James Kirchick writes in The Advocate:
It's not just gays on the right who should want to find a comfortable space in the conservative movement-gay liberals had better hope there's room for gays there too. That's because we continue to live in a center-right country, and with a Republican takeover of Congress in November becoming more likely with each passing day, the importance of achieving bipartisan support for gay rights legislation becomes all the more clear.
Meanwhile, the past year and a half of legislative stalling-all while the Democrats had the White House and supermajorities in Congress-ought to put a dent in the claim that gays have no choice but to invest all of their political energies in the Democratic Party. If liberal gays truly value legal equality over political partisanship, they will wish groups like the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud tactical success in changing the GOP from within.
But how would that advance the careers of LGBT activists in the Democratic party?
116 Comments for “An Inconvenient Truth”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Reposting this reply to Debrah and Jimmy (because it was at the bottom of a looong and now-stale thread):
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 Tom on
I would suggest to you that gays and lesbians are already winning, and have largely won, the “center-right”.
Polls show strong support for DADT repeal, civil unions and/or domestic partnerships, workplace equality and other core issues in the struggle for equality under the law. Marriage equality is just about the only issue where gays and lesbians face significant opposition, and that opposition is lessening and is likely to continue to lessen over time.
In contrast, the anti-gay forces in our country are becoming increasingly shrill and less persuasive as they become more and more marginalized, and the “center” — both center-left and center-right — is no longer buying what they are selling.
The Republicans are in the ditch on gay and lesbian issues because of the current power of the far-right social conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, in the party’s primary process. It is almost impossible for a center-right Republican to win a primary in the face of opposition from the far-right, which has the tools to mobilize and prevail in low-turnout primary elections. We see it again and again, as the center-right is marginalized in the Republican Party.
I don’t know when the Republican Party will find its way out of far-right lockjaw. I am convinced that it will, eventually, because political parties have a tendency to eventually back away from the extremes and center themselves.
I understand why gays and lesbians are aligning with the Democrats. In the words of the unlamented philosopher king Donald Rumsfeld, “You fight the war with the army you’ve got.”
I don’t know how it is in your state, but Wisconsin enacted a limited Domestic Partnership law last year — domestic partnership rights supported by about two-thirds of the electorate, if polls are accurate — and not a single Republican dared to vote for the bill, knowing full well what would happen to them in the next primary if they did, even though a number of them privately support domestic partnership rights. That’s the reality right now in this state. It might be different elsewhere.
I’ll be curious to see what happens with DADT next year. The Republicans will, I think, be faced with this reality: The DOD will have a RAND study in place that confirms earlier studies, all consistent, predicting that DADT repeal is not likely to create material problems for recruitment, retention or effectiveness. The military will present a plan for DADT repeal, and inform Congress that the military is ready to move forward and implement. The polls will show, as they do now, that a large majority of Americans think that DADT should be repealed. The far-right will, on the other hand, pull out all the stops and fight to the last ditch, because they understand, in a way that gay and lesbian “leadership” does not seem to understand, that DADT repeal is, in a very real sense, the ball game. Americans will not long tolerate unequal treatment of Americans who put their lives on the line for our country, and when gays and lesbians are allowed, finally, to serve openly, the game is over for the far-right anti-gay forces.
I don’t know how Republican politicians will respond to that reality. Will they, as they did in Wisconsin last year, side with the forces of darkness yet again, or will DADT repeal be the issue in which Republican politicians finally crack on gay and lesbian issues? I haven’t a clue.
Nonetheless, I think that tying the struggle for equality to either party is a mistake, because I think that it is an enormous mistake to depend on politicians at all, regardless of party affiliation.
The critical issue, it seems to me, is that the so-called “leadership” — HRC, in particular — has shifted focus away from ground-level concerns and become so Washington-centric that our struggle is in danger of being subsumed into a political quagmire, becoming nothing more than yet another Washington dependency, yet another group that sucks money and energy away from the ground into a benighted symbiotic relationship with political power players.
Gays and lesbians will never win equality by wooing politicians, by becoming yet another “base” from which politicians suck money and votes during election cycles and conveniently set aside when it is time to “balance” the demands of various constituencies.
We will win equality by coming out, advocating in our neighborhoods and workplaces, little by slowly changing the attitudes of the straights we work and live with, quietly and not-so-quietly providing a counter to the far-right fear and loathing machine.
We will win equality by winning over the American people, one person at a time. It is the only way we are going to win.
posted by Bobby on
Throbert, are you a sexual conservative? Do you hate anal sex to the point you want to advice other men into not doing it? If the frotage weirdos want to engage in mutual masturbation and penis rubbing and call it sex, fine, but those nazis have no right to tell me how to make love. Both anal and vaginal sex are intimate expressions of love or lust depending the circumstances, and yes, the anus is not a vagina, the anus is actually BETTER than a vagina because is tighter which is why many straight men are trying to get their girlfriends to take it there. And seriously, androphile? That sounds like pedophile, necrophile, he wants to change gay into that?
The frot movement is ridiculous, gay liberation was about not having the state tell you how to have sex with consenting adults, the last thing we need is a bunch of nazi-like gays telling us that anal is bad. I’m sorry for the hyperbole but this hits a raw nerve in my life. Nobody gets to tell me how to have sex!
posted by Jorge on
Coming off of reading retiring [:(] Justice Stevens’ now-controlling dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick, I have to agree with Bobby’s affirmation of the right to be let alone in our sacred marital precincts–mind you, that applies whether we’re married or unmarried. As you can see from both Bowers and Lawrence, it takes a Republican to get civil rights done right. We absolutely must get more conservatives and Republicans to find common cause with progressives on these issues.
posted by Tom on
Jorge: “As you can see from both Bowers and Lawrence, it takes a Republican to get civil rights done right. We absolutely must get more conservatives and Republicans to find common cause with progressives on these issues.”
I think you are right, Jorge.
In my view, it isn’t that conservative principles are in opposition to equal treatment of gays and lesbians under the law — after all, Barry Goldwater was a champion of equality — but that the Republican Party lost its way under the influence of hard-right social conservatives like Pat Buchanan and hard-right Christian conservatives like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson.
Progressives and constitutional conservatives can find common cause in support of gay and lesbian legal equality. In fact, I think that is already the case, although constitutional conservatives tend to be drowned out by social conservatives within so-called “conservative” circles these days.
The question though — Stephen keeps posing it, and it is a legitimate question, although I think it marginal at this point — is what, if anything, organizations like the HRC should do to return the Republican Party to its senses on gay and lesbian issues. Should HRC pore money into primary races in an effort to reform the Republican Party, knowing that the effort will be a loser short-term but hoping that when and if things turn around within the party because the party recognizes that the center has moved on from “faggot, faggot”, HRC will be able to leverage its past support into then-current influence?
My view is that it doesn’t make much difference in the long run what HRC does or doesn’t do. The HRC is a Washington-based lobbying group, a wanna-be power player, and it isn’t going to change much of anything no matter how much money it tosses at one party or the other.
Gays and lesbians will win the fight on the ground, as we have been doing successfully, and when enough Americans say “enough” to the social and religious conservatives, the Republican Party will come around after the fact.
posted by avee on
Tom writes: ” It is almost impossible for a center-right Republican to win a primary in the face of opposition from the far-right, which has the tools to mobilize and prevail in low-turnout primary elections.”
That’s why supporting Tom Campbell’s bid for the GOP Senate nominiation in Calif. is so important.
posted by Jimmy on
“But how would that advance the careers of LGBT activists in the Democratic party?’
LOL. Because there are no careerists at LCR or GOProud or their respective movements.
The thing about gay liberals is that they are gay and liberal, and would likely be liberals if they were straight. Our looking for room under the conservative tent ain’t gonna happen.
posted by Bobby on
Gays who vote conservative simply have to forget about gay rights, when I listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh I agree with everything they say other than gay rights, which they rarely mention. Both Beck and Limbaugh are a lot more concerned with the obscene expansion of government and federal power over little things like same-sex marriage. In fact, they’re the first people who scream “let the people vote” and they tend to respect the vote of the people. Frankly, I’m more afraid of a socialist than of a homophobe, I’m more afraid of tax hikes than bans of same-sex marriage. In fact, now that I’m looking for work I have compared a $65,000 salary in California vs. San Antonio, TX, and Warren, Michigan and let me tell you, Texas and Michigan look way more attractive than California. In those states I can get a California salary without California taxes, cost of living and insane rents. Perhaps we gays conservatives and libertarians can say we care more about gay cash than gay rights, unless you’re talking about my gay right to keep the gay cash I earn.
posted by JohnA on
Wish the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud luck? Sure. Heck, if they’re successful I may even join them someday. But I don’t see the point in helping the career of people who are against gay rights in every possible way.
So wish them luck? Sure. But I’m not hopeful.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Better for whom? I can guarantee you, Bobby, that no woman possessing a functional vagina has ever said to her boyfriend or husband: “You know what, honey? I think it would be TEN TIMES MORE FUN if you fucked me in the ass instead of the pussy!” And the reason for this, obviously, is that “tighter” equates to more discomfort for the person being penetrated.
It’s very telling, Bobby, that in defending the merits of anal sex, your argument amounted to: “it feels great FOR THE TOP.”
posted by Jimmy on
“more discomfort for the person being penetrated.”
If it hurts, don’t do it. No one is adamantly suggesting that their gay card should be revoked if they refrain from anal sex. Jeez!
I’m getting the feeling that those who can’t cut the mustard want to stop the whole picnic.
posted by Bobby on
“Better for whom? I can guarantee you, Bobby, that no woman possessing a functional vagina has ever said to her boyfriend or husband: “You know what, honey? I think it would be TEN TIMES MORE FUN if you fucked me in the ass instead of the pussy!” And the reason for this, obviously, is that “tighter” equates to more discomfort for the person being penetrated.”
