In a recent newsletter to supporters (which I can't find online), Brian Brown, the executive director of the anti-gay-marriage National Organization for Marriage, writes:
Stopping the legal deformation of marriage is one key step, as is protecting the ordinary civil rights of voters, including religious people and communities. But the end game for us in this fight for marriage is something quite different: transmitting a marriage culture to the next generation. That means creating an America in which each year more children are born to and protected by their mother and father united in a loving, decent, average good-enough marriage.
Hey, I know! How about a state-by-state campaign to revoke no-fault divorce? That would be a good way to transmit a marriage culture and have more children protected by mothers and fathers in an "average good-enough marriage."
What? You don't think NOM will campaign against no-fault divorce?
Don't be so cynical. They just haven't gotten around to it yet.
77 Comments for “Don’t Hold Your Breath”
posted by Jerry on
Eliminating no fault divorce is not the answer. I don’t think it matters why two people decide they erred by getting married and it’s time to part. However, they have demonstrated failure. Why do we allow them to continue failing time after time. When you fail at marriage the state has no interest in giving you another license. Some of these failures have turned marriage into nothing more than a legalized prostitution institution.
posted by Throbert McGee on
It seems to me that if NOM is truly serious about strengthening marriage, the best near-future strategy would be to campaign for much wider availability of “covenant marriages,” rather than directly attacking no-fault divorce (NFD) laws.
Covenant marriages provide a means for individuals couples to legally opt-out of NFD while leaving NFD available for everyone else. Yet covenant marriage legislation currently doesn’t exist in most states.
As far as I can tell from some quick Googling, only Arizona, Arkansas, and Louisiana have covenant-marriage laws at the present time, although there have been unsuccessful attempts to pass CM bills in about two-dozen other states.
posted by Throbert McGee on
The difficulty in passing CM laws suggests to me that the strategy of trying to revoke no-fault divorce would be have to be even less successful — since taking away NFD as an option would change the status quo more dramatically and more intrusively than CM laws do.
I also think that getting rid of the religious-sound word “covenant” would be a good idea — it scares people away with the specter of stealth-theocracy, even though “covenant marriage” laws can be totally secular in character.
posted by Jorge on
I’d say combating teen pregnancy and other out-of-wedlock births should be higher on the list.
It’s really tone-deaf for so-called marriage defenders to ignore the shattered state of the family in some parts of the country and some subcommunities. Yes, I know some of them actually do care about that, but they keep it a secret.
posted by Wade MacMorrighan on
Hey, I just wrote another Blogger about this exact form-letter this AM:
“I read [Brian Brown’s letter], and would have seriously laughed my Pagan ass off, if I didn’t know that he was trying to be serious! I mean, wtf? He attempts to circumvent the established US ‘rule of law’ by alleging that Ted and David (Prop 8 Lawyers) are attempting to circumvent the Will of ‘the People’ (‘trample’ is the word he uses) by asking the Court to ‘read gay marriage into our nation’s constitution’ (sic), forgetting to note that this is precisely what our Courts are for–this is their job, to ensure that laws are not passed that disenfranchise a minority, particularly if there was some obvious bias at heart, and yes, to even ‘read’ those rights as being applicable under the Constitution!
“BTW, did you think it was ‘suspicious’ how Mags and crew failed to dignify the testimony of both Profs. Cott and Chauncy with any sort of a comment during, or shortly after the trial? Oh, and speaking of Historians of marriage, you might enjoy this article I found by another Univ. Prof.: http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/articles/article25.htm
“Moreover, for all of Mag’s talk that every Gay-inclusive legal protection for Gay people being a direct threat to her ‘peoples of faith’ (ie. Christians), I sure don’t see any of her fellow opponents even caring to consider that she is also attempting to trample onto the religious liberties of other religions that inhabit this beautiful country! Unfortunately, I’ve never seen anyone (yet) take her to task on this in a public forum. Though, I would love to see her address the historical, cultural, and ethnographic evidence (a little thing called ‘facts’) that Gay people have been legally and socially allowed to marry in cultures across this planet in which we once held positions of spiritual and civil authority as the natural-born Shamans and High Priests–we were venerated as ‘sacred’. And, in light of this evidence, why does she believe that only Christians should be allowed to define within secular, civil, and atheistic law what may or may not constitute a ‘marriage’? To date, so far as I know, she’s not even touched upon those problematic points. In fact, I would LOVE to corner her in a very public debate about precisely these issues. ;o) But, I digress…
“B-ry conflates Ted as a ‘celebrity’ and his efforts with the film, ‘Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure’. But, he goes on to say that this trial will have an impact on the whole country, indeed on the world, in an effort ‘to strip citizens of their rights to protect marriage in law, culture and society’. Sadly, it worries me that he seems to think that the protections offered by the Constitution are limited, and apply only to certain people, and that majority-rule should be the law of the land. However, if this were so (which, of course, he fails to address) than we wouldn’t need a Constitution!
“Apparently Mags was interviewed for a documentary on marriage, where she was asked, ‘What’s your end-game in this fight? I talked to Evan Wolfson, and for him the answer is simple: Victory means gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. That’s the end game. But I sense for you the answer is different and more complex’. It didn’t say what her response was, but went on to affirm that ‘Our fight against gay marriage is just one part of a larger calling to rebuild a civilization of love, that is based on marriage’. Hmmm….interesting that they are not publicly advocating, then, that divorce in all 50 states ought to rendered illegal. Hell, I never hear any of them taking their show on the road and attempting to get marriage equality in any other country over-turned. Would be fascinating to have a statement from them about that possibility, n’est pas?
“He went on further to codify the birth of children and annual birth-rates with marriage, which is complete and utter horse shit, of course! I still don’t get what they hope to gain by declaration that allowing Gay marriage is bad for family-structure, or children as a whole… He also explicitely codifies religious marriage vows with secular and civil marriage vows, as if they one and the same, when he writes, ‘And then starting in 2002, the unwed birth rates suddenly jumped up again. In the latest data, 41 percent of American children begin life outside of marriage–which means outside of a firm vow of fidelity, family and mutual caretaking, a vow taken by a mother and a father committed to being one family with their own flesh and blood.’ Note how he seems to off-handedly defame families of adopted or foster parentage! He also neglects to mention that the nuclear family is VERY new, and that beforehand families revolved around clans and tribes. Some tribes today even believe that everyone is the parent of each child, which vastly differs from NOM’s ‘vision’.
“By codifying the rise in children born outside of marriage with the fight against Gay marriage (which doesn’t make any rational sense!), he commits a HUGE whopping logical fallacy! He also forgets (or ignores) that the ‘rights of voters’ to keep the law that they might have voted for, is often over-turned by the SCOTUS every single time they make a ruling! Again, I wish that this was being explicitly made as an argument against Mags in all of her public appearances, whenever she cries foul about ‘the rights of the voters!’
“Oh, but this quote had me in stitches: ‘That means creating an America in which each year more children are born to and protected by their mother and father united in a loving, decent, average good-enough marriage.’ If THIS is the ‘traditional marriage’ they seek to ‘protect’, it is wholly modern and has no ‘tradition’ other than the 1930s or 40s!
“And, what would a form letter from NOM be without an appeal to donations, ‘eh? And, this letter is no different, portraying Gay people as ol’ meanies stifling NOM and their supporters by ‘raising costs’ in order to speak at events or create advertisements, etc.! Can you say, ‘ludicrous’? Personally, as a writer, I’d be interested in attending his plug for the Ruth Institute’s symposium dedicated to raising and rearing ‘marriage champions’ just to see what the hell they are doing, and to take photos of it, etc.! (Damn, I should be an investigative journalist! LOL!) But, he doesn’t end his plug by declaring the virtues of their teachings, but in severely mitigating academic institutions and universities as some sort of brainwashing institute steeped in liberal ideologies that will somehow taint our child’en!
