36 1 min 10 yrs


Well folks, here we are, onlookers to the hedonistic world of homosexual screwing, otherwise known as gay people in action.

In a new departure for ATW, readers are asked to contribute a one or two-word statement which could be used to describe what the Daily Mail talks about as ‘a venue popular with gay and bisexual men’, this of course being the approved wording for what correctly could be termed a XXXX XXXXXXX.

Points will be awarded for humour, truth and acerbic wit, and points will win ‘Prizes’!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

36 thoughts on “The ‘word’ game.

  1. Lets see, one post on Nazis persecution of Jews today and another post on another group they imprisoned in concentration camps.

  2. I really do find the gay lifestyle as depicted in that link unpleasant, repellent even.
    However I think that this kind of thread can lead to “queer bashing” and violent attitudes towards homosexuals. I am not in favour.

  3. Mahons

    My thoughts exactly. A news story about an incident in which 2 people die and it’s the topic of a ‘lets be smug and superior and make a joke about these pieces of garbage’ post. I guess despite Mike’s plea for rememberance and education in his earlier post, it’s still always possible to find an excuse to deride and mock people who are not ‘just like us’

  4. What places are popular with gay and bisexual men?

    Two words

    good restaurants!

    Are we all ok with the hedonistic world of hetrosexual screwing?

  5. You certainly cannot say that ATW isn’t varied and at times interesting!

    Maybe the suppression of ‘light humour’ which expresses peoples dislike of that lifestyle might be more of a trigger to violence than a few mild jokes…

    You seem to forget that in the UK we were always prone to calling people names, and had very little racist violence until government formed the Race Relations Board, which banned any and every even mildly racist remarks. Name calling has long been a British tradition, – indeed having a nickname was a sign that you had been accepted. It is political correctness that is offensive and encourages violence.

  6. Ernest

    Referring to a group of people as ‘garbage’ is not the patronising ‘light humour’ you are so wistfully fond of.

  7. One of the things people don’t know about homosexuals confined to camps during the holocaust was that some remained incarcerated thereafter by the new German government for the crime of being a homosexual. You can’t make it up.

  8. Ernest. I think you’ll find there was much more violence against minorities before ‘political correctness.’ As two minutes research on the net will prove. Back then it just went mostly unreported or ignored if it was reported. (Take the Jimmy Savill debacle as an example.) Still, don’t let the facts get in the way of your nonsense rant.

    Mahons, Colm and Aileen. Well said as usual. There are still some voices of sanity on here.

    Don’t be too hard on Mike. I think his post against gays might just be to disguise his bi-curious side.

  9. Colm,

    Just where did Mike or myself refer to gays as ‘garbage’. or are you just telling lies again, to make a point?

  10. Ernest

    The tag line he has given his post is ‘garbage,gay’. No doubt just Mike’s ‘light humour’

    I don’t tell lies here, unless you can point out others I have posted.

  11. Dave Alton,

    Just what did the Savile case have to do with racial or sexist jibes? If it had then wouldn’t he have been the one being called nasty names?

    I still maintain that before the formation of the Race Relations Board in 1976, race relations in the community while being very verbal were far less vicious than the are today.

    It was what used to be described as ‘being all mouth, and no trousers’, – a typical characteristic of that time.

  12. Colm,

    I must admit that I didn’t see the file title, – that doesn’t mean that I would say or think the same, so your reply to my post mentioning it, is – a lie, or perhaps a contrivance to make mischief.

  13. p.s. I also didn’t categorically state that violence didn’t happen prior to ’76, I did say we had very little of it, certainly much less and less violent than today.

  14. Ernest. My point about Savill was to show that back then, hate against minority groups was mostly ignored. Not that it didn’t exist. Much like rape and pedophilia did, (as in the Savill’s case.). But don’t take my work for it. There’s plenty of articles on the web that prove this.
    There was still plenty of it around, despite your rose tinted view of the past.

  15. Ernest

    My mention of the word garbage was not meant to imply that you had used it. I solely intended it to refer to Mike’s views.

  16. How about calling such a place, ‘The Shirt Lifter’ or perhaps, the ‘Assbender’

  17. One of the things people don’t know about homosexuals confined to camps during the holocaust was that some remained incarcerated thereafter by the new German government for the crime of being a homosexual.

    Mahons – can you provide evidence? Note that I’m not doubting, but whenever somebody makes a statement like that, it really should be supported with a link to good evidence.

  18. Dave Alton,

    How was Savile involved in hate against minority groups, – it seems he was rather too fond of them, an dthey certainly were not a minority group. That his victims were ignored had nothing at all to do with racism or minority groups, they were ignored primarily because of Savile’s celeb status, and the general feeling that with the new freedoms, and a general lessening of repect for the ‘ladies’, ‘touchy feely’ was acceptable.

    Once again I never denied that there was violence, but there was far less than now.

