Acceptance of gay sex in decline in UK for first time since Aids crisis

Number of people believing there is nothing wrong with gay sex has fallen, survey finds

Thirty years of increasingly liberal attitudes towards gay sex may be coming to an end after the number of people who said they considered it wrong rose for the first time since the Aids crisis.

In 1987 when every household received sombre leaflets warning “don’t die of ignorance”, nine out of 10 people thought there was something wrong with sexual relations between two adults of the same sex.

Every year since, tolerance had increased, but now the British Social Attitudes Survey has found the number of people believing there is nothing wrong with gay sex has fallen, leaving a third of the population in some way opposed.

The finding, based on a survey of 2,884 people, coincided with the first dip in more than a decade in people saying they think sex before marriage is not at all wrong, with people from non-Christian religious groups the most likely to disapprove.

“Liberalisation of attitudes does seem to be slowing down,” said the independent social research agency NatCen, which carried out the research. “While social norms have changed, there is a significant minority of the population who remain uncomfortable with same-sex relationships and as such we may have reached a point of plateau.”


https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/11/acceptance-gay-sex-decline-uk-first-time-since-aids-crisis

Also

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/24/lgbtq-acceptance-millennials-decline-glaad-survey/1503758001/

Perhaps if they didn't keep "pushing it down our throats"it would be more acceptable again ?

nicko wrote:Perhaps if they didn't keep "pushing it down our throats"it would be more acceptable again ?

No one is pushing it down your throat

nicko wrote:Perhaps if they didn't keep "pushing it down our throats"it would be more acceptable again ?

Actually its easy to see how its fallen and even the article eludes to the problem without mentioning said religion, but states non-Christian religions. That will give you a clue to the decline with is most likely coming mainly from one religious group. Though you will find someone who are Christians and orthodox Jews. Which shows more than anything why inclusion should be taught in schools.

Well that's what happens when you ram your ideology down people's throats with an iron fist

Well Les, I knew you'd disagree !

nicko wrote:Well Les, I knew you'd disagree  !

I disagree because it's not true. Just saying something doesn't make it so.

You just said it's not true, just saying something doesn't make it so

First of all, that's a real shame. What gives anyone the right to disapprove of what someone else does with a willing partner or partners, provided all are adults of course?

Secondly, you hear this "shoving it down our throats" thing quite often (which I always have to laugh at because I've got a 14-year-old's sense of humor, deep down), but nobody ever says how the ... uh ... "gay thing" is getting rammed down their throats.

Is it because there are more gay characters on TV and in the movies? Well, that's not ramming anything down anybody's throat, really. If you're unhappy with that, you're probably still unhappy that people can have sex with members of the same sex, I think.

Ben Reilly wrote:First of all, that's a real shame. What gives anyone the right to disapprove of what someone else does with a willing partner or partners, provided all are adults of course?

Secondly, you hear this "shoving it down our throats" thing quite often (which I always have to laugh at because I've got a 14-year-old's sense of humor, deep down), but nobody ever says how the ... uh ... "gay thing" is getting rammed down their throats.

Is it because there are more gay characters on TV and in the movies? Well, that's not ramming anything down anybody's throat, really. If you're unhappy with that, you're probably still unhappy that people can have sex with members of the same sex, I think.

There is only one reason Ben, its religion and one of the only arguments agianst multicultuiralism that is valid.

Good. It’s about time people stopped looking down their noses at other people’s sexual choices.
Never saw the problem with two consensual people having sex, falling in love and making a life together.

As to some of the idiots on this thread, how have gays “shoved anything down anyone’s throat”? FFS. They have fought for years to be heard and accepted.

It’s utter ignorance to suggest that they didn’t have a right to fight.

eddie wrote:Good. It’s about time people stopped looking down their noses at other people’s sexual choices.
Never saw the problem with two consensual people having sex, falling in love and making a life together.

As to some of the idiots on this thread, how have gays “shoved anything down anyone’s throat”? FFS. They have fought for years to be heard and accepted.

It’s utter ignorance to suggest that they didn’t have a right to fight.  

There is nothing good here Eddie. Its why children should learn inclusion but certainly religious beliefs stand in the way of this

Yes, I know religion is a big player in this but sometimes it’s simply just people’s downright ignorance.

I don't give a fuck what they do, as long as they don't frighten the Horses !

Lurker wrote:

Hahaha....very good.

Religion is the root of most evil..

Even worse than Trump ?

Is it possible that people are reacting against the array of minority sexual orientations they are asked to accept, 17 at the last count, many people just don't get it, perhaps unfortunately, gay people are getting the brunt of the confusion.

Vintage wrote:Is it possible that people are reacting against the array of minority sexual orientations they are asked to accept, 17 at the last count, many people just don't get it, perhaps unfortunately, gay people are getting the brunt of the confusion.

17 ....I must have lived a sheltered life.

Straight, Gay, Bi, Transgender, Asexual.......what else?