Hmmmm…ain’t it interesting how so many so-called ‘Christians’ are so adamantly opposed to Socialism or it’s ideals, yet….their savior-god was, in fact, a Socialist in all but name! Hell, I wouldn’t be so hard on Mags if she did something with her millions like oh, I dunno’, say…helping the poor without qualification (eg. ‘they must be Catholic’!).
“Then he dove-tails in a rant against porn, quoting a recent article that ol’ Mags wrote at length. Yet, they refuse to acknowledge how damned puritanical the US is when compared to every single country on this planet! A friend of mine–a High Priestess from England–was telling me, recently, that even the very basic programming that they receive (like our NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS) is actually more like our HBO and Cinnemax. Hell, in ancient Rome phalloi were common ornaments that were hung from doors as charms, etc; Greece had 6-foot marble phalloi displayed out in the open, and the frescoes most popular with the average Roman household was, in fact, pornographic images displayed in the ‘living room’ where their children would have walked by each day. So, they seriously need to get off their high horse. Nudity is also common in tribal societies. Yet, it is only in the US that we have embraced the shameful dichotomy that a nude female is ‘beautiful’, yet a naked male is ‘dangerous’, ‘offensive’, ‘disgusting’ and ‘pornographic’! Personally, despite Mags’ polemic, I believe that all men (Gay, str8 or bi) are entitled to a ‘porn star’ in the bedroom as their sex partner or spouse! I have spoken with a lot of Bi-married men and NONE of their wives pleasure them the way I do when we’re together, or kiss them with the raw desire and animal-hunger that I do! And, I think that’s somewhat problematic, socially-speaking… And, her big rant was about how men who watch porn have a far less desire to reproduce than other men, and an explicitly less desire for a daughter! And, it ends with a mini-rant shaming men who watch porn as being a ‘sexual failure’, as well as showing the usual female puritanicalism and severe underestimation of the powerful male sex-drive.”
posted by Wade MacMorrighan on
BTW, I have had some seriously offensive encounters with defenders of Marriage Inequality; I have explained them that Gay people are NOT “re-defining marriage” simply to the historical 8fact* that Gay people have been entering into marriages with members of the same gender for centuries: the Roman emperors Nero and Elagabalus both famously married men with all the rites of a legal marriage; and both the Chuckchi (whom are still extent) and the Native American plains Indians both allowed their Gay shamans to enter into a civil and legally recognized marriage with another man. In these latter two cultures they were greatly sought after as a spouse by some of the other men! Unfortunately, this evidence was met by abject disdain, as Marriage Equality opponents balked at this evidence, sneering as they said, “Those don’t COUNT as REAL marriages!” WTF? Why not?
posted by Throbert McGee on
I’m not sure that “codifying” means what you seem to think it means, Perfess’r.
posted by Tom on
The Barna study, conducted in the 1990’s, showed that the divorce and remarriage rate among conservative Christians is significantly higher than is among other groups in our population. Although the Barna study has been criticized, the fact remains that a relatively large number of Maggie’s “base” is divorced or divorced and remarried.
If Maggie decides to go after divorce, she’s going to find out that the issue is a loser among the “base”. It won’t bring in the bucks, and she’ll be leading an Army of one.
Wisconsin’s Maggie, Julaine Appling of Wisconsin Family Action, made noises about tackling no-fault-divorce after our 2006 fight over the anti-marriage amendment, and the effort has gone absolutely nowhere.
The noise about taking on no-fault divorce is just that — noise.
posted by Lymis on
While I understand people who talk about banning no-fault divorce or promoting covenant marriages – pointing out the inconsistencies with the approach of these bigot who focus on gay people as the primary threat to straight marriage – it always bothers me.
I think what strengthens marriage is working to make sure that the people in them want to be there. It doesn’t strengthen marriage to trap unwilling participants in them. The damage to children because of divorce is far more often because of the bitterness of the divorce and the delays and hurdles to get there – children of people who part amicably and stay in healthy co-parenting relationships after the divorce do far better than those who are stuck in a home with bitter people who hate their lives.
Which is the successful marriage – one that lasts 10 years and ends civilly and amicably because the spouse recognize that their relationship has changed, or one that lasts 50 years, 40 of which were full of pain, bitterness, cheating, and unlived dreams?
I think the far better approach to responding to the NOM types is to agree with their basic statements and take it in a better direction. I believe in marriage too, that’s why I married my husband. I would like to pass on a marriage culture to the next generation – one that recognizes that marriage is not for everyone, marriage is not just a license for sex, and that there are many ways to raise healthy children. That for those who marriage is right for, it is a basic right, and then they get to conduct their marriage however they see fit.
I’m not fighting for my own marriage because I see marriage as some sort of toxic failure – but I am fighting NOM, because I see THEIR vision of marriage as precisely that – toxic.
posted by David in Houston on
“That means creating an America in which each year more children are born to and protected by their mother and father united in a loving, decent, average good-enough marriage.”
————————
So are heterosexual single-parent families better than homosexual two-parent families? Usually two is better than one, unless you’re a homophobic organization. Based on NOM’s logic, children living in single-parent families should be taken away and placed with loving mother and fathers. Anything less would be un-American, right?
posted by Wade MacMorrighan on
“I would like to pass on a marriage culture to the next generation – one that recognizes that marriage is not … just a license for sex…”
Sadly, while I *do* agree with you, Mag’s and NOM are teaching that we should demand that our country regress to the period in which marriage was only for sex (which obviously isn’t a realistic goal for them)!
posted by Wade MacMorrighan on
“Based on NOM’s logic, children living in single-parent families should be taken away and placed with loving mother and fathers. Anything less would be un-American, right?”
Actually, they succinctly emphasize that it must be their biological mother and father! Sad, isn’t it?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The Barna study, conducted in the 1990’s, showed that the divorce and remarriage rate among conservative Christians is significantly higher than is among other groups in our population.
That’s interesting.
The study showed that the percentage of adults who have been married and divorced varies from segment to segment. For instance, the groups with the most prolific experience of marriage ending in divorce are downscale adults (39%), Baby Boomers (38%), those aligned with a non-Christian faith (38%), African-Americans (36%), and people who consider themselves to be liberal on social and political matters (37%).
Among the population segments with the lowest likelihood of having been divorced subsequent to marriage are Catholics (28%), evangelicals (26%), upscale adults (22%), Asians (20%) and those who deem themselves to be conservative on social and political matters (28%).
And what makes that interesting is that evangelicals and the like get married at a higher rate — which means their divorce rate is proportionately even lower.
And actually, Rauch’s diatribe is a rather interesting glimpse into the minds of so-called “marriage” supporters.
Hey, I know! How about a state-by-state campaign to revoke no-fault divorce? That would be a good way to transmit a marriage culture and have more children protected by mothers and fathers in an “average good-enough marriage.”
In short, Rauch seems to think that the only way to keep people in marriages is to revoke no-fault divorce.
What NOM is clearly talking about is society putting value, respect, and importance on marriage, especially with the realization that it is the core and fundamental unit by which society reproduces and perpetuates itself.
For Rauch and his fellow gay-sex marriage supporters, who see marriage only as a governmental construct and tax break, this is incomprehensible. They have no attachment for or respect for marriage as something that is beneficial to society or any concept of society’s mores reinforcing and supporting the value of marriage; they simply see it as a legal arrangement, a contract, that one enters into solely for personal gain and leaves when one is no longer satisfied and which society has no right to enforce or shame those who choose to break it.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
End bold.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, they succinctly emphasize that it must be their biological mother and father! Sad, isn’t it?
Not at all.
Indeed, I find it rather disturbing that gay and lesbian people are so adamantly opposed to children being raised by their biological mother and father that they say such is “sad”.
posted by Debrah on
“Yet, it is only in the US that we have embraced the shameful dichotomy that a nude female is ‘beautiful’, yet a naked male is ‘dangerous’, ‘offensive’, ‘disgusting’ and ‘pornographic’!”
******************************************
The only thing disgusting is this deliberate distortion.
Few people are “threatened” by simple nudity or a tasteful display of erotica—male or female—and no one should be.
