The Sir Bufton Tuftons of this world hark fondly back to a golden age when you knew what was what with people’s sexuality.
Sex within a good Christian marriage was acceptable. Any other sort of sexual activity – from masturbation to homosexuality, sex before marriage to flagellation – was an excellent indicator that someone was mad, bad, dangerous to know (or quite possibly all three), and would benefit greatly from a spell in prison or an asylum. Needless to say the rules didn’t apply to the ruling classes, and as long they kept it out of sight, no-one minded too much.
Today’s Bufton Tuftons see that the world has gone to pot. First, we had the pill and legal abortions tempting innocent young girls into lives of vice and depravity. Then homosexuality became acceptable. More recently – horror of horrors – these homosexuals have been permitted to have sex when other people are present, and they even hold hands and kiss in the streets.
You won’t be surprised to learn that these aren’t opinions I hold and, thankfully, neither do most Liberal Democrats. A long, hard (and ongoing) battle has been fought to allow the millions of people whose sexuality strays from ‘the norm’ to do what they want as long as it doesn’t harm others.
Unless, it would appear, you live in Southport and you’re a swinger – at least as far as Southport’s Lib Dem MP, Dr John Pugh, is concerned.
John Pugh is a fine MP, and someone for whom I have a great deal of respect – he’s no reactionary. Which is why I’m all the more concerned that Dr Pugh is actively campaigning against a swingers’ club in Southport. His petition opposes a Southport swingers’ club on the grounds that it is “wholly inconsistent with the image of Southport as a family and quality leisure resort.”
Let’s think about that for a moment. These aren’t people flaunting themselves in the streets, and it’s hardly the only swingers club in the country, so I can’t see thousands of randy couples flooding in from across the North West. It’s not creating a public nuisance as some argue stag and hen parties do. So what’s this really saying? Quite simply, that a sexual activity carried out between consenting adults behind closed doors should be banned, not because it harms anyone, but because it’s inconsistent with Southport’s image.
Like homosexuals in decades gone past, swingers appear to be not the sort of people wanted in a nice place like that, even if they keep it private. Just knowing that they exist lowers the tone.
Who shall we ban in Southport next, I wonder? Would the Southport Lib Dems launch a campaign against a similar gay venue, or would that be too tough a target?
I think he and Southport Lib Dems have got this one wrong. There are lots of sexual minorities out there, just wanting to be allowed to get on with their lives in peace. Some, like the GLBT groups, have achieved a degree of political clout that makes discrimination against them more difficult (though far from impossible, sadly). Others, like swingers, have not – but that does not make it right to target them.
Like it or not, swingers are a group with minority sexual preferences, consenting adults harming no-one, and I’m saddened and bemused to see Liberal Democrats leading a campaign to hound them out.
* Iain Roberts is a Lib Dem member living in Cheadle.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Raising a flap about letterboxes
Arriving at one of East Finchley's ghost platforms
Chase Park fair photos
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Nigel Jones
Katharine Pindar
14 Comments
Totally agree with you Iain – but there again think about it – would YOU want to live in Southport! The idea’s laughable.
All I know about this issue is what you have written, but prima-facie I think you have a good case.
I think by Lib Dem standards John Pugh probably is a reactionary on matters to do with sexual freedom.
From an ethical point of view, the criteria for having sex should be;
1/ Must be legal
2/ Must be safe in terms of disease or unwanted pregnancy
3/ Must be consent.
Questions to do with “who with?” or “how many?” should be out of scope as far as politicians are concerned.
If I lived in Southport I would write a letter as a Lib Dem member to the local press about this. I also happen to know some swingers who are Lib Dem members who would be amazed at this story.
“Like homosexuals in decades gone past, swingers appear to be not the sort of people wanted in a nice place like that, even if they keep it private.”
Hmmm.. I think your idea of ‘keeping it private’ is rather different to that of most people. If people ‘swing’ in the comfort of their own homes, then I suspect most people would understand that to mean ‘private’. But if it is in a club, albeit a ‘private members’ club, that seems materially different.
A ‘club’ like the Athenaeum or the Garrick can well be understood as ‘not a public place’, but I’m not sure that a ‘night club’ has the same degree of exclusivity. The ‘swingers’ club does seem to be somewhere between the two, and the membership legislation is probably more akin to the ‘pre-watered-down’ casino legislation.
