Stephen Fry is wrong to stereotype people.
e misogynist in Fry comes out yet again.
But I’m only a inferior women! I only engages in sex to secure a relationship not out of enjoyment!!!!!! I guess Mr Fry will be chaining me to cooker next, forcing me into domestic slavery and baby production.
That should be:
The misogynist in Fry comes out yet again.
Has he never heard of swingers?
so all gay relationships are about sex and nothing else? Funny, because time and again in these pages I’ve seen gay people protesting against those religious fundies who think their sex life is a reason to ban them from everyday human life activities, saying that what they do in bed isn’t everything they are.
And what about the dozen or more male only couples I personally know with at least fifteen years living in monogamous relationship and four or five lesbian couples I know who are the same? Are they oddbods in some way for wanting relationships?
Or is Stephen Fry the odd one out?
What’s wrong with stereotyping? Is it always untrue?
He is spot on. As Billy Crystal once said “Women need a reason to have sex, men just need a place.”
Rose, there are as many straight people out there, if not more than us per capita whose relationships are about sex particularly if they are men, and nothing else. Just look at the divorce rate among them, one in two marriages failing as a result of lack of sex and financial issues. Look at the philandering among straight celebrities. Personally, I think a lot of straight men marry for the wrong reasons, many of them haven’t a clue about taking care of themselves living alone on their own and its easy access to sex because they know many women will provide it. I too know countless numbers of gay and lesbian monogamous couples, one gay couple have been together 52 years and still can’t marry in their own country. But of course, that sort of thing isn’t mentioned in the media, they just stereotype us as sex-craved predators. In any event, I think Stephen Fry is wrong on this one.
Honesty, who does he think he is? I do wonder about that man’s mentality sometimes – I really do.
I like chocolate cake, but I wouldn’t want to eat some I found on the floor of a horrible public lavatory. Perhaps I’m not a true fan of delicious cake after all.
The whole way through reading this all I could bring myself to wonder was, “is this a joke??”
Celia – you said it so much better than me!
I usually find Steven Fry to have interesting, erudite and well thought out statements/ comments/ opinions to share in the media. Think he might have dropped the ball on this one though…
Stephen’s talking rubbish! Where did he get all this? In some 19th century women’s manual? Women like sex just as much as men. What does he think lesbians do in bed then? I’ll answer that for him – A LOT AND OFTEN!
(and Celia – spot on!)
I have been a fan and appreciator of Stephen fry for a long time. He is in a relationship himself. He refers to the gentleman as his partner and therefore I would suspect it is a long term relationship. So it seems to me he is contradicting himself with his own lifestyle. That’s the first thing. He contradicts himself.
Secondly, straight people do cruise. They cruise at bars and night clubs, often referred to as meat markets by straights.
Thirdly, the idea that women do not enjoy sex as much as men and that they use as a tool to rope men into relationships is insulting and deeply apocryphal! I like you Stephen, but shame on you!
I agree with Iris, how dare Mr Fry presume to know what Women do; or do not want sexually.
I must admit I am not the biggest Stephen Fry fan (think he is rather overrated) but this has confirmed it for me. This is sterotyping to the extreme.
Firstly and most importantly he should not “feel sorry for straight men” but instead feel sorry for gay men if that is how gay relationships are! I can’t help to think sometimes that maybe he is a manic depressive because of this own troubles about accepting himself.. I am a gay male and in a very monogomous relationship and as strong as my sexual desire is, the thought of being in a relationship is the thing that drives me to be the best boyfriend I can be. Now I hope that does not make me a big girls blouse for wanting to be in a relationship.
And yeah I agree about all the misogyny comments, maybe he should watch an episode of lip service and say that again :-)
really stephen, no need to feel sorry for the poor straight men. You know, those ones who get a free pass on so many things in life? you see they have women to look after them from cradle to grave and bear them children and make them channel some of that libidinal energy into things apart from sex, like using their brains and striving for rather more than a shag down the park (not unlike Marc says above actually). Oh and married women have more sex than single women. His remarks are riddled with nonsense about gay and straight ppl. Fry is beginning to get rather arrogant and tiresome I fear. Using the media for this constant trafficking in his public school boy opinions is looking increasingly narcissistic.
More misogyny from Stephen Fry. Not surprising, but certainly.
this guy is an idiot and he’s ugly also
Anecdotally speaking, in my experience, he seems to have a point. Though I doubt this is anything to do with women specifically, all of the straight men I’ve lived with over the last few years (and it’s not a small sample) seem to believe that sex inevitably leads to a relationship, which to me seems a rather repressive and immobilizing view of sex. So while his statement is infuriatingly misogynist, his criticism of the particular view point stands: viewing sex as a means to an end is harmful and repressive.
Just to clarify, also, he has made no criticism of Monogamy as such, just a criticism of what he sees as a sort of view inflicted upon men from women but which I suspect is far more likely to be a form sexual oppression infilcted on almost everyody: sex is bad and only to be suffered in order to gain something.
Cassandra K: he WAS in a long-term relationship (CP, I think), but then dumped him for a 25 year old hottie (as reported in PN some months ago).
Sexual mores are the true taboo of Homo sapiens, it makes us irrational and destructive. If only we’d followed the path of the bonobos as opposed to the common chimp!
A typically naive comment from Mr. Fry. Not suprising though as have heard similar before from him.
What does surprise me is Mr. Fry comes across as a man of the world yet has a some what Very limited stereotypical points of view.
Won’t someone just shut this twat up?! Hope he takes another long walk real soon…
It sounds like a joke to me, a parody of people saying, ‘Oh, poor gays, they can’t have babies and all they want is sex, it’s not natural, they can’t enjoy women,’ blah blah blah.
Also, note he didn’t say gay men are necessarily entirely sex-oriented, just that they have the ability to have sex, no strings attatched, unlike women. Actually, even if he’s not joking, I can understand where this stems from; when I was a sixth grader, some kid told me, and I quote, ‘There’s no such thing as a horny woman.’ Now think about a gay man who’s never really experienced a relationship with a woman. What on earth would he know?
I suspect that sexist notions of femininity have simply made women more decorous and secretive, not less libidinous, and hence less visible in what they get up to.
Fry is usually subtler than this. One down for him.
1. There are straight cruising areas. They’re everywhere. They’re just not called cruising areas because almost every area of life is a potential pick-up joint. The most obvious are called nightclubs, bars, pubs and social clubs.
2. Different people have different needs. Some people like casual sex. Some people like committed poly relationships. Some people like committed poly relationships AND casual sex. Some people like monogamy. I’m more concerned with honesty, respect and fully informed consent between adults than the actual set-up. The only problem is trying to shoehorn everyone into one category by pretending that it’s morally superior to the others. All ecosystems need diversity, and the more honest, respectful, healthy relationships of all kinds we have, the better off we all are.
