants to say maybe there is a default natural condition and that as technological humans, we are departing from it. However, that feels somewhat arrogant – to assume that the human could ever transcend or distort nature. My feeling is that all our departures are the achievements of nature, or truth, or God or something far bigger than anything we ourselves can claim.

Tim Hare

7th July 2019 at 11:51 pm

Does a dog consent to sex with a man? Does the dog think it natural. Is a vacuum cleaner or a power shower a naturally occurring phenomenon.

Why would hetrerosexual sex have an edge? Why should it have an edge?

It is not how your mind responds to sexual feelings it is what your body wants to do in response to them. Our minds are not always in agreement with what our bodies want. Human beings mistreat their bodies in many and varied ways. We have instincts that tell us what is natural and what is not but sometimes our emotional needs override our instincts.

Just because we can do things does not mean it is always in our best interests to do them. Being able to do things does not make them natural but sometimes our minds want them to be natural because of the tension it causes for our well-being.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.