When you go down this road of fabrication, please understand that observers are painfully aware that a very sizable segment of gay male culture plays host to a constant menu and celebration of some of the rawest videos of sexual activity on the planet.
Network after network of web cam activity and “gifting” one another with the “latest private” videos.
Pornography abounds in our society; however, gay male porn takes the concept to a whole different level.
And this “culture” is acceptable among “respectable” gay men who subscribe right along with young boys—teens and twenty-somethings.
A rare breed.
It’s one thing to occasionally stumble into the wetlands. It’s another thing to take up residence in that particular swamp.
posted by David in Houston on
NDT wrote: Indeed, I find it rather disturbing that gay and lesbian people are so adamantly opposed to children being raised by their biological mother and father that they say such is “sad”.
———————-
Please spare me your “gays hate biological parents” crap. (Most gay people were raised by biological parents.) What gay organization or gay blog has ever said that? If a child is being raised by a biological mother and father that loves and nurtures them, that’s great. Not all children are that fortunate. But to imply that this is the only possible way that a child can and should be raised is ludicrous. This is the message that NOM is selling.
Organizations like NOM say that other types of parenting are not ideal, but evidently as long as the parent(s) is heterosexual then it’s tolerable. We wouldn’t want the child growing up to believe that homosexuality is okay, would we? Of course they conveniently leave out the fact that a huge chunk of these perfect families end in divorce; and they never seem to want to talk about single-parent families. That doesn’t fit into their “agenda”, does it?
posted by Bobby on
“Pornography abounds in our society; however, gay male porn takes the concept to a whole different level.
And this “culture” is acceptable among “respectable” gay men who subscribe right along with young boys—teens and twenty-somethings.”
—If you’re talking about twinks I assure you that in 99.9% of the porn websites those boys are 18, 19, 20, 22+. And by the way, straight porn plays the same games, except they dress their girls in Catholic School uniforms.
Most porn makers are serious business people who want to follow the law, the last thing they want is to face the kind of criminal charges that can get you labeled as a sex offender for life. I met a gay couple who does porn movies, and let me tell you, they do not allow drugs on the set and every performer has to undergo a background check (to make sure nobody is lying about their age) and STD tests.
The thing about gay men is that many of us take a very liberal or libertarian view about porn and prostitution. Heterosexual society does not, in the straight world you’re never going to see a play featuring porn actors, but in the gay world you will. In the straight world porn and prostitution are shameful things that people do but won’t admit in public, in the gay world everything is negotiated.
Take my favorite sex columnist who happens to be gay, Dan Savage, in his last column a feminist man discusses his rape fantasies with his feminist girlfriend, the lady decides that his boyfriend is sick and needs to see a therapist, Dan advices him to dump the girlfriend. You can read his entire advice here.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=3801756
posted by Jimmy on
I can’t wait to hear what kind of grudge she has against Savage.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What gay organization or gay blog has ever said that?
Right here.
Actually, they succinctly emphasize that it must be their biological mother and father! Sad, isn’t it?
Wade MacMorrighan | April 10, 2010, 2:46pm | #
Next:
But to imply that this is the only possible way that a child can and should be raised is ludicrous.
Why? After all, liberals argue constantly that a rationale for abortion is because it’s better to kill the child than to have it raised in a single-parent situation.
posted by Jp on
NDT,
What’s sad is you taking a quote out of context. And even though you did still proves nothing. The keyword is “must” in that quote, which applys not only to us but single heteros as well. Your faulty logic does humor me though. Keep up the good work!!!
posted by Tom on
Wade MacMorrighan: Unfortunately, this evidence was met by abject disdain, as Marriage Equality opponents balked at this evidence, sneering as they said, “Those don’t COUNT as REAL marriages!” WTF? Why not?
I’ve had the same “not real marriages” response when I mentioned the dozen or so marriages I’ve attended performed under Jewish religious law, and asked why those marriages should not be recognized under civil law as well. When I then ask “Why aren’t these real marriages, as real as yours?”, I’m almost always met with either (1) the assertion that “marriage is between a man and a woman” uttered as a self-evidentiary statement, or (2) a shift to a “Why can’t you be content with civil unions and leave marriage alone?” non-response.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “Pornography abounds in our society; however, gay male porn takes the concept to a whole different level.”
I’m curious as to why you think this, specifically. I don’t see my difference in kind or quality between straight male porn and gay male porn, other than the obvious: straight male porn features male-female or female-female coupling, while gay male porn features male-male coupling.
posted by Tom on
I wasn’t aware of the most recent (2008) Barna study, which is interesting. I was relying on a earlier study conducted in the 1990’s. Thanks for pointing out the new study; I’ll use it in the future.
Although there are statistical differences between evangelicals and non-evangelical born again Christians, the Barna summary you cited notes this: “In fact, when evangelicals and non-evangelical born again Christians are combined into an aggregate class of born again adults, their divorce figure is statistically identical to that of non-born again adults: 32% versus 33%, respectively.”
BTW, I’d be careful about reading too much into the relatively high divorce rate of “those aligned with a non-Christian faith (38%)“. Jews and most other non-Christian religionists do not have to contend with a prohibition of divorce and remarriage in the way that Christians do.
I wonder about the differences between the 1990’s Barna study, but both the earlier and the most recent study, I think support the statement: “Although the Barna study has been criticized, the fact remains that a relatively large number of Maggie’s “base” is divorced or divorced and remarried.”
I think that’s why NOM is going nowhere on NFD.
posted by Debrah on
Thanks, Bobby. That’s a very humorous entry.
I’ve checked out Savage in the past. Usually by accident.
He used to show up on Bill Maher’s show and it’s fortunate that those appearances were not my only encounter with him because he always came off as a rude, over-exercised queen.
I later saw a video of one of his talks in another arena and I liked what he was doing there very much. He can actually be quite funny and compelling.
Perhaps he used such an approach on Maher’s show as an act because Maher is so obnoxious, himself, most of the time.
I don’t mind political battles and gamesmanship, but Maher takes the bashing way too far.
Bill Maher is the typical guy who was ugly as hell in high school—check out some of his early photos—but witty and intelligent.
So when he later became famous, he was able to get some of the women he could never hope to touch, otherwise.
Maher’s wit and talent make him attractive (somewhat); however, his Far Left rhetoric and constant gratuitous slams are a tired act.
When you have to rely on Eliot Spitzer—fresh off the prostitution circuit—as a part of your panelist stable, you know that the show is descending into camp.
The only person missing is bird-face Arianna Huffington.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
Such cyber serendipity!
Jonathan Rauch’s latest at National Journal discusses William F. Buckley.
He wonders if David Frum might be the new WFB.
Hmmm……perhaps one might draw comparisons because of Frum’s current efforts and his quest to change the GOP…….
…….but Frum, and no one else, will ever measure up to WFB intellectually or in the literary sense.
posted by Jimmy on
Thanks, Debrah. This was a an enjoyable read on this fine morning of The Masters finale. I read it as I scarfed my French toast (which I made just to spite Bobby).
I particularly liked this distillation by Jonathan:
“The Birch Society nowadays is a trivial remnant (although it has a pretty spiffy website). But extremism, insularity, and anti-intellectualism are thriving within the conservative movement as they have not since the 1960s. Haven’t you heard? Hillary Rodham Clinton and Benito Mussolini are essentially the same thing! President Obama is working to end the American Republic and impose European-style socialism! Why, he may not even be an American! (Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the rock star of the Republican Right, said last year that Obama’s citizenship is a “fair question.” Sure. And, as Welch insisted, it’s a fair question whether Dwight Eisenhower was a communist.)”
Jonathan, you brewed a fine tonic that would alleviate much of the biliousness from which many on the right suffer. If they would only take a sip.
posted by Debrah on
“I’m curious as to why you think this, specifically.”
*******************************************
Do you want the long answer or the short one?
posted by Jimmy on
“Do you want the long answer or the short one?”
Can’t you just give him a link to a previous upchuck of yours on this tired subject?