3. We have a culture that talks about sex all the time in a really messed up, immature, dysfunctional way. Then we say that our inability to communicate clearly and honestly about sex is down to men being raging sex-monsters and women being uninterested in sex. Clearly, this is ridiculous. Some people need more sex, some people need less.
4. Define “sex”. What is highly erotic and satisfying for one person may leave another cold. See points 1, 2, and 3.
5. When I say something stupid, it gets forgotten. When a celebrity says something stupid, it gets slung around the internet and papers and is remembered for ages. I don’t know if the man was quoted correctly or not, and whether he’s currently kicking himself for it or not. This fame thing is a double-edged sword.
You people are all the same, you can’t stand the idea that people are not fully under their own control, yet would never accept homosexuality as a “lifestyle choice”.
Well here’s some news for you, many other primordial animal instincts are also there. The prime goal in any life is to reproduce and continue the genetic line. To this end, males will shag anything with a pulse. ALL men are naturally promiscuous. That is not a concious decision, but a hard-wired one. However, females are rather more selective, as they are the ones that have to carry the brat for 9 months and probably support it as the father has gone on to shag something else.
That is why straight men tend to stick around with their partners, because women are the safety valve. They cannot guarantee getting more partners, so they tend to stick with what they have until something better comes along.
The fact that ‘dogging’ seems to have appeared in the last 20 years or so is more down to women and their selective processes than mens, and the social stigma of being considered “loose” seems to be disappearing.
However, what happens when you get a room full of men that fancy other men? The female factor is no longer restricting them, and they shag like rabbits, which is why sex is a lot more prevalent in gay men, but relationships more difficult to start, and maintain. If you look at lesbians, they tend to be more picky, but once they find a partner, it is often for life.
These aren’t opinions, this is evolutionary fact. Many people like the ones here like to think we are all intelligent, complicated individuals, but underneath we are still just naked apes.
And I feel sorry for Fry, what I find most amazing about this latest pointless soundbyte is that he’s chosen to air his opinions thru’ the printed press as opposed to the usual Twitter sh!tter he relies on to spout on and on and on….he’s quickly going from being a national treasure (whatever that is) to a laughing stock.
Stephen Fry, Elton John – why is it that some of the most high profile gays are such complete idiots?
Stephen Fry is a stupid vacuous idiot with a load of worthless opinions which he shares with the world because he is so insecure and thinks we want to listen to his garbage.
Unbelievable that Pinknews even print the drivel that comes out of his mouth. Just because he opens his stupid mouth it is not news.
Number 28 – couldn’t agree more. Why Pinknews even listens to this man I don’t know.
It has to be said, Pinknews does publish a lot of articles which are just high profile gays expressing their opinions about something. This most definitely belongs in the opinion section of their web site and not the front page.
For it to be evolutionary spanner the female animal would always need to be monogamous. However female apes tend to hedge their bets getting impregnated by several sperm donors from within the social group. Apes also don’t mate for life so the fathers of offspring can be different from mating season to mating season.
Maybe you should look at the animal kingdom Spanner as it is not uncommon for the female to be the sexually dominant partner.
The same people defending this as a “joke” are the ones that probably had a bawling fit over the gay joke in that new movie.
“These aren’t opinions, this is evolutionary fact. Many people like the ones here like to think we are all intelligent, complicated individuals, but underneath we are still just naked apes.”
Spanner . . . if we are still just apes underneath as so so put it, we would be swing from trees and eating more than one banana a day so to speak.
I am a straight male who has probably done more fighting for gay rights than most gay people in this country. I will always stand up and fight for what I believe is right. I do not agree with homophobia or transphobia of any description and would never tolerate it in a joke even though I work alongside hundreds of predominantly straight white males. I find Stephen Fry’s comments utterly unacceptable. If such comments were made by a straight presenter there would be uproar, demands for resignation and no doubt a nomination for the Stonewall – Biggot of the year!!!! I am happy to challenge my colleagues on any inappropriate comments and I feel that they would insist I challenge Stephen Fry. I only hope that his words are not made public like on national television – Perhaps he might regret his comments as so many do but the LGBT community must tolerate this as much as they would tolerate a homophobic comment – under no circumstances – Stephen Fry needs to appologise to everyone straight or gay!!!!
This is plain rubbish. My understanding of this is that he has a problem. May be he should grow up?
It is insulting for women, but also for gay men. There are plenty of gay men who are in committed relationships and who understood life, gay life, is much more than sex.
I would propose he undergoes some therapy so that he could become an adult!
No surprise that with that kind of statements some tabloids want to investigate his private life.
Steven Fry is stupid and ignorant about women.
It is only in a few places and in recent times that women have had the freedom to explore and experience different lifestyles. If women had not experienced thousands of years of violent misogyny, repression, oppression, lack of encouragement, education and opportunity ( women still do not get equal pay in many of the so called progressive western democracies) there would be more female voices saying I’m only after a shag and the only commitment I want to make is to my children.
It’s typical of pompous misogynists like Fry to make sweeping statements about women when women still do not have the freedom and encouragement to live as they please and have not had the time, freedom, encouragment and opportunity to become all that they are in their richness. Fry should be reminded that women are tortured and murdered in many countries by men for even looking at a man. He should be reminded that women are still being forced into marriage and denied basic human rights . He should be reminded that female children are still widely subjected to relentless insidious gender conditioning that inhibit them from choosing other lifestyles and if they do choose other lifestyles and decide that they prefer casual relationships they are labelled slappers and whores…men behaving in the same way are called virile or red blooded. I’m certain that if misogynists shut up about women and stopped bulleying them into particular lifestyles there would be many women who would choose long term relationships and many who would not. Fry considers himself a deep thinker…. I imagen his next deep thoughts about women which he would not have articulated were probably– is it suprising that there are so many rapes and have you seen the domestic violence figures, women bring it on themselves….those poor straight men!
Many of my straight female friends do not want to give up their independence and prefer to live alone. And many of them still want to and have sex regularly. They are very virile, sexually potent women. One recently dumped her boyfriend and chose to go to a new job in the Phillipines. Her career definitely is more important to her than a relationship.
I think that it is fundamentally erroneous to equate humans with chimps. With that little difference in DNA comes a very different far more complex and sophisticated creature. Look at what humans have designed —-computers, space ships etc. Do you think that if you study chimp behaviour you’ll see chimps exhibiting that level of intelligence and creativity. No? Why? Because they are very different animals.
The straight cruising area, in my day, was known as the BBC Club at Television Centre. But surely Fry has been misquoted?
