[Friday update: follow-up post here]
Dan already linked to the piece earlier, but I think it’s worth excerpting the following extended bit from Matt Sanchez’s Salon piece, “Porn Free”:
Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me today. Let’s face it: Those on the left who now attack me would be defending me if I had espoused liberal causes and spoken out against the Iraq war before I was outed as a pseudo celebrity. They’d be talking about publishing my memoir and putting me on a diversity ticket with Barack Obama. Instead, those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to pry into my private life and my past for political brownie points.
Sure, I had my picture taken with Ann Coulter. I don’t agree with what she said, but anyone in the military would defend her right to say it. I’m not apologizing for it. I’m also not going to claim I’m sorry for leaving a long-ago summer job off my curriculum vitae. A lot things in my life don’t add up, but then I was never good at math. It’s just a part of my past, and as anyone who reflects on the past realizes, it contributes to who I am today. No apologies, just recognition. No running away, just moving forward.
I learned a lot at CPAC. I saw Jeff Gannon. He seemed to be doing fine, despite the minor media scandal he endured. (When was that scandal anyway? It’s hard to keep track, because so many come and go so rapidly.) Mostly I learned that I’m not as right-wing among the true believers as I feel in a place like New York, where people glibly promote diversity unless you don’t agree with them. I also learned that there are many citizens in this country who are, as conservatives, just as passionate about the autonomy of the individual as I am, and just as committed to spreading the word. I accepted my award and spoke with great pride.
By the way, as a political minority on the Columbia campus, people are always asking me, “How can you be a conservative? They’re so hateful.” That wasn’t the feeling I got when I accepted my award. And it’s not what I’ve been hearing from the conservative community since my “outing.”
I am embarrassed to admit that was I worried that my fellow conservatives would distance themselves from me when the news about my film career broke. The opposite has happened. I’ve been asked to give my point of view, invited to speak at various functions, and invited back on television. My peers on the right have gone out of their way to give me a vote of confidence and avoid a rush to judgment.
I appreciate the support. I am also not really that troubled by the abuse I’ve taken from the other side. Some conversations are worth having. By entering the public arena, with all the risk that entails, I feel I’ve already achieved a major victory. Columbia University is expanding its outreach to veterans and will build a memorial to alumni who have fallen in battle. Columbia veterans have fought in every conflict since the American Revolution. The rest of it is just a bunch of blips in the blogosphere.
Last night, in a comment submitted to an earlier thread here announcing this latest GAY PORN COCK OF LIES! “scandal,” I wrote:
[Tom Bacchus’ “outing” post, NOT SAFE FOR WORK] is just perfectâ€â€self-aggrandizing, bitching that he’s not getting the proper credit for recognizing a former gay porn star, “outing†someone for the crime of, well, giving the blogger a spankthink for however many years…
It’s surreal. The hatred in that post. The vileness of the language. The attempt to shock.
And yet, the beautiful irony is, nobody here really gives a flying fuck. Just like with Gannon.
Why? Because the caricature [Bacchus] has been nurturing in his smudged soul about the “reichwingers†is a shamâ€â€a tool to fuel his victim status and to give him license for his “angry queer†persona.
Real “reich”wingers turned people like him into fucking ashtrays. Good thing none of them are alive, or they’d probably bitch slap this snarling little gossip with a copy of Mein Kampf.
It is not lost on me that my language is, like Bacchus’, a bit on the salty side here—though it was, for better or worse, reactive, and I offer no apologies for it.
Because once we eschew the inevitable equivalency arguments that touch on matters of style, it is clear that, on the substance, Bacchus’ message is one of pure identitarian hate. In Matt Sanchez, we have a conservative who, from the perspective of his earlier libertine attitudes toward sex and sexual orientation*, wandered off the “progressive” plantation, and so, to people like Bacchus, must be exposed, mocked, and MADE TO PAY for his ideological transgressions, the undisguised subtext being that the political positions of gay men must necessarily be tied to that of the collective, which not only presumes to speak for them, but which, it is clear, is willing to police its ranks by engaging, in the most vicious ways, in behaviors it claims ostensibly to find anathema—namely, reducing a person to his sexual orientation (the game of “outing”) in order to undermine his positions (which has the net effect of arguing that your only value as a homosexual is tied inexorably to what you are willing to do for the orthodoxy’s conception of “the cause”; your individualism, that is, is ironically only granted you should you willingly surrender it to the Greater Good).
Also ironically, given the timing, it was Ann Coulter in her CPAC speech who just recently noted that gays should be conservative—because they, too, should support individual autonomy, greater financial freedom, and a less restrictive federal government.
But according to people like Tom Bacchus, gay men should be willing to surrender all those things for the singular purpose of remaining perpetually aggrieved by the phantom menace of conservative “homophobia” (made manifest in certain conservatives’ opposition to gay marriage)—a useful fiction if what you really wish to do is drape yourself in a hairshirt and rail against the world, and find others who are willing to stomp their feet and ball their fists with you. After all, it’s a whole lot easier than finding your own way.
Sanchez’ political separation from the “progressive” plantation mentality is a direct affront to Bacchus and his fellow travelers. And to progressives—because the personal IS the political—anyone who doesn’t wear his group affiliation like a nametag is a hypocrite and a traitor. Which is why Bacchus and those like him feel justified in “outing” people who, for whatever their reasons, don’t think that having tossed some salad in the 1990s has much bearing on whether or not, say, a university’s policy concerning soldiers is fair or constitutional.