Oh well, I’m off to plant a tree for Mumsie.
posted by Debrah on
“This was a an enjoyable read on this fine morning of The Masters finale.”
*********************************************
Golf.
And the Tiger Woods booty parade. LIS!
One of the most boring “sports” ever devised.
What on earth is the attraction?
I have an older brother who is an attorney, but all his life, even though he was a scholar and lettered in three other sports, he’s been addicted to golf.
He’s also one of the most boring people I’ve ever known.
LOL!
posted by Bobby on
“Maher’s wit and talent make him attractive (somewhat); however, his Far Left rhetoric and constant gratuitous slams are a tired act.”
—I think Hollywood ruined him, when you watch him doing standup comedy in the 1980s he would attack the left and the right. And when he started Politically Incorrect he used to call himself a libertarian, but after Bush became president he started drifting more and more to the left until he became a complete progressive.
I just can’t understand why HBO doesn’t do a Politically Incorrect show with people that are actually politically incorrect.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “Pornography abounds in our society; however, gay male porn takes the concept to a whole different level.”
Tom: “I’m curious as to why you think this, specifically.”
Debrah: “Do you want the long answer or the short one?”
Whichever you think best makes your case and will be most persuasive.
As I said, I don’t see my difference in kind or quality between straight male porn and gay male porn, other than the obvious: straight male porn features male-female or female-female coupling, while gay male porn features male-male coupling, so I’d like to know what it is about gay male porn that “takes the concept to a whole different level”.
posted by Debrah on
“I just can’t understand why HBO doesn’t do a Politically Incorrect show with people that are actually politically incorrect.”
***********************************
That’s such a good point.
Simply because everyone—incuding Maher—was regimented in their distinct political correctness when it was on ABC.
Maher’s current show is like watching Al Franken on crack.
posted by Debrah on
“Whichever you think best makes your case and will be most persuasive.”
**********************************************
Tom–
My senses tell me that how I might respond on this issue would interest you about as much as a gorgeous woman wearing nothing but a G-string who hadn’t had sex in a while……
……standing beside your bed expecting you to break the cycle.
posted by Bobby on
“Simply because everyone—incuding Maher—was regimented in their distinct political correctness when it was on ABC.”
—Well, you have a point. Maher actually lost his job at ABC after he made an insensitive comment after 9/11, I assume that on HBO he has more freedom, yet he has wasted that freedom in his quest to associate only with people who think like he does, with the exception of the polite token republicans he brings every once in a while.
Maybe that’s why I’m such a fan of Fox News, I feel only that network has a variety of perspective and all are challenged equally.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “My senses tell me that how I might respond on this issue would interest you about as much as a gorgeous woman wearing nothing but a G-string who hadn’t had sex in a while … standing beside your bed expecting you to break the cycle.”
Quite probably true. As far as I am concerned, porn is boring. That’s probably my age more than anything else. A gorgeous woman in heat might be more interesting, if only because I’d want to ask what possessed her to think that a 63-year-old gay man was the solution when the world abounds in 18-year-old straight men, the usual percentage of which were physically attractive.
However, you’ve have made the assertion that gay male porn is somehow different in quality than straight male porn (most recently “gay male porn takes the concept to a whole different level”) on several occasions in various threads.
Bobby has responded on those occasions, and if I understand his responses, he’s assuring you that gay male porn isn’t much different than straight male porn.
As far as I know, you’ve never responded to Bobby explaining why you think that gay male porn is different. I don’t see a difference other than the obvious, which doesn’t make it different. So I’m curious what you think is so different.
If what concerns you is that gay men are more open about use and enjoyment of porn than straight men, I’ll grant you that is a difference. I doubt that straight men watch any less porn, but they sneak around about porn, and gay men generally don’t.
posted by David in Houston on
@ North Dallas Thirty: Wade was referring to the position that NOM holds. It seemed pretty obvious, that was not Wade’s philosophy. I also noticed that you didn’t address my original statement. You simply diverted to the new topic of abortion.
posted by Bobby on
“If what concerns you is that gay men are more open about use and enjoyment of porn than straight men, I’ll grant you that is a difference. I doubt that straight men watch any less porn, but they sneak around about porn, and gay men generally don’t.”
—Straight men often have shame, which is why they try to do things in secret. Look at Tiger Woods, he could have married a woman that likes sleeping around, he could have had an open relationship. Instead, he marries a good woman, behaves like a bad man, and then apologizes and makes an ass of himself. I’m not saying gay men don’t lie, plenty of them do, but in the gay community we’re encouraged to have PRIDE. In fact, some of our critics say we have too much pride and too little shame, and maybe they have a point. After all, I’m more ashamed of not being 5% bodyfat than of anything I’ve done sexually.
Either way, I have come to the conclusion that porn is a good thing. Why? Because it’s more fun than abstinence, you can’t get catch a disease from, you get to see what you want, you don’t have to spend money on drink or waste time getting to know people at a bar or online.
Porn also creates plenty of jobs, not just for performers but producers, camera operators, grips, set designers, catering companies, and so forth. In fact, it’s an open secret that a lot of cameramen will shoot porn either to get experience or during slow periods when jobs are tight in Hollywood. It’s also true that some women have crossover from porn to mainstream films.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
The quote you used from Tom certainly touches on an enormous part of what turns people off.
Especially when those same gay men wish to simultaneously wax all weepy and sentimental about the “right” to marry another man…..as if fidelity and monogamy are treasured by them.
What you say about the business aspect of pornography is reasoned and it’s true.
But please don’t get all self-righteous and sad when voters at the ballot box toss the SSM idea out with roaring laughter.
I agree that it’s a wonderful thing to be open about lust and love……
…….(and the fact that gay male culture celebrates….ad nauseum…..jerking off while ogling the genitalia of other men online).
But such “openness” will always be the SSM killer when you also want to pretend that “gay marriage” is more than a financial issue or a request to be given the “dignity” that gay men, themselves, do not seem to value.
It’s a joke.
Gay male culture is the real impediment to SSM becoming law.
Not lesbians.
posted by Tom on
Well, at least you are honest, Debrah. Most straight opponents of same-sex marriage try to hide the fact that disgust about male-male sex is the root cause of opposition to marriage equality, hiding the raw bigotry under layers and layers of nonsense about “need to protect traditional marriage”, the “need to protect children”, and so on. Its all rank hypocrisy, of course. It comes down, in the end, to simple disgust about male-male sex.
posted by Jimmy on
“…….(and the fact that gay male culture celebrates….ad nauseum…..jerking off while ogling the genitalia of other men online).”
So when straight men jerk off while ogling a man pounding the bejeezus out a woman, both conventionally and via the back door, with graphic close-ups, he magically ignores 1/2 of that equation?
When you make statements that start out with the word “most”, it really means “you”, which is fine as you are entitled. But, this unsubstantiated “most” is like Sasquatch – heard a lot about it, but never proven.
posted by Debrah on
“Well, at least you are honest, Debrah. Most straight opponents of same-sex marriage try to hide the fact that disgust about male-male sex is the root cause of opposition to marriage equality, hiding their raw bigotry…..”
*********************************
Tom, I’ll certainly cop to the honest part, but perhaps you’d look less self-pitying if JUST ONCE you’d acknowledge the raw-with-a-vengeance behavior and the gay male shock shows with their internet parades of men of all ages participating…..
……turning down the resolutions of their computer screens which display their bounty long enough to send a smarmy cry for SSM when prompted by the “activists”.
And I will say again, I am not an “opponent” of SSM.
I wouldn’t work against. Nor would I work for it.
“It comes down, in the end, to simple disgust about male-male sex.”
**********************************
IMO, that’s an enormous part of it……
…….insofar as you can get anyone to admit it publicly.
I was talking to a university student (about 19-20 years old) a few months ago and she said that it made her uncomfortable to bring her boyfriends home because she always felt that her gay brother was checking them out all the time.
She said the idea that he might want to have sex with someone she was attracted to creeped her out.
Any SSM proponent who tries to make this particular issue a totally “generational” one is delusional.
