humane; and it is the petty–
bourgeoisie,
in
whose image
England is being molded by
the "new conseIVatism," who
are militantly censorious-their
mood of aggressive, gnostic
philistinism being a sharp goad
for queer-hunting. High-minded
queers like to believe such bait–
ing reveals unconscious homo–
sexual tendencies. I think this
improbable; though it does seem
to go with unusual insensitivity
towards the human woes con–
sequent on heterosexual "af–
fairs," and a cheery indifference
to "legitimate" sex deviations
and the practical squalors of
abortion. It is also worth re–
flecting that if homosexuals, as
virile suburbanites suppose, are
all "effeminate," then some–
body must enjoy them. Who?
It would be splendid to
record that in face of these trib–
ulations English queer society
has much dIgnity, but it has
little; and unless dishonorable
exception be made for gay
society in the U.S., English
queerdom must be one of the
most unpleasant groups on the
earth's crust. Possible reasons
for this are the law itself,
creat~
ing a harassed and self-right–
eous clique conforming to the
stereotype willed upon it; the
crudity of English sexuality,
with its puritan greed and boy–
ish concept of the male; not
least, the national joy in cen-
149
sure of what is not known nor
understood, but thought in some
way to be agreeable. Of the
queer world itself one may say
its most odious feature is the
peculiarly anglo-saxon impulse
to deprive homosexuals of their
own kind of maleness, and
create "another" sex; and its
silliest feature the dedicated zeal
with which nonentities devote
themselves simply to being
queer-as
if
this were of intrin–
sic interest to anyone. Queer
private speech is cloyingly re–
volting (see in
Encounter,
Octo–
ber 1958,
A Bit about Slang,
by
Frank Norman, who politely
calls the argot "slightly un–
pleasant"); queer clubs (with
socks salesmen glamorously sip–
ing half pints of pale ale
in
plastic postures) quite triumph–
antly depressing; and queer
parties (roguish, familiar, ex–
hibitionistic and predictable) an
unrelieved disaster. Conversa–
tion, like actors', has one topic;
or if rising above last week's
tittle-tattle, d eve lop s dim
theories about "everyone" in his–
tory having been a queer (or if
he wasn't, jealously yearning to
be so), and blowsy expertise
about who influential today
is
"bent." (Almost everyone again:
"She is!" in tones of trium–
phantly arch complicity.) Re–
cording this with a shudder, one
must go on to say that English
queers are generally brave (they
