"I can't date someone with a different belief system" is what he told me. I expected this answer from the guy I had been casually seeing. From early on, I suspected that our differing political bents - his liberal, mine more conservative - would ultimately cause a split. Once, we had a heated argument when I said offhandedly that people who could not afford to care for children should not have them (not a policy prescription, just a profession of personal ethics). After that, I tried to avoid political discussions altogether. So his answer did not come as much of a surprise when, a few weeks after we broke up, I asked him for his reasons. His beliefs euphemism didn't render the blow any softer: We're both Jewish.
So much for dating a proud, progressive, and ostensibly tolerant liberal. But with him, as with other liberals I know, tolerance does not always extend to appreciating someone else's differing political views. Now living in Cambridge and having grown up in the suburbs of Boston and gone to school at Yale, I've been surrounded by liberals for nearly all of my life. Most would be astonished to hear that they're the most intolerant people I've ever met. After all, I, the supposedly closed-minded conservative, never considered this guy's liberal politics anathema to the point of wanting to call off our relationship. A Mary Matalin-James Carville pairing (she the Republican adviser to Dick Cheney, he the Democratic strategist who helped Bill Clinton get elected) ours would not be.
As a gay recovering leftist - to my eternal shame, I canvassed for Ralph Nader in high school - I have grown accustomed to having difficulties in the dating world. At Yale, most people knew me as "the gay conservative" for a column I wrote in the school paper, and my notoriety - not the source of sexy fascination that I might have hoped it to be - certainly did not help my dating prospects. My reputation preceded me. Once, at a party, a gay freshman who had only been on campus for a few days was introduced to me and said, "Oh, you're that [expletive] conservative." On Facebook.com - where people of my generation self-importantly advertise themselves to the world - I selected "Libertarian" to describe my "political views." I hate using labels and am hardly a doctrinaire free-marketeer, but I generally believe that government makes a mess of things and that society is better off when the state only does what's absolutely necessary.
Most gay people are liberal, and this is somewhat understandable; the left has embraced gay rights as a part of its political agenda, whereas the right, with some important exceptions, has not. But for many gays, liberalism is just as much a visceral, reactionary tendency as it is a positive affirmation of political belief. Many gays I know - especially those from red states - blame conservatism writ large as the villain that repressed them for so many years. Thus, their homosexuality dictates their political views on everything. For these gays, it is just as much a part of the "coming out" process to be a loud liberal as a proud homosexual.
But there's nothing about my homosexuality that dictates a belief about raising the minimum wage, withdrawing immediately from Iraq, and backing teachers' unions: all liberal causes that I strongly oppose. Yet there's a common, unattractive feature that many conservative gay men share: a serious chip on their shoulder. Being part of a community that is so intolerant of their views, gay conservatives can be embittered, patronizing, and castigatory of their gay brothers. It's not a particularly attractive attitude. Perhaps it's for this reason that I have not started cruising Log Cabin Republican meetings for dates.
Luckily, I am now dating someone who, though more liberal than I, appreciates my political independence. Let's just hope it lasts through this long campaign season.
71 Comments for “Tolerant—Except on Dates”
posted by Rhywun on
Heh, I didn’t realize “withdrawing immediately from Iraq” was a liberal cause. It’s not just liberals who see the colossal mess we’ve made there or even that we shouldn’t be there in the first place, y’know.
posted by John on
And who knew ‘don’t have kids if you can’t afford them’ was a conservative position? I just thought it was common sense.
posted by S. Woody on
More than any political stance, it’s the “chip on the shoulder” attitude that would drive me away from a potential mate. Who needs that kind of anger in a relationship?
posted by brian on
Poor James, he got dumped, so he turned it into a ‘liberals aren’t tolerant’ mini-rant.
Jeez, if being tolerant towards someone means we have to date ’em, then there are some hot straight boys who better be calling me for a weekend date.
“…gay conservatives can be embittered, patronizing, and castigatory of their gay brothers.”
“Kettle? Hi, it’s Pot here. Just wanted to let you know–you’re black.”
posted by walt on
People shouldn’t overeat, have unsafe sex, drive too fast, or play computer games all day. Yet, often they do. And sometimes the repercussions become ours, as when they have children they can’t support materially as they should. A liberal sees the situation as part of our human condition – partial knowledge yielding partial responsibility. If conservatism is synonymous with a basic lack of empathy, then it’s not hard to see why most gays are liberal. We’re not blind to the occasional kindnesses of strangers, nor should we be. In fact, it’s helpful to acknowledge them since the opposite is often too real for comfort.
posted by Avee on
Givem me a break, walt. There is a class of welfare-dependent women who keep having children because, hey, they got welfare. Folks can take responsibility for themselves; when you excuse their behavior, you’re enabling their dysfunctional — and not helping them at all. It’s the “soft bigotry” of low expectations (and, often, liberal racism).
posted by Mark on
Cry me a river…
posted by EssEm on
Some of the comments in response prove the writer’s point.
posted by ETJB on
It works both ways. How many dedicated conservatives will date a dedicated liberal? Or a libertarian date a socialist?
How many white LGBT people will date a person of color?
I have met nice and not-so-nice LGBT people of various self-avowed political beliefs.