Bacchus, though, will frame the debate another way—and it is a way that is all too familiar to those who have been labeled Uncle Toms or self-hating Jews, etc: Sanchez is to be demonized and exposed for aligning himself with those who, politically, are working to Hurt The Cause, in this case, the cause of “gay rights.”
But of course, to many conservatives, gay rights—like equal rights for women—is the de facto state of being, and the only quibble is over special dispensations or semantic policy points. Which is to say, the debate over gay marriage is a debate over marriage, not over homosexuality per se, and there is no inherent tension between the two. And the fact is, you don’t have to be progressive to be gay, just as you don’t have to be a conservative to be homophobic. The idea that all your enemies can be conveniently identified by how they vote is, I’d imagine, quite a comforting fiction—but it is just that: a fiction.
As this latest non-scandal unfolds, pay attention to the individuals whose opinions you find most agreeable or reprehensible. Then, in the aggregate, make a judgment about who you believe is on the side of liberalism as it is constitutionally understood and undertaken.
****
update: More from Michelle Malkin, Villainous Company, Ace, AIR, and PJM.
That pretty much sums it up. There’s a joke in here somewhere involving the gay porn film “Forest Hump”, starring the inimitable Tom Spanks, and the oft quoted line from said film ‘Homophobic is as homophobic does’. Unfortunately, I just can’t seem to fit the peices together…
I will be interested in the reactions (so far, none that I know of) from:
Andrew (self-explanatory)
GG (self-explanatory)
and Ann Coulter (did some reading about her yesterday, in sum, she defended Paula Jones at first but then ripped her when she took her clothes off for Playboy; based on what I conclude about her thinking I expect Ann to rip Matt also.)
We’ll see.
Brilliant, Jeff, for lack of a better term.
Does it bother the left that no one seems to care one way or the other what Sanchez did?
Or do they build in their minds a complex fantasy where emails and faxes are hastily exchanged to shut down commentary on this OUTRAGEOUS OUTRAGE to the conservative soul?
Well… duh.
The great leftist circle jerk continues, as the action or inaction or semiaction of the right proves everything they’ve ever believed about us, (though they can’t ever quite find the proper citation as chain for their <a>nchor.)
I don’t know, but the silence from known gay commenters on the subject of Sanchez, is queer. (no pun intended.) I mean, anytime any gay guy shows up in the media, they are all over it. Here, silence: so far.
I can only think of one other occasion when the media denotation of a gay person elicited such silence, when Governor “I am a gay American” McGreavy came out.
Indicating? I don’t know.
What he said. Totally. Times two.
That may be the best sentence we’ll ever read on this issue.
Let me add that Bacchus is, in fact, homophobic as evidenced by his fear and hatred of someone who thinks differently and is gay. If his reaction to an “off the plantation” queer isn’t homophobia, then the word means nothing.
Top notch work here, Jeff. I think one of the best points you bring out is the behavior of people after all this came out. As you mentioned – who has been tolerant, and who has been shrill and bigoted? Very simple observations to make that tell you much about the actors.
The point that Steve made dovetails nicely with this – where is Sullivan’s outrage/heartache I wonder? I will stay tuned.
Brilliant—in a Guiness sort of way!
We’re the “only” reichwingers to praise free elections and free speech.
If we were the “other” type the progrom (ÿþóрþü) would have already began.
Does it bother the left that no one seems to care one way or the other what Sanchez did?
I’m still chagrined that I never even heard of this Sanchez fellow before this kerfuffle. Was there a memo I missed? Is Karl Rove mad at me, and I got cut off the distribution list?
Seriously, I would wager that 99.967% of average Americans have no clue as to who Mark Sanchez is, much less what CPAC is. If the left wants to get into a tizzy, they might want to pick a better known person to get the vapors over.
Another point lost in all of this is that “Matt Sanchez” is a pretty damn good pornstar name.
That was a single sentence? Your english professor is crying right now. How anyone can even comprehend what you are trying to say half of the time is beyond me.
Phantom menance? You honestly believe a party that openly pushes a platform of actively trying to prevent gays to get married legally in the eyes of the government is some sort of homophobic fiction? That there’s no homophobia whatsoever at all in that sort of position? Not one iota?
Wow. Just wow.
Utter bullshit. Unless by many you actually mean just a few. If the debate is, as you claim, only about the definition of marriage (as between a man and a woman), even that arguement falls on its face because the exercise of concocting that definition necessarily excludes gays. And in that exclusion denies them rights that are given to married couples since marriage is a *legal* union. Therefore by definition, they are not equal in the eyes of the government or the conservative movement that you claim views them equally.
Real conservatives would take the position that the government should not be in the business of marriage. Leave that to the churches. Leave that to the people who want to practice whatever they wish. But no Republican would ever take that position openly because they would lose the vote instantly from their so called non-homophobic base. Democrats support a position to the solve the problem in the reserve fashion, by allowing by law for gays to marry. That’s their perogative and I personally see nothing wrong in that solution. But any attempt to legislate that marriage is by definition a union between one man and one woman and then make that the law of the land is not a conservative position. Not at all.