—Better for both! Seriously, am I debating Pat Robertson here? Let me explain, around the colon there’s the prostate gland, which is related to pleasure. Thus, after you get through the initial discomfort of penetration, it starts feeling good because with each thrust vibrations are sent to the prostate. Go to any adult store and take a look at the butt plugs, why do men buy these things if anal sex is so terrible? In fact, if anal sex is so bad why do some guys masturbate with a finger or a dildo or a butt plug up their you know where? Really Throbert, for a liberal you’re very conservative when it comes to sex.
By the way, Jenna Jameson says she LOVES anal sex and I read somewhere that 23% of heterosexual couples practice anal sexy. Also, some straight men enjoy being penetrated by women wearing a strap-on penis. In fact, some gay for pay actors (the kind who are straight in the real world) find anal sex to be easier than getting and maintaining an erection. You need to learn from your fellow liberal, Dan Savage if you think anal sex is bad.
“It’s very telling, Bobby, that in defending the merits of anal sex, your argument amounted to: “it feels great FOR THE TOP.””
—Really? Then why do some men reject me for having a 6 inch penis instead of a 8 or 9? I look at the ads on adam4adam, you have no idea how many men demand a big penis (aside from a tight and toned body, athletic, hairy or hairless, age, etc). In fact, some gay men will sleep with ugly guys just because they’re “gifted.”
So yes, I agree that you don’t have to do anal to be gay, but it’s not the end of the world if you do. In fact, I can’t imagine gay sex without anal. Whether you penetrate or are penetrated, there is nothing more intimate. In fact, just like the bible tells men and women to be one body (penetration), it makes sense for gay men to establish that connection as well.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Perhaps you’re incredibly unobservant, Jimmy, but the actual advice that “bottoms” get from the prevailing gay culture runs more like this:
“If it hurts, go out and buy some dildos in graduated sizes and practice and practice and practice shoving them into your rectum until eventually it hurts less. If it still hurts too much, remember to push out like you’re taking a dump, and maybe try ibuprofen. And poppers. And if after all that, it still hurts, just keep telling yourself that there’s a fine line between pleasure and pain!”
(That “fine line between pleasure and pain” crap always struck me as a slogan for pinheads.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
Dan Savage, by his own admission, is also an exclusive top.
posted by Jimmy on
I am a regular reader of Savage Love and SLOG and I know full well that Dan affirms those gay couples, between 30% and 40%, who choose not to have anal sex. His overarching message is to do only what feels right for you. But, his is an advise column, and those who want to learn deserve the advise they are ASKING FOR.
I hear hymen busting is hardly a pain-free endeavor for those who have them.
posted by Throbert McGee on
To stretch their sphincters so that being penetrated will be less unenjoyable.
Here’s how “sexually conservative” I am, Bobby:
Later in that same thread, I endorse “Jack-Off Clubs” as a sort of eat-your-cake-and-have-it-too solution, as they make it possible for men to have anonymous multi-partner sex while keeping the chances of HIV transmission to near-zero. And just so there’s no confusion, I don’t endorse J/O Clubs because I read about them in a book somewhere; I’ve personally been to J/O Clubs in NYC and DC and had a great time. Similarly, the mild flavor of urine is not something I have to take on faith because I read it on the Internet! And one other thing that I didn’t learn from reading: although there is physical pleasure to be had in “bottoming”, from a physical standpoint it is much less pleasurable than “topping.” (That’s why, in the years when I was having anal sex, I insisted on being “versatile” about it — although now my preference is to completely boycott the practice.)
In short, the reason that I will defend urolagia and J/O Clubs while disparaging anal sex has nothing to do with being “liberal” or “conservative.”
posted by Throbert McGee on
I’ve heard that, too. But I’ve also heard that the pain of rupturing the hymen is a one-time event — a woman doesn’t continue to feel discomfort and minor pain each and every time she allows a man to penetrate her vaginally.
posted by Jimmy on
Well, yes Throbert, I was being facetious.
Stigmatization of unprotected anal or vaginal sex is justified for non-monogamous couples. That is a reasonable assertion. We know that condoms work when they are used properly, so going beyond such advocacy to take the position that any and all anal sex should be discouraged is unwarranted and begins to sound begrudging and cranky.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Could you provide a supporting link for that, Jimmy? Because just a few minutes ago, I did a Google search on “anal sex” and “Savage Love,” and found that as recently as February 2010, Mr. Dan Savage was singing a different tune:
As I read it, Dan Savage is hinting to the woman that she should “lie back and think of England,” and allow her husband to fuck her in the butt from time to time, or otherwise he might cheat on her in order to fulfill his Hershey Highway fantasies.
I find it difficult to believe that a man who thinks this way would be very “affirming” of gay male couples who don’t have anal sex.
posted by Jimmy on
No Throbert, I don’t have such a link solely due to the fact that I don’t collect links to utilize in such silly arguments. If you want Dan’s views, ask him directly. He will confirm my previous characterization of his position on gay couples who don’t have teh butt sex, of this I am sure.
posted by Bobby on
“To stretch their sphincters so that being penetrated will be less unenjoyable.”
—Perhaps if you tried masturbating with the smallest butt plug you can find, you’d see that there IS a difference and the pleasure is greater. Besides, nobody’s forcing gays to have anal sex, they do it because they like it.
“if the other guy has been drinking enough beer or cola that it’s “running clear,” urine has a mild and even pleasant flavor”
—Well, I’m not into that. But unlike you, I try not to judge people who are into that. To each his own as long as we’re talking about adults.
“Later in that same thread, I endorse “Jack-Off Clubs” as a sort of eat-your-cake-and-have-it-too solution, as they make it possible for men to have anonymous multi-partner sex while keeping the chances of HIV transmission to near-zero.”
—Yes, so I’m gonna sacrifice the intimacy of one on one encounters by doing something I can do at home, while checking out better looking guys than the strangers I’d get at one of those clubs. If you’re wearing condoms your chances of catching HIV are miniscule.
“And just so there’s no confusion, I don’t endorse J/O Clubs because I read about them in a book somewhere; I’ve personally been to J/O Clubs in NYC and DC and had a great time.”
—I’m glad you did. I personally find them humiliating, sort of like the days I used to go to bathhouses and hit on guys that would ignore me. No, I’d much rather hire an escort or meet someone online.
“I didn’t learn from reading: although there is physical pleasure to be had in “bottoming”, from a physical standpoint it is much less pleasurable than “topping.” (That’s why, in the years when I was having anal sex, I insisted on being “versatile” about it — although now my preference is to completely boycott the practice.)”
—You do realize that some guys are total bottoms? I had a guy that questioned my status as a top just because I happened to lose my erection at one point, and because I wasn’t always in the mood to do him since that’s all he wanted from me, sex, sex, sex. That guy was such a bottom that if a guy even mentioned he had been penetrated even once, he was no longer a real top. Your mistake was being versatile, you could have been a total top and hook up wtih a total bottom, then it’s a win-win for both of you.
“In short, the reason that I will defend urolagia and J/O Clubs while disparaging anal sex has nothing to do with being “liberal” or “conservative””
—Well, by disparaging anal sex you’re joining people like Ann Coulter who refer to it as “sodomy.” I can understand where Coulter is coming from, she may love the sinner but she’s certainly not for anal sex of any kind. You on the other hand are gay, you have been a top, a bottom, you have had good and bad experiences. And now you turn against a practice that has existed throughout centuries, what the Brits used to call “the abominable vice of the greeks.”
Frankly, I don’t care what sex you like in your private life, but to condemn gays who like anal sex, to demean bottoms, to imply that tops are a bunch of sadist torturers or whatever you think about us, I find that most intolerable. Anal sex works for millions, I will not have a tiny minority of frotters and j/o’s defame us just because they don’t enjoy it. God help us if they become the PETA of our gay community.
posted by Jimmy on
“Yes, so I’m gonna sacrifice the intimacy of one on one encounters by doing something I can do at home, while checking out better looking guys than the strangers I’d get at one of those clubs.”
Ain’t that the truth!?!
posted by Jorge on
…..
(Oh, well. May as well join in the fun. It’s not like I often get a chance to see anything that passes for the sex-obsessed gay subculture everyone accuses us of having.)
Could you provide a supporting link for that, Jimmy? Because just a few minutes ago, I did a Google search on “anal sex” and “Savage Love,” and found that as recently as February 2010, Mr. Dan Savage was singing a different tune:
***
As I read it, Dan Savage is hinting to the woman that she should “lie back and think of England,” and allow her husband to fuck her in the butt from time to time, or otherwise he might cheat on her in order to fulfill his Hershey Highway fantasies.
I find it difficult to believe that a man who thinks this way would be very “affirming” of gay male couples who don’t have anal sex.
I read it as Savage being (1) a rather arrogant and irreverant advice columnist who no one with a thin skin or a gullible nature should write to, and (2) asking the writer to consider compromise while conceding she is right if she chooses to stand on the issue.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Now you’re confusing me, Bobby. If you get pleasure from being anally penetrated with butt plugs, why do you settle for being a top?
Conversely, if you’re really an exclusive top and don’t get pleasure from being penetrated, all the stuff you’ve written about masturbating with butt plugs and “sending vibrations to the prostate” is just hearsay, isn’t it?
When I think back on all the times that Debrah and I have criticized anal sex, it occurs to me that the responses in defense of anal sex have fallen into several categories:
(1) “But straight people have anal sex too!!!”
(2) “You can get genital warts and crabs from frot; therefore, no form of sex with another person is truly safe — so who are you to criticize anal sex?”
(3) “Fucking a tight ass feels so good around my dick!”
(4) “Heterosexual porn starlet Jenna Jameson [who has appeared in 143 porn flicks to date, per wikipedia — Ed.] endorses anal!”