I had some bad experiences with fellow LGBT students, but thats more likely a product of age and few number of students who are actually out and involved.
posted by kittynboi on
Liberals are mean and won’t date right wingers. Why? Because most liberals expect the worst from right wingers, an expectation that the right seems more than happy to meet time and time again.
posted by Steve on
I am a daring liberal Democrat who has dated more than one gay Republicans. My observations: Their presumed castigation from “main stream gay politics” was enough of a badge of honor that I was left wondering if the castigation was the point in the first place. One man cried explaining that it was harder to be a gay republican than to come out to his family…including his wife. (we broke up..I ended it…dogmatic liberal bastard that I am.)
I am happily espoused to a man of similar ethical and moral convictions, hence our politics align as well. Call it political narcissism, but I love being able to respect his point of view.
So, if the kitchen is too hot, stay in the log cabin.
posted by Lori Heine on
As much as I love good, blood-boiling political debate, when I’m out on a date I usually like to talk about less contentious topics anyway.
Hyper-political, chip-on-the-shoulder women bore me. There seem to be quite a few of them out there, but fortunately I have also found many eligible ladies who have better things to talk about than politics.
A “match made in Heaven,” it seems to me, best follows a recipe like that.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
I hate to be the voice of skepticism, but here goes: Getting dumped for your belief system? I put that in the same category of “It’s me, not you” — a chickens__t way for some people to avoid admitting that they are bored, disappointed, or resentful about the relationship they are leaving. Indeed, I suspect the term “belief system” is uttered by some people who are profoundly troubled by issues and by a far greater number of people who actually believe in very little.
posted by walt on
While this thread is growing stale, one other thing deserves mention. It’s the conservative tendency to inauthentic victimization. It’s a bit ironic that the party of white people see themselves as victims of media elites and bureaucrats, all the while having materially better lives than the minorities they demonize. Rush Limbaugh is an obvious purveyor of this bizarre kind of ideation: the self-pitying bully. But the argument that gay liberals are mean to gay conservatives depends on a similarly neurotic tic. “They hate you because…..they’re liberals!” is both meretricious and dishonest. It’s why a definitional requirement of modern “conservatism” virtually requires a psychological explanation.
posted by ted on
AS a gay conservative I recently had the displeasure of facing a blatantly intolerant individual who was proud of himself for starting to think that maybe not all conservatives were total abominations. He looked upon me and saw a blight. I looked at him and saw a person. That is what is wrong with the picture. The left is programmed to hate – Hate Bush, Hate the War, this that…How can it not spill over into other areas?
What if the right launched a multi-media campaign to get young people to “Hate Hillary”, as was launched against Bush before the last election? Would that be seen as progressive?
Some of the liberals I know (gay) were been extremely ugly to me when they heard me say I was conservative – to the point of calling me names at dinner parties and elsewhere.
Calling me stupid is my favorite – I have an advanced degree in Quantum Mechanics.
Emotion, verve, and indignation have to be used to unify and animate the left – they can’t stand criticism and seem to be ignorant of the most basic fact-reason relationships. They want to believe what they believe – and nothing or no one is going to rob them of the right to feel superior – and to hurl invective as self-righteously as any bible thumper – it is just that there is apparently no guiding Deity.
posted by Walt on
Look, the reason liberals tend to be a bit short with you people OUGHT to be fairly obvious. Who are the enemies of gays? Any clues? Please, read the platform of the Republican Party. Better yet, tune into Sean Hannity or Michael Savage. Or read blogs like Little Green Footballs. Gays aren’t blind. We know who hates us. And when we meet gay conservatives, we want to know why they are blind to THAT reality. An ideology that gains power by demonizing gays fully deserves the scrutiny and contempt of gay liberals.
The problem is not gay liberals asking impertinent questions of blindered conservatives. It’s really why any self-respecting citizen would compartmentalize his life in order to overlook such obvious gaps in self-interest. The most common reason given is that their self-interest is economic, and not political or social.
Liberalism is born the moment you notice how your life intersects with others. The innumerable interdependencies of life present an escape from the smugness and small-mindedness of modern conservatism. The moment you start seeing these connections, you cease being parochial.
posted by Randy on
Of course, conservatives NEVER judge anyone else by their politics. I’m sure North Dallas 30 would love to date liberals, if only they gave him half a chance….
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I don’t need to date liberals, Randy; I’m partnered with one. A fine, upstanding, talented, loving, artistic, and wonderful Jewish man from NYC who also happens to be a lifelong Democrat.
Next, Walt:
It’s really why any self-respecting citizen would compartmentalize his life in order to overlook such obvious gaps in self-interest. The most common reason given is that their self-interest is economic, and not political or social.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Walt, gay Democrats and liberals have exactly zero problem with parties and politicians who support the FMA, support state constitutional amendments, pander to people who consider homosexuality a sin, fire gay employees, and proudly proclaim how they hold “the same position” as the Republicans gay liberals and Democrats deem “homophobic” — as long as said people are Democrats.
And these are people who gay organizations like NGLTF and HRC have endorsed as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, who they claim “love gays”, and to whom they’ve poured literally tens of millions of dollars.
From a psychological perspective, I think the reason gay liberals are so intolerant about gay conservatives is the same reason that enablers of alcoholics spend all their time blaming everyone else for making the alcoholic drink.
And finally:
Liberalism is born the moment you notice how your life intersects with others. The innumerable interdependencies of life present an escape from the smugness and small-mindedness of modern conservatism. The moment you start seeing these connections, you cease being parochial.
Which is why liberals are such rotten givers and volunteers.