I think he’s right, by and large. And I think what he is describing is a byproduct of the sexism women routinely face in their dealings with men.
stevie boy…u forgot 2 take yr medication didn’t u ?
^ He is talking about something that is a byproduct of an inherently sexist society but he’s completely failed to acknowledge that. Look at all the crap women who have a lot of sex get (“Slut”, “whore”). These are gendered words.
Also, gay women don’t exist/live sexless lives.
Isn’t he just saying that there is more conditionality attached to straight sex,(with the exception of youthful drunken knee tremblers), that the sex itself is less urgent in females and is as dependent on factors other than the urge to get your rocks off? There is nothing new in this, and nowhere is he critical of monogamy for straights or gays?
PS. As a bi man I have been in hetrosexual relationships where after a certain point the sex felt as if it was being given as a duty to the relationship, a favour almost. Not good sex unless you both really want it. In those circumstances you may as well be with a blow up doll.
There’s also the fact that for women, heterosexual sex may potentially lead to unwanted pregnancy in spite of precautions taken. Being cautious doesn’t mean that we don’t want it.
Um… Hasn’t he ever heard of the term “dogging”? If that isn’t heterosexual cruising, I don’t know what is?
Good on you Stephen!! There is no real love like between men. The love between men and women are just based on comfort! They are lost people do not know what to do. sadly..
IfIt is an insult the only definition of my being gay was going out and cruising and having sex, then I would have given up decades ago. Fry, I think you have finally “fried” on this one. These have got to be the wackiest comments I have read in a long time from a member or the “intelligentsia”.
It is an insult to the gay and straight communities alike. You make it sound like all of humanity is nothing but a tribe of sexual marauders and predators. We may stray from now and then, but not all of us are out there on a daily basis in cruising areas.
STOP advocating for gay rights — PLEASE. You are doing more harm than you can imagine.
jamestoronto: “You make it sound like all of humanity is nothing but a tribe of sexual marauders and predators”
No James. Just the men.
I feel sorry for Stephen Fry, it must be really hard to be Stephen Fry. lol
What he said was an embarrassment to gay men – misogynistic and heterophobic crap. What an overrated idiot he is. We rightly hate it when someone is dismissive and derogatory about gay people, so there is no excuse for stereotyping like this about straight men and women. Why does it matter to Stephen fry what people who aren’t gay men get up to – it’s reasonable to assume and is acting on prejudice. Being on the receiving end of is no excuse. The vast majority of my close friends happen to be straight women and they are fantastic people (no, not fag hags, just nice, open-minded interesting people). People like Stephen Fry are why there is a sizeable section of gay men whose company I avoid like the plague.
He should apologise for being a bigoted jerk.
typo, i meant to say:
“Why does it matter to Stephen fry what people who aren’t gay men get up to – it’s reasonable to assume he hasn’t the faintest idea of the statistics of what they get up to and how often, and is acting on prejudice.”
All I can say is Stephen Fry hasn’t been meeting the right women. I’m thankful to know many with sex lives as casual as sandals.
To Spanner, yes, I don’t see homosexuality as a lifestyle choice but I don’t consider myself in control of my other emotions, actually that is my explanation when explaining homosexuality as not a choice because I couldn’t understand how any emotions can be a choice. And yes alot are some mechanisms created by evolution to either defend us or to continue on our species, like the joy we get out of sex or the feeling of pain. But you miss a very key part of our existance that not only grew from evolution but it speeds up evolution, the fact that we vary so much, evolution relies on us being different to each other, if we was exactly the same, evolution would be impossible. But what you are saying relies on everyone of a particular sex acting in the same way which evolution just couldn’t allow.
Not only this but evolution rarely creates things as purely one or the other, extremes tend to be inefficient and deadly. It does seem an inefficent idea for men to have no compassion but pure lust for sex, and the same for the reverse in women.
Lastly I am male and am a virgin, I’m a virgin because I dont want one night stands, I find no interest in them, they just seem pointless to me. I have nothing against people who want to engage in one night stands but it just dont appeal to me, I want a real relationship, which just completely contradicts this whole idea.
But Stephen, I do go around having it the way that gay men do! That’s why sociaty calls me a slut, a whore and all these beautiful words they have coined in order to shame women and their sexuality!
i always assumed the “cotagging” was a byproduct of the fact that people is not as accepting of gay relationships so they needed to be persued in a manner that allowed the person to remain anonymous. Never ocurred to me that the real reason was that gay men couldn’t keep it in their pants. Thank for the clarification, Mr Fry
When women aren’t subjected to so much slut-shaming, then they’ll start being more open about their desire to have sex. Better contraceptives (and care for the children they do have) would help too.
Think you guys are over reacting a bit. It’s just something he said in an interview. He didnt pay for billboards all over the country. hahahaha
Wow Sarah, how insightful of you, no he didn’t pay for billboards, he used a far more direct means of airing his views or “just something he said in an interview” as you put it- a magazine which sells hundreds of thousands of issues up and down the country each year. Would you “overreact” if I called you a silly little cow for comment? Because that’s what I’m doing sarah, I’m calling you a silly little cow for your witless message.
Blondie: Homosexuality is not an emotion. Neither is sex. It is an essential part of living things, like eating. Yes, I agree there are evolutionary variances, but nevertheless, the ultimate driving force of all living things is reproduction, (even above self-survival), and the continuance of the genes. So OK, two men cannot reproduce, but they still have the sexual drive to spread their seed far and wide. Gay men are essentially “going through the motions”. That is what males do. If it moves, fcuk it. If it doesn’t move, kick it around a bit, and then fcuk it.
“Evolution rarely creates things as purely one or the other”
Sorry, but that is pure unadulterated CRAP.
Evolution does not have some ‘game-plan’ – it isn’t even furthering towards bettering anything. It is entirely and completely random. It simply works on the principle that good ideas stick around, bad ones die, based on the host surviving long enough to pass on it’s genetic code. Personalities and decisions I suspect are not genetic, which in your case is probably not a bad thing, as being a) a gay man and b) a virgin indicates the odds are that you will eventually die childless, and a gene that does not want to reproduce isn’t going to be around very long.
As for promiscuous women being classed as sluts, it is usually by other women. It is part of their nature to be selective. The fact that contraception has changed social directions is something we will still have to adapt to. To be sure, if there was no such thing as contraception, I can guarantee there would be no such thing as dogging going on.
Is this Fry doing dry humor, or is he serious? If serious, gays have HAD to cruise. They weren’t allowed to form legal, socially acceptable relationships for a couple of millenia in Europe, and, sorry, but a couple of decades is not enough to undo 2000 years of injustice. As far as straight relationships–ever heard of pregnancy, death in childbirth, useless and deadly abortion techniques, consequences of being a bastard, and the stigma on “promiscuous” women? Ever heard of honor killings, which are going on to this day? Know when effective birth control was first introduced, when childbirth became safe, and when abortions became legal? Does he realize that something like 100,000 years of that is unlikely to undo a couple of decades of the opposite?
