UKIP: "Gays have 20,000 sex partners in their 'short, miserable lives' before AIDS"

[RedWorker]

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2014/11/uk-politician-gays-have-20000-sex-partners-in-their-short-miserable-lives/

[RedKobra]

Monkton is also a lunatic climate change denier. The man is an utter creep.

[Red Son]

Yep, the Ukippers are utter bastards. I really hope they don't get too big a surge of support and additional MPs in May - not just because I hate the idea of any of them being somehow 'legitimised' as MPs but also because I hate Farage's smug little fuckwit face that beams like a grinning aubergine after every little 'victory'.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"AIDS, then, is at root a 'gay' disease" < well that's just factually incorrect right there

[Comrade #138672]

Good old fascists always know how to find a convenient scapegoat.

[Zanthorus]

Not that I'm particularly fond of UKIP, but the thread title is misleading. Lord Monckton isn't a current member of UKIP and doesn't speak for them. In fact, it only took me a couple of seconds on Google to find that Farage has already repudiated this article as "deeply offensive and fundamentally wrong." (Source (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-saw-the-immigration-lies-a-mile-off--and-now-nobody-can-deny-it-9888641.html))


Good old fascists

UKIP aren't fascists. Their politics are fundamentally liberal.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

There have been a lot of these "UKIP politician says disgusting thing" articles lately. Now, I don't have anything against pointing out how disagreeable ukippers, or other creatures of the far right are, and lord Monckton is a pretty disagreeable fellow from his rubbish views to his creepy dead-eyed stare, but what always worries me is the implication of these articles that it's only the UKIP or only the BNP that's the problem, as if the Tories and yes, Labour, are just fine and peachy when it comes to what is laughably called gay rights (or womens' rights, or immigration, or anything really). What's the difference between Monckton and Warsi? What's the difference between Monckton and Cameron? Actually there is a difference: Cameron, who voted for all of Thatcher's hysterically anti-gay laws, now presides over the British state, which still makes life difficult for homosexuals, despite some token measures. Lord Monckton or Farage will never have the opportunity to do so; for the British bourgeoisie they can only play the role of clowns, something the Tories and Labour can constantly point at and go "well at least we're not this". So to the average gay person in Britain, I imagine, David Cameron is a far greater problem than lord Monckton.

[RedBlackStar]

The only Political Party worth paying any attention to over here in the UK are the Greens, and I suspect they'd lose a lot of reformist edge if they had a chance of actually winning.

[Tim Cornelis]

The Greens? Assuming by "paying attention" you meant something sympathetic, could you explain what draws you to this centre-left party and how you think that's compatible with your anarchism? I have to make the cynical observation that you are an anarcho-liberal.

[Comrade #138672]

Not that I'm particularly fond of UKIP, but the thread title is misleading. Lord Monckton isn't a current member of UKIP and doesn't speak for them. In fact, it only took me a couple of seconds on Google to find that Farage has already repudiated this article as "deeply offensive and fundamentally wrong." (Source (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-saw-the-immigration-lies-a-mile-off--and-now-nobody-can-deny-it-9888641.html))



UKIP aren't fascists. Their politics are fundamentally liberal.Either way you should be concerned.

[The Disillusionist]

20,000 partners? Seriously, they couldn't even be bothered to make up a somewhat realistic sounding number? I'd be surprised if most prostitutes sleep with that many people in their lifetimes...

20,000 divided by 60 years is 333.33 partners a year, or almost a new partner every day.

20,000 divided by a less generous 40 years is 500 partners a year, or 1.37 partners per day.

[The Feral Underclass]

Act-Up dumped lots of shit outside the UKIP HQ in celebration of World Aids Day, today.

https://actuplondon.wordpress.com/

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

20,000 partners? Seriously, they couldn't even be bothered to make up a somewhat realistic sounding number? I'd be surprised if most prostitutes sleep with that many people in their lifetimes...

20,000 divided by 60 years is 333.33 partners a year, or almost a new partner every day.

20,000 divided by a less generous 40 years is 500 partners a year, or 1.37 partners per day.

It's sort of symptomatic of class society and its associated hangups that the response to this, by most people, isn't "gee, that sounds like fun" but "that's sick and wrong".

[Rafiq]

UKIP aren't fascists. Their politics are fundamentally liberal.

They are certainly not Fascists, but they are undoubtedly degenerate (mutated) liberals.

[Comrade #138672]

20,000 partners? Seriously, they couldn't even be bothered to make up a somewhat realistic sounding number? I'd be surprised if most prostitutes sleep with that many people in their lifetimes...

20,000 divided by 60 years is 333.33 partners a year, or almost a new partner every day.

20,000 divided by a less generous 40 years is 500 partners a year, or 1.37 partners per day.That does not sound completely impossible, though.

[Comrade #138672]

They are certainly not Fascists, but they are undoubtedly degenerate (mutated) liberals.Could it not be argued that fascism itself is a degenerated form of liberalism? Since fascism is "capitalism in decay", anyway.

[The Feral Underclass]

That does not sound completely impossible, though.

Well it does, actually. You'd have to be constantly finding 1 to 2 new people to have sex with, day in and day out. Even if you were good looking enough to do that, why would you? And how could you, since gay people don't just live in a metropolis.

[The Disillusionist]

It's sort of symptomatic of class society and its associated hangups that the response to this, by most people, isn't "gee, that sounds like fun" but "that's sick and wrong".

I wasn't making any moral judgements, just saying that for the vast majority of people, 20,000 partners in a lifetime would be virtually impossible, for practical reasons.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I wasn't making any moral judgements, just saying that for the vast majority of people, 20,000 partners in a lifetime would be virtually impossible, for practical reasons.

I know; I was talking about "the general public" rather than you specifically.

