Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Spoonbill wrote: ...the world is full of dormantly-bisexual persons...

Are they people of either sex who like to sleep a lot?

A most sincere welcome back, Spoonbill. What I love about this particular stir (probably hugely irrelevant to anyone under about 40) is the way most of the male contributors feel a need to qualify their response with "I'm an ex rugbyman and a father of 7" or "I have 19 children and 99 grandchildren"... while our female members (so to speak) seem rather more secure.

Ajarn Philip wrote:

Spoonbill wrote: ...the world is full of dormantly-bisexual persons...

Are they people of either sex who like to sleep a lot?

A most sincere welcome back, Spoonbill. What I love about this particular stir (probably hugely irrelevant to anyone under about 40) is the way most of the male contributors feel a need to qualify their response with "I'm an ex rugbyman and a father of 7" or "I have 19 children and 99 grandchildren" ... while our female members (so to speak) seem rather more secure.

Does'nt that fall into the 'sado/macho/dom' category ?

Ajarn Philip wrote:

Spoonbill wrote: ...the world is full of dormantly-bisexual persons...

Are they people of either sex who like to sleep a lot?

Help!!!
people who like to sleep a lot are dormantly-bisexual?

I deny it and, though if a politician denies something you can bet it's true, I am not a politician.
I like my bed, I even like something warm in it, but I'm 200% certain that I am not bisexual, dormantly or wakingly!

ergo the hypothesis is false

Normally I'm very polite on here, but, Spoonbill, I think you're a tw@t.

Ajarn Philip wrote:

Spoonbill wrote: ...the world is full of dormantly-bisexual persons...

Are they people of either sex who like to sleep a lot?

A most sincere welcome back, Spoonbill. What I love about this particular stir (probably hugely irrelevant to anyone under about 40) is the way most of the male contributors feel a need to qualify their response with "I'm an ex rugbyman and a father of 7" or "I have 19 children and 99 grandchildren"... while our female members (so to speak) seem rather more secure.

I think we can thank Queen Victoria for that.

I wrote these lines in a private memoir a long time ago, but they are relevant here.

"I am often asked whether there was much 'gay sex' at CH [in the 50s/60s]. My reply is, first, get your concepts clear. 'Gay sex' is usually seen in opposition to 'straight sex'. At CH at that time, the latter was simply not available, or only with great difficulty and at great risk. So it was either sex with other boys or no (interpersonal) sex at all. Given the biological facts, 'no sex' is a difficult option for adolescent boys. So the answer to the question, with this clarification, is: Yes, there was, lots of it." But the proviso is crucial.

Incidentally, Bryan Magee (Growing Up in a War) is very honest about this (and his account is accurate, in my view).

englishangel wrote:

Ajarn Philip wrote:

Spoonbill wrote: ...the world is full of dormantly-bisexual persons...

Are they people of either sex who like to sleep a lot?

A most sincere welcome back, Spoonbill. What I love about this particular stir (probably hugely irrelevant to anyone under about 40) is the way most of the male contributors feel a need to qualify their response with "I'm an ex rugbyman and a father of 7" or "I have 19 children and 99 grandchildren"... while our female members (so to speak) seem rather more secure.

I think we can thank Queen Victoria for that.

According to the brilliant mind of Stephen Fry on a recent ' QI ', this is another non-fact. Queen Vic allegedly had a voracious sexual appetite which was 100% heterosexual, and had absolutely no idea or knowledge of lesbianism !

'Q I' ?. More 'V I- - Very interesting !

J.R. wrote:

englishangel wrote:

Ajarn Philip wrote:
Are they people of either sex who like to sleep a lot?

A most sincere welcome back, Spoonbill. What I love about this particular stir (probably hugely irrelevant to anyone under about 40) is the way most of the male contributors feel a need to qualify their response with "I'm an ex rugbyman and a father of 7" or "I have 19 children and 99 grandchildren"... while our female members (so to speak) seem rather more secure.

I think we can thank Queen Victoria for that.

According to the brilliant mind of Stephen Fry on a recent ' QI ', this is another non-fact. Queen Vic allegedly had a voracious sexual appetite which was 100% heterosexual, and had absolutely no idea or knowledge of lesbianism !

'Q I' ?. More 'V I- - Very interesting !

I knew that. She just couldn't understand that women could ever have sex together and when the bill was put in front of her making homosexuality illegal she crossed out the bit referring to lesbianism, so it has never been illegal. (for those who didn't know)

My grandmother was the same on child abuse. She would never give money to the NSPCC because she didn't believe that an adult could ever harm a child. My mother was a health visitor and one of her charities is the NSPCC.

BTW, when I clicked 'quote' on JR's post added my bit and then tried to submit, the new software won't let you embed more than 2 quotes.

........... absolutely ages since I've embedded two at the same time.

Age creeps on - Ar Well !!! (sigh !!)

J.R. wrote:........... absolutely ages since I've embedded two at the same time.

Age creeps on - Ar Well !!! (sigh !!)

Don't you get all the emailed offers of help from Vi?

as for Michael's statement:

So it was either sex with other boys or no (interpersonal) sex at all. Given the biological facts, 'no sex' is a difficult option for adolescent boys. So the answer to the question, with this clarification, is: Yes, there was, lots of it." But the proviso is crucial.

Not in Col A so far as I am aware. IF there was any it was kept extremely hush-hush (like in Shelly's Wood on a Sunday.)

Not that I shall connect innate gay-ness with the appalling facilities of the past but

I really really do sympathise with Spoonbill's horror of loos with no doors. Male urinals are one thing but, er, doorless cubicles - no! no!

I have to admit that when I read the first lines of sejintenj's latest posting with the heading "Was CH Horsham Designed to be Gay?" followed by a quote "....absolutely ages since I have embedded two at the same time" I initially came to the wrong conclusion!

Foureyes wrote:I have to admit that when I read the first lines of sejintenj's latest posting with the heading "Was CH Horsham Designed to be Gay?" followed by a quote "....absolutely ages since I have embedded two at the same time" I initially came to the wrong conclusion!

and that wasn't even intended that way. I'm doubled up - LAUGHING (not what you might think at this time in the morning) and I haven't got time for all this.

Just trying to work out how to find the time to go and see the floosy at Hertford Saturday (the dummy, you dummy - if she is still there after this.)

sejintenej wrote:

Foureyes wrote:I have to admit that when I read the first lines of sejintenj's latest posting with the heading "Was CH Horsham Designed to be Gay?" followed by a quote "....absolutely ages since I have embedded two at the same time" I initially came to the wrong conclusion!

and that wasn't even intended that way. I'm doubled up - LAUGHING (not what you might think at this time in the morning) and I haven't got time for all this.

Just trying to work out how to find the time to go and see the floosy at Hertford Saturday (the dummy, you dummy - if she is still there after this.)

Definitely a double entendre I feel.