Thursday 2 September 2010


The William Hague imbroglio is sad and faintly nauseating (as against the full-on nauseating Blair memoirs imbroglio) and I've no comment to make on any of it. However, one thing that struck me was Hague's firm statement that he has 'never been involved in a relationship with any man'. Yes, it's come to that - the useful if overworked word 'relationship' has now been so thoroughly sexualised that it no longer needs a qualifier. That too is sad. Those of us - i.e. all of us - in relationships of all kinds with all manner of people that don't involve sex now need other words or qualifiers. Surely this is the wrong way round, as very often sex does not involve any real relationship, whereas real and deep relationships very often - indeed usually - don't involve sex. Strange how mealy-mouthed we can be in these supposedly sexually liberated times.


  1. I couldn't agree more, Nige. And the reverse is happening in the instance of 'passionate'. It doesn't seem adequate for romantic use now that it's used to describe one's attitude to everything from sandwiches to accountancy.

    I tried to put this phenomenon into some sort of context here.

  2. Yes I remember that post Gaw - much truth there. We've falsified relations between men particularly in a very sad and stultifying way.

    And 'passionate' too, tho 'passionate kiss' survives as a euphemism for French kiss. Funny old monde.

  3. Thanks for a wonderful share. Your article has proved your hard work and experience you have got in this field. Brilliant .i love it reading.