Brooks shows that those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes. The average donation to educational causes among redistributionists was eight dollars per year, compared with $140 from their ideological opposites, and $96 annually to health care causes from free marketeers versus $11 from egalitarians.
A 2002 poll found that those who thought government “was spending too much money on welfare” were significantly more likely than those who wanted increased spending on welfare to give directions to someone on the street, return extra change to a cashier, or give food and/or money to a homeless person.
Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn’t explained by income differential?in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. And while religion is a major factor, the figures don’t just show tithing to churches. Religious donors give significantly more to non-religious causes than do their secular counterparts.
And perhaps most striking and particularly pertinent to gays and gay activists:
The people who give the least are the young, especially young liberals. Brooks writes that “young liberals?perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political constituency in America today?are one of the least generous demographic groups out there. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood.”
That’s because, Walt, demanding that the government do something is shirking your personal responsibility for doing it yourself — and trying to lessen your own burden by forcing others to pay for it, whether they want to or not.
If John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, George Soros, etc. really wanted to make a dent in health insurance coverage, for instance, they could easily do so; the amount John Edwards charges for a one-hour speech on poverty, just to name one, would provide health insurance for ten to eleven families for a year. Hillary Clinton, if she were to set aside just 2% of her estimated wealth, could kick one million dollars towards families who need health insurance per year — enough to cover two hundred families.
But instead, they try to raise taxes on everyone else, including families that have barely a fraction of their wealth, to pay for it.
Part of the reason is sheer selfishness; they avoid having to spend their own money. But the other reason is sheer greed; if they can collect money from you via taxes, there is nothing stopping them from spending it on whatever they want and whoever they need to spend money on to buy votes. But if you give it to a charity, that money is lost to them; it goes directly to the person who needs help without the intermediate step they can use to exploit it.
posted by Roger on
It must be sad living on the island of misfit toys.
posted by walt on
I think North Dallas Thirty’s version of reality is pretty much Rush 101, but something else does deserve consideration. During the plague years, gay men rallied to one another in a way we had never seen before or since. As Andrew Sullivan eloquently noted, we were a community fully vested in love and mutual concern. But this wasn’t simply a miracle of volunteerism. It was also liberals – and even some conservatives like Orrin Hatch – coming together to weave a safety net for AIDS sufferers. It was acutely unpopular among most conservatives to give gays any assistance. Their viewpoint could be summarized as pretty close to the homocon attitude toward poor black women.
Like it or not, we’re part of a larger community. This is why conservatives spend so much time denying the exigencies of the public square. To understand we are mutually dependent is an admission of complexity. We start to understand that it’s not just what I have but what I owe to the community that sustains me.
Politics is a noble cause because it gives us a chance to strengthen the ties that bind us together. The “I’ve got mine” attitude of gay conservatives may be a useful counterbalance, but given recent gay history, its blindness is astounding and notable.
posted by Mark on
I was just on a professional blog whose articles were full of great thinking on important topics of grave concern to gays and straights alike of whatever political bent. The contrast was striking. Also, that’s a great response from Walt.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
This is why conservatives spend so much time denying the exigencies of the public square.
Actually, based on facts, it seems that conservatives are far better at seeing and acting upon said “exigencies”, both in terms of money AND time.
And as far as the “love and mutual concern” goes, that is rather interesting given the assertions in your same post that all gay people who are not liberal Democrats are racist, selfish, and blind.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30, I recommend that you actually read the book “Who Really Cares” and not rely on a book review (!) for you information.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
ColoradoPatriot, if you wish to accuse the article’s author and the article itself of lying, provide evidence of it.
And if you aren’t accusing them of lying, then deal with the information presented.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Who said anything about lying (and how do you, one of the biggest hypocrites/liars on all of the internets, get off with the accusatory tone)? I’ve read the book and recommend others to do the same…once you do you might reconsider throwing words like “facts” around in regards to the conclusions the book comes to. Book reviews are not the best places to glean information from.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
As suspected, you had no evidence or proof that the article or the article’s author was lying.
Now, again, deal with the information presented, instead of stalling and making accusations that it is false.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I am happily espoused to a man of similar ethical and moral convictions, hence our politics align as well. Call it political narcissism, but I love being able to respect his point of view.
So, in other words, you are incapable of respecting any point of view that differs from your own.
That says a lot right there about liberalism.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “As suspected, you had no evidence or proof that the article or the article’s author was lying.”
What are you going on about now? Where did I say anything about the book review being untruthful? I have read the book, have you? If you had you wouldn’t be presenting the book review as “fact”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Where did I say anything about the book review being untruthful?
Ironically, your most recent example is two sentences later.
If you had you wouldn’t be presenting the book review as “fact”.
Like I said, if you wish to accuse the article’s author and the article itself of lying, provide evidence of it.
And if you aren’t accusing them of lying, then deal with the information presented.
posted by AlexLevy on
I’ll date you Jamie. Just poke me on Facebook.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Like I said, if you wish to accuse the article’s author and the article itself of lying, provide evidence of it.”
I’m still confused as to why you think I am accusing anyone of lying. I’ve read the book, have you? READ THE BOOK, NOT A REVIEW OF THE BOOK.
posted by Bobby on
As usual, the liberals here think only liberals, blacks, hispanics, women and arabs are persecuted. Anyone else can never be victimized, and if they are deserves it. That’s what explains the negative reaction to Kirchik’s article.
As for you, ETJB, I’ll answer the questions you posted to all.
“How many dedicated conservatives will date a dedicated liberal?”