Oh, and here’s a nice compliation of movies by Rod Majors. I especially can’t wait to hear you guys discuss how his performance in Beat Off Frenzy isn’t really as bad as Clinton getting a blowjob in the Oval Office and then lying about it in court.
You don’t understand. The left doesn’t want to “get into” a tizzy, they want to stay forever in the tizzy that they’re already in. Whiffing any vapor will do.
Umm, is he really “a conservative who wandered off the “progressive†plantation,” or did you mean a gay person?
Looks as if you’ve got a new fan club, Jeff. Looks an awful lot like the old ones, unfortunately.
Okay, now I’m confused. If Gigi is gay, it’s bashing him to notice it. If Andrew is gay, it’s praising him to note it given his brave stand as the Wintry Conscience of a Generation. If this fellow Sanchez is gay, it’s bashing if conservatives mention it, but something else if liberals mention it? Huh? What is the meaning of this gay stuff?
C’mon, libtards. I’m just trying to be politically correct here. Is it bashing to note somebody is gay? Is it praise? At least give me a clue, like banning the word “gay” on campus unless it pertains to bundles of flowers, bunches of balloons, or the Theater Program’s performance of “Rent.”
Somebody straighten me out here, please.
Er, so to speak.
It’s ironic that as the blogosphere has expanded the voices on the left, both in terms of quantity of speakers qaulity, that the allowable range of thought has shrunk to an almost wafer thin layer of pure invective.
There’s more ideological and intelectual diversity in a single 15 year old issue of The Nation magazine than in a month of postings of the whole leftosphere today.
Why is this?
In order for the left’s worldview to stay logically consistant, they have to convince themselves that everyone on the right is a clone of James Dobson or Jerry Falwell.
True enough, Slart. I still for the life of me don’t understand why certain types get so upset over long sentences. I mean, the sentence is grammatically sound. If you wish to put periods in where I put semicolons, etc., have at it.
As for Andrei’s more substantive point, his argument seems to be: YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR! MOST “CONSERVATIVES” ARE TOO HOMOPHOBIC! BEING AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE MAKES IT SO!
Of course, as you regular readers know, I’ve actually SAID that I don’t believe the government should be in the “marriage” business—that they should be instead in the civil union business. But that is a point open to debate, as it is entirely defensible to hold the position many do that marriage, as currently defined, serves a compelling state interest.
Andrei’s monolithic idea of conservatives is silly. I guess he missed the thrust of my response to esmyth the other day…
Because there is a strong schoolmarmish component to the gay identity.
No one around here cares about Sanchez’ gay porn past, but:
#1 That doesn’t mean that he isn’t a good Marine
#2 However, to be honest, his value to the USMC has been somewhat (probably irrevocably) compromised by these revelations,
#3 It doesn’t mean that homosexuality is just another “preference” like Bushmill’s over Jameson,
#4 Or that gay relationships are not fundamentally different from straight relationships (because of potential babies.)
#5 Or that gay relationships deserve the dignity traditionally accorded to married couples.
Is this going to be on the test, Steve?
By concocting you must mean historically accurate definition of. But hey, where history is inconvenient to your purpose, invest in erasers and then lie, lie, lie.
Great article Jeff.
I take it you can point to the place in the Democratic platform where it states this. Yes?
I don’t know about you boys, but I recognized that tingle I felt when I first saw this man’s grossly engorged member–and it was a little old-fashioned feeling we used to call patriotism.
That, I said to myself about the man’s penis, is a huge, ugly, imperialistic wang that Looks Like America. I could see the pulse of our nation’s heart in its veins. Until that moment, I’d forgotten how much I love America, but thinking of this young Marine’s service, I swelled with pride. The halls of Montezuma better be stretchy! I thought, and I’m not ashamed to say I teared up a little.
Throb on, America’s penis. Throb on.
If liberals had any sense of shame, this statement would give them pause:
and monkeys would fly…
A position that has in fact been promoted in the threads here over the years—but of course you would prefer to assume Mr. Goldstein is a Christofascist…
Wow—who knew John Kerry and John Edwards are Republicans?
Isn’t there something weird about using the methods you decry to decry the methods you decry? (“You” in a rhetorical sense, of course.)
How is it that gays use outing as a weapon against their enemies if there isn’t anything wrong with being gay?
Same can be said for any left liberal argument (fill in the blank)—it undermines itself by its very nature. Suppression of speech as an argument for free speech? Abrogation of rights as an argument for civil rights? Enshrining special treatment as an argument against discrimination?
Modern liberalism is a kind of mental illness.
Incidentally, Pablo, the word means nothing.
When was Rod Majors elected president?
What are you saying, Steve?
First of all, dignity is something earned. Gays are not being treated as subhuman, so there is no correlation to the way blacks were treated at one time—and so no compelling need to legislate “dignity.”
For the umpteenth time, I—and many people labeled “conservative”—support civil unions, partner benefits, etc. I don’t support the re-casting of the term “marriage” to suit the needs of those who insist that the relationship they want to have is the same thing as marriage, traditionally understood.
And getting back to Andrei, it occurs to me that he has made many of my points for me: he doesn’t even bother to learn the positions that I actually take, so convinced is he beforehand by the cartoon notion of “conservatives” he brings to his postings. He wishes to reduce individuals to a political affiliation, then condemn the political affiliation and all the individuals associated with by tethering it to its worst elements.