But it does provide them with a tired excuse and a way to say—–“Just wait and see. The youth of today will be more open and sensitive and ‘marriage equality’ friendly.”
Maybe.
Maybe not.
I have my doubts because the gay community, in general, doesn’t appear to want to change very much or show that they can evolve the way they expect society to.
posted by Debrah on
“When you make statements that start out with the word ‘most’, it really means ‘you’, which is fine as you are entitled. But, this unsubstantiated ‘most’ is like Sasquatch – heard a lot about it, but never proven.”
***********************************************
Jimmy, you keep dreamin’, baby.
As I have said over and over again, this SSM issue within the culture wars debate was never on my radar screen.
I didn’t think about it enough to be hostile or “against” it.
Gay men have always, for whatever reasons, liked me very much and have been interesting collaborators in many circumstances with various endeavors.
But I never spent time on the private lives of anyone. Some of my gay male friends and acquaintances would even give me good-natured advice on men and we’d share fashion ideas, but somehow I never spent time on this issue in its sexual habitat.
It was not until recently when this SSM issue invaded my milieu that I have done my “research”.
I would say that your analysis of so much of this is inaccurate; however, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
posted by Bobby on
“Especially when those same gay men wish to simultaneously wax all weepy and sentimental about the “right” to marry another man…..as if fidelity and monogamy are treasured by them.”
—I wonder if marriage is even about monogamy when it comes to gays? Sure, some gays are monogamous but knowing how gays love theater, pomp and circumstance I do wonder if same-sex marriage isn’t just an excuse to have yet another party?
“But please don’t get all self-righteous and sad when voters at the ballot box toss the SSM idea out with roaring laughter.”
—I don’t because I know people are resistant to change. Why do you think I get so angry with Obama and his followers? As Glenn Beck says and I’m paraphrasing “you can talk about transformation, but transformation into what?”
“But such “openness” will always be the SSM killer when you also want to pretend that “gay marriage” is more than a financial issue or a request to be given the “dignity” that gay men, themselves, do not seem to value.”
—I used to believe that, years ago when I was very puritanical I used to think there were “good” gays that make the gay community look good and bad gays that do the opposite. But now I don’t believe that, I don’t think people turn against same-sex marriage because they see Perez Hilton or Adam Lambert doing something naughty.
In fact, I have more respect for them than former closet-cases like Ricky Martin. Mainstream gays are nice, but they don’t stand out, they don’t make a scene, they are mostly invisible, and invisible people are useless. It’s the reason I oppose adding the Q for Questioning to the GLBT acronym.
posted by Debrah on
….”I do wonder if same-sex marriage isn’t just an excuse to have yet another party?”
****************************************
Ha!
You’ll make some people angry with that one, but I don’t believe for one moment that “marriage” is significant to most gay men. Perhaps more emotionally significant for lesbian couples.
This is mainly a push against “heteronormativity”. To make it palatable for same-sex marriage and the lifestyle—which is whatever gay couples “divine” it to be on any given day—to be put on par with heterosexual marriage in the school curricula and elsewhere.
It’s about the “dignity thing”…..but mostly about the financial gains. Gay couples would have all the rewards that heterosexual married couples have without the burden of actually having to live out the definition of “marriage”.
To me, it’s been like watching a bunch of two year-olds kicking sand in a sandbox.
So much melodrama is added to this issue and from all outward appearances and behavior, it’s one huge superfluous cultural shakedown.
Bobby, I don’t think people are resistant to change for the better or change that makes sense or change that has a real purpose.
posted by Jimmy on
So Debrah, your friends who happened to be gay men were great when they could sit and safely talk about men and hemlines, quaint but rather two dimensional. The moment those men come into full focus as sexual beings with behaviors that run the same gamut as all sexual beings, your Diva existence is somehow suddenly tainted by the reality that the gay men you call friends like sex, sometimes raunchy sex, along with fashion and home decor. TFB!
“doesn’t appear to want to change very much or show that they can evolve the way they expect society to.”
The evolution (revolution even) did occur, the very moment we, gays and lesbians, stopped believing that there was something wrong in our affirmation of our sexuality, in all of its dimensions. While that sexuality may not be as pervasive in our culture as its counterpart, and pervasive it is, our sexuality is legitimate and just as central to our human existence and experience as anyone else’s.
I hear arguments that the motivations behind our fight for marriage equality are merely legalistic, contactual, fiscal, etc. (straight couples who opt to marry for those reasons never have their motives questioned by their peers). Those arguments are designed to dehumanize GLBT people. They remove from us the human capability, love, that distinguishes us from other species, and they do in a very crass way.
Since I have been participating in this dialogue on IGF, I think I’ve developed a feel for the various personalities that also participate. My view of you, Debrah, has evolved and I see you more three dimensionally, and there is a lot to like and admire about you. It’s clear to me that there is a certain amount of vindictiveness at work in some of your commentary, and when I read it, it bums me out.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
@ North Dallas Thirty: Wade was referring to the position that NOM holds. It seemed pretty obvious, that was not Wade’s philosophy.
And Wade stated that the philosophy that children should be raised by their biological parents was “sad”.
I also noticed that you didn’t address my original statement. You simply diverted to the new topic of abortion.
I addressed it quite nicely. You simply didn’t want to explain how liberals defend single parenting at the same time that they are encouraging people to kill children to avoid single parenting.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Most straight opponents of same-sex marriage try to hide the fact that disgust about male-male sex is the root cause of opposition to marriage equality, hiding the raw bigotry under layers and layers of nonsense about “need to protect traditional marriage”, the “need to protect children”, and so on. Its all rank hypocrisy, of course. It comes down, in the end, to simple disgust about male-male sex.
Yes, of course, because the gay and lesbian community has never endorsed and supported pedophiles, never stated that age-of-consent laws were homophobic, never had its psychologists arguing that people who opposed dressing children as sexual slaves and taking them to a sex fair were “close-minded” and homophobic, and never mocked monogamy and said that more heterosexual couples needed to be promiscuous like gays are.
The reason gay and lesbian “activists” like Tom have roughly as much credibility as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson is because, where they yell “racist”, people like Tom yell “bigot” and “homophobe”.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “âIt’s about the “dignity thing” ⦠but mostly about the financial gains. Gay couples would have all the rewards that heterosexual married couples have without the burden of actually having to live out the definition of “marriage”.
Debrah, my partner and I have been together for many years, and have five adult children. We understand love and commitment, what it means to stick together and stay together, through thick and thin. We also understand the hurdles tossed into the path of unmarried couples trying to raise children, and we have, accordingly, a real, gut-level understanding of the importance of marriage to the many younger gay and lesbian couples who are raising children. We’ve reached retirement age, and we know first-hand the difficulties presented to unmarried couples trying to plan estates, end-of-life medical decisions and long-term care.
You dismiss all of that as meaningless — probably because it is outside your experience — but it isn’t. I’ll say this bluntly â you have no damn idea âwhat it is aboutâ.
Tom, I’ll certainly cop to the honest part, but perhaps you’d look less self-pitying if JUST ONCE you’d acknowledge the raw-with-a-vengeance behavior and the gay male shock shows with their internet parades of men of all ages participating … turning down the resolutions of their computer screens which display their bounty long enough to send a smarmy cry for SSM when prompted by the “activists”.â
You presume to let those of us who are gay in on a dirty little straight secret, that straight opposition to legal equality for gays and lesbians is based on misplaced “discomfort” and visceral “disgust”, and has little or nothing to do with all the bullshit that opponents of gay and lesbian equality put out to mask the driving force behind their opposition.
Why you think that this is a secret to any of us is a mystery to me. We have lived with that knowledge from fifth or sixth grade, when straight boys started in on “faggot, faggot”. It hasn’t changed. What has changed is that more and more straight people are getting over it, and looking beyond it.
Bit by bit, as we make progress, opponents of legal equality are being backed into a corner created by their own hypocrisy and are being forced to admit that it really is all about “faggot, faggot”, and nothing much else.
