Reader comments · Art critic Brian Sewell complains ‘there’s too many gays on television’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Art critic Brian Sewell complains ‘there’s too many gays on television’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Brian Sewell is a sad case.

    1. This is a real shock. I thought he was dead!

      1. This is a real shock I thought he was gay!

        1. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 8:33am

          A top scientist said that the person living to 150 years old was already born, I thought Brian Sewell was it.

          1. She’s a ridiculous but mildly entertaining old self-hating drama queen.
            Though it’s a bit much coming from Sewell after having claimed to have been picked up on the beach at Cadaques by Salvador Dali when Sewell was a youth and subsequently convinced to masturbate for Dali while he pretended to photograph Sewell watching through a camera without any film.

        2. My previous comment doesn’t read very clearly but Sewell claims that he masturbated for Dali while while Dali watched him through a camera.

      2. How could they tell?

    2. burningworm 9 Jul 2011, 6:31am

      Brian reminds me of the character Mason Verger in Hannibal.

      Side by side they are identical and whenever i hear him speak all i see is Gary Oldmans phenomenal portrayal of christian homosexual/homophobe.

      Seriously funny. Check it out.

    3. Brian Sewell, the world’s poshest man.

    4. In 1994, 35 art world signatories wrote a letter to the Evening Standard attacking Sewell for “homophobia”, “misogyny”, “demagogy”, “hypocrisy”, “artistic prejudice”, “formulaic insults and predictable scurrility”. Signatories included Karsten Schubert, Maureen Paley, Michael Craig-Martin, Angela and Matthew Flowers, Professor Christopher Frayling, Rene Gimpel, Susan Hiller, John Hoyland, Sarah Kent, Nicholas Logsdail, George Melly, Sandy Nairne, Sir Eduardo Paolozzi, Bridget Riley, Michelle Roberts, Richard Shone, Marina Warner, Natalie Wheen, and Rachel Whiteread.

  2. I think “oh dear…” sums it up. this jsut really isnt worth the effort or outrage. I feel sorry for this self loathing person :(

    and does he has evidently never been to manchester :P

  3. It sounds like he dislikes himself quite thoroughly. Luckily, the sort of anti-gay propaganda /he/ was obviously indoctrinated with as a child will not repress or harm a child growing up in these times, where we can finally acknowledge the spectrum of human sexuality.

  4. Does anyone take dubious art critics seriously?we all know how corrupt the art world can be. guess its much easier be a critic than have any talent. This fools article remind me of the other ancient self loather david starkey.

  5. I am sure it is deeply frustrating to him that we don’t all share his self-loathing and self flagellating pious BS. How many thousands upon thousands of hours of Coronation Street have been screened, and how many have been about GLBTQ people? I suspect that the percentage is a decimal, not even a whole 1%. Standard Daily Heil ‘phobic hating, nothing more.

  6. Ian Bower 6 Jul 2011, 2:26pm

    Quote: ‘make “sane” viewers feel their noses are being “rubbed in it”.’
    And I, as a gay man, don’t get my nose rubbed in heterosexist imagery every day?

    1. Which, I might add, frequently results in unwanted pregnancy, and gross overpopulation.

      Sewell’s real problem is that he’s been rejected too many times.

  7. And thankfully none of them look or speak like him.

  8. jessica grant 6 Jul 2011, 2:30pm

    okay…? i hope someone takes pity on the poor man and takes him on a gay tour of england. that might wake him up a bit to how things are…

    i second that “Oh Dear…” truly does sum this up well…

  9. Jock S. Trap 6 Jul 2011, 2:32pm

    “The 79-year-old critic”

    And there we have it. Not saying 79 year olds shouldn’t have an opinion but am saying that I am not surprised that at 79 this is his opinion, as dated as it is.

    Even less surprised that it helps give something to read to the Daily Mail readers.

    1. Hold old would Quentin Crisp be today?

      (I could google it, but I wanted to bring that name in.)

      1. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 8:39am


        Quentin Crisp was just the same, he had very little good to say about the Gay community itself.

        1. Hi Jock, thanks for the reminder about Quentin Crisp.
          I guess what Sewell and Crisp have in common is a strong niche, or media brand so to speak.
          Perhaps Sewell is has not been getting enough media attention recently – lol – Hence the tantrum

          1. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 11:53am

            Ah, yes JohnK, I think your last comment hit the nail on the head perfectly!

        2. Why? Because I believed that by adding Crisp’s name, I’d add a figure from the past to whom Sewell might be compared, and thus make the point you proceeded to “explain” to me. It was subtle, but not invisible.