Sorry, but I simply will not be shamed into conceding that the debate over gay marriage is to many people in the conservative coalition in no way tied to “homophobia.” It is a policy question—on both ends of the political spectrum—and this desire by people like Andrei to turn his position into a moral imperative is dishonest and presumptuous.
Happy:
#1 Maybe
#2 Maybe Not
Actually, what Clinton did was much worse than what Sanchez did however Sanchez is unfortunately seriously screwed because there are PICTURES. I may be cynical but off hand, an individual of whom photos exist of them nude, engaged in sexual activity, and including ejaculation, are not likely to be very successful in the public advocacy sphere.
However, the prime mover here is still Bacchus’ vengeful revelations.
Sums up the angry left in a nice, tidy nutshell.
BoZ – funniest comment on ANY blog in quite some time.
Meanwhile, Giuliani’s popularity in the conservative straw polls absolutely BAFFLES many on the left.
Conservatives must be willing to forgive his more liberal social stances because they know that, secretly, if he could, he’d have gays gassed, then turned into lampshades.
Jeff: I, personally, just think that marriage as an institution evolved to protect women and children. I have no problem with 2 guys (or gals) living together, I just don’t think those relationships rise to the level of marriage, nor should they. I’m certainly willing to recognize the rights of non-straight couples on matters like inheritance, hospital visits, etc., on common sense compassionate grounds. I am unsure about other areas.
When I use the term “dignity” I don’t mean it in the sense that anyone is subhuman. I mean it in the sense that people—particularly, in my experience, women—regard married people different than non-married people. In all kinds of ways.
Getting the state out of marriage? Not realistic. For one thing, in many states, your marriage is not considered VALID if it isn’t registered with the state.
“See Dick run”, Andrei? Or is it perhaps that you just don’t read very well in any case.
Why not try considering the possibilities, Andrei, instead of this incessant arguing ex Mantra we get from youse guys?
By the way, Jeff, I have to say that I am not personally sure about an absolute 1-1 correspondence of benefits, IOW, all marriage benefits except the name. (I gather that that is where you are at.) That would require a much fuller airing of the issues.
And turning the question into a moral imperative is very, very dangerous for there is no room for debate or compromise and the people on the other side of the debate are at risk of being de-humanized. dehumanizing your opponent makes it easier to create a fictitous monster, like Andrei made out of “conservatives” and then applied to Jeff G., and that makes it easier for for opponents to be treated like monsters are treated.
My support for this contention is the examples of abortion and global warming.
I don’t know that Mr. Sanchez atttempted to trample on the civil rights of one of his fellow citizens by performing in Beat Off Frenzy. Although I’ll admit that I haven’t seen it.
One of the convenient ommissions that you poor bastards on the left have engaged in for ten years is the one that says Clinton only lied about a blowjob. That was his only offense. Case closed. If pressed as to why he lied, you guys like to cite the superficial reason that everyone can understand: He lied to avoid embarrassment. You consistantly omit that the real reason he lied was to avoid allowing Mrs. Jones’ attourneys to show that he exhibited a pattern of innapropriate sexual behavior, which would have been enormously useful in helping her win her case, which if successful, would have resulted in some of his other victims (Broaderick, Willey, et al) seeking relief through litigation, which might have started an avalanche. Who really knows how many women he victimized. So he lied, and in so doing denied a fellow citizen her right to due process. He put himself above the laws, making him a first among equals. That was the crime. Lying was just the method by which the crime was committed.
I’m not sure about an absolute correspondence either, Steve. But that’s because I’d need to study marriage benefits more closely. But on the basic issues—transference of custody, visitation, “spousal” benefits (in the case of civil unions)—I’m pretty set.
Of course, I think should we work on rolling back no-fault divorce, that would in turn make a stronger case for civil unions and the benefits granted thereby.
Ah. In other words, you developed a lip cramp before you got to the end because there weren’t enough full stops to rest them. Poor baybeeee!
One of the things that endears Jeff to us is that he is demonstrably able to employ the turgid sesquipidelianism of Academicspeak to express and transmit ideas, as opposed to its usual function as a sort of squid-ink designed to obscure and obfuscate. You have no idea how amusing it is to us here in the peanut gallery when we watch somebody dive in, with full confidence that it’s all vapor, and whack their heads on the concrete content.
Bullshit. That is the position you are trying to establish—and you have not done so, you are not likely to do so, and since you have not forced your definition to be the only definition the rest of us are not obligated to prove our theorems based on your postulates.
The very term “homophobia” is an attempt to shape the debate such that only you have winning arguments. Again, bullshit. “Homophobia” is egotistical self-congratulation with no grounding in the facts. There are members of the conservative community who believe—for reasons they find necessary and sufficient—that homosexual activity in public is deleterious to the common weal. Labeling them “phobic” is an abandonment of debate. If you want to convert them to your point of view, you will have to undermine the reasoning and beliefs that support theirs. Insulting them and forcing the least-attractive aspects of homosexual behavior upon them as a necessary condition of accepting homosexuality is, if intended to undermine their reasoning, a poorly selected tactic at best.
Regards,
Ric
As a conservative, I can agree with this ideologically, but I’m not sure how this situation would change anything for homosexuals themselves. Gays can already go through ceremonies in several churches, live as married, and call themselves married. It seems to me that it is an argument based in vindictiveness rather than logic (at least when coming from gay marriage advocates) in that it implies “if we can’t have it, you can’t either.”