—I will. I enjoy arguing. To me it’s all about looks and personality.
“Or a libertarian date a socialist?”
—It could happen, the personal arena is different than the political arena. Otherwise homophobes would never get a haircut.
“How many white LGBT people will date a person of color?”
—Asians are one of my prefered dating groups. They’re great in bed, really open minded, tolerant, and don’t get upset if I say something controversail. Especially foreign born asians which been corrupted by the beauty ideals of the American gay community which brainwashes them to desire only skinny and lean men. I also like some brownish latinos.
“I had some bad experiences with fellow LGBT students, but thats more likely a product of age and few number of students who are actually out and involved.”
—Groupthink is common in college, I was a liberal back then and I got rejected by my gay comrades for “outing” some people in one of my radical leftwing e-mails. I remember what I wrote “we shouldn’t be marching with the crazy christian fundamentalists from the Southern Baptist Student Alliance to protest the Nation of Islam coming to our campus.” Which is why I no longer see gays as comrades. In a way, they did me a favor, if they had embraced me I would have stayed a left-leaning republican hating loony.
Who knew someday I would actually respect the baptists and all those conservatives I hated back then.
posted by Craig2 on
Bobby:
Conservative Christians do get haircuts, but has anyone noticed how awful they are? I suspect that they may have attended a special “Christian” hair dressing
school that bans experienced
gay coiffurists from instructing
them, ergo the unaesthetic outcomes…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Got balls? on
Jesus Christ, I’ve never heard a bigger bunch of cry babies in my life. For all the talk I hear from fellow gay conservatives about what pussies Democrats are I have to say, with all honesty, that I’ve never seen bigger cry babies than gay Republicans. All I ever hear is Boo hoo, so and so was mean to me. Boo hoo, so and so won’t play with me. Boo hoo, so and so doesn’t like my opinion and tells me so. Boo hoo, so and so doesn’t want to spend time with someone he has nothing in common with…
Stop acting like we’re any less selective, intolerant or abusive than they are and for god’s sake grow some frickin nads powder puffs!
posted by TJR on
Why are conservatives against something as common sense and humane as raising the minimum wage? I don’t get it.
posted by Sean Kinsell on
Bobby:
“Asians are one of my prefered dating groups. They’re great in bed, really open minded, tolerant, and don’t get upset if I say something controversail. Especially foreign born asians which been corrupted by the beauty ideals of the American gay community which brainwashes them to desire only skinny and lean men. I also like some brownish latinos.”
Yeah, it’s a shame no one desires heftier guys. Maybe if they repositioned themselves as…oh, say, “bears” or something, they might find a niche market.
Got balls?, I agree with you about the tone here, but I don’t think the underlying issue is insignificant. One of the things we value most in America is the assumption that even people with positions that differ radically from ours have taken them based on good faith and reasoning. We’re supposed to like individuality and differences and all that good stuff. When you meet someone who’s willing to dismiss you out of hand as inhumane or selfish or stupid, it’s an affront. Since I’m one of those tiresome people who insist on identifying themselves as libertarian, I suppose I’m kind of hors de combat with regards to the whole conservative-liberal thing. But in my experience, Kirchick basically has it right: left-ish gay people really are more likely to be sententious in the I-don’t-even-want-to-talk-to-you-if-you-voted-for-Bush way, and right-ish gay people are more likely to play up the noble-suffering routine.
posted by Blueflash on
Please, give me a break. I know, people on the left can be hypocrites – I was once a canvasser for Green Peace and got paired with a guy who told me that if he ever knocked on the door of a homosexual and ended up talking to him he was afraid he would get AIDS – GreenPeace, mind you. Nevertheless, at the same time (late 1980’s), Republican operatives were funneling the media the slander that gay men ate feces and the media, by the way, didn’t balk. So which is worse – the liberal who fails to live up to his professed ideals of tolerance or the conservative who knowingly spreads hateful lies? It seems to me that gay conservatives often flee the imperfect liberal for the re-assuringly consistent and vicious conservative. Or is it a longing to be accepted by those who despise you?
posted by Rob on
The problem isn’t that most gays are liberals. It’s that most gays are Democrats. I’m a Libertarian who is seven years into a relationship with a dyed-in-the-wool socialist Green Party member, and we’re very happy (we got married at Cambridge City Hall back in March). The one thing we agree on politically is that neither Democrats nor Republicans can be trusted to treat gay people fairly. And the fact that we agree on that point drives his Harvard Democrat buddies out of their minds. 🙂
posted by Brian Miller on
It works both ways. How many dedicated conservatives will date a dedicated liberal? Or a libertarian date a socialist?
Most libertarians date non-libertarians, since we’re only about 19% of the US population.
I tend to agree with the article premise that liberals aren’t very tolerant dating-mates (I’ve had several end a date early after finding out I wasn’t planning on voting Democratic in a current election).
However, conservatives can be just as bad. I had a dreadful date with a neocon who kept talking about the Iraq war and wouldn’t let me agree to disagree with that policy disaster — demanding that I “either support the President” or he “wasn’t interested.” Of course, my interest ended far before his! 😉
Political orientation is something everyone has, and it’s a personal preference. True tolerance is accepting another person as he or she is — and appreciating him/her for that, rather than trying to change him/her.
Anyone who would refuse to date someone due to differences in political beliefs is as shallow as someone who wouldn’t date someone due to his accent, skin color, age, hair color, etc. It’s ultimately a superficial requirement from people who aren’t secure enough in themselves to believe in what they believe without external validation from a partner.