        3. Spanner1960 8 Jul 2011, 9:22am

          That’s because there is no community.
          An as for Quentin himself, he had the right idea, and if he were alive today, he would be 103, and probably still pottering about slagging off everyone else.

  10. Two words: Bell. End.

  11. “Rubbing their noses in it”?! FFS,take a visit to the 21st century,Mr Sewell,will you! Would this old duffer prefer we went back to the days of homosexuality only being referred to in a slightly ‘nudge-nudge,wink-wink’ kind of way,as t’were?! Ooh er Matron! And whether or not we make up only 6% of the population is a moot point really.We still have every right to be represented,as much right as our dear hetty friends.And,as in any situation on tv,there’s always the on/off button!

  12. Sewell, who has a reputation for controversy, said in 2007 that his interest in men is a “disability” and an “affliction”.
    This dude needs some therapy to help him deal with his own serious lack of self esteem. He’s pathetic.
    As I transsexual, I can’t remember the last time I saw a Trans person positively portrayed or even portrayed at all on a TV Soap Opera.
    This man obviously hates who he is so even one image of a gay person would seem too much for him….lol.

    1. Jock S. Trap 6 Jul 2011, 2:56pm

      No surprise then what the Daily Mail were attracted to then.

  13. I’m so sick of being angry because of ignorant wankers like him

  14. de Villiers 6 Jul 2011, 3:02pm

    Sewell’s articles are more complex than at first they appear and, regardless, I doubt he has much interest in anything that anyone here may write.
    Insofar as what he says is part of a larger issue of the sexualisation of society and its unhappy effect on making children feel inadequate and pressured, the whole of what he wrote should be considered as contributing to that discussion.
    Additionally, however, from reading the whole of the article, much appears to be a personal lament that matters of sexuality are now shown in a trivial, tacky and cheapened way – almost as if he is saddened that somehow the greatness of homosexuality has ebbed away by becoming popular (in the sense of the word vulgar).

    1. Maybe it would be an idea to read the whole article, but I draw the line at bothering with the Daily Mail.

    2. Gosh I didn’t realise the Daily Mail was so deep and meaningful…

  15. Brian Sewell has demonstrated offensiveness and lack of credibility previously. He continues to and to be fair appears to be an obsessive, self loathing, attention and publicity seeking whore.

    1. Jock S. Trap 6 Jul 2011, 3:10pm

      Just right for the Daily Mail then, you could say!!

  16. HelenWilson 6 Jul 2011, 3:04pm

    We don’t have any trans people on TV currently, we have three actors who play interpretations of who the media say trans people are.

  17. Taking money from the Daily Wail for writing such junk is basest form of employment I can think of. No wonder his initials are BS.

    Met him at a dinner party once. Vile self-loathing individual.

  18. Actually I have seen several comments about this on Twitter… I think people just expect the Daily Mail to publish this sort of nonsense.

    Still, what an idiot. Of course LGBT and heterosexual lives are intertwined – the LGBT community isn’t a ghetto any more, thank goodness. And there’s hardly any gay characters on TV, so that’s nonsense too.

  19. The guy obviously needs some kind of therapy.
    Sewell obviously views the last 54 years of LGBT equality progress as a step too far. Someone pass him a hair shirt and stick him back in his 1950’s closet where he feels at home.

  20. Pity there wasn’t one less douche bag art critic.

  21. Alf N. Spewell 6 Jul 2011, 3:18pm

    My Dear Brian,

    What a fascinating revelation that one is watching television these days, and not just television, but Coronation Street and Eastenders. Have one’s arms so atrophied that one cannot any longer reach the off switch, or has the remote control device fallen down the back of the cushion again?

    One supposes it is just punishment for calling for the abolition of the North that one is forced to watch depressing dramas about the sad lives of lower class oiks who talk, between sighs, with vowel sounds one did not know could exist.

    It was such a shame when the BBC allowed regional accents onto the wireless and television, and now one has every conceivable minority rubbed in ones face as well, what is the world coming to? Of course one cannot get away with complaining about other minorities in dramas these days of political correctness, but at least one can still vent one’s spleen about the dreadful LGBTs in the Daily Mail, got bless her.

    1. ROFL

      My dear, you demonstrate absolute emulation of the old git

      1. Absolutely!!!

    2. Rudehamster...~O'> 7 Jul 2011, 4:56pm

      roflmao, as the venacular tweet goes.