All these surveys actually prove is that there are still a lot of interfering bullying and busybody British fuckwits who can't be bothered simply minding their own business...

As long as it's not affecting any third party, not hurting other people, not destroying the environment nor seriously damaging the economy --  why should so many Brits being so upset by what other consenting adults are doing behind closed doors..

What was the point of such an idiotic and potentially divisive survey in the first place  ?

Vintage wrote:Is it possible that people are reacting against the array of minority sexual orientations they are asked to accept, 17 at the last count, many people just don't get it, perhaps unfortunately, gay people are getting the brunt of the confusion.

More likely it is to do with immigration from backward countries. Fortunately, the longer people settle, the more their views are altered and become more liberal (not always but more often than not).

I think most people don't care about the bizarre attempts to extend the LGBT acronym.

nicko wrote:Even worse than Trump ?

Yes, even worse than Trump. Trump even uses religion to promote his twisted hate. Pence is worse than Trump. Pence is a brain dead fundamentalist idiot.

Syl wrote:

Vintage wrote:Is it possible that people are reacting against the array of minority sexual orientations they are asked to accept, 17 at the last count, many people just don't get it, perhaps unfortunately, gay people are getting the brunt of the confusion.

....I must have lived a sheltered life.

Straight,  Gay,   Bi,  Transgender,   Asexual.......what else?

homosexual, demi sexual, bisexual, pansexual, demi romantic, lesbian, asexual, queer, auto sexual, aromantic,
gynematic, gynecophilea, Omni sexual, skoliksexual, spectra sexual.

Are people putting these degrees of preference - there doesn't seem to be such big difference - on themselves or are they being put on them by others. Seems its like prefering tall or short people or redheads or blondes do we really need to hang a specific label on every minutae of preference.

Vintage wrote:

Syl wrote:
....I must have lived a sheltered life.

Straight,  Gay,   Bi,  Transgender,   Asexual.......what else?

homosexual, demi sexual, bisexual, pansexual, demi romantic, lesbian, asexual, queer, auto sexual, aromantic,
gynematic, gynecophilea, Omni sexual, skoliksexual, spectra sexual.

Are people putting these degrees of preference - there doesn't seem to be such big difference - on themselves or are they being put on them by others. Seems its like prefering tall or short people or redheads or blondes do we really need to hang a specific label on every minutae of preference.

Load of attention seeking tosh if you ask me.
Aromantic, gynecophilea??....I'm sure I have some of those growing in my garden..

Ha Ha !

nicko wrote:Ha Ha  !

How about extrasexual? That seems a good one. I might start that up.

eddie wrote:How about extrasexual? That seems a good one. I might start that up.

Is that like wanting to mate with aliens?

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:How about extrasexual? That seems a good one. I might start that up.

Is that like wanting to mate with aliens?

Whatever floats your boat, babycakes.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Is that like wanting to mate with aliens?

Whatever floats your boat, babycakes.

Maybe next time round.

If all of those 17 orientations are really distinct from one another, which I doubt -- why are homosexual, queer, and lesbian separate? -- then there must be more orientations than that. For example, psychologists consider pedophilia a sexual orientation. And there's hebophilia, which is an attraction to teenagers. And then don't you have, say, lesbian hebophiles? Would that be a sub-orientation or some shit?

And what about heterosexual? Seems like a pretty major one to leave off that list.

And finally, transgender isn't an orientation, it's a gender identity.

Vintage wrote:Is it possible that people are reacting against the array of minority sexual orientations they are asked to accept, 17 at the last count, many people just don't get it, perhaps unfortunately, gay people are getting the brunt of the confusion.

I agree with that. The survey said that acceptance of "gay sex" has fallen, but I'd like to see the questions because I think it's more likely to be exasperation with the onslaught of stories about children wanting to be the other sex, men wanting to be in women's prisons, sex changes on the NHS, etc.

Ben Reilly wrote:If all of those 17 orientations are really distinct from one another, which I doubt -- why are homosexual, queer, and lesbian separate? -- then there must be more orientations than that. For example, psychologists consider pedophilia a sexual orientation. And there's hebophilia, which is an attraction to teenagers. And then don't you have, say, lesbian hebophiles? Would that be a sub-orientation or some shit?

And what about heterosexual? Seems like a pretty major one to leave off that list.

And finally, transgender isn't an orientation, it's a gender identity.

I was told that paedophilia is a sexual deviation rather than orientation.

Re the last one, I agree, but if a man considers himself to be a woman and finds women attractive, does that make him a lesbian?

I don't remember all of it but it just seems to be main orientations so to speak with particular preferences - one is basically a bi sexual who prefers partners male or female to have feminine traits, don't remember which that is, presumably there an opposite preference. Then there's a category for those who have to be romantically involved before they engage in sexual activity then there's strictly no romance preference,
sounds just like everyone else just having personal preferences without the labels.

Bloody hell, why dont people just accept they are physically drawn to certain others without having to put a name on it?

I am heterosexual and I like dark haired men with moustaches....I wonder what category that would place me in.