Gambling in a casino is a perfectly legal and ‘legit’ activity, which I’m sure no Liberal Democrat would want to ban. That is not quite the same as being happy to see a ‘super-casino’ in town, or a ‘lap-dancing club’ in the village..
I agree with every word, Iain. I don’t like our party banning things, I don’t like our party scapegoating people, and I definitely don’t like it when our party starts banging away against sex. I may never actually have used the slogan I suggested last year of “Liberal Democrats: the party that says sex is all right,” but I still reckon it’d do more to firm our support than most of the limp litanies we’ve waved in front of the public.
My test for ethical sex is even simpler than Geoff’s: I’d say that as long as there’s informed consent from everyone involved (which, by definition, means people over the age of consent), that should be fine. And unlike gambling or pole-dancing, it’s not even somewhere where you can talk about an employee potentially being exploited: surely swingers’ clubs would be about adults mutually consenting, not paying for sex. It’s difficult to think of a more textbook case of a victimless ‘crime’.
Top tip to John Pugh: he may be shocked, but “sex” has something to do with “families”. I think he’s old enough to be told.
The fact that a view is rather different from most peoples is neither here nor there.
Licensing is becoming a cultural issue not just a quasi-legal one.
There’s a divide between those that want equality of sameness (if one section of society doesn’t want to do it even though it causes no harm then nobody should do it – something nu labour love) and those that are `Millsian Liberals` (what matters is whether or not the parties involved are not doing any harm to others and have taken as reasonable steps as possible not to cause offence).
In this respect it’s an idea that society is mature enough to allow individuals to culturally self-select the establishments they frequent and that offence will be caused in extreme circumstances from time to time.
I mean i was offended by John Pugh’s remarks but I don’t want to ban his website.
John Pugh obviously believes in cultural sameness if not just an old-style Tory.
However, one can’t help wonder whether or not this is nothing more than a simple vote-gathering exercise.
I think Alex is more or less right.
As long as the club is not in a residential area, where it could cause a nuisance or embarrassment to residents, I don’t really see a problem.
Prostitution is different, because it usually takes place in residential areas and without regulation, and it involves exploitation, often of quite an extreme kind.
A members-only club doesn’t invite every Tom, Dick and Harry into the area, and it won’t be encouraging its members to “dog” in the middle of Lord Street.
The 1950s Police campaign against gay men was halted when the Police started targeting aristocrats. Perhaps a duke or a marquis should go to Southport and “swing”.
Alex made the comment I was going to, including the informed consent line, so I’ll just, well, concur.
One of the things I really like about the party is that we just don’t care about that sort of thing, and while he might be doing it to get votes, Ithink he’s going for the wrong votes, and will alienate a lot of people that just, quite simply, don’t care.
Maybe he’s worried about visits from MSPs?
Personally, I believe that anybody who uses “quality” as a adjective is suspect, but it takes all sorts.
Our party is on very dodgy ground indulging in populist nonsense like this. They’re not doing it in the street and frightening the horses, so what’s the problem?
Alex, that reminds me of the best one-line definition that I ever heard of what being a liberal means: A liberal is someone who defends the right to be a pervert.
Oh dear. Dear old Mr Pugh why do you think that swingers do not have families? Do you actually know how many swingers clubs there are in the UK? Have look on some of the dedicated websites. All carrying on in a controlled, safe and private environment. I have long thought that the Palace of Westminster was wholly inconsistent with Londons image of a diverse, modern, tolerant city yet I have not yet started up a petition against it. For even if you are a pensioner at Prime Ministers Questions you get howls of ageist comments about your age when you stand up to ask a question. Sort your own House out first and then come and enjoy ours.
Hmmmm- perhaps Pugh didn’t get an offer of a ‘freebie’! Hate to say it but the Libbies HAVE been further ahead on ‘gay rights etc’ than any other party. Pity so many Libbie MP’s etc, give a bad image to us gays. Lest we forget Oaten (even though he is ‘with wife’- for the time being…)and the worst of the bunch- your very own ‘left-wing loony’- Simon Hughes.
Spot on Iain. I am very disappointed to see a Lib Dem MP stooping to this kind of cheap populism.