  22. Sewell in the Daily Mail: …homosexuals have always favoured other homosexuals. It’s how minorities – who are often, but not always, persecuted – gain strength and influence.

    One particularly insidious way some ‘homosexuals’ gain strength and influence is to subscribe to homophobic prejudice in order to please their colleagues/bosses and heterosexists in society generally. Happens all the time in media/showbiz circles.

    1. Staircase2 9 Jul 2011, 4:47pm

      ….Bless him….

  23. I always suspected he was a pompous old fart with a vastly inflated idea of his own importance. Now I am convinced.

    Any gay man who usues the Daily Mail for anything other than lighting a fire or lining the Budgie’s cage is truly foolish.

  24. As an American who often reads the comments on news stories here, I find it absolutely hilarious to know that the U.K. has such loud-mouth, homophobic closet-cases, especially since so many of you are always griping and complaining that AMERICA is the only place that sort of thing ever happens.

    1. @ John: but you must note that religion plays no part in Sewell’s statements, just an overdeveloped sense of self – he’s just an art critic and sometime TV presenter, mainly notable for his deliberate fogeyishness and truly absurd voice (once memorably described as Bournemouth boarding-house landlady c.1938).
      And if he is (or ever has been) in a closet, it’s one with glass doors.

      1. ROFLOL! I have never heard that quote about his voice. Pure brilliance!

        1. Heh – yes, I couldn’t have put it better myself.

          1. Well you helped. If I’d never seen or heard Brian Sewell, your use of the expression “deliberate fogeyishness and truly absurd voice” would certainly have conjured up an accurate image! I’m still laughing at your post!

  25. he’s a pleb!

  26. Sewell has always struck me as a sad little man with an over-inflated sense of his own importance and infuluence. His vowels are as strangulated as his bowels- and i am SO surprised that he’s Bi.
    Pity the poor dear who’se filling in the hetro side of his affected repressed side.

  27. Sewill is a constipated, old queen of the worst type who must make most art lovers and gay people cringe with embarrassment. She is becoming a caricature of herself.

  28. threesheets66 6 Jul 2011, 3:37pm

    Brian get a life.You should be more concerned about the amount of murders in Midsomer than what people think about the sexual orientation of characters on t.v.Hello it’s fiction not real life but what about all those hetrosexuals on t.v i think you may have a point……….not

  29. The lack of outrage is probably due to the fact that anyone who knows of Brian Sewell, knows to ignore anything that comes out of his mouth on any subject, as it’s pretty much all drivel. The man lives on a planet even Daily Mail readers wouldn’t recognise.

    One of the comments above said Sewell’s article was actually more complex than it first appeared – but it’s not, it’s an ill-thought out appeal for more discrimination. When I read it, it didn’t even make me angry simply because it’s such a ridiculous straw-house argument he makes.

  30. Alex McKenna 6 Jul 2011, 3:51pm

    I don’t see why any of us should be upset by the rantings of this camp, tediously arch, pretentious old nancy. She goes on about percentages, but I think a little speedy arithmetic would confirm that far less than 6% of characters on telly are portrayed as gay.

    1. LMAO! Post of the month, if not of the year!

  31. My answer to these arguments is that unless they are claiming that telling children that mummy and daddy are together also means exposing them to sexual propaganda, they should just keep quiet.

    The ridiculous thing is these people think: “John and Jane” is a couple but “John and Tom” is a sexual relationship when obviously children don’t have sex on their mind like these people and are perfectly capable of seeing the two things for what they are: the same thing.

    1. Plus, if he accepts that 6% of people are gay, that’s like 1 in 17 people. Surely in a soap there are more than 17 characters so if one of them is gay, it’s just good maths.

  32. “Art critic complains about gays” – what?

    “Writing in the Daily Mail” – Oh, it’s all clear now.

  33. As dear old Frankie Howerd would say:
    “Silly old fool”

    1. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 10:37am

      Not “Oo-er Missus” or “titter ye not” then?
      “Oh, well, please yourself”

  34. What an outdated old fart

  35. Just ONE question – does anyone care what Brian Sewell thinks?

    Remember the old saying: “Those who can, do; and those who can’t, become critics!”

  36. Silly old frigid cu nt cant get any without paying

  37. Silly old sod. Nothing worse than a self hateing old queen who has missed the boat. I am nearly as old as him and if (God forbid) I ever got like him I would hope someone would put me down.