Libertarians are individualists. We recognize that people have differing beliefs from our own, and that’s their right, as individuals. If they want to be socialists, or leftists, or rightists, or conservatives, or neocons, that’s their own choice — after all, as individuals, they have a right to be wrong! 😉
posted by tjmmz9843 on
JamesK, gotta be honest with you: a strange article. Here’s what I found strange. You spend most of it decrying the way liberals stereotype and castigate of gay conservatives, rightly so. Then you wrap up by….stereotyping and castigating gay conservatives. Whoa, where’d that come from?
I shall quote, “there?s a[n] unattractive feature that many conservative gay men share….gay conservatives can be embittered, patronizing, and castigatory….Perhaps it?s for this reason that I have not started cruising Log Cabin Republican meetings for dates.” Way to hold a sweeping, castigating, and probably wrong stereotype of Log Cabin Republicans.
You do include a couple softeners….it’s “many” gay conservatives (not all), they “can be” that way (not are), and so on. But come on. We readers see the tendency, or where you ended up.
For Rhywun at the top of the thread – Yes, you should consider “withdrawing immediately from Iraq” very much a liberal idea. Let’s put it this way: If it’s a good idea and it comes true, you can take credit (if you’re liberal). Back in the real world, though, it’s not just conservatives who see what an unbelievable tragedy it would cause – basically surrendering America’s position in the Middle East to al Qaeda, and probably leading to civil war / killing in Iraq that makes today’s look like nothing in comparison.
posted by tjmmz9843 on
TJR “Why are conservatives against something as common sense and humane as raising the minimum wage? I don’t get it.”
As a libertarian, I can’t tell you about conservatives. Here’s the most common libertarian view, though. Raising the minimum wage isn’t humane. It’s proven that the higher you raise it, the more jobs are destroyed. Why are liberals against something as common sense and humane as unskilled and/or young people having jobs? I don’t get it.
posted by tjmmz9843 on
Brian Miller – can you please listen to yourself? People to your left are intolerant. People to your right are intolerant. Who’s the tolerant one? You! You’re a super-tolerant libertarian, you’ll have us know. So tolerant, that that dude to your right (on your date) deserves to be called “dreadful”, a “neocon” (name-slinging, anyone?) and by the way, -you- gave up on him first-, you’ll have us know, -before- he considered giving up on you.
Nice visiting here folks, bye and good luck!
posted by Brian Miller on
People to your left are intolerant. People to your right are intolerant. Who’s the tolerant one? You! You’re a super-tolerant libertarian, you’ll have us know.
Pretty much.
I’ve never met a libertarian who insists that his date change his/her political orientation to Libertarian (or libertarian) — or who demands a date just like himself.
I meet conservatives and liberals, every day, who demand that their dates do just that.
by the way, -you- gave up on him first-, you’ll have us know, -before- he considered giving up on you
Not really. He told me that unless I changed who I was, he wouldn’t date me. And whenever anyone demands I change who I am “for them,” I hit the road — early on.
It’s not only about politics.
that dude to your right (on your date) deserves to be called “dreadful”, a “neocon” (name-slinging, anyone?)
Neocon is a description, not a “name,” and I called the date “dreadful,” not the person.
For a libertarian, you’re not spending a lot of time getting the facts or context right!
posted by Michigan-Matt on
GotBalls offers from the StraightTalkBus ReDeux “For all the talk I hear from fellow gay conservatives about what pussies Democrats are I have to say, with all honesty, that I’ve never seen bigger cry babies than gay Republicans.”
I think you’re in the shallow end of the dating pool, John. The gay conservatives I know aren’t anything like that at all… to a man, they are literate, articulate, commandingly well opinioned, strong in character and self-esteem, great sportsmen and deeply involved in their community –and not just the gay community.
Maybe you’ve gathered a faulty perspective based on all that time you’ve spent in the shallow end of the dating pool. I suggest you drop the wannabe men in Fla who tell you they are gay conservatives, come north to the Midwest and date real guys –guys who are confident, assured, informed by life experience and distainful of whining, self-absorbed wallflowered sissies.
posted by Bobby on
“Yeah, it’s a shame no one desires heftier guys. Maybe if they repositioned themselves as…oh, say, “bears” or something, they might find a niche market.”
—It’s not that easy, bears who are into chasers face overwhelming competition from other bears who like the same thing. So the best thing to do is lose enough weight until you become “average,” after reaching that goal, you can keep losing weight or mantain your weight.
Now that I’ve become average, I find my dating ads getting better results.
I would however like to see a picture of the author of this article. Could he also be getting rejected for his looks?
posted by Mark Too on
Shouldn’t we all be getting tired of this bashing that we do of one another? I’m a liberal in a very conservative world, and while I find myself sometimes confused by what I think is “fuzzy” thinking…I try to remain respectful of others’ opinions and views. I read IGF because it helps me understand other perspectives. I think that James’ former date WAS narrow minded, and I thought the article made a lot of sense. (By the way, in the “good old days,” when there were pictures of the contributors, I saw James’ picture, and you don’t need to worry about his not being attractive…he’s a pretty hot, young guy!)