I’m going with this tirade being dry humor. I have too much respect for Fry to think he was serious.
What Fry doesn’t know about women is a lot. What a stupid comment. And I love the guy. But every now and then he reveals a streak of ignorance and mean-spiritedness that is rather astonishing. Stephen, seriously, think this through. Because I don’t want to cruise randomly, I don’t like sex? Nonsense.
I love you Stephen, but I have to say, you miss the mark on this. I’m a woman, and I love sex, but unfortunately, even using birth control, if it fails, I’m the one ultimately stuck with the result. So no matter how much I might enjoy sex, I won’t go out frivolously having it because the risk of an unintended pregnancy isn’t ultimately worth it. That’s something gay men don’t have to worry about. Sure, there are other concerns, like STDs, but a child is an extremely expensive, permanently life altering consequence. For those of us who are uncomfortable with the thought of terminating a pregnancy, anyway.
Oh my. Stephen is mostly right, but not completely and I am sorry he has painted all women with such a broad brush. I love sex. Plain old in-and-out sex. With different men. Maybe some day it will be acceptable for “regular” women to cruise for sex, but in these times, and I speak from experience, a woman more often than not gets vilified if she likes to have sex whenever and with whomever and as often as she pleases.
I’m really quite saddened by this stupid generalisation.
Straight people *do* have cruising spots – they’re called bars.
Well, Stephen, the reason straight people don’t have cruising areas is because the entire world is our cruising area. And the reason women don’t talk about sex is because 1.) Slut-shaming and 2.) Fear for our physical safety.
Seriously, did he suffer a massive head injury lately or was he always this dumb?
Then what is homosexuality, I personally feel that homosexuality is that feeling(/emotion) of a particular type of attraction to one’s own sex.
“the continuance of the genes” or more the continuance of the species is the “ultimate driving force”, reproduction is just one strong factor just like individual survival is, there are other factors that contribute to the survival of the human race, like the ability of the man to protect the foetus and eventually child to grow up to the right age to reproduce. I personally think that strong feelings for the child and the mother would benefit in the survival of the foetus/child and hence the human race.
I also think you are underestimating the level of variance, someone else could say something like “everyone is selfish” which works on the same principle but if you watch when people are in need or help, alot of people will “defy evolution” and give to chariety ect. Also, if you tryed to map out every human’s personal feelings towards everything you would have almost 7 billion unique different responses, because humans are that unique, especially when it comes to feelings and emotions, maybe you could get some men that purely care about sex but then you would get a whole spectrum of different emotions on the subject.
I aplogise, I did sort of personify evolution, like it was an intelligent being which was wrong. Yes it’s completely random, which is shown in it’s inability to go back, leaving redundant systems within the body but with it’s effect spanning millions or billions of years, it’s actions make the appearence of being so precise, case in point (for no reason other than I am studying it at the moment) the balance between immunity against pathogens and autoimmunity, bacteria are not too dis-similar from our own cells and viruses hide and use our own cells, which would suggest that our own white blood cells, which have to actively fight any pathogens as quick as possible, could easily attack our own cells by mistake but the human body has evolved to very carefully regulate the immune system to only attack foreign molecules and to not always be in a very strong state and yet evolved at the same time to be effective and strong if there is an infection. Of course, the immune system don’t always get it right but I just felt it was an effective metaphor for how the action of evolution has grown humans to find the most efficient way for their survival which is more often than not, a middle ground.
I personally feel I disagree with the “odds are that you will eventually die childless” part, I might not have strong feelings towards one night stands but it doesn’t mean that I would not want to further any relationship I might have to the act of sex, ok, I might still be gay but I just meant, if I was straight, it wouldn’t mean I wouldn’t pass on my genes. And also, I do have a very close bisexual female friend, with that friendship and a syringe I can solve the “too gay to have kids” problem.
Whilst I love Stephen Fry to bits I must admit that it takes a kind of perverse genius to say something that:
- makes sweeping and insulting generalisations about straight women
- makes sweeping and insulting generalisations about gay men
- makes sweeping and insulting generalisations about straight men
And the implication that anyone who doesn’t have a compulsive desire to bonk strangers must hate sex is about as laughable as suggesting that anyone who isn’t a raving alcoholic can’t possibly be a connoiseur of good wine.
He also implies that if you are looking for love and commitment – as many men are – then it’s better to be straight than gay which again is reactionary cobblers.
Sorry Stephen but you can do better than this…
*Because that’s what I’m doing sarah, I’m calling you a silly little cow for your witless message.*
If Stephen’s read this he’s probably having a right laugh at the way its whipping up the feeble minded on here. It’s always fun to watch people unable to express themselves in real life crazily attacking people on online forums for some unconsequential reason. To think there are serious problems in the world that we should be really fighting about and you choose to call me a silly little cow on an online forum over a personal opinion that some celebrity has had, the same conversation that people have up and down the land, speculating and generalising about all sorts of different people as we are all guilty of from time to time.
I dont think you are in any position Louie to be taking to task anyone over sexism or misogyny – or for calling people stupid. :-)
I feel sorry for lesbians, actually. Who obviously don’t exist. Or don’t have sex with each other – since no sex-pressuring man is on the scene! Or lie to each other about wanting sex, when both would be completely happy in a sexless relationship if only they’d be honest….. Gosh, they really have drawn the short straw in all this. Good thing, Fry’s world doesn’t have homosexual women.
And astonishing that he’d never heard of bars, nightclubs, discos, pubs etc. What DOES he think they’re for, if not heterosexual – dominantly short-term – hook-ups?!
OTOH it DOES take a certain skill to be insulting and stereotyping towards
- straight males
- homosexual males
- women in general
- and lesbians,
in one single interview. He has my grudging respect for sheer effectiveness in being offensive.
Yeah @Sarah all those small-minded bores thinking and writing about misogynism and sexism against both genders spouted by one of Britain’s most famous celebrities and “national treasure” when there’s REAL serious problems to solve! Uh, shouldn’t YOU tackle them right now – instead of writing uninformed, pointless drivel here?! You totally made your point here by leading by example! Especially with your intelligence-absent first post…. And that’s enough troll-feeding.
wow. What a clueless idiot. To think I actually thought he was intelligent, I take it all back.
Blondie: Your comments are very naive and based on the concept that human beings can control animal instincts. I suggest you read “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins, or “The Red Queen” by Matt Ridley. It might give you a better insight into evolution, as well as sexual psychology.
If love / affection / desire didn’t exist, neither would we. It is what makes us want to have sex, and consequently reproduce.