This is just plain ridiculous. They would lose their vote because the base wouldn’t want their own marriages, and the legal benefits provided thereof, dissolved. Homophobia might explain why they don’t want gay marriages to be recognized, not why they want their own marriages recognized.
I actually have no interest at all in gay porn, but your interest in it is noted. You probably haven’t noticed yet, but this is not your preferred forum for gay porn film critiques.
I think it is instructive to compare the relative lack of discomfort of the conservatives at CPAC when encountering a gay ex-porn actor to the venom of the left when encountering ex-lefties, especially gay or black, or their general queasiness around that exotic creature, the American soldier.
It is interesting how often people are satisfied with a few feel good platitudes and completely ignore the actual policies their politicians are implementing.
Clinton gave us don’t ask don’t tell and the defense of marriage act. The Democratic Platform does not have a plank supporting gay marriage.
There are some rhetorical differences between the parties but you probably could not shove a dime in the policy gap between between republicans and democrats with respect to gay marriage.
But the democrats say such nice things about gay marriage. Even if they are not willing to take any political risks to, you know, actually make it legal.
Jeff: Yes, I think we are more or less on the same page on this issue but at the same time I don’t really want to get waist-deep into it right now, either. In terms of no-fault divorce, I have to say on balance I am in favor of it. But everyone comes from their own POV: one way or another I come from a family in which divorce has been common for generations. The specter of divorce court, and all the venom and lying associated with that, still troubles me. No fault gets rid of that.
Again, IN TERMS OF MY OWN LIVED OR OBSERVED EXPERIENCE, marriage primarily benefits women and children. (even divorce, via alimony and child support, benefits them.) I respect the institution primarily on that level and respect the institution (also) as a brake on the randiness of male sexuality.
This doesn’t mean that I haven’t benefited from my marriages, or my children, or that I want to get divorced, or that I hate homos. I just think that on the level of lived experience marriage means a LOT to women and children, and I don’t think we should tinker with that.
Of course, different people will have had different experiences and view the matter differently. Then what happens is we sit down and negotiate.
The definition of marriage is primarily having a setup where a man is held responsible for the consequences his sexuality. Of course, women have a role in the contract, too. There are, basically, zero consequences to gay or lesbian relationships. That’s the basic difference.
Yes, there are marriages without children and there are second and third marriages without children. But these are indebted to the primary concept related above. To put it another way, Andrew’s pitch about marriage being now only “companionate” is bullshit. It is that, sometimes. But it is still, primarily, about raising the people who will take our place.
Jeff, just for future reference.
I enjoy it a more when guys like Andrei show up and you toy with them a little bit before you slap the shit out of them. I suppose it is just the boxing fan in me that wants to see a 10 rounder vs. a fight that is over in 20 seconds.
So, forgive me please, because I’m sitting here just hoping that Andrei might stand up JUST ONE MORE TIME!
Would it be too hard to cross out the word marraige on the license and put civil union above it? You could put one of those carrot (^) thingys pointing to it.
Um, no. Actually, what you describe would be more of a libertarian position. The conservative position would be that for untold thousands of years the institution of marriage between man and woman has been the basis for family and society in the most successful civilizations and that, barring compelling reason, there is no rational basis to chuck it in the trash. As Jeff aludes to, the profligate trend no-fault divorce just in the last fifty years or so have already yielded extreme negative effects upon society and family, the nature and extent of which were largely unanticipated at the time we thought it would be a good idea to “free” ourselves from the traditional obligations of marriage.
Jeff: As if I needed even more reasons to be insecure, now I have sentence length envy. Thanks.
Ric: You misspelled sesquipedalianism so your entire comment is invalid. [/moonbat]
Andrei: Nothing like stating the obvious. It IS beyond you. Way. So leave. Now would be good.
Hmmmm.
Oh Good God!
Did Jeff puncture the hypocrisy of yet another lefty?
…
I’ll get the mop.
This has been tried before. I remember a year ago (I believe) in the Post’s Page Six column, an item about one of the waiters at that California club where conservatives annually go to frolic (blast my memory, it’s the one parodied in the straight-to-DVD movie “The Teddy Bears Picnic”!). Anyway, he was outed as a gay porn actor as well. The money shot is the quote from the HR rep at the club that basically said “he does good work. He stays.”
Dennis Prager wrote an impressive essay about what happens to societies when sexuality is not confined to marriage.
We tend to think that a major change in how societies think about sexual relationships won’t have a major effect on society at large because we’ve been so damned spoiled by hundreds of years of “sexual repression” that we can’t imagine that things can get much, much worse when everyone casts off the chains of “oppression.”
Have to disagree on this. In my experience, and from reading, divorces before No Fault were often extremely vicious, because you had to show cause.
Look: the dynamic (from a man’s POV) is, who are you sleeping with? In the day’s before no fault, men simply strayed and were not able to marry the woman they loved and/or fathered children by. In the days AFTER no fault, they still strayed, but at least this way they were able—and often do—marry the objects of their affection and legitimize the children.
There are reasons why marriages are more likely to fail nowadays—including increased longevity, fewer children, birth control, motels, etc. etc.—but the notion that marriages lasting a long time were common in the old days with zero extracurricular effing is just not true.