  38. Last time I had the misfortune of seeing Sewell on telly he was weeping softly to himself over a sculpture by Michelangelo and yet he has the audacity to complain there are too may gays on tv. He also did a stint as a young man having a w@nk at the behest of Salvador Dali. Says it all really- only a nut like Dali would find anything interesting in a crank like Sewell.

  39. Poor old dear. He’s 79 – and a product of his generation’s detestation and loathing of “the gays.”

  40. TheLizzie12 6 Jul 2011, 5:37pm

    Brian Sewell bisexual? Yeah, yeah, and so is Christopher Biggins! Who is Mr Sewell trying to kid? Crabby old git.

    1. The grandees and donors of the Courtauld probably like their critics closeted. I pity him really, he’s probably never experienced the fun of a c0ck inside him and unless he starts paying (at this stage of his life and with that attitude) he probably never will.

  41. Well, by now, Mr Sewell, I feel you should have some idea of what we – the “6%” – feel about you and your feckless and hurtful article.
    Like yourlittle tummy, dear; certain things have to be held in.
    Now be a good little boy, hold baqck on your ridiculous opinions and shut your viperous little mouth.
    Get the picture?

  42. Mumbo Jumbo 6 Jul 2011, 6:11pm

    Another self-loather identifying with his oppressors. Sad.

  43. A sad, bitter, dissillusioned old man who has lost the joy of everything. To be ignored.

  44. Design For Life 6 Jul 2011, 7:08pm

    And all this before Torchwood made the front of this week’s Radio Times!

  45. Does Mr Brian Sewell that the LGBT community are a small underpresented community of the 62million people in the UK, could some provide and Equility and Diveristy course so that he may be more incompentant with e UK population and society.

  46. Samuel B. 6 Jul 2011, 8:38pm

    I think what Mr. Sewell was actually saying, with particular regard to Coronation Street, is that there is an over-saturation of gays/transgenders/transexuals/etc on the show, not the fact that there are any at all (after all, he is a self-declared bisexual, isn’t he?) So let’s see, there is factory worker Sean and his boyfriend; Sophie Webster and her girlfriend; transexual Hayley; a middle-aged transsexual (sorry, I really do not follow closely enough to know the names); Gail’s father, who is gay; likewise Todd Grimshaw (about to make a return)… Now, in any typical street that could be said to be a disproportional number of queer folk, but Coronation Street only has about 20 houses, so I begin to see that Mr. Sewell is making a valid point. So why the venom and vitriol? On closer examination, the new producer is Phil Collinson, formerly of Dr Who, which followed a similar “gay agenda” to suit his own preferences, yet he is supposed to be serving a mainstream audience. Fact.

    1. Paddyswurds 6 Jul 2011, 9:19pm

      …..Fact? Really….Now let Me see…..factory worker Sean and his boyfriend who lives in london, I , Sophie Webster and her girlfriend who lives in Stockportand only visits Sophie , 2. Trans Hayley, 3. “middle aged transexual” is actually a middle aged cross dresser who also lives elsewhere, not on the Street, Gails Father who is gay but also lives in London and only visits periodically and Todd Grimshaw who also lives in London but visits his Ma and bro from time to time. So we have two gay people and 1 tranny who actually live on the street. Fact. All the rest are visitors to the street and to their Gay friends or family. Fact. No different than any other Street or villiage anywhere in \Britain or Ireland. I live in a small villiage in Ireland and we have more gays living here than the highly populated city of Salford it would seem.
      Your little rant puts you in the same leaque as Sharky and Sewell …. old dejected and ….well …irellevant.

      1. Paddyswurds 6 Jul 2011, 9:30pm

        ……cont………so what you seem to be saying is that gay people shouldn’t be portrayed as having friends or family, That there is no possibility of Characters who don’t live on the Street having friends, who may be straight but may also bhe a crossdresser, that that someone who lives on the street may have a gay father or son or brother who may live elsewhere. . These are scenarios which are played out today all over Britain and indeed Ireland and pretty much every western country on the Globe. Best you go back to your knitting and slippers dear and let the reall world get on with living.
        PS…. i really did think the old fossil with the ridiculous voice, Sewell was dead long ago. I vote for euthanasia asap.

    2. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 8:41am

      That “Gay Agenda” again.

      I keep looking with the other magazine but cannot find it.

      Maybe it’s a ‘specialist’ magazine.

      1. With regards to the “Gay Agenda”
        Could some one let us all know exactly what this is ?

        1. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 11:56am

          I’m sure pepa would be delighted but I think he may be under a rather large sand storm with no electric.. mmm maybe there is a God after all!

