Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Where's the Lysol When You Need It?

So I should know better than to lurk on conservative sites,but I just can't stop...

This is over there at that Ann Althouse's place. She had a smartie post up about gay guys. You know how those gay guys like to fuck. (Jeez. Cause how wrong is that?) And then there was Coulter, claiming Bill liking to fuck made him gay. (Yeah, I didn't follow that bit either -- well, here, it goes like this: gay = an insult; we hate Bill; let's insult him; we don't like sex; he does sex; let's say doing sex must make you gay. No, sorry, I can't make it make sense. You have a try.)

Anyway: Here are some of the comments from the charming folks at Ann Althouse's site. Warning: they like to gagged me. Read at your own risk.

....the difficulty is that the term "promiscuous" is generally perjorative. I believe it is generally
taken to mean not just multiple partners, but a cavalier or unthinking approach to sexual relationships. I don't know whether Coulter claims to be talking about promiscuity in a value-free way, but if so I suspect she is being disingenuous.The "agrees to your rules" analysis makes sense to me, in term of both the number of sex partners and the narcissism. What I'd really be interested in knowing is whether dealing exclusively with people who agree to your rules affects the quality of the relationships or the overall satisfaction the partners derive from them.

It seems to me that the social science studies do indeed show that homosexuals are more sexually active (let's jettison the somewhat loaded "promiscuous" term) than male heterosexuals. But that's not because of homosexuality qua homosexuality; it's because it's men having sex with men. It's a gender difference and not a sexual orientation difference.It's men behaving badly; not gay men behaving badly (so to speak).As Wright points out, the restraints (or requirements or demands, whatever one wishes to call them) that women place on male partners do not exist when the relationship is between two men.And the evidence shows that if you remove some of those female-male restraints (pregnancy concerns, economic concerns) that male-female sex increases. My guess is that if you were to somehow (who knows how) remove all of those limits that females place on sex with men, the men and women would be a sexually active as gay men.Of course if you change women to that extent, you no longer have a woman. Just two men with different bodies.Think about those male heterosexuals where the female restraints are removed or mitigated. Powerful men, rock stars, actors. My guess is that their sexual activity closely mimics or replicates that of gay men


Promiscuity is an immoral behavior, so trying to find a way to describe it without moral baggage is like trying to work out a way to describe lying that doesn't sound so bad.

(4) Part of what civil marriage is, I believe, is negotiating the differences between male and female in a way that minimizes bad outcomes without becoming too intrusive in privacy so long as things aren't going catastrophically wrong. But when you don't have to manage those differences, what's the point of using the same institution?

USMale's comment reminds me of the old joke about what a lesbian brings to her second date (a U-Haul!).

Beinart's claim that an assertion like Coulter's was ipso facto bigoted was news to me, but apparently in some circles that's how it works.It took only a few minutes on the web to find studies, both older and recent, that backed her up. Here is one concerning HIV-positive males:A total of 3723 HIV-infected persons (1918 men who have sex with men [MSM], 978 women, and 827 heterosexual men) were interviewed in clinics and community-based agencies in Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York City, and San Francisco from June 2000 to January 2002 regarding sexual and drug use behaviors that confer risk for transmitting HIV. Less than one quarter of women and heterosexual men had 2 or more sexual partners, whereas 59% of MSM reported having multiple partners. Most unprotected vaginal and anal sexual activity took place in the context of relationships with other HIV-positive individuals.Now I realize HIV+ men may not be behaviorally typical. But this is only one of many studies from the 1960's to the 2000's that basically confirmed Coulter's argument. In contrast, I didn't see any evidence contradicting her general claim, even on gay sites objecting to it.(Incidentally, if you search on terms like 'homosexual' and 'promiscuity' the top results are evangelical Christian 'pro-family' sites that cite older studies; if you search on terms like 'MSM' and 'multiple partners' the top results are medical studies.)Certainly there are a lot of bigoted uses for this kind of information, and using it properly calls for extreme compassion and sensitivity (things I don't expect to find from Ann Coulter). My sense is that the politics of gay marriage work against that. They pressure opponents to use the data tendentiously, and pressure proponents to pretend it isn't there and fall back on ad hominem arguments.I only spent a few minutes on this; there may well be countervailing evidence I didn't uncover. I'd appreciate correction from anyone who knows better.

Ann Coulter's assertion about Bill Clinton has a solid, logical basis.I mean, imagine being married to Hillary Rodham, who, speaking heterosexually, could only fit into some master political plan.Next is Bill's latter taste in women. For example, the one with the nose, and Monica. These seem to indicate his orange/red period, an evolving need to abuse mindless objects.Also keep in mind that when Hillary was at the peak of her "feminine" beauty - she was wearing very comfortable shoes (i.e. sandals). You know, the one's those wacky male professors wear around NYU and UC.But then the "master" plan breaks down when Mrs. Clinton wants to cash in - to collect her part of the arranged marriage; to finally become an elected and vital Marxist. Is she asexual, btw?Meanwhile, the country is going to pot.Then Bill finds himself up in Harlem with a passing case of jungle fever. His black period.Half joking, Ms. Coulter concludes his next sexually frustrated, same-sex step. Not to imply it's congenital, but more an unintended result. Any questions?