You know what’s missing from this list? Glowing first-person testimonials from BOTTOMS. Dare I suggest that if a few of you guys would step forward and articulate how completely wonderful it feels for a man to get fucked in the butt, Debrah might shut up about the subject?
Cigarette smoking “works” for billions. This fact, however, doesn’t mean that no one should question why people take up the habit in the first place, or that no one should’ve criticized or objected to the relentless and omnipresent marketing of cigarettes. Of course, cigarette ads aren’t “relentless and omnipresent” anymore, at least not in the U.S. — because people started objecting to and criticizing such ads.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Well, that’s just silly…
…UNLESS, of course, you were doing it bareback, and the guy was banking on the fact that if you’d never been anally penetrated, you probably didn’t have HIV, and therefore it would be all right for you to ejaculate inside his rectum. Is that how it went, Bobby?
Also — be honest, now! — do you remember the name of that total bottom guy? I think it’s kind of creepy that you called him “a guy” rather than “my buddy” or “my boyfriend.” Was he just a hole for you?
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
Your (3:28 AM) and (4:56 AM) are ones with which you know I agree.
Bobby is always very candid and expresses himself in a no-nonsense way which I have always admired. He knows that my opinion of anal sex is dungeon-level, yet he has never attacked me and others in ways that a few trolls here have in the past.
Of course, none of us wants to dictate the private lives of other people. I don’t care enough about the sex lives of others to debate it on those terms……
…….however, when specific sexual practices are highlighted, I think it’s mandatory to discuss them openly.
I’ve read many times the most misogynistic and nasty comments by gay men about heteros, and especially hetero women on some blogs; however, I laugh and wouldn’t think about arguing or responding for I know that it’s their way of justifying their sexual practices as “very, very normal” and fighting the much-loathed “heteronormative” world.
As Throbert knows, I don’t care who practices anal sex, I find the whole concept one of the most unhygienic invasions of the human body in existence.
Even some in the medical profession will admit the same if you can coax their opinion without attribution.
They will just say….”People do all kinds of things to their bodies that aren’t good for them.”
Indeed, the Greeks and others through the centuries practiced it, but please remember that living until the age of 30 or 40 was considered a long life then…….so what damage a steady diet of anal sex would have wrought, who knows?
So it’s often romanticized.
In the U. S. men who have sex with other men account for an astounding 63 percent of all syphilis cases, even though they represent less than 3 percent of the population.
That means they are at least 55 times more likely to contract syphilis than other Americans.
I have to believe that the “tops” of the gay male mating world are the big winners in the “pleasure” department, if they can avoid contracting serious disease.
And I also realize there are masochists everywhere. Many heterosexual women stay with the most abusive—both physically and sexually—husbands knowing that nothing will ever change.
The only explanation for such a situation is that somewhere in the nexus of her brain the woman likes pain more than real pleasure. Some heterosexual women are baby machines and after having several children, walk around with sagging bellies and stretch marks with a physique more like a pear……
…….but still providing a “receptacle” for the husband as he uses Playboy, or some other T&A material, to get an erection…….simply because he is no longer excited by his own wife.
And a woman actually accepts such a life.
So, consequently, I have no trouble believing that many gay “bottoms” share the receptacle mentality.
And this, along with the idea that the “top” wants to jerk off inside someone else’s fecal canal……
……is repulsive to innumerable people.
And the idea that someone I might know and respect does this with other men is a devastating, albeit realistic, thought.
By the way, when you have to allude to scuzzy porno staples like Jameson—who would probably take it in the rear and anywhere else for a dollar—you are losing the argument for the promotion of anal sex as a glorious practice.
But hey, they say Andrew Sullivan is a happy “bottom”…..and he’s very, very wise!
posted by Bobby on
“Now you’re confusing me, Bobby. If you get pleasure from being anally penetrated with butt plugs, why do you settle for being a top?”
—Well, because I think my ass is a gift and I don’t like giving it away to random tricks. When I hook up with a stranger, there’s a 99% chance I’m not going to see him again, so I’m not giving him my ass unless he’s a blond or one of the few people I deem worthy of my ass. Topping is different because you’re not giving away anything, you’re also less likely to catch HIV when you top.
“Conversely, if you’re really an exclusive top and don’t get pleasure from being penetrated, all the stuff you’ve written about masturbating with butt plugs and “sending vibrations to the prostate” is just hearsay, isn’t it?”
—It is not, it’s based on experience. I would say that I’m mostly a top, that doesn’t mean I haven’t experimented with anal sex and small butt plugs. Besides, did you know females are being encouraged to finger their males to stimulate the prostate gland or male-g spot?
http://www.mypleasure.com/education/sexed/understanding_the_prostate.asp
“You know what’s missing from this list? Glowing first-person testimonials from BOTTOMS. Dare I suggest that if a few of you guys would step forward and articulate how completely wonderful it feels for a man to get fucked in the butt, Debrah might shut up about the subject?”
—You want testimony? Open an account on adam4adam and start asking bottoms why they like it so much?
“Cigarette smoking “works” for billions. This fact, however, doesn’t mean that no one should question why people take up the habit in the first place, or that no one should’ve criticized or objected to the relentless and omnipresent marketing of cigarettes. Of course, cigarette ads aren’t “relentless and omnipresent” anymore, at least not in the U.S. — because people started objecting to and criticizing such ads.”
—Wow, you’re comparing homosexuality with smoking, the same argument fundamenatlists use against us. In fact, I heard one fundie said that homosexuality was more dangerous than obesity. You know there are M.D.’s defending anal sex?
http://love.ivillage.com/lnssex/sextaboos/0,,jdgc,00.html
Pregnant woman asks if she can have anal sex (read the comments to)
http://www.babycenter.com/406_is-it-safe-to-have-anal-sex-when-im-pregnant_1245947.bc
“…UNLESS, of course, you were doing it bareback, and the guy was banking on the fact that if you’d never been anally penetrated, you probably didn’t have HIV, and therefore it would be all right for you to ejaculate inside his rectum. Is that how it went, Bobby?”
—No, I was topping him and only once in my life have I ejaculated inside a man without a condom. It was the day I lost my gay virginity. Either way, this dude was such a bottom he didn’t even want to get oral from guys, he was 100% about pleasing his trick.
“Also — be honest, now! — do you remember the name of that total bottom guy? I think it’s kind of creepy that you called him “a guy” rather than “my buddy” or “my boyfriend.” Was he just a hole for you?”
—He was a trick, he doesn’t deserve his name to be mentioned because he was passive-aggressive, questioned my masculinity and put too much pressure on me to perform. Ironically, I have slept with him three times, and we always end up fighting each other outside the bedroom. He complained that my house isn’t neat, that I’m lazy about driving him around, that I don’t buy him dinner, basically, he’s a horndog trick that wants to be treated like a boyfriend yet doesn’t want to be boyfriends. Get it? He’s a slut that wants to pretend he’s not a slut. Frankly, this is why many gay men prefer to do tricks and one-night stands and avoid the psychological drama some men bring.
Hey Debrah, here’s an interesting article about “pegging,” when a woman penetrates a man with a dildo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegging_%28sexual_practice%29
posted by Jimmy on
There is a misconception about butt plugs. They are not for stretching the sphincter, as some suggest. They are designed to stimulate the prostate, the male G-spot.
http://www.youtube.com/user/dansavage#p/u/82/crSUj-mcn0A
posted by Bobby on
Thanks Jimmy, that was a great link. Throbert, you should watch it, then you’d see I’m not making things up.
posted by Debrah on
“There is a misconception about butt plugs. They are not for stretching the sphincter, as some suggest. They are designed to stimulate the prostate, the male G-spot.”
********************************
Well……..
……..good thing that’s cleared up.
posted by Jimmy on
“..good thing that’s cleared up.”
I’m a helper.
posted by BobN on
they will wish groups like the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud tactical success in changing the GOP from within.
Would this be the very same GOProud which is now ATTACKING Tom Campbell in their advertising?
Interesting pro-gay tactics, those.
posted by Throbert McGee on
BobN, why does attacking Tom Campbell make GOProud less pro-gay?
posted by BobN on
Honestly, Throbert, with such silly questions as that, it’s probably best to get back to butt plugs.
posted by Tom on
I have no doubt that Stephen will get eventually get around to writing a column urging conservative gays and lesbians to support viable, gay-friendly Republican candidates like Tom Campbell.
posted by Tom on
“I have no doubt that Stephen will get eventually get around to writing a column urging conservative gays and lesbians to support viable, gay-friendly Republican candidates like Tom Campbell.”
I take that back. Tom Campbell, it turns out, is a RHINO, Barbara Boxer in boxer shorts.
posted by Greg on
Thorbert said “And one other thing that I didn’t learn from reading: although there is physical pleasure to be had in “bottoming”, from a physical standpoint it is much less pleasurable than “topping.””
I don’t find it so. While I enjoy both, I find bottoming much more pleasurable, offering the frequent potential of multiple orgasms. Unless my husband is in an awful hurry, I don’t find being penetrated, even initially, the least bit uncomfortable, in fact its one of my favorite parts of intercourse.
So I don’t think, at least in our relationship, that the bottom’s experience is in anyway inferior to the tops. It is different but not inferior.
posted by Debrah on
Three Supreme Court Myths from Stuart Taylor at National Journal
“Despite complaints by both liberal and conservative critics, the Court has not strayed far from mainstream public opinion over the past 35 years.”
“…..we have not had a consistently ‘conservative Court’ since 1937. Indeed, since the 1970s, the Court has strayed more often to the left than to the right of center of public opinion. And it remains as liberal as ever on some big issues, if only by a one-vote margin.”
posted by Debrah on
“Unless my husband is in an awful hurry, I don’t find being penetrated, even initially, the least bit uncomfortable, in fact its one of my favorite parts of intercourse.”