    3. Samuel B. 7 Jul 2011, 8:23pm

      Silly me, I overlooked Ken Barlow’s grandson who manages the homeless shelter. Gay agenda? Never!!

      1. “Gay agenda? Never!!”

        Its okay, no need to apologise for your mistake. Some people are just paranoid fools, and we can respect their need for mental health treatment.

  47. Bisexual? In his dreams. He is the epitome of a row of tents.

    1. I’m more than happy for him not to be identified as gay, I’d very much rather not have him on my side of the fence, thanks all the same!

      1. TheLizzie12 8 Jul 2011, 3:17pm

        But Rehan, if all of us on “our side of the fence” were the same, what sort of world would we be living in?

        1. But Lizzie, I’m not saying I want everyone on ‘our side of the fence’ to be the same, I’m just saying I’d rather not have overcomplicated fvcked-up psychological tragedies like Hom Essex Sewell included when – clearly – he doesn’t, himself, want to be.

  48. This guy is a disgrace and a total waste of space. He speaks about lgbt people like a blight on the nation.

    No wonder he works for the daily fail.

  49. Bisexual?!?! Surely, no woman could be that desperate. Or man for that matter.

  50. Mr. Sewell is making a valid point and I agree, there are far too many gay characters and people on tv.

    Anthony ‘Camp’ Cotton.
    John Barrowman
    John Partridge ( who suddenly now presents the lotto)

    They need culling.

    1. Paddyswurds 6 Jul 2011, 10:49pm

      …….did you ever stop to wonder why there are so many Gay peeps on telly?
      Because the breeders are so mind numbingly dull and boring, that’s why. There isn’t one, with the possible exception of Daragh O’Briain worth wasting electricity on. If you suffer from insomnia watch a straight person on tv for an instant cure.
      If there weren’t so many GLBs involved in the whole entertainment industry it would fold overnight. I do agree however, we could do without the awful John Partridge.

      1. Who’s John Partridge???

    2. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 8:43am

      As do people with your attitude Matt.

      Lets face it you get nowhere with it.

    3. “They need culling.”
      Why do you use a term that refers to the slaughter of animals, and then apply it to LGBT people.
      Matt, are you well?

  51. Wow, I didn’t know that people were forced to watch this… If people don’t like it, here’s a solution; turn the TV to something else or turn it off!

  52. Rich (original) 7 Jul 2011, 12:38am

    Kiss to kiss is different…. I can kiss man, but only when I really loves him…. The fact is that I don’t love any man but only one woman, sweet, fine, tender, young and beautiful!…. Ah, love is wonderful!… But only between man and woman, boy and girl!… Lets kids love one another in normal way, and be happy and unobstructed from public and government!

    1. Still beating off in the jungles of Nigeria?

    2. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 8:45am

      Trouble is Rich when people kiss you they can’t tell if they’re kissing your face or your arse as you seem to speak out of both!

    3. More 1950s time warp from Rich (orginal)
      Nothing new there then
      or orginial

    4. “I can kiss man, but only when I really loves him…”

      Why am I not surprised. I’d say you do that all too frequently in parks at 4am.

  53. What a ridiculous thing to say. There’s about one gay or gay couple on every soap. I would hardly call that too many! I would say that was a fairly accurate proportion. If anything they’re missing out the other subgroups of the LGBT community.The soaps should be diverse, it would be more real that way!

  54. The Daily Mail’s new tactic to get away with homophobia is to get a gay person make homophobic comments.

  55. Staircase2 7 Jul 2011, 1:16am

    What an arse!
    (and that wasn’t a compliment! lol)

  56. No Brian, there are too many art critics in the papers rubbing the noses of those not interested in it, in “it”, whatever “it” is. I’m concerned that you’ll spread “art propaganda” to my children.

  57. It’s very sad how Mr. Sewell’s internalized homophobia has led him to see himself as afflicted. He is, actually, a good case study of how heterosexism can have huge, long-lasting negative effects on its targets. Ironically, the presence of sexual minorities in the media, which he is opposing, is one of the things that will help reduce these attitudes in the future.

    1. Ian Townson 9 Jul 2011, 11:36am

      Brian Sewell once desribed himself as a lapsed Catholic. Perhaps he has returned to the fold of the more repressed, traditional kind of Catholicism with attendant guilt and shame. Modernity, progress and the 21st century do not sit well with him.

  58. radical53 7 Jul 2011, 5:42am

    I must agree here. As a gay man, you do get sick of having ourselves portrayed daily on different television shows. TV is inundated with gay stereotypes. Does nothing for any of us. Our noses are definitely being rubbed in it.