Andrei:
Short, by the standards of R. Buckminster Fuller, who once, in an essay called “I Figure”, wrote a sentence over 40 pages long. Just take it one idea-bite at a time.
Non-redundantly iota-less. There are fairly erudite homosexuals who oppose “gay marriage” for the coherent reason that it’s not likely to have a salutary effect on the “marriage franchise.” And that, in turn, is all about stuff like family dissolution and the proper raising of children, minimizing risk factors for IQ development, etc. What motivates them is the rational concern that family dissolution harms children permanently… into adulthood…, which in turn harms society. But, on the other hand, it ensures a steady stream of clients for the welfare state, so there’s the upside.
Which all just went past you like a speeding bullet, right?
Impressive Prager?
As usual, Prager states his position with multiple layers of self-congratulation and triumphalism. As though he doesn’t realize that (at least) two thirds of the world’s population is not, and never has been, part of Western Civilization, and have seemed to have become quite moral and monogamous in spite of that.
And why is that? Because women get pregnant all over the world.
That’s not how mine did it.
Steve, read past the first sentence. Halfway down he says:
“But the major reason for anyone concerned with women’s equality to be concerned with homosexuality is the direct correlation between the prevalence of male homosexuality and the relegation of women to a low social role. The improvement of the condition of women has only occurred in Western civilization, the civilization least tolerant of homosexuality.”
Read that segment to see why.
and have seemed to have become quite moral and monogamous in spite of that.
Really? Monogamous? Or just “in name only” and then the men get to go out and do whomever they want and the women have to suffer in silence? That’s the condition in most parts of the world and has been throughout most of human history.
Read the whole thing before passing judgment. And it’s written to a Jewish audience, for cryin’ out loud, so of course he’s going for “triumphalism.”
I don’t like being called a ‘homophobe’ as an attempt to end an argument, and I’m not particularly rightwing, but isn’t there a word for those who throw ‘homophobe’ around? Maybe dextrophobe (right-fearing)?
And when my wife and I were dating and were miles and miles apart, I once (for her amusement) wrote a letter that was one sentence, eight pages long, and grammatically correct. A true labor of love, believe me.
And the Lefty trolls are trying31 but their lame efforts continue to come up short. (Yes, I’m looking at *you* andrei.)
Re: Prager – I scanned the article to see if it buttressed the original point. I don’t think it does, except via a very selective reading. As for “trumphalism”, I meant not merely that he was extolling Judaism to a Jewish audience, but also Christianity, and Western Civilization.
Let’s be clear about what he’s saying here: the line of progress for Civilization with a Capital “C” goes from Judaism to Christianity to Western Civ. Everyone else is fucking anything that moves. This means everything before about 1000 BCE is not civilization, and afterwards, only in the geographical region of modern Israel from that point until sometime after the Common Era, where it wanders until officially adopted ca. 315 AD by Constantine. And so forth.
How is that any different than Western Civilization? Prager himself cites “The Song of Roland” as evidence of homophilia. Yes? And it was created by a culture totally dominated by Roman Catholic Christianity. (Although, to be honest, it sounds like a French fried version of the “300 Spartans” to me.)
I will agree that, based on experience, male homosexuality is not “good” for women. The rest is just Prager being Prager.
Because women get pregnant all over the world.
Not me. I do it right here at home
Western civ is the civilization least tolerant of homosexuality? Yeah, those Iranians are really tolerant of gays, I hear. Anyone who’s ever traveled in the third world knows Prager’s full of shit on this one. And pretty much everything else.
I wonder if our totally-NOT-homophobic-because-I believe-in-gay-marriage friend Andrei would explain to us how the Sanchez revelations ARE worse than the Clinton ones.
I don’t recall Sanchez wagging his finger at us and insisting that “I did not get blown by dudes in those movies!” Or him, you know, throat fucking a Presidential intern. In fact, Sanchez has been refreshingly honest, and without equivocation.
Sorry, Pablo. Your question has too many words.
ANDREI WINS!
He’s also missed the result of nearly every election in which gay marriage has been on the ballot. Even Oregon’s voters passed a Constitutional amendment against it, and the only state that allows it, Massachusetts, has done so by judicial fiat and it’s pro-GM community is throwing everything it has against putting such an amendment on the ballot there, because they know they’re going to lose. Eleven states passed such amendments in 2004.
So, apparently, the vast majority of Americans, even in the bluest of blue states, are homophobic. Is that right, Andrei?
Ha! No question mark on that one, baby! Boo-Ya!
Was Monica one of the guys in the movie?
I can’t believe how dumb some liberals really are. Think about it. In Oregon, the gay marriage amendment passed by some 57%. In Oregon! That’s a whole lotta “democrats” voting against gay marriage.
I suggest these same liberals clean up their own backyard first, before worrying about their neighbors.
Seems there are plenty of “homophobic” individuals in the dems party. And there’s also plenty of “tolerant” individuals in the republican party as well.
I would agree that attitudes toward gays and gay marriage aren’t a function of political affiliation. However, that “cleaning up the backyard” comment suggests that liberals should be purging gays from their ranks, and I hope it wasn’t intended that way.
I read it as purging “homophobes”, cynn. Nice crack in your 3:05, btw.
Peripherally on topic: the effect of STDs on sexual customs cannot and should not be ignored—but often is.