The issues that bind us all together are much stronger, I think, than the issues that divide us. Bickering among ourselves to the point that we will not date someone or will not behave responsibly at a dinner party is just plain silly. I worry, too, about the ease with which we slap each other in public without even knowing who we are talking to! Would you walk up to someone on the street and start berating them for their politics, their sexual orientation, or their views on the state of the world? I think not, unless you’re Bill O’Reilly or Howard Stern. (Both of whom, by the way, I put in the same category: obnoxious and of marginal relevance.) Let’s all take a deep breath, sing a verse of “Cumbayah” and start over. After all, “the only love we take is the love we make…”
posted by Bobby on
“unless you’re Bill O’Reilly or Howard Stern. (Both of whom, by the way, I put in the same category: obnoxious and of marginal relevance.) ”
—Now you understand where all the bickering comes from? Comments like yours and mine create a lot of bickering. I love Bill O’Reilly, I used to like Howard Stern until he became obsessed with lesbians and his penis. Stern is quite arrogant, I saw him interviewed by O’reilly and he makes O’reilly look humble in comparisson.
I think that while you seek unity, the world is built on division. I myself am a huge believer in “divide and conquer.” That’s how most elections are won.
In my line of work I play the same game, if my Sr. Art Director doesn’t agree with my work, I go to my boss. Why should I get screwed by anyone else?
I respect your opinion, but in my life I’ve seen too much bullshit to believe in unity of any kind. Divided we stand, comrades!
posted by Brian Miller on
One wonders how many of the men who complain that others won’t date them are themselves shallow in some aspect of dating others.
I know lots of people who whine, endlessly, that nobody is interested in them. . . who turn down literally a dozen interested guys every year because they’re two inches too short (heightwise or otherwise), or don’t earn enough money, or don’t live in the right part of town, or are the wrong racial mix, or don’t have the “right” education, or aren’t an A&F model, etc.
Ironically, many of those guys are themselves not too tall, have jobs of marginal utility, live in odd parts of town, and are far from model quality themselves.
The world is a self-defeating place — try not to emulate its worst practices!
posted by Charles Wilson on
Hey James, maybe he just wasn’t that into you. And, by the way, “conservative” men don’t whine to the Boston Globe about not being able to get a date. What’s the matter? Wouldn’t The National Review print it?
posted by Bobby on
“I know lots of people who whine, endlessly, that nobody is interested in them. . . who turn down literally a dozen interested guys”
—What you’re asking them to do is what the people who turn them down don’t do themselves, which is to lower their standards.
Right now I’m dating a colombian, he’s not skinny enough but I’m gonna give him a chance because he has a nice personality. That doesn’t mean I have to settle for him just because no one else answered my ad on craiglist. I’ll give him a chance, but if it doesn’t work out, I just won’t date for a while. No big loss.
As for Abercrombie & Finch, I hate those motherfuckers, they have created a standard of beauty few people can emmulate. They plaster their stupid billboards and ads all over town, telling everyone “you have to look like us or else.”
Then if you watch Nightline yesterday, you’ll see a report about how good looking Vladimir Putin is shirtless and thank God the previous russian president didn’t take his shirt off in public. That’s why this country is going fucking nuts. You can’t even take off your shirt without the media bitching about it.
And I’ve seen this more than once, in travel magazines there’s always some asshole writer that complains about the ugly people he saw at some nudist resort.
And you know what’s the worse? Understanding all that and being just as shallow. Like yesterday I saw a fat black comedian on last comic standing and I changed the channel. That’s the power of the media, my brainwashing is complete.
posted by Bill Penna on
James, as a Log Cabin member since 1987, I have never known them to be “embittered, patronizing, and castigatory of their gay brothers” Quite the opposite. While the gay left lectures endlessly on diversity, LCR has a type of diversity that the group-think, identity-politics left has never tolerated: a diversity of ideology!
LCR is comprised of Gays and Lesbians with a broad political spectum of beliefs. We have Liberal Country Club Republicans, populist Cloth-Coat Republicans, Neo-Cons, Paleo-Cons and small “L” Libertarians. Everyone is welcome and debate and persuasion is encouraged! You seem too inteligent a man to fall into the “Progressive” trap of painting all adversaries with a derogatory and broad brush. See you at a chapter meeting! 🙂
posted by Brian Miller on
Right now I’m dating a colombian, he’s not skinny enough but I’m gonna give him a chance because he has a nice personality. That doesn’t mean I have to settle for him just because no one else answered my ad on craiglist. I’ll give him a chance, but if it doesn’t work out, I just won’t date for a while. No big loss.
So what’s the difference between this and someone saying, oh, something like:
“Right now I’m dating a Republican, he’s not liberal enough but I’m gonna give him a chance because he has a nice face. That doesn’t mean I have to settle for him just because no one else answered my ad on craiglist. I’ll give him a chance, but if it doesn’t work out, I just won’t date for a while. No big loss.”
posted by Bobby on
The difference Brian is that a Republican might not even get a chance.
Do a test, set up an account on gay.com with gayrepublican as a screen-name. Then set up another account with gary69. I bet you already know which one is gonna get more hits.
posted by Brian Miller on
The difference Brian is that a Republican might not even get a chance.
Life isn’t fair.
Do a test, set up an account on gay.com with gayrepublican as a screen-name. Then set up another account with gary69. I bet you already know which one is gonna get more hits.
I suppose, if you believe one has a “right to one night stands,” that would be a disturbing thing. I happen not to believe in such a “right.”
posted by Bobby on
“Life isn’t fair.”
—Exactly! So why call the “Who’ll Date a Homocon” writer a whiner? He has a point. Good looking or not, in the gay community being a republican is a disadvantage.