    The backlash has already begun against us. Time for some breathing space. Not all of us want to be portrayed or so open about our sexuality.

    1. Fair point and I also get tired of straight friends ‘outing’ me in group conversations.
      If I want to tell someone about my sexuality (and that would be rare) then I’ll do it myself thank you very much.
      Neither am I a fan of having any kind of sexuality rammed down my throat – Yes ok! But you know what I mean…!!!

  59. If people don’t like what they are seeing there is any easy answer.
    Switch it off! None of us have a right not to be offended.

    1. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 8:46am

      Here! Here! Paul, couldn’t agree more.

  60. de Villiers 7 Jul 2011, 8:44am

    Most people here have responded with real viciousness and hypocritical self-righteous indignation. The meaning of the original article, in full, has been missed in the rush to criticise and to parade superiority over an ageing art critic.

    1. what meaning? when terms like propaganda is used what meaning is there? same-sex couples are a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of hetero ones shown, this guy sounds like exactly the type of guy the mail would love, a self-hating out-of-touch idiot who would sell out his own community to be noticed

    2. @de Villiers,

      Even if I agreed with you the fact that this appeared in the Daily Mail means that any subtle meaning is pointless. The readership of the Daily Mail is not looking for meaning – they are looking for something to beat the gay community with and Brian Sewell has provided them with it, They can twist anything, no-matter how factual, into a negative on us.

      Sewell is either a self hating egotist or a dangerously naive incompetent – either way he has been used and the Daily Mail wins.

    3. You bet……Sewell’s an ass.

  61. Mr Sewell is quite right. There are far too many gay people on television, shown doing their jobs, in relationships, having friends, and possibly raising children. Whoever heard of such a thing! These unrealistic characters should be banned forthwith. Children need to be protected from their unnatural sexual fetish for conversing with their neighbours and drinking the occasional cup of tea.

    What we need more of in the media is pompous elderly art critics who think that Britain would be greatly improved if the soap-opera watching masses led meek lives of indentured servitude to enable beautiful young posh boys to spend a lot of time admiring the art in Venice and having a lot of intense feelings about each other, I mean about art. What a terrible shame it is that we don’t have any people like that represented in our media.


    1. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 10:33am

      Thats right. We can’t have people being themselves but burying bodies under concrete, battering to death, drugging to death, taking hostages…. – Well so long as it’s entertainment.

  62. I actually do think there are too many LGBTQetc on Corrie at the moment. So much so that it’s turning into a panto.

    1. You watch Coronation St and think its turning panto? Whatever. Is there any soap opera that isn’t populated with caricatures and stereotypes?

      1. Exactly, they are soap operas..
        Now I must nip over the Vic and pay with the exact money.

    2. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 10:34am

      And yet clearly your still Choosing to watch it so can’t be all that bad.

  63. I wonder if he’s seen Brian Badonde on Phonejacker!?!?

    1. eg

      www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=TesXkhPhG_o

  64. Self loathing old faggot – well when he’s dead that will be one less closeted old fart on TV – bisexual my arse – Why do self hating gays always claim to be bisexual anyway?

    1. Is it not possible for self-hating people to be bisexual, in your opinion?

  65. he is such an idiot referring to mafia etc

  66. he is such an idiot referring to mafia etc

  67. bisexual……………….thanks for the laugh
    Its a dawb!!!!

  68. Some of the most gay-friendly people I have ever met, have been straight as an arrow. They are completely secure with themselves, and do not fear or feel nervous around gay people. I’ve actually known more anti-gay people who are themselves gay or bi, but mostly in the closet, and seem to adhere to repressive anti-gay dogma more strictly than everyone else. So it makes me think that most of the most active homophobes are in the closet or in denial, and fear for their own reputation and status in a highly judgmental culture.

    If all the stigmas went away and gay/bi/straight was completely neutralized in social value, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were even more out gay people, and if perhaps most of society were admittedly bi in orientation, with only-gay and only-straight people each being relative minorities.

    1. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 1:07pm

      Excellent comment.
      That is how I tend to think about the numbers and most people would be surprised, pleasantly or not, at how many genuinely make up this community and what is in fact quite ‘normal’…

    2. Yes, good point Dermot. A lot of the most active homophobes work for the BBC it has to be said.

  69. Hello World 7 Jul 2011, 12:22pm

    He is right, there are far too many gays on soaps at the moment. That everyone expects me to watch this sh1t now they have totally unrealistic gay plots as well as totally boring and inane straight plots is quite a chore. Gays on soaps is not a queer issue, it’s a taste issue.