Reproduction is not “one strong factor” – it is THE factor. The Praying Mantis even eats her mate after sex. If that isn’t desperation for a shag, I don’t know what is. Most males dont actually care about offspring and leave it to others, they just go off to make more babies, and distribute their genes across as wide an area as possible. Not every person is selfish, but every gene is; even apparently altruistic acts are almost always born of selfish desires.
As for you having children, why would you want to? it’s not the sex, so it must be the core desire to continue your genetic line.
I think that sums up life in a nutshell.
. . . and Gays, lesbians and transexuals who do not have reproductive sex ?
Your formulation appears to neglect LGBT people, even though you are posting on a LGBT website?
It is impossible to generalise about anything. Stephen, you should know that. How could you make such a simple faux pas? What I would like to know is: 1. Have you researched this subject? 2. How many women did you interview to arrive at this conclusion? Or did you not do a survey and just surmise that your conclusion was correct? Also, what was the reason that spurred you on to write such an article? It sounds like you got bored and felt that you had to write something for the sake of it. Another thing, you’re gay, so how could you be an authority on this matter? I’m straight, so through experience, I can say with authority that you are wrong. There may be some women who do match your stereotype, but you will find a whole spectrum of women, incuding those who will just have sex for money through marriage and yes, you will have women, probably the majority, who actually like sex.
What Stephen Fry did not mention is that the separation of sexual fidelity from relationship fidelity is an example that the Gay community should be teaching the rest of us. Straight women are obsessed with being the only one their partner has sex with over and above all the other charachteristics necessary to make a loving, supportive and loyal partner. This “real” love which Gay couples of long standing exhibit is so much more to be valued and is about a true connection with another human being.
JohnK: I am not dismissing anyone. I am talking about life, from an amoeba to Stephen Fry himself. I am merely pointing out the biological status quo. All this bullsh|t about stereotyping and “It is impossible to generalise about anything.” – What utter CRAP!!
That is what living things do. No if’s, no but’s. If they don’t reproduce, they die out. It is as simple as that.
Men do male things, and women do female things, irrespective of their sexuality. As Fry pointed out, gay men don’t have the restrictions of women, so they do what all men want to do, have sex whenever and wherever they can.
Now go cry into your skinny mocha latte with all your other leftie friends and tell them Darwin was wrong.
To say ‘men do male things and women do female things’ is a generalisation, Spanner. No problem with generalisations but you can’t apply them to individuals. Also, what are ‘female things’? That’s potentially stereotyping. I agree that men and women are different in general, but that only applies to a very large sample group. When you take smaller groups of human beings, you can see that things aren’t quite so simple. As individuals we don’t all fit into neat little boxes. Also, attributes that we might have previously considered male or female can be seen in a different light as time goes by. Moreover, what about intersex people?
Your comments about the continuation of the human race are totally right, of course, but, again, that’s an overall characteristic of human beings not an individual one. The general drive is to continue our race, but individuals, male and female, have different wishes about that and are able to exercise their choice because of modern inventions like contraception, assisted conception, surrogacy, etc.
My problem with what Stephen Fry said wasn’t the ‘men going round spreading their genes’ bit, it was the ridiculous assertion that women didn’t like sex. People’s sex drives vary as individuals and for every example of a woman with a low sex drive, there’s a man with one. In fact, hasn’t research shown that (in general, of course ;)) women’s sexual appetite persists through a longer period of their life and doesn’t suffer such an early decline as men’s?
What Stephen said was stupid, ignorant and illogical. There’s not a grain of truth in it and I wonder why he said it at all.
Iris: Stephen wasn’t so much saying women don’t like sex, but it is an inbuilt precautionary nature in all females, excepting lesbians for a moment, like I said earlier, if there were no contraception, women would be considerably more careful who they slept with. The bottom line is sex = babies. That is why women still retain that primordial incentive to only sleep with men that will produce strong offspring (ie hunks), that are more likely to survive, or men that have fat wallets, and can afford to protect them.
Contraception, excepting the odd sheep’s intestine condom, is really less than 100 years old, and the Pill has only just hit 50.
It’s going to take a lot longer before most women feel open enough to be sexually liberal, and I suspect in many cases may never chan
I totally support what Stephen said, but I do think he could have been a bit more explanatory in his explanation. He is wrong in assuming women don’t like sex, but he is right that they avoid it unless they are certain of commitment. I sure as hell would too if I thought I was going to carry a 50lb lump in my stomach for the next 9 months.
This is utterly ridiculous, not to mention damaging to women. It goes back to the bigoted view that women use sex as a weapon. For this to be true you must also believe that men have an intrinsic right to have sex whenever and wherever they want and that women are denying them their rights by not sleeping around!
The main problem about this article is that cottaging and dogging are activities in which gay men HAD to engage in, in order for them to have sex back in the days where homosexuality was illegal and still classified as a mental disorder. I’m not saying that people don’t still do it now and enjoy it, for the same sense of the forbidden but far more gay couples are out in the open in committed relationships and their sex lives are probably more fulfiled and satisfying than the people who are still under the misguided influence that is is something to be ashamed of!
Oh and women have as much of a sex drive as men do. If all straight women wanted was a sexless relationship then they would be in one with other like-minded women who also only wanted a sexless relationship and they’d use IVF for their uncontrollable desire to produce offspring. But the fact of the matter is that sex drive is as personal as sexuality itself. Some women like women. Some like men, some like both! Whether you like sex 100 times a week, once a month or not at all is entirely personal. Some people need to grow up and get over themselves!
Thank you for elaborating, Spanner. Maybe Stephen did just phrase it badly then. What you’ve just said is fine, makes sense and is not offensive (although I still think that women aren’t THAT much of a prisoner of their genes that they still can’t help fearing pregnancy even though contraception is easily available). I would say though that maybe women are more discerning. I don’t mean that as an insult to straight men, just a comment from what I’ve noticed when I’ve compared notes with straight male friends about whether a particular woman is attractive or not. Or maybe I just have high standards ;)
I was quite scared by your theoretical 50lb baby though! :D I think I need a wincing smile there!
I feel a bit let down by Fry today. Its a shame because I usually agree with the majority of his views as he blogs or tweets them. I find this one to be quite short sighted. It neglects the obvious social stigma women face by being prepared to regularly seek sexual encounters, generalises about how women approach relationships. For a gay man such as Fry, you’d imagine he’d be prepared to admit that there are many different people out there with very different approaches towards love and sex, and that a generalisation of this magnitude is wholly undeserved. Sorry Fry, you’ve lost my support a little on this one.