That’s a good thing. The anti-gay cheerleaders are slowly but surely being exposed for what they are — mindless, visceral, unreasoned — as more and more people get to know gays and lesbians, understand that our lives are not much different than theirs in most respects, and move beyond “what they were taught”.
You keep coming back to gay male porn. And yet you can’t or won’t answer why you think that gay male porn is different than straight male porn. I’m not heavily into porn, but even I know enough to suspect that there isn’t any material difference. You need to get your head out of the gay male porn for a few hours and go onto XTube and look at the straight male porn. It would be a real education for you. It is every bit as raunchy.
It is all just a mask, anyway. Even if gay male porn were like watching Mary Poppins, straight people in the grips of âdiscomfortâ and âdisgustâ â read self-induced fear, for the most part â would find another âreasonâ to oppose legal equality for gays and lesbians, like this one: âI was talking to a university student (about 19-20 years old) a few months ago and she said that it made her uncomfortable to bring her boyfriends home because she always felt that her gay brother was checking them out all the time.â How about her sister? Do you suppose she was checking them out, too? This is yet another example of irrational straight behavior, like that woman in the doctor’s office you talked about in another thread who was afraid that a doctor’s assistant, acting professionally in every respect, might be checking her out.
Like a lot of gay people, I am no longer waiting for straight people to get their heads out of their asses. It is time for straight people to get over it, and I insist on it in my day-to-day encounters. The few people who can’t deal with don’t get to play. It is that simple.
Debrah: “And I will say again, I am not an “opponent” of SSM. I wouldn’t work against. Nor would I work for it.
The interesting thing is that you won’t say how you would vote on same-sex marriage, if given the opportunity. You prefer to keep that hidden.
Few of us care about gaining “acceptance” from most straights. We know that isn’t going to happen, and it isn’t relevant to our battle. All we need is to get a significant number of straights far enough past the “discomfort” and “disgust” you seem so stuck in to believe that gays and lesbians should be treated equally under the law. We’ve been winning that battle, bit by bit, in the workplace and in our neighborhoods, and the polls reflect the changes we are bringing about.
Underlying all of your writing seems to be the notion that gay men should act like straight women want their straight men to act in order to gain “acceptance”. It isn’t going to happen, and you’ll not see me, anyway, trying to turn other gay men into “respectable” straight-ish acting men in order to gain “acceptance” from people like you.
The “sexual outlaws” among us deserve equal treatment under the law just as much as those of us who “don’t scare the horses”. The law does not distinguish between straight men on that basis, and cannot be allowed do so for gay men. You find it frustrating that we don’t want to act like a bunch of church ladies, condemning folks who aren’t like us, but that’s tough. It isn’t going to happen, either.
The great change in the struggle for gay and lesbian equality in the last decade was that same-sex marriage took the battle out of the parks and bathhouses, the haunts of the “sexual outlaws”, and right square into the homes of those of us who “don’t scare the horses”. When the religious right and Republican politicians started going after us and our children the ball game changed. All of us, each and every one of us, is on the front lines of the âculture warsâ. Nobody is turning back.
posted by Debrah on
“The moment those men come into full focus as sexual beings with behaviors that run the same gamut as all sexual beings, your Diva existence is somehow suddenly tainted by the reality that the gay men you call friends like sex, sometimes raunchy sex, along with fashion and home decor. TFB!”
****************************************
Talk about oversimplifying things.
No, no, no, no, no…..Jimmy.
Nothing about the sexual features of their lives bothers me because I knew they were gay up front and those things were not an issue.
Someone being gay is an non-issue unless you feel invested in a person in some way as a regular guy and then you just want to will them NOT to be gay.
This is perhaps too complex to try and explain here. I don’t want a brilliant and exceptional man that I know and love to be a part of the gay culture.
It’s like someone reached in and ripped out a piece of my heart.
So much of what is representative of gay male culture—openly accepted and celebrated by even professional and “respectable” men—is the antithesis of what I see as a “real” man.
And you guys seem to like it that way.
So what?….you might say.
I also understand well how insulting that sounds, but it’s the only way to say it.
And Jimmy, I’ve grown to like many of you. You are exceptional and insightful in many ways. I enjoy what you write even though we don’t agree on a lot things.
Tossing around the issues and debating some of them is often exhilarating because there are some interesting people here with brainpower among the IGF commentariat.
But I’m not “bummed out” as you say about anything you might reveal about your private lives because I’m not “invested” in the same way. The same goes for the men who are gay in my every day life.
I just think, “My G/d, how much more successful and unencumbered and hot would a man be if he were not constantly weighted down with this gay sh!t?”
There……. I’ve said it as clearly as possible.
posted by Debrah on
Tom–
Omnia vincit amor
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The “sexual outlaws” among us deserve equal treatment under the law just as much as those of us who “don’t scare the horses”. The law does not distinguish between straight men on that basis, and cannot be allowed do so for gay men. You find it frustrating that we don’t want to act like a bunch of church ladies, condemning folks who aren’t like us, but that’s tough. It isn’t going to happen, either.
Of course not.
And the fact that you cannot condemn bad behavior, Tom, demonstrates precisely the problem.
You no longer know or can intelligently discern the difference between right and wrong. You believe that EVERY criticism of a gay person is due to “homophobia” and is never under any circumstances valid.
One would think that a community in which “sexual outlaws” who refused to be responsible caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people would recognize the consequences of irresponsible behavior.
But of course not. You’re still blaming Reagan. You adamantly refuse to take any responsibility for your choices or what you support and endorse. And instead of balling up and admitting that maybe, just maybe, raunchy porn is a bad idea regardless of who does it, you start whining and screaming.
That shows only one thing, Tom; you get your sense of self-worth, not from what you do, but from your sexual orientation.
And that is why Debrah called it; the gay-sex marriage battle is less about marriage than it is you needing to be validated.
posted by Tom on
ND30: “And that is why Debrah called it; the gay-sex marriage battle is less about marriage than it is you needing to be validated.
You two sound like peas in a pod, I’ll say that for you.
posted by Debrah on
“One would think that a community in which ‘sexual outlaws’ who refused to be responsible caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people would recognize the consequences of irresponsible behavior.”
***********************************************
Orgasmic quote of the day!
posted by Tom on
ND30: “One would think that a community in which ‘sexual outlaws’ who refused to be responsible caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people would recognize the consequences of irresponsible behavior.”
Debrah: “Orgasmic quote of the day!”
When it comes to orgasms, to each her own, Debrah. You might want to try romance novels, though.
posted by Debrah on
“You might want to try romance novels, though.”
*********************************
Ha!
If I recall correctly, you think I should be writing them.
posted by Jimmy on
“My G/d, how much more successful and unencumbered and hot would a man be if he were not constantly weighted down with this gay sh!t?”
By “a man” do you mean a gay man?
What would you propose as an alternative?
posted by Throbert McGee on
Two possible alternatives that I recommend for further reading:
Jack Donovan’s Androphilia
Bill Weintraub’s Heroic Homosex (or, the more “work safe” version, with minimal graphics and no penis photos: Man2Man Alliance).