    1. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 1:08pm

      If you watch them then thats your choice, you watch for a reason however if you don’t again, your choice but if you don’t what is really the issue?

    2. Who ‘expects’ you to watch anything? Most TVs have an ‘off’ button, you know.

      1. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 2:32pm

        I think that concept for some would be a new one.

        1. you made me laugh Jock
          you are right though
          turning off what you don’t like is a new concept it’s hardly taken root in people’s heads
          some gay characters can be quite stupid like brandon from hollyoaks but that whole series is stupid so I don’t watch it

      2. Hello World 7 Jul 2011, 4:33pm

        As it goes I watch very little TV. I hear other people watching soaps though and that’s bad enough: shout shout shout, cry cry cry, yell yell yell — who lives like that in reality?

        If we’re talking about decent, well written drama with a gay protaganist, that I’d be up for: a Dr Who, Life on Mars or Touch of Frost with a central gay character. **** soaps, they’re nothing but poorly written repetative drivel for the masses. Let’s have some serious gay representation in high cost and well written TV media.

        1. Dr Who? You seriously think science fiction about a time-travelling humanoid alien (I’m quoting a description) is an example of ‘decent well-written drama’ and soaps are unrealistic?!

          1. Hello World 7 Jul 2011, 9:00pm

            Dr Who is a shining example of British TV writing as it should be. Are you seriously saying the theme of an SF or Fantasy show can preclude that possibility?

            Dr Who is realistic in and of itselt, as all good storytelling must be. Whenever I happen in on a few minutes of a soap, the characters always seem to be yelling at one another. I don’t find that very realistic.

          2. Granted, it’s hardly realistic. Do you really believe SF/’fantasy’ is realistic? Surely the very names suggest otherwise? If ‘fantasy’ can be realistic ‘in and of itself’ so can soaps – no?

          3. Hello World 8 Jul 2011, 12:21am

            Wow we have gone so far off subject. Soaps are meant to be dramas which reflect reality, which I think they do badly. That’s not to say their own structural integrity is corrupted. Their producers tend to be fastidious about such things as I’m certain many of the regular viewers would spot a blunder quicker than any member of the production team.

            Sci/Fi and fantasty don’t have to reflect reality (though they often do, with or without allegorical means) but they (also) have to maintain an internal reality.

            My surprise was with you questioning that science fiction about time travel and aliens could be “decent well-written drama”. I think Who is, a fair amount of the time.

            F*** gays in soaps. Who really cares anyway. Give us big budget production of well written dramas and long running series with gay /central/ characters. Then I’ll be happy. We deserve it!

          4. Dr Who was a well-written drama until Russell T Davies totally messed ip up when he brought it back
            I can pick many holes with many soaps anyway

  70. JohnD, they claim bisexuality because it can be used as “cover” , so as not to be stigmatised as gay. A lot of bisexual married people often keep their bi side hidden and some cheat on the side throughout their marriages. I once met a bisexual married man who told me he didn’t think that two men kissing was acceptable, but said it was reserved for straight and bi males with women. He was absolutely terrified of being found out by his wife. Not a healthy way to live, living a lie.

  71. Silly little man. A few gays on TV in the late 90s would have made life just a little bit easier for me; the complete lack of them certainly didn’t inspire much confidence.
    And no, Lion-O and He-Man don’t count, though they were veeeery gay

    1. he man gay?!?!?!?!? Oh Im so pleased, , by the power of max factor!

      1. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 3:55pm

        What about Captain Pugwash and his crew?

        1. Hmmm I’m not sure he can compete. He Man and Lion-O were two well built guys wandering about in their underwear weilding enormous, horrifyingly phallic, swords. It doesn’t get much gayer than that. In fact, this Brian chap might be right! Lion-O made me gay. If only the gayness hadn’t been allowed on TV, oh for shame, alas and woe…why did no one think of the children?!

  72. Alf N. Spit 7 Jul 2011, 2:51pm

    Alas my attempt to post a perfectly moderate comment on MailOnline was unsuccessful as always. They are so hypocritical when it comes to press freedom.

    1. Jock S. Trap 7 Jul 2011, 3:07pm

      Indeed, they write crap but censor responses to it.

      Have had many unsuccessful comments via the Daily HateMail.