Spanner, you don’t seem to know as much as you think you do about nature – it’s not quite as clear as you think it is. Male’s do care for offspring in all branches of the natural world. Seahorses for example. And just because dawkins came up with his ‘selfish gene’ theory doesn’t mean it is true. Dawkins himself stumbles completely when asked to include LGBT into his darwinesque theory (as Johnk pointed out). I was at a lecture and someone asked him the very question about selfish reproduction in relation to LGBT. He couldn’t answer. So his theories are incomplete and incorrect. A bit like saying 2+2+2=4, the answer being derived by ignoring the third integer as if it doesn’t exist.
Perhaps you should read “evolutions rainbow” by Joan Roughgarden. She’s a transexual professor of biological studies who has a theory about ‘why darwin was wrong about sexual selection’. It’s not a perfect theory either, but it may help you to realise that theories are just theories, there are if’s and but’s in all theories (that’s why scientists have been trying to prove darwins theory for the last 150 years because there are if’s and but’s). There is no theory of everything, which you seem to think darwin’s theory is, and there never will be, because infinity cannot be measured. Darwins theory explains the process that has changed plants and animals, that’s all. It has nothing to do with what you are going on about.
Life cannot be summed up in a nutshell as you think, as shakespeare said, “O God! I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams”.
Back to Stephen Fry, I think he’s just discovered his penis.
There are users everywhere, in every community and people who are more into the exploitation of a relationship than the sex or love. I have seen women exploit men and say openly they are there to get everything they can get out of them. I have heard women say they don’t like sex and don’t get anything out of it but will give it because that is what gets what they want out of their partner. The same in the gay community. An older gay man or woman captivated and enamoured by a younger. Who lavish what they have on them and get a compliant and seemingly equal and affable lover just to see them leave them and go straight when they die or when they cannot give any more because the recession has collapsed their wealth. Or older married men who have younger gay lovers and swear love and alliegance and that they are only acting out family values and will leave them sorted in their will. Just to find themselevs cut off when their patron dies. Knowing now after many years they were just a sop. Or who when threatened with exposure savagely beat their lover teaching them never to reveal their relationship – on pain. Fry may generalise in saying it is gay ro straight, male or female. But his truth is still there. People are sods.
Beautifully put, including an argument for the nay-saying women: From “The Hippopotamus”: “It is a fact that women do not enjoy sex. It’s become almost a matter of religion for them to deny this but it remains a fact. Women put up with sex as the price they pay for having a man and being part of what they like to call a “relationship”, but they can do without. They do not feel the hunger, the constant stabbing, stomach-dropping hunger that tortures us.
The bugger of it is that whenever I say this I am accused of being a misogynist. For a man who’s spent his entire life thinking and dreaming of women, skipping after them like a puppy trying to please his master, ordering his entire existence so that he might be brought in to more contact with them and judging his life and worth solely according to his ability to attract them and make them desire him; well, it comes a little hard to be accused of a dislike of the sex. All I feel is profound worship, love and inferiority.
I know the arguments, who doesn’t? “Desire,” they tell me, “is a form of possession.” To lust after a woman is to reduce her to the level of creature or quarry. Even “worship”, according to a reasoning to damn tricksy for me to follow, is interpreted as a kind of scorn. All this is, I need hardly tell you, the supremest bollocks.
You couldn’t ask for a better controlled experiment to help us settle this business of the genders, than the world of the nance, now could you? Gaysexuals, bottomites, benderists, settle on a name you like, taking such problems as the queer-bashers, the newspapers, the virus, the police and society as read, lead a pretty fabulous life. Lavatories, parks, heathland, beaches, supermarkets, cemeteries, pubs, clubs and bars vibrate to their music of simple erotic exchange. A man, bent, sees another man, bent, their eyes lock and bang, sex is done. You don’t have to know your partner’s name, you don’t have to talk to him, you don’t even, in the backrooms of dark, metropolitan nightclubs, have to see their bloody faces. It’s a male world, ordered in a precisely male way, according to the devices and desires of a strictly male sexuality. Do those big, hairy faggots who pose in magazines with leather collars round their dicks and rubber tubing up their cak-alleys, think of themselves as oppressed? Do gay men, tarting themselves up for a night in a club, whine about the vile sexism which insists they must be made attractive in order to be inspected like cattle? Do they, hell.
Sometimes, in my dreams, I imagine a world in which women enjoy sex. A world of heterosexual cruising areas in parks and promenades, heterosexual bars, heterosexual backrooms, heterosexual cinemas, heterosexual quarters of the town where women roam searching for chance erotic encounters with men. Such an image is only conceivable in one’s fantasising bedroom, jerked in to life with an angry fist and a few spastic grunts. If women needed sex as much as men did, then, duck, Ted, duck, run for cover; then there wouldn’t be so many rapists around the place.
We live in the world as given and no doubt anthropologists and zoologists will tell us that is it biologically necessary for one of the sexes always to be hungry and the other to be mostly bored. Men have compensations, after all, for the agony of their endlessly unfulfilled desires. By-and-large we run the world, control the economies and swank about with laughable displays of self-importance. This isn’t a whinge, I merely want the simple truth understood and out in the open: men like sex and women don’t. It has to be recognised and faced.
Women’s constant rejection of such a self-evident fact doesn’t help at all. Whenever I point it out to my women friends, they instantly deny it. They will claim to be regular masturbators, they will claim that the idea of a good anonymous shag is a real turn-on, they will claim that only the other day they saw a man who’s bottom reminded them of Mel Gibson and that they got really quite juicy thinking about it. Only the other day? What about only the other minute? What about every damn, sodding, bloody minute of every bloody, damn, sodding day?
Don’t they see that women should pop open the champagne and celebrate the fact that they are not slavering dogs like men? They should revel in the biological luck which allows them to be rational creatures who can think about the benefits a partnership with a man can provide, who can think about motherhood and work and friends, who can just plain think; unlike us poor bastards who spend days that should be spent in work and higher thoughts having to realign the sore and swollen cock under the waistband of our underpants every time a set of tits walks by.
Of course women get the itch now and again we wouldn’t be here as a race otherwise. Of course they have genital equipment sensitive enough to ensure that sex can, when embarked upon, cause shiverings of pleasure, barks of delight and all the mucky rest of it. But they are not, lucky, lucky things, forever hungry, forever desperate, forever longing for the base, physical fact of getting their bloody rocks off. Any honest prostitute will tell you, sympathetically, like a nurse, that men, poor dears, just have to spit their seed. Why women should wish to claim parity in the matter of this gross imperative beats me.
The real motivation behind most men’s drive to become famous actors or politicians or rockstars or whatever, is the hope, somewhere deep inside them, that money, celebrity and power will enable them to get laid more easily. Take away the layers that mask this simple truth, such as ambition to do well, a desire to improve the world, a need to express oneself, a vocation to serve, all these worthy and nearly believable motives overlay the bare-arsed fact that when you get right down to it, all you want to do is get right down to it.”