Weintraub is the guy who coined the slang term “frot” as a term for dick-to-dick rubbing (i.e., he coined it by clipping the end off the existing word “frottage” and also giving it a more specific meaning than the original word had). Weintraub’s OTHER invaluable contribution — besides inventing a convenient name for a practice that guys had been enjoying all along, but never knew what to call it — has been to attack gay male culture for its insane persistence in marketing anal sex throughout the entire run of the HIV epidemic. How many lives might’ve been saved if gay men had made the collective decision, in the late ’80s or so, that porn depicting “safer” anal sex with condoms is not much different from a cigarette ad that shows college students happily puffing away on “low-tar, ultra-light” cancer sticks? (One point where I disagree with Weintraub: His message is that gay men should not have anal sex at all, even inside a monogamous relationship; I prefer to take inspiration from the abortion debates and argue that anal sex ought to be “safe,
legal, versatile, and rare.”)Donovan doesn’t take a public position on the frot vs. anal “debate” (though I know from private correspondence with him that he agrees with my “safe, versatile, and rare” recommendation regarding anal). He does, however, reject the very word “gay” — which he calls undignified, campy, and laden with leftist cultural tropes about gender-bending, radical egalitarianism, and a perpetual sense of victimhood. Therefore, he proposed the term “androphile” as a self-label for homosexual and bisexual men who dislike “gay” culture, and he described the idealized androphile as a guy who is sexually aroused by HIS OWN masculinity as well as the masculinity of his sexual partners. One of Donovan’s recurring themes is that the androphilic man is a man first, and thus should socialize with the men around him, even if they are heterosexual, rather than taking the easy path by only hanging out with other homosexual men, or worse yet, relying on “fag hag” heterosexual women to be a buffer between the dainty gay guys and the scary straight dudes. (Of course, there are some problems with the term “androphile” — for one thing, long before Donovan seized upon it, “androphile” and “gynephile” were in currency among transsexuals as a genitalia-neutral way of describing their sexual orientation. Another problem is that Donovan’s suggested slang formation “andro” might make the average reader think of either “androgyny” or “android”!)
In summary, I admire both Donovan and Weintraub for what they’re doing, though I don’t agree 100% with either one of them.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
Throbert’s comment, IMO, provides an adequate reply for some aspects of this issue.
The idea that gay men should exploit their masculinity as described by the “androphilic” man would be a start, and that’s perhaps the avenue that is taken by successful gay men who aren’t officially “out” or who do not label themselves as “gay”.
Like Anderson Cooper, Shepherd Smith, and others.
From my reading, that’s the way the late Roy Cohn lived his life….along with many not-so-savory aspects of his personality (as portrayed by Al Pacino in “Angels in America”).
Cohn might not have been a good role model in many other ways (professionally), but he was defiant in not being pigeonholed inside the “gay man” schtick.
I personally would live that way if I were a gay man. Living life as a MAN, first…..and not allowing anything that I might do sexually to enter into other aspects of life.
It’s the idea that everyone should play “Look at me! I’m gay and I like it. I’ll do anything I want proudly…..and if you can’t accept it, f*ck off!”……kind of attitude that’s simply not a good image for any man to project and be taken seriously.
I believe this insular “victim” role that many (most!) gay men adopt is not only devastatingly unattractive, but self-defeating. Why do you think so many famous gay men try to steer clear of being put into that category?
It’s not because society is so “mean” and “bigoted”.
It’s because it’s such a goddamned turn-off to see a man—any man!—sashaying around like a girl and rubbing all over other men in hopes someone will enter his back door.
Someday, someone inside the gay male culture parade will have to come to terms with the fact that gay might be beautiful to them when they’re in the throes of lovemaking…..as lovemaking is for most people on the planet…….
…….however, as messy as all forms of lovemaking can be, full-throttle sex between two alleged men takes it all into the most base and unappealing aspect of human body function.
And that will never change. No matter if we’re in the 21st century or the 51st century.
Gay male culture touts, glorifies, and markets that which is the most unpalatable aspect of being “gay”.
And then wonder why someone might be repulsed.
There’s nothing “beautiful” about the raw footage of a woman’s actual c*nt turned up into a camera lens.
And there’s even less “beauty”—(no matter how the online video YouTube porno perverts wish to make believe)—from the constant fare of gay male azz and c*cks naughtily hidden, yet slightly peeping out, of their jockstraps……camera-ready to cop a feel and a thrill.
When you see a guy with his azz jutting up into the air with a “come-hither” look, it’s almost comical…….if you can get past the reality that supposedly intelligent men sign onto this silly jerk-off parade…….
……..and then the next day they’ll be out screaming for “marriage equality” for “gay and lesbian citizens”.
LOL!
Anonymity not required because inside gay male culture, the d!ck is displayed right along with the briefcase.
posted by Tom on
Debrah, you live in an unusual world, as lurid and overdrawn in your reality as in the fevered imagination of Peter Labarbera. It makes me glad I live in the rural Midwest.
posted by Jimmy on
I’m always amused when men who engage in sex with other men desperately want to assert that they are still masculine, hyper-masculine even. My response to that is, “Yeah, you look real masculine there with a di*k in your mouth, Mary.” I suggest he get over it, because it is even more unattractive to the vast majority his potential sexual partners out here (he can always rely married straight men on the down-low, I suppose).
As a 43 year old gay man, I’m really not a participant in today’s gay culture. I’ve never been to a “White Party”, I don’t go to the numerous gay bars here in Indianapolis anymore. I’d rather go sit at the fabulous bar at Palomino’s with friends, drink mojitos, and have grown up conversation. But, not too many years ago, I was an avid participant and had a great time, for the most part. So much of gay culture is a right of passage for young GLBT people, in the same way as is the club scene for young straights. In both scenes, the geezer hanging out, trying to fit in, is the anachronism. Now that I am approaching my geezerdom, I can have more empathy for those folks who have such determination stay in the game, a la Brett Favre.
What’s interesting is that the most popular gay bar in Indy is attended by more more straight people because it is there that they find the best music and most eclectic crowd. It is the place for bon vivants to be seen. And they are welcomed by the regulars.
“Gay male culture touts, glorifies, and markets that which is the most unpalatable aspect of being ‘gay’.”
To you. The most unpalatable aspect of being “gay” is to me is the unending fascination with Brittany Spears. You can’t have everything. Anal sex has never been my thing, but I don’t begrudge what other people who have it. I do want them to be as safe as possible while having it.
“When you see a guy with his azz jutting up into the air with a “come-hither” look, it’s almost comical…….”
Yes it is funny, and we get the joke. So much of that type of imagery is a spoof of the time honored centerfold chick peddled by Hefner, Flynt, et al.
I love my gay brothers and sisters, even the ones who are determined not to identify. I wouldn’t stop anyone from attempting to redefine the world to bring it in line with their belief systems. Fine. Call yourself androphilic if it makes you happy. I think it’s silly.
If someone is going to have a problem with you because you are homosexual, what you call yourself is irrelevant.
posted by Debrah on
“I’m always amused when men who engage in sex with other men desperately want to assert that they are still masculine, hyper-masculine even.”
***********************************
Well, Jimmy.
You really brought that one home.
Surprisingly, you’re saying essentially what I have said before…… “It takes some of the ‘man’ away from the man.”
And that’s the devastating blow. I know not for you, but it’s the main reason to hope that a guy isn’t gay…..if you care at all one way or the other.
I think you minimize the effects of widely-accepted gay porn and the open participation of gay men of all ages (together!) and what that portends for young gay men, but that’s OK.
Many people wish to make believe that it’s no longer an issue…….
…….and that today’s youth accept all of gay culture automatically.
To this I say to the SSM proponents who rely on that refrain…..really talk to some of the kids about the subject inside an environment in which they don’t feel threatened and will speak candidly.
No one is completely honest when someone is taking a poll. They always want to come across as “progressive”.
You’re right about gay clubs. They often have the best music and best vibe. Something funny I recall long ago when I was visiting Seattle at age 19, after a time from being away. My cousin thought he’d produce “shock” by taking me to a gay night club and bar.
LOL!!!
The only thing going on were some girls cuddling and slow dancing. YAWN.
I also am perplexed with anyone’s fascination for someone like Brittany Spears. She and her whole family are total yahoos.
Similar to the lesser-known above-the-Mason-Dixon Line “body builder” Scott Herman. Both are short, stocky people, and kind of dumb. Herman’s humongous lard butt is often used in gay porn on YouTube. LOL!!!
Gay men subscribe to his channel and pretend they are in it for the “fitness workouts”.
Creepy.
Both of the aforementioned are quite similar to someone like Carrie Prejean. Mutts in a vacuum.
By the way, if you ever check out that little guy Scott Herman, he’s an example of someone who, by age 40, will be a porker. Right now he’s a “fitness expert”, but if he ever jumps off that wagon, he’s toast….simply because he’s so short….with short stumpy little legs; however, I think he became “known” for his “abs”. LOL!!!