“I suppose, if you believe one has a “right to one night stands,” that would be a disturbing thing. I happen not to believe in such a “right.””
—Gay.com isn’t all about one night stands, and I know people who have fallen in love after a one-night stand. Would you buy a car without taking it for a test drive? I think not.
posted by dms on
Back when I went to college, the gays, the obvious fags, got beat up by their friends from Chi Psi. I guess the reason that has all changed is because of the LCR.
posted by Joe in SF on
Uh, gee! Why do gay Republicans have trouble getting dates? Maybe it’s because they support a party filled with self-loathing closet cases like Jeff Guckert and Ken Mehlman who push homophobia to win elections. It isn’t hard to figure out.
You chose to be a Republican. Stop whining and take some personal responsibility for your actions.
posted by The Promiscuous Reader on
Thanks to Joe in SF! I was just about to point out that, despite Brian Miller’s “And whenever anyone demands I change who I am ‘for them,'”, being Republican or “conservative” is a lifestyle choice. It’s not something you’re born with. You can’t tell that someone is conservative by looking at them. Yet these whiners are trying to ride on the coattails of real minorities by pretending that they’re being discriminated against. As Joe wrote, take responsibility for your actions and your beliefs.
Someone who thinks of Democrats generally as “liberals” isn’t just embracing a deviant lifestyle choice, however. He’s seriously delusional. I can deal with people with different politics — just about everyone has different politics than mine anyway. But I’m not interested in playing nursemaid to the demented.
posted by Jimmy Gatt on
There are quite a few comments from “progressive” gays here saying the same thing: “Stop whining!”
That’s merely code for, “You deserve our wrath” and proving the point: leftist gays are viciously intolerant. This is an indictment of not only their rotten personalities but also of their mendaciously evil ideology. “Progressives” are the ones claiming to abhor hatred, violence, intolerance, and discrimination, and it’s all a farce. They embrace hatred, excuse violence, practice intolerance, and love discrimination.
(Wait for it: “Boo hoo! You deserve it!”)
posted by crankyd on
Am i the only one here that sees things this way:
Responding (or not) to someone’s physical attributes is something that we can’t really help; we like what we like for inexplicable reasons.
Call it shallow.
But don’t many of us, gay or straight, often equate one’s political views, ergo affiliation, with one’s character / morals / ethics?
Probably a bit more important than someone’s bald spot or few extra pounds.
Why should anyone be so horrified that many of us don’t want to embark on a personal relationship with another person we might find morally repulsive? Right, Middle or Left?
While i respect anyone’s right to their opinion, i won’t necessarily respect the content of it. To me, it speaks to the the person’s values.
Trying to compare rejection based upon one’s political differences to something as facile as “Sorry, no fatties” is a bit of a stretch.
P.S.-
I’ve rejected / been rejected based upon political views before, and i’m fine with that. However, i’ve never heard the ultimatum of “change your beliefs or we’re through!”
Why complain about those whackjobs? You dodged a bullet, now run!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Maybe it’s because they support a party filled with self-loathing closet cases like Jeff Guckert and Ken Mehlman who push homophobia to win elections. It isn’t hard to figure out.
That’s very interesting, Joe in SF.
After all, you and your fellow gay liberals and Democrats endorse and support FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, panderers to the religious right, and people who fire gays whose partners criticize the Democrat Party.
Heck, you and your fellow gay liberals and Democrats claimed that a candidate who proudly stated he had the “same position” as Republicans was “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Moreover, you haven’t said word one about the gay staffers for these candidates and their help on these campaigns, as well as their demanding that gay people donate millions of dollars to support them.
So that begs the question: is it homophobia you dislike, or is it just that “homophobia” to you is solely dependent on political affiliation?
posted by Bobby on
“Why should anyone be so horrified that many of us don’t want to embark on a personal relationship with another person we might find morally repulsive? Right, Middle or Left?”
—I woud not be horrified, but it surprises me that to you politics matter more than looks.
To me, looks matter more than politics.
posted by Brian Miller on
“conservative” is a lifestyle choice. It’s not something you’re born with.
I assume this is tongue-in-cheek, but I don’t necessarily believe that one’s political leanings are any more a “choice” than what flavor of ice cream he likes, or what religion he may practice.
It’s something developed over time, like one’s style or accent, and a demand from someone to change it “or else” is exceedingly boorish, regardless of the political beliefs of the individual in question and the individual demanding the change.
Judging from a lot of the responses, all the conservatives whining about hateful judgmental liberals would probably reject a liberal, and lots of “progressive open-minded liberals” seem awfully closed-minded on the issue. The devil on my right shoulder says you deserve each other! 😉
posted by Brian Miller on
Trying to compare rejection based upon one’s political differences to something as facile as “Sorry, no fatties” is a bit of a stretch.
Not really — the “logic” is about the same. The idea is that the individual in question has “chosen” his politics (or the diet/exercise leading to being “fat”) and thus is undesirable as a result of his own actions.
Now, I’m not saying you should date someone with whom you are incompatible — but if I had a dime for every “progressive open-minded liberal” I know who rejected dates on rather shallow bases, I’d be able to buy a high-end condo in San Francisco free and clear.