Coulter's 100% right. Ever watch Will & Grace? Practically every other line on that show is sex-related. Sure, other TV shows will occasionally have a dirty line, but nowhere near to the extent of that show. 'Nuff said.Furthermore, Coulter's use of empirical evidence to prove homosexula promiscuity - ie, "open your eyes, moron!" - is perfectly valid. If I were to tell you that the average black ( I emphasize average) was a better athlete than the average white, would I need to cite "chapter and verse" evidence, as that whiny loser Beinart demands? Of course not - I'd just point to the NBA.Some liberals are afraid of this, because if empirical evidence posits unequivocally that there are physical diffrences bewteen the races, the same evidence shows mental diffrences between the races. But that's an old problem with liberals. They've always been scared of the truth.

I was the only straight person in Harvard Law's first "Sexual Orientation and the Law" class in 1991, and my male and female classmates were pretty candid about the deep differences between gay men and lesbian women. Our class spent a lot of time debating the strategic value of pursuing same-sex marriage: my female classmates thought we should do it, while my male classmates were FAR from excited about the idea. The arguments against it were (a) there could be a huge political backlash and (b) do we (gay men) want to be herded into a monogamous straight-jacket?I've been impressed with how well the gay and lesbian community has maintained its united front despite the backlash over the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts. With nine courts against them so far this year, I had expected to hear some of the gay men start recriminating.

When I first started dating my wife she had a large circle of homosexual male friends. I wasn't exactly comfortable with this at first but I made a good faith effort to be open minded.Researchers have said that men think about sex dozens of times per day. If you have two males that are homosexual partners ...well you can do the math.Once these gay men would start drinking they would try to seduce other straight men at their partiesand tell stories of wild orgies unfortunately accompanied by gory details.I pretty agree with the more promiscuous label. Although it usually isn't wise to paint everyone with one broad brush.

One problem most people have with discussion of group differences is that they're afraid, with reason, that people will use any evidence of group differences bluntly, and judge people by a group rather than as an individual. "So what if I'm dumb, on average group X to which I belong is smarter than group Y to which you belong," and things far more hurtful.When people compose their own identity and how they view other people through group memberships, it's an inevitable consequence.

"You're dealing with somebody who agrees to your rules." Says Robert Wright, explaining why male homosexuality expresses male sexuality more purely than does male heterosexuality.Well, by that logic masturbation would be the purest expression of sexuality. I'm not sure male homosexuality expresses male sexuality, or even sexuality, at all. The very concept of sex requires two genders.And Beinart looks unusually stupid in calling Coulter a bigot for believing that male gays are more promiscuous than straights. That's just an empirical fact. And even though I look obviously straight, gay guys often hit on me...I get the feeling they're not just promiscuous, they're desperately promiscuous.And they seem to think I should be flattered(!) Get this, gay guys: coming on to a straight guy is about as flattering as a dog trying to hump your leg.


Mouse said...

okay, i'll admit that I can't read all of that cause I ain't got the attention span not to mention that it would irk me.

but from what I have read, holy effing hell batman!

so a new holocaust is what I'm thinking. (i'm kidding here--sorta)

melissa b. said...

my god, what the hell?

I have a similar bad habit, I have the conservative political radio station programmed in my car. Why do I listen when I just get so angry? Because I HAVE to do it. I don't know. I also have the uber-Christian station programmed. I love hearing about my weaker gender contributing to why I need to suck it.

Diane said...

I don't find the content of most of the comments that offensive--just the tone of some of them. There is no doubt that putting two men together does increase the frequency of response to sexual stimuli, in general terms. Or, as the character Michael said on Queer As Folk, "not because we're gay, but because we're men."

Conversely, it is also the reason for LBD (for those who watched Queer As Folk); it isn't that women do not have as much interest in sex as men do--they probably do--but the stimulus/response process is usually quite different.

Unfortunately, there are people who like to use the words "promiscuous"--which they do not mean in a nice way--to describe gay men, as well as straight women who are not sexually passive.

Diane said...

I should add that those who imagine gay men "coming on" to them are usually projecting. I have heard a few men say that they went somewhere (usually a gym) and gay men came on to them, and I have said to them "Honey, I don't think so."

delagar said...

Yeah, it's the tone I find offensive. That gayness is digusting, that gayness is bestial, that wanting sex is nasty...course, I say this with my own kind of get-your-hate on posts dominating this blog lately, so who am I to talk, huh.

hrtsmom said...

Whoa -- Hillary Clinton must be a lesbian because she wears (wore?) comfortable shoes? I guess that makes me one too. And I never knew it. Guess it's time to delete all those pictures of Johnny Depp and Viggo Mortensen that are just clutterin' up my hard drive.