Right now, his azz is as wide as a woman who has had about six kids. And I think he’s only in his mid-twenties. He’d better not ever stop lifting weights.
And all this is to say, Jimmy…….everyone has “their thing”….and sometimes there is no accounting for someone’s bad taste.
Most, and I do mean MOST, of the people hyped to the public are so common and synthetic. It takes many women hours to remove their make-up and when they do you have a totally different humanoid looking into the mirror. LOL!
The key is to hopefully inherit some good genes….and then take as good of care of yourself as you can because the sands of your life’s hourglass are draining into your computer screen!
posted by Jimmy on
“And that’s the devastating blow.”
There’s that melodrama that I just don’t get. Devastating? Really?
posted by Throbert McGee on
So you’re arguing that when two men have sex with each other, it makes them both more feminine, Jimmy? If a straight guy said that, accusations of “homophobe!” would be immediately forthcoming, so it’s kinda strange to hear it from a gay guy.
Why would a man who [purportedly] loves men ever make a habit of undercutting and belittling another man’s instinct to assert his masculinity?
True, some men “assert their masculinity” in ridiculous ways, such as by thinking they can buy manhood off the rack at a leather shop or military surplus store. But even if the way they go about it is silly, the underlying desire to affirm one’s own masculinity and to have it re-affirmed by other men is not something to be ridiculed by anyone who claims to like men.
posted by Throbert McGee on
that’s perhaps the avenue that is taken by successful gay men who aren’t officially “out” or who do not label themselves as “gay”.
Just to be clear, Donovan places value on being “officially out” as an MSM, although he disparages the “gay” label.
posted by Jimmy on
“So you’re arguing that when two men have sex with each other, it makes them both more feminine, Jimmy?”
Of course not, Throbert. I’m saying my own perception of my masculinity is in no way connected to my identification with the gay community or gay rights movement or other gay men. I’m certainly not threatened by an association with gay men who are effeminate or more to the left. So when I hear homosexual men who have these visceral protestations against the “gay” appellation, I have to roll my eyes. Gay and masculine are not mutually exclusive and I take exception to the notion that they are, politics be damned.
posted by Debrah on
“There’s that melodrama that I just don’t get. Devastating? Really?”
*********************************************
Really.
In fact…….really, really.
In fact, one of the most devastating things inside my perceptional screen.
posted by Debrah on
“Gay and masculine are not mutually exclusive and I take exception to the notion that they are, politics be damned.”
***********************************************
Jimmy, Throbert makes a very good point.
Essentially, when two men “make love”, both minimize their masculinity, necessarily.
Which you already know.
And the word “gay” has always been a perplexing choice. I’ve sometimes wondered how a man can use the word “gay” to describe himself without wincing just a bit.
posted by Jimmy on
“Essentially, when two men “make love”, both minimize their masculinity, necessarily.”
How, exactly? Is a straight man minimizing his masculinity when he tenderly makes love to a woman? Or is that masculinity by definition for you? Perhaps you see gay men as lacking in masculinity because you see any man who doesn’t want you sexually as lacking in masculinity.
posted by Debrah on
“Perhaps you see gay men as lacking in masculinity because you see any man who doesn’t want you sexually as lacking in masculinity.”
********************************
LOL!
Jimmy, this is why I’ve grown to appreciate you and BobN so much.
You’re keen observers…..as well as insightful and in-cite-ful !
posted by Bobby on
“Essentially, when two men “make love”, both minimize their masculinity, necessarily.”
—What about effeminate straight men? I have known a few of those.
Frankly, I don’t think masculinity has anything to do with who you sex with. After all, I’ve seen dogs having sex with women, I wouldn’t call them masculine.
posted by Tom on
Bobby: “After all, I’ve seen dogs having sex with women, I wouldn’t call them masculine.”
The dogs or the women?
posted by Bobby on
The dogs, Tom. Growing up in a latin culture I know how men think that if you get penetrated you’re gay or feminine but if you penetrate you’re masculine. Well, dogs, horses, and other animals penetrate, so I think the argument is ludicrous.
In fact, in our gay community there are “power bottoms,” I think what that means is bottoms that really take charge during sex.
posted by David in Houston on
@ North Dallas Thirty: Wade was referring to the position that NOM holds. It seemed pretty obvious, that was not Wade’s philosophy.
And Wade stated that the philosophy that children should be raised by their biological parents was “sad”.
I also noticed that you didn’t address my original statement. You simply diverted to the new topic of abortion.
I addressed it quite nicely. You simply didn’t want to explain how liberals defend single parenting at the same time that they are encouraging people to kill children to avoid single parenting.
———————————–
Again, he was stating that NOM’s position that ONLY biological parents make suitable parents is sad. The key word is ONLY. As in, there are obviously other kinds of parents that are equally suitable but NOM does not acknowledge this simple fact. That is what’s sad.
Why would I need to address a specific person’s position on abortions that you randomly brought up? I couldn’t care less.
I love how you bring up a 16 year old document about NAMBLA, as if that has ANY relevance in 2010. That same year GLAAD adopted a “Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA” saying GLAAD “deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association’s (NAMBLA) goals. Wikipedia states: “More recently, media reports have suggested that for practical purposes the group no longer exists and that it consists only of a web site maintained by a few enthusiasts.” It’s so clever of you trying to link pedophiles to homosexuals. Stay classy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Again, he was stating that NOM’s position that ONLY biological parents make suitable parents is sad.
I believe this was the statement that NOM made.
That means creating an America in which each year more children are born to and protected by their mother and father united in a loving, decent, average good-enough marriage.
Now why do gay-sex marriage supporters oppose this concept and call it “sad”?
Furthermore, why are gay-sex marriage supporters like yourself so hostile to biological parents? Is it because you are jealous and envious of the fact that they can produce children and you can’t? Is that why you have to denigrate them and tear them down — so that you can feel better about yourself?
This is what is really funny about gays and lesbians like yourself; you spend all of your time tearing down and attacking straight people. Does your sexual orientation require you to be bitter? It certainly doesn’t for me.
It’s so clever of you trying to link pedophiles to homosexuals.
Actually, it’s not all that difficult to link homosexuals to pedophiles, especially when you have “gay rights” organizations agitating against age-of-consent laws and talking about how it’s “common” to have sex with children, or gay and lesbian “parents” dressing up children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs for an “educational experience”.
posted by BobN on
I do believe ND30 has a crush on Maggie Gallagher.
Honestly, it’s one thing to rag on gay people day after day, year after year, using the same arguments as NOM to taunt and insult us, but to actually defend NOM?
How low can you go, ND, how low?
posted by David in Houston on
NDT: Biological parents are totally awesome. I had a couple of them growing up. My brother and sisters are all biological parents. The point being made over and over again is they are not the ONLY people that are capable of raising children, nor are they the best parents by default. NOM holds a slightly different opinion. It is “sad” that NOM holds the opinion that gay couples are incapable of loving and raising a child just as well as biological parents. They have no scientific proof to support their position, but they keep stating it as fact.
If I really wanted to produce children, I could simply donate sperm to a sperm bank. I could also find a surrogate to carry my baby; or I could even force myself to have sex with a woman (and imagine that they’re Brad Pitt). There are many ways for a gay man to procreate if they desire to. If I were THAT desperate to have a child, I’d most likely adopt, since there seems to be an abundance of children in need of a home.
The links you posted represent a minuscule representation of gay society. The Canadian link is completely irrelevant, since they don’t represent the views or policies of America. If I mention how Canada has had marriage equality for 7 years, I’m told that has no bearing on how we live in America. It works both ways. For the record, I think the age of consent should be 18. All gay people do not have the same standards. To assume so is foolish. The other link is laughable. Of course you shouldn’t take a child to the Folsom Street Parade. Just like you shouldn’t take a child to Mardi Gras. Again, for the record, I have no intention of ever going to either celebration. But if I did, I’d have enough common sense to not take a child.