********************************************
Said the good wife.
This, coming from a woman, would be…….how do you say?…….oh, let’s see…….I’ve got it now……..retro.
Lugubrious in its MSM satyriasis.
It is said that a picture paints a thousand words.
That no matter how hard you try, you can’t beat a visual presentation.
Sometimes a few words paint a picture…….with a thousand vexatious strokes.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Here’s the passage from Annie Proulx’s “Brokeback Mountain” in which the two men have their very first sexual encounter, after Jack invites Ennis to share Jack’s pup tent and blanket on a cold night:
The first thing that should be obvious to any critical eye is that Ms. Proulx has never in her life been anally penetrated, and that she “researched” the scene by watching a few gay porn videos.
The second thing that should be obvious is that if a heterosexual male author had written a short romance between cowboy Ennis and cowgirl Jill, and Ennis had initiated their sexual affair by “hauling Jill onto all fours” and roughly fucking her in the anus using only spit and precum as lube, and the entire thing were presented as sweet and romantic, it would have not have become an Oscar-nominated movie, because the New Yorker wouldn’t have printed the short story in the first place. Because a “romantic” scene in which cowgirl Jill gets forcefully buttfucked doggie-style — and keeps coming back to cowboy Ennis for more — would have (quite reasonably) struck too many readers as one of misogynist violence (and/or a commentary on battered-wife syndrome). For this to have occurred as the opening sequence to a decades-long romance would’ve seemed “retro” not merely in the “Eisenhower era” sense, but rather, caveman retro.
posted by Bobby on
“BobN, why does attacking Tom Campbell make GOProud less pro-gay?”
—Did I say that? Actually, I was proud that GOProud has principles, if you’re going to be a gay republican you can’t vote for a candidate who won’t promise not to raise taxes no matter how pro-gay he is. The GOP needs to be the party of Reagan, not Roosevelt, not McCain. People like George W. Bush were gay-friendly enough for me. The last thing the GOP needs is another RINO, look at what happened in New York with Bloomberg.
Throbert, Brokeback Mountain is fiction so when the author described anal sex she had creative license. Romantic novels aimed at females also have similar exaggerations, in those novels the men are always passionate, their “love muscles” are always “throbbing,” and the woman experiences “waves of passion.” Does that sound realistic to you?
posted by Throbert McGee on
Bobby, describing the prostate as the male G-spot is an “exaggeration.” The word for what Proulx did is “bowdlerization” or “sanitization.”
In other words, to overstate the pleasures of receptive anal sex is one thing; to understate the risks and disadvantages of it — as Proulx naively does in this passage — is something completely different.
In any case, since you’re a top with no embarrassment about publicly describing a sex partner as “a slut who wants to pretend he’s not a slut,” you’re probably the very last person on the entire planet who ought to be doing P.R. work on behalf of anal sex.
posted by Throbert McGee on
As long as I’m talking about “Bareback Mountin’,” I should’ve drawn attention to the single most annoying falsehood in that passage:
If there is one sex act where an “instruction manual” is particularly beneficial, it’s anal intercourse! Had Proulx depicted Ennis and Jack’s first-time sexual encounter as mutual masturbation, it would’ve been vastly more realistic — mutual masturbation is what two inexperienced guys are most likely (by far!) to start out with — and would’ve had the added advantage of modeling “safer sex” without the anachronistic use of condoms.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Would this be the very same GOProud which is now ATTACKING Tom Campbell in their advertising?
Interesting pro-gay tactics, those.
Not really. It simply involves demonstrating that gay and lesbian people are not going to ignore core and basic issues simply because someone panders to their minority status.
That demonstrates that gay and lesbian people are greater than their minority status. Would you rather they demonstrate that gay and lesbian people will set aside any and all principles in favor of minority status? It’s worked so well for your Obama Party and its fine examples like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Charles Rangel.
Evidently yes.
I have no doubt that Stephen will get eventually get around to writing a column urging conservative gays and lesbians to support viable, gay-friendly Republican candidates like Tom Campbell.
And we have no doubt, Tom, that you can be easily purchased by someone promising gay-sex marriage to set aside your core principles.
Or, as we see from your endorsement and support of Barack Obama and his belief that marriage is a “sacred bond” between a man and a woman, they don’t even need to provide that in order to have you fawning all over them. Indeed, you and your fellow gay-sex liberals are all about giving money to FMA supporters when the Obama Party tells you to do it.
So since you clearly don’t give a damn about gay-sex marriage and instead vote for whatever candidate provides the most leftist and antireligious platform that you think your sexual orientation requires you to support, why not let those of us who are more concerned about positions than pandering have the freedom to do the same?
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, describing the prostate as the male G-spot is an “exaggeration.” The word for what Proulx did is “bowdlerization” or “sanitization.”
—So should frigid women say that the g-spot doesn’t exist just because they’re not able to experience orgasms? Butt plugs are popular because they work, the stimulate the prostate which results in greater pleasure. Anal sex is popular because for a great number of tops, bottoms and versatiles it feels good.
“In other words, to overstate the pleasures of receptive anal sex is one thing; to understate the risks and disadvantages of it — as Proulx naively does in this passage — is something completely different.”
—It’s a work of fiction! Why do you want Proulx to ruin her narrative by explaining how you should open an ass with one finger, then two, then put in your penis slowly, then this, then that. God, it sounds awful. People can watch a porn or visit sex advice websites if they want to know how to have anal sex, they don’t need a work of fiction to teach them.
“In any case, since you’re a top with no embarrassment about publicly describing a sex partner as “a slut who wants to pretend he’s not a slut,” you’re probably the very last person on the entire planet who ought to be doing P.R. work on behalf of anal sex.”
—At least I’m having anal sex, you’re not. You haven’t had it in years yet criticize it based on a few articles that conveniently support your position. There are plenty of articles that support my position, yet while I don’t deny the few negatives of anal sex, I don’t ignore the positive aspects like you do.
posted by Jimmy on
“Bobby, describing the prostate as the male G-spot is an ‘exaggeration.'”
Why is it an exaggeration? Are all erogenous zones exaggerations?
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
Thanks for the passage from Annie Proulx’s “Brokeback Mountain”.
I agree with you that she certainly “sanitized” the scene; however, as Bobby mentioned, like always, dramatic license was used.
What else could she do? Tell the truth about the practice as you have and expect Hollywood to come calling?
That film was supposed to be a real “breakthrough” in illuminating gay romance in realistic terms.
The gay world is always dominated by the gay male culture, obviously.
Check out Annie Proulx. If her knowledge of hot, torrid sex comes from personal experience, it would most certainly be a coup.
Throbert, this is similar to goofy soap opera fare in which everyone wakes up in bed the next morning with full-face makeup and every hair in place.
And that’s fine for a movie; however, your point is solid for calling out Proulx on the cheesy dialogue from her short story that was used for the movie.
And on the broader themes, “Brokeback Mountain” was also used as a vehicle to illustrate how so many go through life in roles that do not define who they really are…….
………and how that can destroy the spirit.
But that theme can be found among all groups of people. To some extent we are all captives of our environment during any given period in human history.
Some of us choose to live an authentic life. Some of us don’t.
I will never buy the weepy schtick from some gay men. They basically do whatever they want—openly and defiantly.
Nothing is holding them back.
And there’s often much more misogyny among gay men…..simply because they stay so fixated on the d!cks and the azzes of other men and have no interest or knowledge of women of the world.
From observation, lesbians don’t obsess to such an extent about sex. Nor do they cordon themselves off and cultivate insularity…..as do those in the “ManHunt” world.
I think the film “Brokeback Mountain” could have benefited from the use of different actors. It could have been more interesting.
Jake Gyllenhaal is not handsome, IMO…….and the late Heath Ledger was OK, but he isn’t really handsome either. He was kind of bland and white-bread.
I just don’t find either of them the type of man that would make someone want to “die” to have sex with them. And it’s not just the physical aspect.
Neither of them has or had the “animal lust” quality that I think was needed for the film.
When you’re having sex around a campfire or in a tent, you’d better have some of the best sex you’ve ever had in order to eclipse the fact that you will be waking up the next day without a shower and amid all the “funky” residue from the night before.
Incidentally, I’m not into camping.
LIS!
posted by Debrah on
Here’s something kind of interesting.
The “Good Enough” Marriage
Not that most gay men are really interested in the issues of “real” marriage.
posted by Jimmy on
“Not that most gay men are really interested in the issues of “real” marriage.”
If that is true then it is merely a reflection of marriage trends within the larger culture. “From 1970 through 2008, the US marriage rate has declined from 76.5 to 37.4 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women.”
The point is, while fewer people who have access to legal marriage are pursuing it, those that do see its value should be able to participate in it, encouraged even.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/08/the-end-of-marriage-2/
posted by Debrah on
An interesting article, Jimmy.
I really don’t care if marriage becomes extinct or not.
I find the whole “institution” in the 21st century one of charade and usury.
People often enter into marriage because they have nothing left to do and want to create a “nest” before they kick the bucket.
Look, I know that marriage can be wonderful, and in my opinion, it’s mandatory for raising children, but the whole thing is so confining…….
…….when you also realize that married people seem to become so bored with each other.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think most people who get married are really “in love”. It’s more of a cultural thing they feel compelled to do at a certain age.
However, I think I might get married……just to have a man take care of me for the rest of my life!
That’s kind of a sexy idea.
LOL!
posted by Jimmy on
What’s interesting is the level of misogyny on that site, which is a veritable “Women Haters Club”.
I’ve never seen gay men speak of women in such a negative light as these Neanderthals do. POOR little babies.
posted by Throbert McGee on
What else could she do? Not depicting anal sex at all during Ennis and Jack’s first-time encounter, is what she could’ve done. I would’ve had no objection if Proulx had written that later on in their relationship, Ennis and Jack sometimes did it in the backdoor, without going into vivid-yet-sanitized detail about the process.