Hate is a global issue....

Syl wrote:Bloody hell, why dont people just accept they are physically drawn to certain others without having to put a name on it?

I am heterosexual and I like dark haired men with moustaches....I wonder what category that would place me in.

yeah, Hitler was so hot

i got a huge crush on seth mcfarlane

oh my

Syl wrote:Bloody hell, why dont people just accept they are physically drawn to certain others without having to put a name on it?


I am heterosexual and I like dark haired men with moustaches....I wonder what category that would place me in.

Peter Sutcliffe?
Adolph?

Vintage wrote:

Syl wrote:
....I must have lived a sheltered life.

Straight,  Gay,   Bi,  Transgender,   Asexual.......what else?

homosexual, demi sexual, bisexual, pansexual, demi romantic, lesbian, asexual, queer, auto sexual, aromantic, gynematic, gynecophilea, Omni sexual, skoliksexual, spectra sexual.

Are people putting these degrees of preference - there doesn't seem to be such big difference - on themselves or are they being put on them by others. Seems its like prefering tall or short people or redheads or blondes do we really need to hang a specific label on every minutae of preference.

I have a theory that a small hardcore percentage of LGBTQ's with too much time on their hands are trying to work their way methodically down the alphabet and will not rest till that acronym contains all 26 letters.

And there is repetition in that list, too:
homosexual already covers the lesbian category.
omnisexual = pansexual. Both omni & pan mean the exact same thing (ie 'all') except that omni is latin & pan is greek. .



I take it that autosexual means self gratifying (ie wanker/tosser, basically   )
(I daren't even try to work out what some of the rest mean!!  )

Yes it's all damn confusing and that's before you factor in the various genders - I wonder how we are supposed to describe the relationship where two hermaphrodites struck up a romance!

It does not help that there is fluidity of movement within some of these groups, rather than rigid definitions. (And I use both words with caution given that the subject is about sex. )


I remember a reality show contestant saying things like "today I'm bisexual and a man ......... tomorrow I might be pansexual and a cis-girl. "

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:Bloody hell, why dont people just accept they are physically drawn to certain others without having to put a name on it?

I am heterosexual and I like dark haired men with moustaches....I wonder what category that would place me in.

yeah, Hitler was so hot

More Omar Sharif and Mark Spitz....so I married a lookalike.
Mind you I eventually had to swap the dark preference for grey

How about this for Syl's preference, skoteino mallia homophile , sounds good anyway, probably makes no sense.

Vintage wrote:How about this for Syl's preference, skoteino mallia homophile , sounds good anyway, probably makes no sense.

Thank God in my day we didn't put labels on people.. we just went for it.

Indeed, I don't understand the need to label every nuance of preference.
You like someone don't analyse get on with it, you'll soon know if you aren't their type. I'm glad I didn't have to worry what particular obscure
sub category someone might be.

eddie wrote:How about extrasexual? That seems a good one. I might start that up.

Don't we already have words for that; such as nymphomaniac?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:If all of those 17 orientations are really distinct from one another, which I doubt -- why are homosexual, queer, and lesbian separate? -- then there must be more orientations than that. For example, psychologists consider pedophilia a sexual orientation. And there's hebophilia, which is an attraction to teenagers. And then don't you have, say, lesbian hebophiles? Would that be a sub-orientation or some shit?

And what about heterosexual? Seems like a pretty major one to leave off that list.

And finally, transgender isn't an orientation, it's a gender identity.

I was told that paedophilia is a sexual deviation rather than orientation.

Re the last one, I agree, but if a man considers himself to be a woman and finds women attractive, does that make him a lesbian?

Woman is a gender identity and lesbian is an orientation. So if you accept that the transgender woman is indeed a woman, that would make that person a lesbian, if she's attracted to women.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I was told that paedophilia is a sexual deviation rather than orientation.

Re the last one, I agree, but if a man considers himself to be a woman and finds women attractive, does that make him a lesbian?

Woman is a gender identity and lesbian is an orientation. So if you accept that the transgender woman is indeed a woman, that would make that person a lesbian, if she's attracted to women.

Wrong. Homosexuality is an atraction of the same sex, not gender. Hence how can a transwoman be a lesbian? This is what is wrong with people bluring the lines of gender identity and its going to make homosexuality redundent. Hence its a sexual orientation. What you would have to do is to define this as a new sexual orientation based on gender and not sex. Based on people attracted to transwomen or transmen.
Sorry but being a lebsian does not mean having a 12 inch dick

Whoops, forgot to mention, Raggs -- sure, it's controversial, but a growing number of psychiatrists do see pedophilia as an orientation: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/paedophilia-sexual-orientation-straight-gay-criminal-psychologist-child-sex-abuse-a6965956.html

I think it fits, as an innate sexual attraction to a particular type of person that the pedophile doesn't feel he/she can help feeling. Other psychiatrists continue to see it, though, as a paraphilia, which is the term they use now instead of deviance.