  73. dave wainwright 7 Jul 2011, 3:11pm

    Brian Sewell who was a nobody and non entity until he rushed to the aid of gay traitor Anthony Blunt and has reveled in his notoriety and criticism of everything ever since , not so much a man as a condescending plum threatening to drop on one from a great height .

  74. There are too many Brian Sewells on television.

  75. He’s not an art critic.

    Important to remember, at any rate, is that soaps are about drama. As long as an issue is somewhat controversial, the writers will exploit it. Their position as a ‘realistic’ portrayal of social issues is on the edge of acceptability. And to be honest, given the liberal-ish leanings of the writers, I think soaps provide a public service of a sort by giving some sympathetic portrayals of people who are of controversial minorities. Sewell, like the entire right wing, are dinosaurs that are failing miserably at appreciating that every person is an emotionally vulnerable individual, not a stereotype.

    1. de Villiers 7 Jul 2011, 11:10pm

      > Sewell, like the entire right wing, are dinosaurs that are failing miserably at appreciating that every person is an emotionally vulnerable individual,
      Speak for yourself.

  76. Don Harrison 7 Jul 2011, 5:50pm

    I call that homophobic

  77. jonnielondon 7 Jul 2011, 7:44pm

    Unfortunately there are too many Brian Sewells.

    1. Samuel B. 7 Jul 2011, 8:25pm

      Not judging by the appalling lack of articulacy on these threads there isn’t!! :-)

  78. Sean Newham 7 Jul 2011, 8:06pm

    He has obviously never been to manchester…

  79. Robin Evans 8 Jul 2011, 4:22am

    Poor Brian,

    he is ashamed of himself and so he should be – the twit!

  80. Spanner1960 8 Jul 2011, 9:27am

    Personally, I’ve always despised critics.
    Those that can, do, those that can’t end up being columnists and acting holier-than-thou and claiming to have some inspired insight into the subject when they are totally incapable of getting even close to the standards of the work they are paid to criticise. I suspect Brian Sewell couldn’t paint a fcuking wall, let alone a canvas.

  81. Ignore the pompous old fool.

  82. Commenting because >
    One. I myself am bisexual. Yes, I am only 13 but who cares? Seriously?
    Two. Kids should find out about gays, lesbians, bis, or transgenders at a young age, therefore there is more chance of them accepting the gay community.


    1. Staircase2 9 Jul 2011, 4:50pm


  83. their would have to be more than 6% of the worlds population as gay/bi/lesbian/trans just that closeted ones dont count..

    to me if the gay couple or guy isnt used as a stereotype that hes feminine or that their sleeping around all the time..then why not??..if certain homophobes dont like it change the channel or get a hobby…

  84. You can always turn your tv off.

    Is there anything more useless than an art critic?

    Someone who can’t, slagging off those who can.

    Keep your opinions to yourself, Brian Sewell. You talk as though you’ve got plums in your mouth.

    Who’s, I wonder ?

  85. Hmmm. I wrote a blog about how ridiculous (and somewhat amusing) all this is…

  86. Ian Townson 10 Jul 2011, 5:07pm

    Brian Sewell once described himself as a lapsed catholic. Perhaps he has returned to the fold of the more repressed, traditional kind of catholicism with attendant guilt and shame. Modernity, progress and the 21st century do not sit well with him.

    1. In the paper, Brian wrote: “Is it true that the lives of heterosexual Mancunians are haplessly intertwined with transvestites, transsexuals, teenage lesbians and a horde of homosexuals across the age range? Is Manchester now the Sodom of the North?”

      Charlie, who plays gay dad Marcus Dent, retorted: “I wouldn’t have thought four characters out of a cast of about 65 regulars was excessive.

      “Sewell seems to suggest there’s something morally reprehensible in being gay, and that there’s some kind of promotion of a gay agenda at work (led by a sinister-sounding ‘mafia’).

      “But in fact you barely see a kiss from the gay characters, just like our heterosexual counterparts. It’s not a ‘sexy’ show.”

  87. “He has also said that “only men are capable of aesthetic greatness” and called for a “plague … to abolish the North”.”

    Nice ! I haven’t seen such androcentric misogyny and xenophobic racism together like that since the times of Aristotle, but at least the Greek philosopher was a product of his time and a obvious genius, while this fella…is not.

  88. Chris Jackson 28 Feb 2012, 4:39pm

    OMG I came here to comment on how irrelevant I think Brian Sewell’s views are on just about everything, but I find myself agreeing with this particular view. I am not anti-gay but I do feel there is an imbalance on TV.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.