But as I wrote above, it would’ve been a much more realistic depiction of first-time homosex between two men if she’d written a scene in which Ennis and Jack give each other handjobs, or do some cock-to-cock frot, or maybe trade BJs. And besides being more true-to-life, this would’ve been a bit more socially responsible, since it would’ve avoided glamorizing condomless anal sex for readers (and moviegoers) who live in the age of HIV.
Oh, another piece of stupidity from the sex scene in “Brokeback Mountain” that I forgot to highlight:
Here’s a free clue for Ms. Proulx: Men who are sexually attracted to men very much enjoy touching another man’s erection. So what we have here is a scene in which a 100% hetero dude, who feels zero attraction to masculine bodies and penises, uses another guy’s anus as a pseudo-vagina — and thus makes the other man into a pseudo-woman. Which is to say that Proulx presents a repellently artificial and heterosexualized vision of two men having sex. Far from affirming that homosexuality feels instinctive and natural and wonderful and joyous to a small minority of people, “Brokeback Mountain” seems to be a cautionary tale about a heterosexual guy who becomes addicted to the physical sensation of fucking someone else in the ass.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
I’m multi-tasking today and just skimmed a few of the comments there.
I assume that’s what you were talking about.
The commenter “AfOR” is one who stands out.
I’ve never heard some of the refuse he’s deposited.
He’s obviously a man who relies on “whores” to “service” him.
He’s also probably semi-impotent with a 3-inch d!ck that contracts into a cauliflower floret when he’s not verbally abusing women.
Hilarious.
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
I agree wholeheartedly with your (12:42 PM).
If the script had been realistic, the two men would have most certainly engaged in heavy foreplay, initially, as you describe instead of the rapturous and rough “straight to number one” schtick.
There’s grand irony in the way Hollywood crafts their stories about gays, and specifically gay men, so that anything and everything is “Ok and acceptable”. What’s force-fed to the public are often the most negative aspects.
They seem determined to paint gay culture as raw and as dangerous as they can……
…….and then say “This is it! And it’s grand! So you’d better like and accept it!”
posted by Bobby on
“If the script had been realistic, the two men would have most certainly engaged in heavy foreplay, initially, as you describe instead of the rapturous and rough “straight to number one” schtick.”
—Yet some men are like that, I’ve had tricks that don’t believe in foreplay, they simply bend over and ask to be penetrated. Why do you think guys invented terms like “quicky” and put ads on craiglist asking to have a quicky in the company’s bathrooms? Why else do some men have sex on airplanes? For some guys sex is a sport and they like to finish first, no pun intended.
Annie Proulx cannot be accused of being unrealistic just because Throbert enjoys a different kind of sex.
posted by TS on
I have a question for the gay Republicans here. BEAR in MIND that this is not more partisan bullshit or a lame attempt at a trap. I just want to hear your honest answers, which, as a moderate-right gay guy I would like to know.
What would you have done if Mike Huckabee had gotten the R nomination for US prez in 2008? Would you still have voted R?
posted by Bobby on
“What would you have done if Mike Huckabee had gotten the R nomination for US prez in 2008? Would you still have voted R?”
—That’s a great question, specially since Huckabee has been accused by some on the right of being a Christian socialist. Yet when I watch Huckabee on Fox News I see that a lot of his ideas make sense, and he certainly doesn’t sound like a socialist. In fact, I think Huckabee would be a great president compared to Obama. Is he anti-gay? Well, he does consider homosexuality a sin but I don’t think that makes him a anti-gay people, he certainly “loves the sinner” so I don’t see why I should feel uncomfortable voting for him.
posted by BobN on
I agree with you that she certainly “sanitized” the scene
I think I saw a different movie than you guys. The one I saw involved one self-aware gay man and another guy either in deep denial or so odd in so many ways that he really hadn’t much considered sex with men. They both get drunk and, in a haze, have some rough sex with no romance, just animal lust (at least on the part of Ennis).
I wonder, too, if I have different sex than you folks. To me, wild rutting, without benefit of lube, with a quick climax, followed by slumping into a drunk stupor while still in position, only to wake up the next morning with my pants still hanging on my knees, doesn’t sound very “sanitized” to me.
posted by BobN on
Is he anti-gay?
Jesus, Bobby.
He opposes:
same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership registries, workplace anti-discrimination, the repeal of DADT, adoption by gay singles or gay couples, partner immigration rights. He opposed decriminalization and agreed with the dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What would you have done if Mike Huckabee had gotten the R nomination for US prez in 2008? Would you still have voted R?
No, I would have voted third-party or not at all.
Mainly because Huckabee is an economic idiot on several levels who, if it were forty years earlier, would have been a radical populist Obama Party member along the lines of Huey Long.
posted by Bobby on
“same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership registries, workplace anti-discrimination, the repeal of DADT, adoption by gay singles or gay couples, partner immigration rights. He opposed decriminalization and agreed with the dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.”
—I guess all those issues don’t matter much to me, except maybe for DADT, but then again, I don’t serve in the military and even if I did I would probably have to stay in the closet considering how homophobic some of the soldiers might be. You see, I’m afraid we have different priorities. I may be gay, but I’ve also lost close personal friends because I oppose Obamacare and made my views known, I’ve been called a racist for not supporting Obama, I lost my job shortly after Obama got elected, I’ve seen a recession, I’ve seen salaries go down, I’ve seen the government spend more and now there’s talk about raising taxes.
So you see? All those gay issues mean little to me. I don’t have a boyfriend, foreign or otherwise, so why would I care about immigration rights? What I have is a country that’s being destroyed, a president who wants to transform America into who knows what, democrats who demonize dissent, a low-paying job, and elected officials that want to raise the gasoline tax, bring a VAT, raise by utility bills through cap and trade and basically ruin my life in the name of economic justice.
I don’t like where America is going, I don’t like Obama, I don’t like progressives, so I’m not ready to sacrifice American values for a few gay rights that I don’t really need in my life.
However, since North Dallas Thirty doesn’t like Huckabee, I guess I would not vote for him either. After all, NDT is better informed than I am regarding Huckabee, so I’m gonna trust his judgment.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Well, she “sanitized” it by leaving out the part where Jack goes:
That, I submit, would’ve been a far more honest depiction of what bottoming is like if you’re a newbie at it and you’ve got minimal lubrication.
Of course, it’s possible that Jack had taken sausage deliveries in the service entrance many, many times before, and had thus attained the condition that Aristophanes described as ÎµÏ ÏÏ ÏÏÏκÏÎ¿Ï (euruprÅktos), which means “having a wide anus,” à la the dude in that notorious goatse.cx image. However, for a young man’s bunghole to have reached this stage when he’s only 19 years old kinda dampens the “sweet cowboy romance” factor.
(Of course, an alternative possibility is that Ennis had a pencil-dick, and thus Jack was able to let him in with minimal discomfort. And a third possibility is that, in anticipation of having some hot buttsex, Jack had loosened up his sphincter muscles with the help of a pine-cone or something, before his campfire rendezvous with Ennis.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
By the way — as you might guess from the derived term “proctology,” the Greek word prÅktos refers specifically to the anus, and does not include the butt-cheeks. (Those are described by the word pygos, from which we get the delightful word ”callipygian,” and the somewhat less delightful ”steatopygia.”)
As for ÎµÏ ÏÏ -, it mainly shows up in English as a prefix in marine biology with the meaning “wide” — for example, euryhaline fish are able to tolerate extreme fluctuations in the salinity of water, and eurybathic organisms can adjust to significant changes in depth and pressure.
Thus endeth today’s vocabulary lesson.
posted by John on
Huh. I go away for awhile and find that IGF is now Anal Sex Central. Who knew?
You were very close in the first part here, but…ahem…blew it in the end. To me the story was one more of the times in which the characters lived, how men were supposed to act – and most definitely NOT act – with each other, and how because of all this how Ennis at least struggled greatly in dealing with his deep attraction to Jack. Of course touching Jack’s penis would be anathema to him since “real” men didn’t do anything even remotely like that. To do so was “queer” and emasculating. The whole sex scene made sense given the times and the struggle within Ennis. So yes, in a sense he DID in fact use Jack’s butt as a “pesudo-vagina”. Jack was the one who was submissive and allowed himself to be “taken” like a woman, not Ennis. There was also the comfort of having Jack face away from him whilst he did the deed, so Ennis didn’t have to focus on the fact that he was screwing another man. Betcha this was the reasoning in the character’s mind instead of dealing with the fact that he was very much attracted Jack. You speak about other sex acts that simply wouldn’t have fit given the nature of the story and the characters involved. No doubt they did these and other acts during their 20 year elicit affair, but the initial time together made sense. Oh and yes, I imagine a few “Jesus Titty-Fucking Christs!” would definitely have come from Jack, though given his later promiscuity he might have already been sleeping around before meeting Ennis. Heath Ledger did a good job portraying Ennis in the movie. Yet as movies go, while I liked “brokeback Mountain” I far prefer “Big Eden”.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Regarding Huckabee — he’s a complete fucking moron. But here’s my general rule when it comes to Republican candidates who happen to be virulently homophobic: As long as they’re not actively campaigning for the reinstatement of anti-sodomy laws, and they don’t propose to arrest religious ministers who perform same-sex “Blessing of the Union” ceremonies, I’m willing to vote for them if I agree with their stance on non-gay issues like welfare, military spending, restrictions on abortion, Israel policy, and so forth. And in general, I tend to favor the Republicans more than the Democrats on a lot of these questions.
posted by Throbert McGee on
John, I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote, except for this:
In this, I agree 100% — because despite all my criticisms of Proulx’s short story, I did like Brokeback Mountain, the movie. But I stress that I merely liked it — I didn’t love it, and it’s not part of my DVD collection. On the other hand, Big Eden is phenomenally awesome, and gets right everything that Brokeback Mountain got wrong. Big Eden has no sex scenes at all — just one man-to-man kiss. But the chemistry between the two men in that kiss is so much warmer and so much more believable than that between Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger (their incredibly awkward kissing scenes reminded me of Lisa Loopner and her boyfriend Todd on the original-cast Saturday Night Live!)