Our ancestors, even in the Western world not so long ago, were much freer than we are. The existence of syphilis, gonorrhea, etc., let alone more “modern” ailments like AIDS, puts a pretty severe constraint on permissible sexual practices. In particular, it puts a fairly high premium on fidelity between people who have established that neither has microbes eating their private parts. We read Tom Jones and the like today with considerable wonder, because we have partially adapted our customs to the (relatively high) probability that the lovable rogue has the clap.
I have seen this put forward as an argument for gay “marriage”—the idea being that a formal acknowledgement of connection would minimize infidelity. Unfortunately experience suggests otherwise. The most prominent contribution of the gay community to that debate was their vociferous refusal to allow application of straightforward public health measures in the early days of AIDS, on the ground that it was the routine privilege of homosexuals to engage in multiple casual encounters, and to claim dibs on the public purse to ameliorate the consequences when they came around.
It is entirely possible that the continent of Africa may be nearly depopulated in a generation, due to their unwillingness to adapt their sexual practices and customs to the realities of HIV. It is perfectly possible to be highly conflicted about this; it takes a heart of stone not to want to relieve suffering, but a person standing on the tracks giving the engine the finger as it approaches is hard to define as “victim”. Male homosexual sex incurs the same dangers for the same reasons, and indiscriminate homosexual encounters are a danger to the public health without any reference whatever to “morality” or Old Testament prohibitions.
I’ve said before: I don’t give a fart in Katrina what, with which, or to whom. Waving pudenda of either polarity in my face offends me, most especially when it’s likely to be diseased.
Regards,
Ric
Your english professor is crying right now.
Posted by Gary | permalink
on 03/08 at 11:47 AM
What a relief. I was thinking that I had lost 30 IQ points and some how failed to notice.
It really helps to be a poor typist. You have to think about what you are trying to say.
Ouch. No, I could see how you could interpret it that way though.
What I couldn’t convey is that there are plenty of homophobes in the democratic party but for some reason, liberals ignore this fact (for political expediency) and only point their finger at republicans. They gloss over the fact that some in their own party are working against them and their interest. Seems pretty hypocritical to me that they don’t expose their own members as being homophobic and place all the blame squarely on the republicans.
Like I said, they need to realize it’s their own party that holds them back. Not the big bad republican boogeyman.
I’m sorry I’m not as articulate as some of you, but I enjoy reading and thought I’d put this out there. It astounded me when Oregon passed the marriage amendment, that bastion of liberal philosophy and really made me realize who the REAL bigots are, and it ain’t the republicans.
I have a question…has “Andrei” read ANY of the debates on this Christofascist, JOOOOO-dominated, homophobic oppressive website to know that there are about fifty kajillion (a scientific approximation) well-thought-out gay marriage positions stated by the evile monolith or the right?
Or was that too long again?
Given the topic, I live the pun hanging there.
And there, too.
I understood you, dsmith, and there’s a pretty fair chance cynn did, too.
She just chose to “misread” you to force you to explain yourself. Part of her game. Don’t sweat it.
That should have been “on the right.”
And, yes, before Pablo asks–I did mean we oppress homophobes here.
What is up with my spelling today?
”leave the pun hanging…”
Silly me–no scotch yet.
Classic. You speak of Andrei and Alfi here, of course. stevexx and semenclit also strike me as the kind who are so fond of themselves that their idea of a top time would involve no 3rd parties.
Western civ is the civilization least tolerant of homosexuality? Yeah, those Iranians are really tolerant of gays, I hear.
Try this on for size. It’s a blog by a former Muslim.
Money quote: “In some [Muslim] societies during some [eras], homosexuality was practically the norm, if not just tolerated or accepted. Of course, seeing the Muslim world’s traditional view of (or, rather, against) women – breeders to kept out of sight and hearing – this is not so surprising.”
The widespread practice of homosexuality and executing gays both exist in the Muslim world.
From the esteemed Mark Twain, “Whenever the literary German dives into a sentence, that is the last you are going to see of him until he emerges on the other side of his Atlantic with his verb in his mouth.”
Just because you can doesn’t mean you *should*. Discuss amongst yourselves…
Poetry, Ric Locke, pure poetry.
Much better for you than the edeep-fried Mark Twain.
Jeff, keep it up. You are serving a very important role, and whether or not you feel that you’re always getting a fair reading from the world—along with the “respect” that would follow from such—it’s crucial that you keep doing what you’re doing.
Because it is, indeed, important.
And Ric, great stuff as well. On this thread and elsewhere.
Yeah, Jeff… because Alphie and his friends ARE WAITING FOR THE VERB!
Just like with all the Dems’ pullout promises.
wishbone
I’m just glad you were able to diagnose the problem so quickly. I’m guessing you’re a first-responder out in the real world.
Personally, I’m homo-indifferent. I would like to see some form of civil partnership that allows two consenting adults to share a set of resources, obligations and privileges without having to hire an army of lawyers to make such a contract out of whole cloth each time. The question for me would be whether it should be a single, “civil union” set of resources, obligations, and priveleges or a small variety of configurations with each individual allow to enter into a single such partnership. I’d expound, but my break is over. Back to work.
I’m not sure Sanchez is a true conservative, anyway. I haven’t seen “Beat Off Frenzy” and I don’t expect to be renting it anytime soon, but, based on the extant stills, he seems to be an advocate of uncontrolled spending.