Adele Winston – yes he has. anyone with half a brain can visit his last three tweets and figure that out. what floors me is an entire community of people who would also claim to be open minded can’t manage to think for themselves.
one can read this article and come to two conclusions. either stephen fry has said something completely out of character that doesn’t fit with anything he himself has written or anything you’ve actually seen him say on tele. Or he has been misquoted by a mediocre journalist in a mediocre magazine read and again misquoted by a mediocre blogger on a mediocre website. Anyone who has commented here could do enough research to figure out which it is more likely to be unless he or she would prefer to believe everything they read.
Another article full of misquotes and word twisting. Disappointed in you Pink News, you should know better. Whatever happened to journalism?
I read this some days ago but did not think that much of it as it seemed as such crap. Do you believe everything you read? Had this been written by Stephen Fry himself, fine, but this is not even the ones that made the interview they mention. And there are bits in it from one of his books. So please take a moment to think when you read things.
I am FRIGID. but they have lost the two comments they have put on here. Don’t want to say it again – and I have not been doing it the wrong way and yes I have tried oral sex. Thank you. But have been part of promoting good sex, education and combating stereotypes and prejudice. But if it gets frigidity and people who don’t enjoy sex in the froth so much the better. and ignored and denied minority majority. But I can still love a man and want sex with him and still not get anything out of it except being with him (and pain, but we wont meantion that too much. Puts someone who loves you off and then they don’t want to have sex because they will hurt you and you try saying to them its OK it does not matter because you love them. Put that on the richter scale Fry.
I’m dissapointed in him. It’s a patronising way to speak of women and men. As for cruising, well, he should go to one of my local nightclubs. It’s full of heterosexuals looking for casual sex. The women are just as likely to be the aggressors and my friend, who used frequent there, never wrote down or even bothered to remember any phone numbers offered to her. She’d talk about a ‘good time’ she had with a man the previous evening and have no interest in taking it further.
While anyone could technically point out some abstract truths in Steven Fry’s words (studies have shown that it is common but not guaranteed for the female sex drive to plummet in a long term relationship), to say that women in general cannot find pleasure in sex and use it only as a tool against men is incorrect and malicious.
Lastly, he of all people should know better to sweep people into one category. I’ve noticed that among some groups casual heterophobia (or even biphobia) is perfectly acceptable and yet those same groups whine about mainstram homophobic comments.
These people should realise that progress should be concerned with not merely what people think, but indeed how they think- lest society should forever go around in circles.
Hahaha, *snort*! I’m having difficulty being offended by this because it’s so blinking ridiculous. Stephen Fry thinks women only want sex as a means to an end? Really? That’s so old-fashioned it’s almost quaint. Only a gay man, or a virgin, could possibly believe that.
I aplogise if that’s what it appears I believe, I don’t believe we can control our animal instincts (assuming a fairly broad meaning of the phrase “animal instincts”) because ultimately that is what drives us, good reactions to situations and bad reactions to others. But my whole point was more based on the way that you way to over simplified the whole idea, it is fair to say that sex will drive our actions to some extent, but to say that we only care about having sex with everything that moves sounds a bit abusrd. We have so many different feelings that alter our actions, key one for this topic; love, it gives you this very strong attraction towards one single human, alot of us will want sex but dont alot of us also ultimately fall in love and want to stay with a single person, there are varying levels of love and lust, sometimes causing some to fail to stay faithful and some would rather hold off on sex because they prefer love (that is, want to let the relationship develop rather than jumping into bed and it becoming a one night stand), it all depends on our instincts and which instinct is stronger/feels better, and then this ultimately comes back to my point, the human race has a wide spectrum when it comes to our emotions.
“If love / affection / desire didn’t exist, neither would we. It is what makes us want to have sex, and consequently reproduce.” That’s not something Im disagreeing, I am however saying that if we only had love or sexual attraction then our existance would be less efficient than if we had both.
The main thing that drives evolution itself is continuation of the species, if there is a variation in the species that has better chance of carrying on that species then that will become more common. Of course, reproduction is very important in this but it is useless having very good instincts to reproduce if they are unable to reach a mature age to reproduce, hence you need the factor of survival as well.
“As for you having children, why would you want to? it’s not the sex, so it must be the core desire to continue your genetic line.
I think that sums up life in a nutshell.” Agreed, my strong feelings (or animal instincts) for producing and raising a child are the reason for my wanting to reproduce, not because of my sexual feelings.
What the heck is all the fuss about ?? He is only speaking the truth. If it wasn’t the truth, nobody would be getting their knickers in a twist.
There is an old saying here…
“IF THE CAP FITS, WEAR IT..”
The level of response and hysteria shows that Mr Fry may have hit a bit of nerve here, if not the g-spot…
Er, no – he hasn’t hit a nerve. How bizarre to think that anyone objecting to a ridiculous statement must only be objecting because it’s actually true. No, people are objecting because it’s a load of old cr*p.
Leo: “Spanner, you don’t seem to know as much as you think you do about nature – it’s not quite as clear as you think it is. Male’s do care for offspring in all branches of the natural world. Seahorses for example.”
Of every organism on God’s green Earth you pick the Seahorse!?? It happens to be the only male creature on the planet that bears young. I think your choice is extremely limited. To precisely one, in fact. I suggest it it is you who should study nature a bit more and take note that virtually all male non-herd or pack animals will walk away from their offspring almost immediately.
Particularly fish. Except they can’t walk away. Well. You know what I mean. It’s been a hard day…
Oh those poor straight men. They don’t get exactly what they want from women all the time. Poor, poor guys.
Never mind that the women Fry so accuses (those of them who do want an emotional, affectionate relationship) are in a completely analogous position; ie: many men only want to have sex with them for their own brief pleasure and not out of any actual affection for the woman. But nobody needs to care about that because the important thing is that men want sex. Sure some of them will refuse to take responsibility for the results of that sex and leave women saddled with raising their offspring, but hey, they important thing is that a man gets an orgasm.
And if gay men are such a ‘perfect acid test’ in that they ‘prove’ men only want sex and never a relationship, how come so many of them are agitating to be allowed to marry? Who gets married if all they want is continuous casual sex?
This whole thing is just the usual sexist drivel, ie: Men are obviously the best, so what they want is obviously the right thing to want and should take precedence over anything a woman wants. Also, since men are clearly the best, women should be more like them and want what they want instead of feeling how they actually feel.
I used to be such a big fan of Fry.
Spanner, so what? Your argument is incredibly poor. Many animals also eat their young, I guess we should start doing that too, huh? Most animals also don’t go to the moon or invent the internet, so lets abandon all attempt at scientific progress. I take it you will not be wiping your arse the next time you go to the toilet? After all, many animals don’t do that either.