Anyway, Big Eden is essentially a typical Nora Ephron romantic comedy about a triangle of unrequited love — except that all three points of THIS triangle are men. Two of the guys end up together, and the movie resoundingly affirms the reality of warm, joyful, heart-centered eros between men — which Brokeback Mountain managed to do only weakly.
In summary: Get thee to Netflix and rent Big Eden!
posted by BobN on
their incredibly awkward kissing
Like the one when they first see each other again after six or seven years? I give up.
“Jesus Titty-Fucking Christs!”
I think you guys underestimate the dulling effect of a bottle of whiskey. “Lubricated with alcohol” isn’t just a metaphor…
posted by Bobby on
“There was also the comfort of having Jack face away from him whilst he did the deed,”
—That’s very Hollywood. Some bottoms will actually sit on the penis and slowly insert it at their own pace. Of course, it’s hard to shoot a scene like that without getting an X rating.
Can we at least agree that there’s no “right” way to have sex between adults? That we all have sex in the ways we like it?
posted by Debrah on
“Can we at least agree that there’s no ‘right’ way to have sex between adults? That we all have sex in the ways we like it?”
********************************************
Yes, Bobby.
I think most people can agree with that sentiment.
However, we just can’t be compelled to give all types of sexual interaction a definition that does not apply.
Likewise, people cannot be compelled to “accept” all sexual interaction as “the natural order of things”.
Accompanying the initial agreement with what you said comes the “right” for others to be viscerally repulsed…….even as they give a general “acceptance”.
posted by Bobby on
“Likewise, people cannot be compelled to “accept” all sexual interaction as “the natural order of things”.”
—In the case of anal sex, is has been observed among dogs, monkeys, and other creatures. Or as Alfred Kinsey said: “The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform.”
“Accompanying the initial agreement with what you said comes the “right” for others to be viscerally repulsed…….even as they give a general “acceptance”.”
—I suppose that’s true, after all, I’m not exactly happy when I’m in a hotel, order straight porn, and the first scene is two lesbians going at it. However, as someone who has worked in marketing I have learned to look at the world not in terms of “what I like” but “what the marketplace likes.”
According to ABC News, anal sex has been on the increased among heterosexual teens thanks to pornography.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6428003&page=4
But you know, this talk about how bad anal sex is scares me. IF anyone remembers Bowers vs. Hardwick, it was Scalia who said Americans don’t have a constitutional right to sodomy. So how does the gay community look when you have gays arguing against anal sex?
posted by Brian Miller on
It would be easier to take gay Republicans seriously if they weren’t talking out of both sides of their mouths.
For example, gay Republicans lament that Democratic, Libertarian, Green and independent gays won’t consider pro-gay Republican candidates.
Yet the gay Republican group GOProud recently took out attack ads against the only Republican in the California Senate primary race who supports equal rights for gays — Tom Campbell — bolstering the anti-gay candidacies of failed former HP CEO Carly Fiorina and Tea Party homophobe DeVore.
If Republican queers aren’t willing to support their own pro-gay candidates, why should anyone outside the Republican Party?
posted by Bobby on
“If Republican queers aren’t willing to support their own pro-gay candidates, why should anyone outside the Republican Party?”
—Brian, do you understand that being pro-gay isn’t enough for us? If gay rights are the only thing you care about you’re better off voting democratic. Our party needs real republicans, not RINOS. We cannot afford another Michael Bloomberg, please understand that being pro-gay isn’t enough for us. In fact, if you support raising taxes you are anti-human which is worst than just being anti-gay.
posted by Tom on
Brian Miller: “If Republican queers aren’t willing to support their own pro-gay candidates, why should anyone outside the Republican Party?”
Bobby: “Brian, do you understand that being pro-gay isn’t enough for us? If gay rights are the only thing you care about you’re better off voting democratic. Our party needs real republicans, not RINOS. We cannot afford another Michael Bloomberg, please understand that being pro-gay isn’t enough for us.”
That’s fine, Bobby, and it explains why Republicans don’t the support pro-gay candidates that Stephen and others on this forum are constantly blasting those of us who are not Republicans — Democrats, Libertarians, Greens and independents — for failing to support.
But it doesn’t answer Brian’s question. Why should we toss our money, time and effort into Republican primaries in support of pro-gay Republican candidates who get chewed up and spit out in the party’s primary process?
We don’t ask Republican gays and lesbians to put their time, money and effort into our party primaries. We do our own work, advancing the cause of gay and lesbian equality in our own parties. Why should we be blasted for not doing your work, too? What logic is there to that?
So I’m back to Brian’s question: “If Republican queers aren’t willing to support their own pro-gay candidates, why should anyone outside the Republican Party?”
posted by Greg on
Debrah says “This, coming from a woman, would be…….how do you say?…….oh, let’s see…….I’ve got it now……..retro.
Lugubrious in its MSM satyriasis.”
Why the insults? A perspective different than yours that threatening?
It is simply absurd to think that bottoms, or women don’t engage in sexual acts because they enjoy them.
posted by John on
Throbert: Well that’s okay because the disagreement is mutual, with the exception of “Big Eden”. On that at least you have impeccible taste in movies. 🙂 Have you seen “Mambo Italiano”? It’s not as good as “Big Eden” but I enjoyed it. It’s kind of like the gay version of “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Tom,
“But it doesn’t answer Brian’s question. Why should we toss our money, time and effort into Republican primaries in support of pro-gay Republican candidates who get chewed up and spit out in the party’s primary process?”
—That’s a rather negative outlook. There are pro-gay and gay republicans that have won. I forgot his name but Arizona had a gay congressman who outed himself after The Advocate told him he would be outed by them, and he went on to being reelected. Why? Because the voters liked his record. Frankly, I would support candidates that think like I do and have a chance to win.
“So I’m back to Brian’s question: “If Republican queers aren’t willing to support their own pro-gay candidates, why should anyone outside the Republican Party?”
—Because the rest of the world doesn’t necessarily think in terms of “if group A doesn’t support Mr. X, why should I?” I also think that people outside the republican party are hard to get, Ronald Reagan was lucky that his style helped him connect with most voters and that Jimmy Carter ruined this country during his administration. When you look at the people coming to the tea parties, you’re gonna find independents, democrats who believe in small government, people who voted for Obama and now regret it, and black people.
So pro-gay candidates don’t need republican queers, they can win or lose on their own merits
posted by Tom on
Bobby: “There are pro-gay and gay republicans that have won. I forgot his name but Arizona had a gay congressman who outed himself after The Advocate told him he would be outed by them, and he went on to being reelected. Why? Because the voters liked his record. Frankly, I would support candidates that think like I do and have a chance to win.”
Yes, there are currently Republicans in Congress who have reasonable positions on equality for gays and lesbians. And I think that Republicans who agree with them on the issues should support them. The question is why Democrats, Libertarians, Greens and others who don’t agree with them on the issues — all the issues except the gay ones that is — should support them with anything other than good wishes.
I wish all pro-gay candidates, in any party, well. But I don’t think I’m going to start putting money into their campaigns any time soon. I’ll put my money into the campaigns of candidates, who, do use your words, “think like I do and have a chance to win“.
Just like you. Why should Republican pro-gay candidates get special treatment?
posted by Throbert McGee on
So… a libertarian who generally favors drug legalization should refrain from saying that using crystal meth is a really terrible idea, lest he give ammunition to the “War On Drugs” crowd?
So how does the gay community look when you have gays arguing against anal sex?
Well, it makes the gay community look slightly less like a Borg hive-mind, for starters. Remember, lots and lots and lots of gay men don’t have anal sex at all — or at least that’s the line we’re supposed to use whenever heterosexuals are rude enough to equate male homosexuality with anal sex!
P.S. What does the “I” in “IGF” stand for, again?
posted by Bobby on
“So… a libertarian who generally favors drug legalization should refrain from saying that using crystal meth is a really terrible idea, lest he give ammunition to the “War On Drugs” crowd?”
—Why are you comparing anal sex to crystal meth? One is unnatural, the other one isn’t. I was born with an anus, I was not born with a crack pipe.
“Well, it makes the gay community look slightly less like a Borg hive-mind, for starters. Remember, lots and lots and lots of gay men don’t have anal sex at all — or at least that’s the line we’re supposed to use whenever heterosexuals are rude enough to equate male homosexuality with anal sex!”
—That argument sounds like the lipstick lesbians bitching about the bulldykes. I don’t have the statistics right now, but gays are known as tops and bottoms, they are not known as frotters. When I look at men on adam4adam, I think 99% of them want some fort of anal sex. You’re right that if anal sex didn’t exist then perhaps AIDS would not exist, however, the fact that AIDS was an epidemic in the gay community in the 1980s, the fact that condom makers advertise in our magazines (and let’s face it, people don’t wear condoms for oral sex), the fact that every gay adult store sells dildos, those facts show that there is a preference for anal sex among gays.
Besides, I think human beings are compelled to either penetrate or be penetrated. Why do you think Bristol Palin got pregnant in the first place?
Listen, the gay community is very predictable. If you’re think and sexy everyone wants you, if you’re fat and hairy and old, you either pay for sex or target a tiny minority within a minority that likes you. That’s the way it is, why do you think some race activists complain that there aren’t enough minorities in porn? The laws of supply and demand apply to sex just like they do to economics, frotting is a trend, but it’s not the most popular trend. People like you are not the majority.