One Dell keyboard, please, steve.
Ergonomic.
By the way—and I should really have mentioned this in my post—but there’s really no proof that Sanchez is gay, just that he was willing to be paid for gay sex.
Not that it matters either way; just thought I should clarify.
I don’t, for instance, believe that Bela Lugosi was a vampire, or that Heather Graham is a porn star on skates.
Thanks, Mr. Dreamkiller. And I suppose all exchange students don’t look like Shannon ELizabeth either, huh?
Jeff: I agree, there’s no proof that he’s gay. Or, to put it another way, either’s gay, or he’s a great actor.
Which reminds me of the following quote:
To be honest I feel a little guilty joking about this here, although I am just goofing (as Wishbone seems to understand). I would like to see the photos expunged from the web and let the guy get on with his post-porn life. Unfortunately, I’m afraid, that’s not very likely.
It’s always been an interesting question for me whether being gay is in the act or in the desire.
Is Sanchez, who’s been twice engaged and never had a boyfriend, more gay than a priest who has taken a vow of celebacy to faithfully keep natural desires toward homosexuality constrained?
I use the examples only because they are obvious and somewhat timely, not because they are representative.
Dice Clay famously put it this way: “Either you suck cock, or you do not suck cock.”
But this seems to rule out economic opportunism and a personal constitution that doesn’t recoil from certain acts.
Well, steve, the jokes are funny, regardless. And at any rate I think all of us have made some type of pun or joke about this whole thing. It just can’t be avoided. FWIW, reading Sanchez’s article, he seems to handling the whole thing pretty well.
Interesting, though, that Jeff brought up vampires in this thread. Yesterday, I heard Greg Gutfeld on Fox talking about Rosie’s method of curing her depression, i.e. hanging upside town. Greg referred to her as a “fat lesbian vampire bat.” The carpet’s still a mess after all the Yoo-Hoo I spit out from laughing.
Either that or they have some hot babe fluffers on set.
Jeff: Now that’s the $64 question.
And I will tell you what I think, although I always get looks from family when I try to explain it.
I don’t think there is such a thing as “gay”, or “straight”
I think there are simply sexual experiences we have, and inclinations we have, and they sort of set the tone.
Obviously, the vast majority of people are attracted to the “other” sex. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here.
But, just as obviously, there are many contexts in which straight people can perform “gay” sexual acts. Like, when they are kids. Or, if they go to an all boy’s school (esp in Britain), or if they are in a context with no women around for a long time (at sea, in prison, etc.) But these same people, in a different context, go straight and never look back.
People like Andrew or Kinsey can come up with some complicated rating system for all of this, but, the fact is, I think all human beings are potentially bisexual. The thing is, those of us who are straight, usually don’t find men attractive, so we don’t have sexual thoughts in that area. But suppose we had had a sexual experience at some point in our lives, and it was good, and it was with someone of our own sex? Then we would at least be open to the possibility.
Put another way. Realistically, there isn’t much that your normative homosexual, gay or lesbian, actually DOES sexually that isn’t done by a lot of straight people. But, those of us, like myself, who just never found people of the same sex attractive enough to get the hots for them, or have an experience with them, just have no desire to do it with someone of the same gender. But it wouldn’t be IMPOSSIBLE. And if it’s possible, then it can happen, and if it can happen once, it can happen more, and then it becomes a kind of habit.
Put yet a third way. Suppose I had a girlfriend who did certain things and liked certain things done. And I grew to associate those things with sexual pleasure. Then, the next girl, no. Wouldn’t I be wanting to get her to do the things the first one did? And wouldn’t I be attracted to someone who, bottom line, liked the things I did? That’s where habit enters the picture, and, by the way, you couples, gay or straight, make sure you talk to your partner about different things to do. Because the key to that part of your relationship, which is core, is that everyone is getting off at optimum levels. Don’t be shy, or a prude. This is your partner.
BTW, I have talked to many gays over the years, and one guy, a very butch fag, who declared to me that he wanted to get married and that he had had sex with women, I asked him, well, why did you become homosexual in the first place? And he said: Well, you know. You never know who you will fall in love with when you really need to fall in love with someone, and I fell in love with a guy.
I think the problem with gays is that they, I think in many cases, make a fetish of their orientation and refuse to even try to cross that bridge to a member of the opposite camp. They are ACCUSTOMED to their lifestyle, their partners, and all that, and they get first date/ first kiss jitters anytime they even consider the prospect of the OTHER. I sort of feel sorry for them, because I know the lifestyle is not really a happy one. On the other hand, if you’ve spent the past many years doing sex with guys, it would be very hard to shift gears and stay true to a woman for the rest of your life. Sexual preferences strike very deep, for good reason.
Anyway. Sorry if I went on too long.
I think that sentence tore a hole in the space-time continuum.
Think of gayness as more an exercise in formalism than essentialism. Either way though, you’re right about keeping an eye on that economic opportunism thing.
According to Ace there’s a lot more money in gay porn, so if you tend toward the purely mercenary you might do it even as a straight guy.
Or comtinuum, in the spirit of tonight’s theme.
The eco motivation is also important, nor just for gay porn but also for how teenage runaways of either gender get into prostitution. And then that becomes a habit, too.
Or, to quote from Chappelle’s famous declaration to a class of fifth graders, “And that was the first time I ever sucked a dick for crack.”