    As for my recollections being ‘rose tinted’, far from it, I lived and worked in London an employed some fifty folk of very mixed heritage, and I assure you my recollections are very much ‘on-the-ball’.

    I was never afraid to be out and about at night, indeed it waas essential as my factory was operating on a twentyfour hour, seven days a week basis, whereas I would now be very circumspect in doing the same thing today.

    So enough of your patronising – what were you doing at that time – still at school, I imagine!

  19. On the one hand, my libertarian instincts want to defend Mike’s freedom to post whatever he wishes to (and if I don’t like it, I don’t have to read it or comment, and all that). But on the other hand, Mike, if you wanted to make a serious point about media reporting, then I think you’ve gone about it the wrong way here. There’s a time and place for “word games”, but this isn’t one of those times.
    Two men have died. Firstly, may they rest in peace, and condolences to their families/friends. Secondly, if a criminal offence has been committed which caused their deaths, then that needs to be looked into. Thirdly, yes, the media does seem to report these things in a biased/slanted way, emphasising certain facts and playing down certain other (possible) issues, and this annoys me too.
    Fourthy, lots of straight people of both sexes frequent nightclubs with a view to picking someone up and hopefully having sex, and if we view that as “acceptable”, then why shouldn’t gay people have their own clubs and venues to do likewise? Or, to state it another way, if you want to make a point against homosexual promiscuity and the dangers that can arise from it, then perhaps also make the same point about hetero promiscuity.
    In short, I think there’s a lot that you could have written about intelligently here, Mike, but I think you missed that opportunity by choosing instead to turn it into a “word game” which could be construed as insensitive and uncaring.

  20. No, I don’t think that’s Mike’s style, Colm. I actually think that, reading between the lines, he wanted to make a point about media reporting, and he (in my opinion mistakenly) chose the wrong way of making his point. I think he got a bit pissed off with the Mail’s article and he wanted to send it up, or something like that.
    Oh well, we’ll possibly never know, as Mike doesn’t often reply on his own threads.

  21. Tom, Dave, Colm, Mahons and Agitated.

    What a dreary bunch of self-righteous, arrogant, patronising prigs you all are – that’s the polite version, by the way. Who the hell do you people think you are to be telling others what jokes they can and can’t say? And if you’re going to keep harking back to the Nazis in your defence then you might start with the fact that they virtually invented the concept of political correctness (cf the works of Victor Klemeperer, and the concepts of ‘Artfremd’ and ‘Arteigen’, for starters).

    In short, the point you seem to be missing is that when you hand control of the language to others it is only a matter of time before they abuse that control. That the Nazis used it as a powerful weapon against their enemies is beyond argument; their modern equivalents (and I include you and your ilk) are trying to do the same. You are, sadly, no better and no worse than they were.

    As for the competition, how about the ‘Gary Glitter’?

  22. Mexicano, I don’t think that I was trying to tell the author of this post what he can and cannot say. In fact, I think that in my initial paragraph, I defended his right to post as he wishes. So, I don’t understand why you cite my name in your comment.
    And I don’t think that Mahons/Colm etc were advocating censorship either. We are not trying to censor debate. We are just posting our opinions on the article. Calm down, please.

  23. Mexicano, I never said Mike should be stopped from having free speech, and I never mentioned the Nazis. Well done on invoking Godwin’s law, argument lost. Moron.

  24. Ernest

    Perhaps I’m not being clear with the Savile example, The point I was trying to make was Savile got away with it in part because attitudes to underage sex and pedophilia where different back then. Just like attitudes to racism and homosexuality. Some older homosexual guys I know, say things are much better now than then. They say are much less likely to be attacked for being openly gay.
    You might remember things differently about the violence back then, but the crime figures don’t. Most crime has been falling and we live in much safer times now than in most of the past.
    I’m sorry that you’re afraid to be out and about at night now, but you’re chances of being attacked are not much different to what they where then. (Unless you’ve moved from a really good area to a bad one.)
    I’m not trying to patronise you, just point out the facts. What me being at school during whatever time you mean has no bearing on those.

  25. Tom,

    Nice try but I’m not convinced. Anyone who uses more than 250 words to criticise the appropriateness of post is not a what I would call a firm believer in free speech. In case you have forgotten, this is a blog where people come to exchange thoughts and ideas. Bleating that this isn’t the right time or place to say something is just a short step from telling them not to say it.

    As for Dave, I only invoked the Nazis because Mahons did. Three times. Also, since you defended political correctness and applauded the comments by Mahons et al it would seem that your inclusion on my list of addressees is justified.

  26. No problem, Mexicano. I disagree with your point, but I respect you for that, all the same.

  27. Mexicano – Take it from this Gringo, when someone writes about intolerance of the Nazis regime in the context of the Jews (See Escape for Sorribor) , and then next writes an intolerant post about gays it is rather a ripe moment to compare and contrast.

Comments are closed.