P.S. What does the “I” in “IGF” stand for, again?
posted by Bobby on
“The question is why Democrats, Libertarians, Greens and others who don’t agree with them on the issues — all the issues except the gay ones that is — should support them with anything other than good wishes.”
—You’re right, Tom, they shouldn’t support them. If you are a green the GOP has little to offer you, and that’s unlikely to change. If you’re an independent or libertarian then you have to choose which issues are #1 for you, and which ones you can sacrifice or excuse. Pro-choice voters could vote republican and tell themselves that the GOP is not going to do anything drastic other than fight for parental consent for abortions and maybe try to ban partial-birth abortions, not to mention convict abortion providers who violate the law by not reporting statutory rape.
posted by Debrah on
Throbert– “Well, it makes the gay community look slightly less like a Borg hive-mind, for starters. Remember, lots and lots and lots of gay men don’t have anal sex at all — or at least that’s the line we’re supposed to use whenever heterosexuals are rude enough to equate male homosexuality with anal sex!”
“P.S. What does the ‘I’ in ‘IGF’ stand for, again?”
****************************************
Bobby– “That argument sounds like the lipstick lesbians bitching about the bulldykes. I don’t have the statistics right now, but gays are known as tops and bottoms, they are not known as frotters.”
****************************************
ROTFLM-T’s-O !!!
Throbert, you and Bobby are killing me.
posted by John on
So how does the gay community look when you have gays arguing against anal sex?
Like it’s filled with individuals with a diversity of opinions despite the temptation for groupthink every gaggle of humans thrown together for whatever reason. For those who object to anal sex, or any other kind of sexual activity, it’s quite simple: don’t do it. I have no problems with anal sex as long as the key ingredients are in place that seem to have been missed in this long thread: it’s a mutally-pleasurable and desired activity among two people committed to each in a loving and monogamous relationship. Anal sex, oral sex, “frotting” or whathaveyou are not activites for “tricks” or prostitutes, or dare I say the equivalent of the good night kiss on the first date.
posted by Debrah on
“It is simply absurd to think that bottoms, or women don’t engage in sexual acts because they enjoy them.”
*************************************
Gregg–
I wholeheartedly support one’s enjoyment of their sexual relationships.
It’s just that women and gay “bottom” men are the receptacles and that role often places them in positions that are abusive.
I have always been disgusted by the abusive aspect of some male-female relationships……
…….and knowing that a (gay) man actually places himself in such a position produces more than a little disgust.
But you’re right.
There are lots of people out there who are masochistic and derive pleasure from undignified degrees of humiliation.
posted by Brian Miller on
It’s one thing for gay Republicans to say “I sacrifice my dignity and human rights to be part of an organization that hates me, but whose policies benefit me in some other area.”
It’s quite another to whine when the vast majority of queer Americans don’t make that same choice.
Gay conservatives cannot complain about “gay friendly Republicans” being excluded from the mix when there aren’t any, or when the very rare gay-friendly conservative is immediately targeted by “gay Republican” groups for extermination in favor of homophobic bigots like Romney, Fiorina, Whitman, DeVore, Palin, ad nauseum.
In the political free market, the Republican option is unappealing to most gays, and that’s not the gays’ fault. The GOP simply doesn’t produce a quality electoral product that LGBT Americans want to buy — whining and blaming the market for it is ridiculous.
posted by Greg on
Debra opines “It’s just that women and gay “bottom” men are the receptacles and that role often places them in positions that are abusive.”
That’s absurd. Calling them receptacles objectifies them. A flesh light is a receptacle, not a person. Any relationship can be abusive, most are not, and to imply that enjoying anal sex is enjoying humiliation is not only absurd, its offensive.
Whether someone is ‘disgusted’ by my sexual behavior is of no concern to me, unless they’re my sexual partner.
One person abusing another is unacceptable behavior, and would anger me. But our relationship is not in anyway abusive. Why would you demean it?
posted by Debrah on
Greg–
To put a fine point on this issue…….
…….anal sex is repulsive to many, many people on the planet.
No matter who practices it.
Most people simply won’t admit publicly that this is the main issue that grosses them out about gay male culture.
The anal cavity was designed specifically for the human elimination process.
To sum up:
For me, sex and romance do not go well with a view of, and the odor from, the fecal canal.
And for most humans, they never will.
posted by Brian Miller on
Um, how did a discussion about Republicans’ lousy gay rights record morph into a discourse on anal sex?
posted by Brian Miller on
Getting back on topic:
Yet another story about why queer Americans don’t take the Republican Party seriously:
http://www.dailytarheel.com/content/leader-duke-college-republicans-forced-out
posted by Bobby on
“It’s just that women and gay “bottom” men are the receptacles and that role often places them in positions that are abusive.”
—It’s interesting what you’re saying. I once read that women who are victims of rape and have sexual hangups should try to be on top when they have sex with men, that way they are controlling the “reception.” 😉
Either way, I think it takes guts to be a bottom or a woman who enjoys penetration. Our society hates softness, if you’re scared they call you a pussy, if an employee gets your promotion they say “you got fucked,” and if you beat your enemy then they’ll say “you fucked him.” Look at our language, we talk about “kiss my ass” and if you are nice to your boss they say you’re a “brown-noser.” While it’s true that sometimes people might say “he’s a prick,” you’re more likely to hear “he/she is an asshole.” or a “cunt” if we’re talking about a strong woman.
With all those terms I’m not surprised there is a taboo against being penetrated.
posted by Tom on
Brian Miller: “Um, how did a discussion about Republicans’ lousy gay rights record morph into a discourse on anal sex?”
Although this is the wildest example to date in my two-month experience with this forum, it seems about half the threads involve discussions of anal sex, usually initiated by Debrah or Throbert. Feel free to ignore the anal fixation; most of us do.
posted by Debrah on
“Feel free to ignore the anal fixation; most of us do.”
**********************************************
If only…….
If “most of” you would “ignore the anal fixation”, then SSM might have a chance of becoming the law of the land and taught with ease as an element of school curricula.
Ignore the elephant in the room?
Throbert?…….Oh, Throbert?
posted by Throbert McGee on
The lady is DAMN
FUCKINGFROTTING RIGHT.Here’s what it comes down to: No sane and loving parents of a young man who announces that he’s homo or bi would be happy to see their son entering a “Gay Community” where anal sex is so much the norm, that it’s practically normative. Any sane and loving parents of a son who has sex with other men would much prefer — because they’re sane and loving! — to have some assurance that by the standards of contemporary gay culture, “normal vanilla gay sex” means mutual masturbation and frot and fellatio, but anal sex is an odd and kinky rarity that hardly any gay men engage in.
And the reason that sane and loving parents will be vastly more alarmed to think that their son is taking it in the butt (instead of only doing mutual j/o, frot, and BJs) is that — well, there’s the whole AIDS thing, for starters, which strangely enough is a really big deal for a lot of parents. And also, most people find it intuitively obvious that receptive anal sex tends to be painful, and who would be happy about their son submitting to painful sex for another man’s pleasure?
posted by Throbert McGee on
And I’m not a parent, but I have a 3-year-old nephew, and if the kid follows in his Unca Rob’s footsteps and turns out to be a homo, I’d greatly prefer (and I know my sister and B-I-L would concur on this) that when he’s old enough to go to gay bars, he won’t find himself surrounded by men who “can’t imagine gay sex without anal,” and try to persuade him that it’s a wonderful idea.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Again, this is coming from a guy who called one of his gutsy bottom partners a “trick” and a “slut” right here on this thread. Way to show the ol’ respect, Bobberino.
Hey, supergenius! The reason men say this to each other is that being anally penetrated tends to hurt, as I mentioned above, and therefore makes a dandy metaphor to describe unpleasant circumstances.
And the reason they say THIS is that shit smells bad, and most people prefer to keep their noses and mouths away from it.
Hint: The disadvantages of bottoming — the pain, and the
enemas“douches” that make it less unaesthetic for the top when he sticks his tongue and/or penis in there — PRECEDED the rude terms.posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
â¥â¥â¥â¥â¥â¥â¥â¥â¥â¥â¥â¥ !!!
posted by John on
Other than Rob loudly expressing his distaste for anal sex, with Debrah acting as his cheerleader, what exactly is being accomplished here? Oh wait, of course! Rob doesn’t like anal sex. That’s cool, though I believe most of us understood that quite a number of posts ago. I would suggest that Rob doesn’t engage in the activity and be careful about whom he falls in love with. Next…
posted by Greg on
Debrah asserts “For me, sex and romance do not go well with a view of, and the odor from, the fecal canal.
And for most humans, they never will.”
So what! Is anyone saying you have to do something you find disgusting? No. I find heterosexual sex acts disgusting (especially the accompanying odors since you feel it necessary to bring that up), that doesn’t mean I assume those that engage in them are demeaning themselves, that’s absurd.
That you don’t like it doesn’t mean that those who do like it find it demeaning or gross or painful, or anything other than enjoyable and intimate.
Whatever it is for anyone else, it is for me, enjoyable and intimate and no amount of slander from the squeemish will change that.
The only reason I even posted here about this is because you and Thorbert imply that the only reason that someone would bottom is because they feel they have to. Maybe some people do it for that reason, but that is clearly not any sort of universal truth. I bottom because its physically very enjoyable, and its extremely intimate. I find it difficult to believe that I am the exception, rather than the rule.
posted by Bobby on
“Here’s what it comes down to: No sane and loving parents of a young man who announces that he’s homo or bi would be happy to see their son entering a “Gay Community” where anal sex is so much the norm, that it’s practically normative.”
—You think loving parents want to imagine little Billy becoming a cocksucker? Why would anal be worst than oral in their eyes? Both are disgusting practices to them and it’s up to us not to give a damn. Don’t like fois gras? Don’t have it!