Humans are obviously different. Just look at us and everything we do. We don’t have to do or not do things based on what some other creatures do. We don’t have to take our lead from fish or any other animal. Just because some male animals don’t raise their young doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea for human men to care for their young. Just ask anyone who had a good father if they would have preferred he wasn’t there at all. You’re just looking for an excuse to justify your incredibly selfish outlook on the world.
Stephen, I love your wit and intelligence, but you’re talking out of your big fat arse.
why don’t you people do your research before you type…
Terry: We ARE animals. We may be more advanced than most, but our nature is empirically built on every animal and organism that came before us in our evolutionary tree. We are not that different, and have far more similarities than we have differences.
If evolution’s ultimate achievement to put us above every other living thing on this planet is the ability to wipe one’s own arse, I really don’t thing it would take much to revert back to the animals we once were.
We are what our genes make us, and our genes are selfish.
Get used to the fact.
“We ARE animals. We may be more advanced than most, but our nature is empirically built on every animal and organism that came before us in our evolutionary tree”
Spanner . . . since you insist on being animal. There is only one thing we can do. . . put you and Steven in a cage and feed you both bananas.
JohnK: There are none so blind as those that will not see.
Next thing you will be telling us God made us.
Stephen Fry has left twitter because of you gays.
Sorry, I realise that I seem to be in a minority here and that this may not be a popular sentiment. I follow Stephen on twitter and he says that he was misquoted (as John Mitchels pointed out). Due to the surprise expressed by many about his supposed comments, I for one think that this is a fairly likely scenario. Stephen Fry does a lot of good for a lot of people and I think that people should be much more rational about things like this. Making hurtful comments about a man who is, essentially, brilliant and on this occasion misquoted is not the way to go and I think that those of you who have been particularly nasty should rethink how you use these opportunities to put your opinion across. Reading these comments has been thoroughly upsetting and I almost feel ashamed just reading them. For goodness sake think before you type.
Are you people for real? What is wrong with you?! Are you so self righteous and self-centred that you can’t see the bleedin’ obvious? HRS got it right. Shame on the rest of you for jumping to your melodramatic conclusions. What does it take to get through to you people? You CANNOT believe everything you read in the media! But no, you all blindly follow along with the media like good little sheep. Maybe it makes you feel a bit better about yourselves to tear some innocent down and rip ‘em up. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.
Leo…..male seahorses, Joan Roughgarden…wtf are you on about? Idiot.
@ ZoeK. More than you. Vile b1tch.
Ha! Not so articulate now are you? Why did’nt you cut and paste some verbal drool and soundbytes from off some online thesis by some Queer Studies student in the States instead of the above? Silly little twink. F*** off back to your bedsit and hand shandies, reading your books and let the rest of us to live in the real world. Poor diddums.
He clearly wasnt misquoted, he says the same thing here. But who cares. He’s just giving an opinion. Cant understand the fuss!!
For God’s sake. He was obviously making a joke, and what he said was taken completely of context. As a woman, and even as something of a feminist, I can’t take what’s written here to heart because I can hear it being said in Stephen Fry’s lighthearted, tongue-in-cheek tone. He is obviously a fiercely intelligent, fiercely moral man who has publicly stood up and spoken for women’s sexual freedom before. Basically, I agree with HRS and, on account of being upset by the stupidity that I see around me so often, am having trouble expressing it quite as composedly as he/she has.
So, I have just read what the man himself has to say about this sorry affair. It makes very interesting reading. In fact, I think that those of you who have been especially vicious should certainly read it and feel more than a little foolish about your desperate need to leap towards the nearest keyboard to spout such, in many cases, bile at the smallest suggestion of controversy.
As a woman and an adoring fan of Stephen Fry, I am so glad that he has taken this opportunity to tell the truth. I only hope that next time a similarly interesting/surprising/controversial ‘story’ appears, those of you who were especially harsh will think twice before typing such horrible things again. In fact, even if someone did think that women do not enjoy having sex as much as men, a lot of these comments are unnecessarily cruel.
Here it is:
Ignorant, self righteous and no doubt god fearing morons.
Oh don’t be such naive fools everyone… Please. So many of you seem to be saying you “liked Stephen before”, but now… Oh no. Haven’t you heard of how the media likes to show celebrities?!?!? Of course Stephen didn’t say anything of the kind. He gave an interview, which he says felt more like a conversation, and he was just joking around, because the interviewer apparently seemed like a nice guy. They misquoted him, and any journalist with any sense is capable of manipulating what people innocently say to look bad, so this is a combination of the two. Of course he doesn’t think women don’t enjoy sex! He was joking, and he didn’t realise they’d do this to what he said. I think it’s a horrible thing to do… These people seem to… I don’t know… Forget that all the famous celebrities have feelings too and can actually be hurt quite easily by what they make up. I mean, what happened to Stephen being a “national treasure”? And as for him being “arrogant”, that’s total rubbish, whoever thinks that. I can’t think of a genuinely nicer person than Stephen Fry, or also even someone who cares much more than him about how people see him… Please. Before you judge him based on this article, read his blog. He tries to explain it, and I honestly don’t think he would lie about something like that. It’s extremely easy to find – just google Stephen Fry and you should find it quite quickly. I’m sorry… I’ve written too much, and I’m sure you think I’m just a stuck-up prat, but I really am doing this because I don’t think it’s fair for Stephen to be judged so quickly based on this lying horrible article. Just give me a chance. And yes, I am a woman, and if I didn’t know better I would agree with all of you. But it’s just not right. He has feelings.
If a woman wants sex without a relationship, she’s a “slut”. She daren’t act on her desires (without having a boyfriend) out of fear of people looking down on her. If society had a more liberal stance on women’s sexuality, I don’t doubt there would be more women engaging in one-night-stands and three(or more)somes.
I’m not saying that this is the case for every woman, but I think that society’s views have a lot to do with women avoiding sex outside of relationships.
he says himself “I was scared stiff …” and so on.
well, you cant undo 1-2000 years of telling women that they are slut if they dare to fuck more than 3 guys (well one time i got 3 on one day- …)
and-well i am not the person for one-night stands and i bet my ass that there are enough guys who feel the same. my partner is allowed to fuck around as long as he asks but he never wanted *shrug*
so well that is a bit easy and annoys me because this stereotypes stems from this women HAVE to be asexuall to not be harrasesed and callled a slut..
as i said-1000 years of discrimination (there is no male equivalent for slut and bitch and there is only Mr- bur women have ms. mrs and misses-depending on their MATING-status, so it seemed to be SOOOO important for the “society” to know whether any women is available for the men to get..*nbwergh*