Lez Miserable: "I’ve never been turned on by a vagina picture from a stranger"

Perhaps mystery is overrated - the LGBT sexting/Snapchat instant sexual gratification craze can only lead to more gay sex, which can only be a good thing.

“Where would you even put that?” I ask my gay guy friend, Flossy.

I’m gazing at a penis that wouldn’t be too badly dwarfed by a Pringles tube. Another friend, The Austrian, Germanic logician that she is, always refers to erect penises as “erected”. And this one looks as if it has been, like a gazebo. Thankfully, I’m not looking at it in person; it’s just a daunting collection of pixels on Flossy’s phone. I have so many questions.

“Does that, you know. . . turn you on?”

“Yeah, sort of,” he says.

“Did he send you a picture of his face as well?”

“Of course.”

Flossy swipes to a picture of a glistening, tanned Adonis with, I shit you not, a 70s porn moustache. He “met” this guy on Grindr, a smart phone app that gay men use to hook up and/or exchange photographs of their fluffed manhood. I can’t help being transfixed by penises. I have a similarly visceral emotional response to seeing a cock as I do to, say, seeing a blackhead being squeezed. It’s repulsive, but strangely compelling. Earlier this summer, I was in Central London at the same time as the Naked Bike Ride. I stood in Trafalgar Square, hypnotised by a thousand willies waving in the breeze like a rude cornfield. Although cornfield suggests uniformity. The variations in shape and size were astonishing; great, pendulous cucumbers, to short, fat chilli peppers. Maybe more of an unholy salad than a rude cornfield. So mystified was I by my first experience of mass public nudity, that I retrospectively refer to it as The Day of A Thousand Schlongs.

“Don’t women send each other fanny pics?” Flossy asks.

I have to think for a bit.

“Yeah, sometimes, but it’s quite rare.”

There are lesbian versions of Grindr (namely Brenda and Dattch) but I’ve never used them. My friends who do have never mentioned anything about genital snaps. And, in my experience of internet dating, women tend not to be so forthcoming with their junk (at least when it comes to messaging people they’ve never met). When Chatroulette first started a few years ago, I remember going onto it with my housemates one evening. After what seemed like hours of clicking through men doing things to their knobs, a vagina appeared. I screamed. It was just so unexpected. But girls have sent me pictures of their vaginas through online dating sites. In fact, in terms of sexual frankness, I went through an anomalous period where I was getting regular messages from women who were openly into everything from golden showers to cannibalism.

“Do you like it?” asks Flossy, re: receiving vag pics.  

Again, I have to give the question some consideration. I’ve never been turned on by a vagina picture from a stranger. But I suppose, in principle, I could be. It would depend on a lot of factors. Obviously, a picture of private parts belonging to someone I found very attractive would have some appeal. Then again, where’s the mystery? Seeing someone’s vagina before you sleep with them is a bit like sitting on top of a pile of prematurely and secretly opened Christmas presents, letting out a big sigh and not knowing what to do next.

“Hmm. Not especially,” I say.

The LGBT community has entered into the sexting/Snapchat instant sexual gratification craze with great zest. The way I see it, the more avenues for gay sex, the better. If this means firing off pictures of our genitalia into the digital ether, like rounds of AK-47 bullets, then so be it. Perhaps mystery is overrated.

It’s just so abstract though – a faceless picture of someone’s genitals. I don’t love women purely because they have vaginas, in the same way that I don’t find men sexually uninteresting just because they have penises. I’ve been asked a few times if I’m “scared” of penises. I’m not. I don’t like them very much, but I’d say that my relationship with them is complicated. For example, I’m not averse to sex with strap-ons. My sexuality isn’t about reducing people to their genitals. And sure, I like vaginas a lot, but I like the people attached to them more.

“So, have you ever sent anyone a picture of your minge?” asks Flossy.

This, however, I don’t have to think about.

“Oh God, no.”

 

Sexting looks a lot like this. Photo: Getty

Eleanor Margolis is a freelance journalist, whose "Lez Miserable" column appears weekly on the New Statesman website.

Jeremy Corbyn in Crewe. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Is it too late to replace Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader before the general election?

