Sex in Britain
Auberon Waugh
Some months ago, I was intrigued to read that a large firm of underwear manufacturers in this country was altering its designs to take account of the changing shape of English women: their breasts had grown smaller, their shoulders broader, and their waists thicker. At about the same time I read that there could be no question of a return to the Sixties' mini-skirt because English women's legs were now shorter and heavier than before. At the time I filed this information away as confirming my own observation of the matter; it offered only peripheral support to my main theory, that there is an epidemic of masculinity among young British womanhood, which can be compared, in the extent of its depredations, with the blight of the Dutch elm disease.
My main observation is that, as their bodies become less feminine and less alluring, their minds are invaded by many of the less pleasing characteristics of the criminal male psychopath: senseless aggression, perverse illogicality, power mania, and egomaniac disregard for others. Babies may be aborted, children neglected or deserted, parents consigned to oblivion, all in the pursuit of some fugitive notion of personal fulfilment.
Male reactions are the least reported aspect of the female revolution, apart from the reactions of those few quislings like Alan Brien who are proud to be ridden, saddled and bridled through the women's pages of the Guardian or the Sunday Times, to announce that they have found a new fulfilment in changing nappies, emptying potties, and carrying a handbag. Others gloomily announce that they have been vasectomised, like Parkinson and Larry Adler, but for the most part we are the people of England that have never spoken yet.
Perhaps a study of male underwear may reveal some clues. In this week's murder trial at St Alban's Crown Court, a wife denied murdering her husband, while apparently admitting at one point that she battered him to death after drugging him. She then helped throw his body over a bridge over the Al, Her reasons for this, she said, were that she objected to his wearing women's underwear, and also to the infrequency of sexual intercourse between them. Presumably, the defence is one of diminished responsibility. The husband, a former guardsman of 6'3" was called Fred Chapman. When the wife found him wearing a nightdress, he explained that 'it was just a little way of his.' For all one knows, many guardsmen have these little ways. It was the violence of Mrs Chapman's reaction which first made me suspect that Mr Chapman's choice of underwear marked a new departure. But at that stage I attributed it all to the phenomenon of the changing female, rather than suspecting a masculine response to this new breed of womanhood, although the name Fred Chapman, so evocative of decent English masculinity, struck ti poignant chord. Then, on Thursday, my wife went to Taunton to buy some new underwear for her two sons, both of school age, and both acutely aware of sexual differentiation in all its forms. She reported that the men's departments were selling frilly women's knickers. I supposed that she had made a mistake and went to see myself. It was quite true. In the men's department of Marks and Spencer there are stacks and stacks of women's knickers, described as polyester hipsters, in a bewildering variety of shades; forgetme-not, fuchsia, mushroom, dark blue (possibly for nautical types) and white (no doubt for the darker skin). What puzzled me most was not so much their dainty form as their basic design. Not to put too fine a point on it, they were designed in such a way that no man wishing to relieve himself could safely do so without lowering his trousers first.
Plainly, something very odd is happening to English men. If their reason for wearing these inconvenient objects is to attract the new Englishwomen, they have the pitiful example of Fred Chapman to disabuse them. But I do not think that this is their intention. What sane man wishes to attract Ms Anna Raeburn, or Ms Erin Pizzey? No, it seems to me that the sexes in England are in massive retreat from each other. The only possible reason for this absurd underwear is to repel the opposite sex. Yet the media have ignored this massive development, and so far as I know there is only one organisation in this country catering for it.
This, strangely enough, is organised by another person called Chapman. Gerald Chapman is a 29-year old homosexual who, for several years now, has been running the Young People's Theatre Scheme at the Royal Court theatre. Until recently I ignored it, assuming it to be just another of the left-wing indoctrina tion centres supported by the Arts Council, usually in the East End of London. But in the past few months Chapman, who feels that 'sexual liberation is crucially linked to the class struggle' has been engaged in a campaign to educate London schoolchildren in general — and black schoolchildren. in particular — in the ways of homosexuality. The scheme's earlier courses of lectures generally mixed left-wing politics Ca discussion of racism in schools: in memory of Blair Peach') with sexual instruction: 'the Young Black and Sexual Roles... Michael Hamilton, (16) will talk about his experiences as a young h g gay.' But B most recent course has been entirely devoted to the theme of 'Youth and Sexuality'. At an earlier seminar, Mr Chapman was proud to announce that the 300 children attending included a party from the Roman Catholic convent in Brent. Throughout October and November, his Young People's Theatre Scheme was addressed by Anna Raeburn (on counselling); Angela Phillips (of the National Abortion Campaign); Maureen Colquhoun (described as an ex-Labour MP, feminist, lesbian); Rose Robertson (Parents' Enquiry for Gay Teenagers); Hazel Slavin (contraception); and Lucy Toothpaste (Rock against Sexism).
And the poor little things thought they were joining a theatre group! More conventional schemes, like the National Youth Theatre, have the greatest difficulty squeezing money out of the Arts Council, but Mr Chapman not only profits from the £305,000 subsidy given to the Royal Court (as revealed in Sir Roy Shaw's Annual Report, Patronage and Responsibility, 1978/9) but has also been appointed to a seat on the Drama Panel. The best idea of what Mr Chapman is up to can be gleaned from the Royal Court Circular newspaper of his Young People's Theatre, The following is written by Rose Robertson of Parents' EnquirY, founded to counsel the parents of gaY children, 'as well as to offer advice and, support to the teenagers themselves . The heterosexual boy or girl from the age of seven or eight is enabled to indulge in horseplay which has an underlying sexuality in it. From the age of 12 or 13 th.eY are able to go out with each other eillr,e freely. The homosexual girl or boy 15 totally denied that opportunity .. . , 'What we do at Parents' Enquiry is discuss sex with them. Because there's n° book they can read where they can find out what happens between two gay nec).: pie, it can be quite a frightening expen,t ence for a young person. They dor' know what is going to happen to thelloli We teach them how to take are themselves if they're propositioned; What to do, what to say. Imagine a young f?'. son in a gay pub or club for the first titnev, — a mixture of feelings. They're flare! that they're noticed, they're fright, what is going to happen to them. In" or otiP why we arrange for them to go in a with an older person in charge.' How touching to think that older r sons can still make themselves useful the new sexual revolution.
Previous page