[RedBlackStar]

The Greens? Assuming by "paying attention" you meant something sympathetic, could you explain what draws you to this centre-left party and how you think that's compatible with your anarchism? I have to make the cynical observation that you are an anarcho-liberal.

No such thing comrade. I simply believe that revolution isn't yet possible and until such a time as it is then I should be focused on a) expanding my own education, so to help educate others and b) ensuring that people have the best conditions possible (essentially fighting for reform) under a corrupt and broken Capitalist system, so to allow people to develop intellectually to the fullest capacity, which will allow them firstly to abandon their prejudices and secondly to see the real cause of most of our problems (hierarchy in the from of the state, Capitalism, religion etc).

The Greens are the only credible party I see as even remotely caring about the popular classes enough to provide genuine reform.

It's much a case of swallowing the pill and I see no problem with it so long as I limit my support of a political party purely to voting for it.

[BIXX]

That does not sound completely impossible, though.
Challenge accepted

[Rafiq]

Could it not be argued that fascism itself is a degenerated form of liberalism? Since fascism is "capitalism in decay", anyway.

Indeed, but Liberalism, as well as capitalism, has changed drastically over the past several decades since the rise of Fascism. Symptomatically, I think that Fascism is well and alive, it's just "our" Fascism, or a Fascism derived from completely different circumstances - making it completely different.

Still, it isn't particularly useful to call UKIP Fascist. It is generally misleading - trying to fit it within the paradigm of the old anti-fascist struggle. I might dare to say that this is a new monster entirely, perhaps one that is even worse: We talk about parties and make comparisons to 20th century Fascism, however it is possible that, throughout the 21st century, we will attempt to mold and find hints of Putinism in 20th century Fascism, rather than the other way around.

[bricolage]

Fascism isn't liberalism, in fact it's pretty much theoretically defined by its opposition to liberalism.

In any case UKIP aren't fascist but British fascism will always have an aesthetic "anti-fascist" part to it anyway because of the legacy of WW2 in nationalist ideas.

[Rafiq]

Fascism isn't liberalism, in fact it's pretty much theoretically defined by its opposition to liberalism.

Marxists don't concern themselves with how fascists "theoretically define" themselves". Fascism is a mutation of Liberalism which must necessarily pre-suppose it's foundations to lead to its hostility toward it.

[RedBlackStar]

Fascism isn't liberalism, in fact it's pretty much theoretically defined by its opposition to liberalism.

This was my thought.

Liberalism is centered, much like Anarchism and other brands of Libertarian Socialism, on the importance of Individuality and Freedom (these are the 'twin pillars' of liberty. What differentiates Liberals from mentioned socialists and anarchists is the conclusions which these 'pillars' bring us to). Whereas Fascism rejects personal liberty and argues that the individual is an unimportant body compared to the group (normally either the State or a race, depending on whether you're a Fascist or Nazi) and that all individuality divides the 'lower' sections of humans unnecessarily, meaning that it should be totally stripped away.

Liberals also justify their belief that humans should be free (so long as this freedom is underneath the law and a "democratic" state... do you see where we're getting away from socialism?) in the fact that humans are rational and capable of using logic to make their own decisions, and this logic should be embraced and we should all intellectually develop. Fascists on the other hand are known to be anti-rationalists. This means that they believe it is not intelligence or logic that is important, rather force of will and emotion behind the idea.

It's a distasteful and incoherent jumble of ideologies to say the least (and that's coming from a socialist). It takes ideas from many broad ideologies, jumbles them together and distorts them into something hideous. Which is why you see Fascists advocating a sort of 'state collectivisation', which you'd normally associate with 'Social Democrats' or 'Democratic Socialists' (which are misleading and contested terms for essentially moderate socialists).

[Fede]

"20.000 sex partners" don't sound like a very miserable life.

[Ocean Seal]

Just throwing it out there, but 20000 sex partners doesn't sound so miserable :laugh:

[Slavic]

20,000 sexual partners is approximately:

1 different partner per day for 55 years.

or

About 27 years of daily threesomes.


The chaffing is real

[FrogStupid]

That does not sound completely impossible, though.

It sounds awesome is what it sounds.

Sign me up!

[Comrade Jacob]

I wish I could have 20,000 same sex partners :crying:

[Devrim]

If you began you sex life at 18, and had a different sexual partner a day for your entire life, you die at the very young age of 72, having had, I'd presume, a not so miserable life.

Devrim

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I imagine by 72 you'd probably be pretty well worn out after all that

[BIXX]

>one sex partner per day
>not being a pleb

Pick one

Honestly get up to 3-4 a day and yeah your life might be strangely short but still not bad. You'd probably have a heart attack.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

maybe try as many as possible at once for a few years while you have the energy and pacing yourself to 2-3 a week after that

[Antiochus]

Graduate from school. Check.
Get 20,000 sex partners... half way there.

[Invader Zim]

Surely you would lose count after the first few hundred let alone thousand.

[Antiochus]

There are some pretty weird sex records out there. A woman that had sex with 620 men in 1 day (24 hours). A basketball player that claimed he slept with a total of 10,000+ women etc... so not that far fetched. Plus, they can just extrapolate results.

[Quail]

This thread keeps coming back... One thing I've considered is sleeping with 20,000 women would probably make my life very awkward, in that they'd all be friends, or friends of friends, or friends with each other. Although if they were also sleeping with 20,000 other women then I guess it would all just be one big, constant lesbian orgy.

[Luís Henrique]

Obviously if you have 20,000 sexual partners, then it is no longer sex, it is work.

... apparently, with no right to weekends or vacations.

Anyway, whether miserable or not, it certainly can't be a short life at all.

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Jacob]

Still waiting on my 20,000 sexual partners...