Make no mistake, replacing the Labour leader now would terrify the Tories. 

Received wisdom states that Jeremy Corbyn’s position in the Labour party is guaranteed, at least for the next six weeks, until the general election on 8 June. However, this belief is in large part down to polls conducted earlier this year among the Labour membership, which showed continued support for him.

In light of the changing political landscape, and the looming General Election, these polls should be revisited. It is clear they offer enough cause for hope to Labour moderates who might be willing to take the risk of removing Corbyn before the country makes this decision for them.

If you listen to pollsters talk about their surveys, one of the most common refrains you'll hear is that the results are "a snapshot, not a prediction". During the peacetime years between elections, this claim is made for solid reasons. With an election years away, polls offer the public a risk-free method to register dissatisfaction or support for a political parties and politician without consequence.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the polls we’ve seen in the past week. In every poll conducted after May's announcement on an early election, there has been a rise in the Tory lead. Elections focus minds and the risk-free toying with another party is no more; the public now need to make a decision about who they'll vote for in a little over a month and this decision matters.

Back in March, just 35 per cent of Labour members thought it likely that Corbyn would lead Labour to victory at the next election - yet they still supported him (PDF). Many commentators and Labour moderates asked why. They couldn't understand why the members would support someone who was so clearly electoral kryptonite.

The reason is relatively straightforward. The election was still years off and Corbyn was doing, for the members, a vital job in repositioning Labour on the left. With an election so far away, it didn't matter how Labour were performing in the polls, it was risk-free to support Corbyn.

The early election changes all that and the question is no longer about whether another leader gives Labour a better chance of winning but whether another leader gives Labour a better chance at surviving.

In the last poll published on Labour members, a majority wanted Corbyn to either step down immediately (36%) or before the next election (14%). Just 44% wanted him to lead Labour into the next General Election. With May’s announcement of a vote on 8 June, Labour's existential crisis has been brought forward by three years and it is likely that 14% who thought Corbyn should step down before the next election would side with those who wanted Corbyn gone immediately rather than those who wanted him to fight on in 2020.

There is also an argument to be made that the 44% who wanted Jeremy to fight the next election assumed he would have three more years to grow into the role and turn Labour’s fortunes around and these members could easily be swayed from their support given the change in terms the early election brings about.

What's more, 68% of Labour members felt Corbyn should go if Labour lost the next election and this includes 42% of those who say they would definitely/probably vote for Jeremy at a future leadership election. Only the most hardcore Corbyn supporters still believe he has a chance of victory in a few weeks. So, faced with the prospect of Jeremy going in June, after a heavy defeat, or now - giving Labour a better chance - many would reluctantly go for the latter.  

So how can Jeremy be removed? There are three things that need to happen. Firstly, pick the right candidate. For a new leader to have any impact with the public, it has to be someone who is not associated with Corbyn. However, to win over the members, the candidate cannot be seen as an instigator in the coup last year.  It would also be wise to choose someone the public are at least partly familiar with. This is a narrow pool but there are MPs who meet this requirement and could get through a leadership election and limit Labour losses.  

Secondly, limit the selectorate to the members. There is no time to vet 10s or 100,000s of new voters and they are unlikely to be favourable to an Anyone-But-Corbyn candidate. Among current members, Corbyn can be defeated and that must be the battle on which any leadership election was fought.

Finally, remove the risk of a centrist takeover in Labour members' minds by committing to a further leadership election in six months' time. Make it clear that Jeremy Corbyn needs to go - but that this isn't the end for his supporters. Any new leader is just an interim measure, someone who can limit the losses and give Labour the chance to fight again. Position yourself like the football manager who comes in three matches before the end of the season, promising to save the club from relegation before handing over to someone more suited to their team.

Make no mistake, replacing the Labour leader now would terrify the Tories. Their attacks on Corbyn will be worthless and new leaders typically enjoy a honeymoon period which would come at the perfect time. There are risks, of course, but the greater risk is in allowing Corbyn to lead Labour to a defeat from which there may be no return.

Laurence Janta-Lipinski is a former pollster with YouGov and now a freelance political consultant. He tweets at @jantalipinski

 

0800 7318496