Now, it’s the same on the right wing side (and you do have issues of self-loathing on that side that are severe by most others’ standards) — but I really see this as two sides of the same coin. Y’all spend so much time brainlessly demonizing each other’s character — rather than thoughtful analysis of policy — and you hold your politics as some moral badge of superiority, rather than some beliefs you developed over time based on analysis. That means that it’s going to be a dogmatic slog through that part of your life. . . as drama-filled as my Jewish mom’s marriage to my Catholic dad.
posted by Justin Lewis on
I’ll admit it. I won’t date a Republican. This is not because I can’t stand their views on the minimum wage, judicial appointments, or this-or-that issue. No, the reason I only date other liberals is because you have to question the self-esteem of a gay man who supports a party which demonizes him to win elections. I’m sorry, but agreeing with Larry Craig and Mark Foley on welfare reform is insignificant when they won’t admit your own basic dignity.
posted by Justin Lewis on
North Dallas, you can’t seriously be implying that liberals are no better than conservatives when it comes to the equality of gay people? For each of your isolated anecdotes of Democratic ignorance, we’ve got a bushel of Republican! Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, the reason I only date other liberals is because you have to question the self-esteem of a gay man who supports a party which demonizes him to win elections.
Of course, when Mr. Lewis’s OWN party, as was shown in clear examples, “demonizes him to win elections”, his response is to — surprise! — blame Republicans.
For each of your isolated anecdotes of Democratic ignorance, we’ve got a bushel of Republican!
Perhaps it’s because Mr. Lewis fears, not a lack of self-esteem in OTHER men, but men who will confront him with his own lack of it, as manifested by his spin and excuses-making for homophobia in his own party.
North Dallas, you can’t seriously be implying that liberals are no better than conservatives when it comes to the equality of gay people?
Actually, they’re worse.
Conservatives make their feelings clear. Liberals, as Kerry and Dean showed, lie to gay people, take their money, then pander.
I’ll gladly take someone who is homophobic to my face over someone who lies to me, takes my money, and then is homophobic anyway.
Perhaps, Mr. Lewis, if you had a better sense of self-worth, you could confront homophobic Democrats directly, instead of spinning and making excuses for them.
But then again, they might not pretend to like you any more, and that could be devastating.
posted by Tom on
Only a gay republican could say: “the left has embraced gay rights as a part of its political agenda, whereas the right, with some important exceptions, has not” One can drive a buick skylark thru the gap between a hateful national demonization campaign and “not embracing” … I suppose you could say “if I spit on you, I’m not embracing you”. Just a nitpick. Oh and where are those important exeptions?
posted by Bobby on
“you have to question the self-esteem of a gay man who supports a party which demonizes him to win elections.”
My self-esteem is very high, thank you very much. And I tell you this.
To the republicans, I’m a conservative who happens to be gay.
But to the democrats, I’m a confused queer. That’s what I despise about straight liberals, they think all queers are poor victims that need to kiss their asses to get a little tolerance. Well, they can take their tolerance and shove it up their asses. I don’t need it.
posted by Jason on
I think this is funny that both sides are going on and on about how the other is evil, selfish, etc.
I have a friend who is a gay conservative who would go on and on about liberals being awful people. Until I decided to remind him that both his partner and myself are liberals. He used to say “you are different.” But I decided to always remind him whenever he went off on liberals. Eventually he stopped having those rants in front of us.
I was going to leave it alone but this particular quote from North Dallas Thirty’s research I just had to say something about :
“The people who give the least are the young, especially young liberals. Brooks writes that “young liberals?perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political constituency in America today?are one of the least generous demographic groups out there. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood.”
A) Young people aren’t known for having much of a disposable income that allows for charity.
B) Liberals tend to be artists, singers, actors, painters — you know: poor.
C) The vague mention of “organizations” is well…too vague. What organizations? The Rotary Club? Amnesty International? So if all of the local organizations are right wing or conservative, I’m supposed to join them anyway so I can help the stats on some survey?
D) One third less likely to give blood. I think it’s funny that this quote was targeted at gays. Shame on you gay people for not giving more blood! North Dallas, gay men are strictly forbidden to give blood. If you’re a man and you’ve had sexual contact with any man from 1977 to the present, you can’t give blood. Period. They don’t have exceptions to this rule. You can be single, celibate, and test negative for years and they don’t care. That’s not the only thing that will keep you from giving blood, by the way.
posted by Charles Wilson on
There are quite a few comments from “progressive” gays here saying the same thing: “Stop whining!”
That’s merely code for, “You deserve our wrath” and proving the point: leftist gays are viciously intolerant. This is an indictment of not only their rotten personalities but also of their mendaciously evil ideology. “Progressives” are the ones claiming to abhor hatred, violence, intolerance, and discrimination, and it’s all a farce. They embrace hatred, excuse violence, practice intolerance, and love discrimination.
What a whiner. First off, all’s fair in dating. If someone doesn’t turn you on, so be it. Second, Kirchik only gave his side of the story. Who knows what the other guy might have to say? Third, this idea that Democrats set themselves up as paragons of anything is pure bullshit.
Frankly, when it comes to politics, if I were single all that I’d ask for would be mutual respect, an I.Q. greater than a house plant, and a sense of humor. But you’d want that on everything else, too.
Could it be that Kirchuk is a whining Freeper nerd and the other guy was desperately hoping to talk about something that was interesting to him? Nah. Couldn’t be.
And what’s this with a “conservative” putting his complaint in the Boston Globe, anyway? Hey Kirchuk, where else did you peddle that self-pitying piece o’crap? What did the Boston Herald tell you? I’m dyin’ to know.