“Again, this is coming from a guy who called one of his gutsy bottom partners a “trick” and a “slut” right here on this thread. Way to show the ol’ respect, Bobberino.”
—As if straight men didn’t refer to women as bitch, chick, slut, cunt, etc. Read Dan Savage, some women even like to be called names during sex. Besides, like most conservative/libertarians, I call things what they are.
“Hey, supergenius! The reason men say this to each other is that being anally penetrated tends to hurt, as I mentioned above, and therefore makes a dandy metaphor to describe unpleasant circumstances.”
—How would they know if most of them have never been penetrated? Besides, I’ve seen anal sex in heterosexual porn, the women don’t look like they’re in pain. In fact, I think anal sex should be encouraged in the straight community as a way of birth control.
“And the reason they say THIS is that shit smells bad, and most people prefer to keep their noses and mouths away from it.”
—And I suppose a vagina smells like roses and tulips? Never mind people use the term “douchebag” as a negative. I see a lot of rimming in porn, I don’t know about the smell because I’ve never done it, but I know it feels good and I know some people enjoy doing it. Again, you’re condemning sexual practices as evil just because you don’t like it.
“Hint: The disadvantages of bottoming — the pain, and the enemas “douches” that make it less unaesthetic for the top when he sticks his tongue and/or penis in there — PRECEDED the rude terms.”
—The prevalence of anal sex among gays and in porn shows what the MAJORITY of people like it. Porn is just a business like any other, products are often made to appeal to the largest demographic. If anal sex was a disgusting practice then it would be uncommon in porn, it would belong to a niche market. But the fact that nearly every succesful porn company incorporates anal into every movie shows what the people are buying, what the people want to see and eventually do.
You should listen to Greg, he does what he enjoys. In fact, some bottoms that are lucky enough to have 8 or 9 inch penises don’t want to top! One would think that would be crazy since having a big dick can make you very popular in the gay community and increase your chances of finding a trick, or a boyfriend, but no, bottoming feels so good that some men become 100% bottom, while others are versatile, while others are tops.
Of course, Throbert thinks is disgusting to refer to men as tricks. Yes, I’m sure he refers to the dudes at his j/o clubs as gentlemen. “Sire, I am here to give you a hand.” Really Throbert, you remind me of an old gay I knew who preferred sex in public parks because he found bathhouses demeaning. Glenn Beck was right, when people are used to lies the truth becomes hate speech.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
Most anyone can deal with someone like you….even as they might not agree on all issues.
You don’t mince words.
You know what your objectives are.
And you don’t use deception to finesse and get what you want by harming anyone.
Since you’re a single gay man, perhaps open to a serious relationship, but going about your life as you find it…….
……..I certainly wouldn’t tell you to change your approach.
If you were a straight guy I can easily see you married to a “good woman” who wants to settle down and raise a family.
You have a very no-nonsense business approach to life and would be a “good provider”. LIS!
And even though your wife might have a career, you’d need her to always “be available” and make you the priority.
Very frequent sex without all the embroidery of romance and flowers.
You and your wife would have several kids and you’d be the proverbial “family man”.
I see you as a very sincere person who would be faithful to a partner if you could find someone as down to earth with the same no-nonsense approach to life as you.
Too bad you’re not a straight guy.
There are women out there just dying to hook up with a “good, stable man” and get married!
LOL!!!
posted by Debrah on
I find heterosexual sex acts disgusting (especially the accompanying odors since you feel it necessary to bring that up), that doesn’t mean I assume those that engage in them are demeaning themselves, that’s absurd.”
********************************************
Well Greg……what can one say?
Then you apparently find the way in which YOU were produced and brought into this world “disgusting”.
Who might care?
Perhaps your own mother might be put off a bit by such a “little girly” statement.
I’m going to educate you on this matter.
Since you are a self-described and proud “bottom” gay man, you would be the last person on earth who would know these facts on your own.
You should remember that everyone is in possession of an azzhole. No one needs to be informed regarding what goes on there; however, only women have an azzhole and a vagina–which is specifically designed for penis reception.
No lube, vaseline, or “breaking-in” after the initial rupture of the hymen is required.
No bloody brown stains after “love-making”.
So consequently, provided that both the man and the woman take baths like normal people, you do not have “accompanying odors”…….however…….
……feel free to make believe and kick sand in the sandbox of monumental invention.
Moreover, if the woman practices a healthy diet regimen, or even better, is a vegetarian, men say that performing cunnilingus on a woman is like eating honey.
I’ll have to take their word on that.
Now…..I know that you’d like to place anal sex on the same level as the physical perfection of heterosexual sex and put a balm on the myriad negatives of this Star Trek venture into a Vulcan rendition of “lovemaking”…….
……..but even your bright enthusiasms and distortions cannot accomplish such a feat.
For you are fighting nature…….a battle than none of us will ever win.
posted by Debrah on
“……and [it’s] extremely intimate.”
************************************
On this, Greg, you and I can agree.
You can’t get more intimate than the back door.
There’s really nowhere else to go after that.
posted by Bobby on
You’re very sweet, Debrah. I guess if I was straight I’d be dating someone like Sara Palin, Ann Coulter, or some beautiful redneck with blond hair. My woman would definitely have to own a gun and be able to change a flat tire since I’m not good with anything mechanical (other than shooting and typing, and frankly, I’m a better typist than a shooter, although I could kill somebody at 20 to 50 yards).
“No bloody brown stains after “love-making”.”
—I’ve never seen that, although I always do change my sheets after sex but that’s because I hate the smell of sweat. Either way, if a bottom feels that he had a lot to eat that day and he’s gonna be messy down there, anal sex doesn’t take place. Most bottoms are polite anyway, they douche before they visit you.
“Now…..I know that you’d like to place anal sex on the same level as the physical perfection of heterosexual sex and put a balm on the myriad negatives of this Star Trek venture into a Vulcan rendition of “lovemaking”…….”
—You know, my best straight friend actually tried anal with his girlfriend, he admitted the ass was a lot tighter than the vagina, he said he came really quickly, yet refuses to try it again, which surprised me and he didn’t explain why.
Either way, I don’t see heterosexual sex as “physical perfection.” I think that is a gross generalization, just like the myth that it’s selfish not to have kids and that a woman can’t be fulfilled until she gets married and has kids.
If heterosexuality was so perfect then why is there a whole industry dedicated to sex advice for straight people, self-help, sex seminars, couples counseling, porn for married couples, endless editions of the Kamasutra, vacation retreats just for heterosexual couples, and so forth?
The funny thing about male homosexuality, and I’m generalizing here, is that our problems don’t lie in the bedroom, they lie outside. It’s very easy for me to screw a guy in a wide variety of ways, men are calculating and not afraid to make a plan and follow instructions. In fact, it’s funny how gay men discuss what they like to do in bed before they even meet, imagine doing that with a woman, she’d probably think you’re a freak for bringing it up.
The challenge some of us face is getting the guy to stay after the sex, it’s a huge challenge because men are drawn to looks, so instead of focusing on the guy that makes them laugh they’ll focus on the redhead, the blond, the 12 incher, or whoever strikes their fancy.
posted by Debrah on
“I guess if I was straight I’d be dating someone like Sara Palin, Ann Coulter, or some beautiful redneck with blond hair.”
***************************************************
Bobby, if you were straight I could see you with one of those Fox News “blonds”. Isn’t it funny that most of the women on that channel are blonds, albeit not exactly naturally blond?
You have to go to the pubic area to find the real hair color of women. LIS!
And you might like Ann Coulter as a chum, but I doubt a romance would bloom. LOL!
You’re basically Sarah Palin’s husband in another life.
“…..I don’t see heterosexual sex as ‘physical perfection’.”
***********************************************
Nor do I, actually. No coupling is total “perfection”.
What I really meant by that—and I’m sure you will disagree—is that, obviously, the hetero body parts fit, naturally…….without all the drastic measures that have to be taken for MSM.
I think that your statement that the main problems lie outside the bedroom can apply across the board to all relationships; however, because MSM is so cut-and-dried and so often promiscuous, that aspect is much more prolific and hurtful for the men who would want to develop an emotional human connection.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, if you were straight I could see you with one of those Fox News “blonds”. Isn’t it funny that most of the women on that channel are blonds, albeit not exactly naturally blond?”
—It’s pure coincidence I think, after all, blonds are often stereotyped as stupid, so they have to work harder to prove their smart. Hard work brings success. I don’t know who is a natural blond or who isn’t, either way, I love Margaret Hoover and the other blonds who bring a wide variety of voices to the table.
“And you might like Ann Coulter as a chum, but I doubt a romance would bloom. LOL!”
—Well, I’m sure she faces the challenges of being more intelligent than the great majority of men, so the right guy for her is someone that’s not intimidated by her intelligence and success but can actually celebrate that. In a way, I’ve learned to admire Bill Clinton, the way he supported Hillary during the campaign, how he took things personal and instead of being politically correct, told the truth about Obama. I am not happy with Billy attacking the Tea Parties and implying that a Timothy McVeigh is gonna come from our side.
“What I really meant by that—and I’m sure you will disagree—is that, obviously, the hetero body parts fit, naturally…….without all the drastic measures that have to be taken for MSM.”
—Well, that is true. Although in my experiences with women it didn’t feel natural, just weird. I guess that’s why I’m gay.
“I think that your statement that the main problems lie outside the bedroom can apply across the board to all relationships; however, because MSM is so cut-and-dried and so often promiscuous, that aspect is much more prolific and hurtful for the men who would want to develop an emotional human connection.”
—And that’s the reason many men give up on looking for relationships, concentrate on their friends and have lots of sex.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I would just point out that no “drastic measures” are required for mutual masturbation, frot, or BJs, either. You don’t necessarily need any “special supplies” or advance prep for blowjobs — other than using soap and water on a regular basis, which is of course a good idea for heterosexual penis-in-vagina intercourse, too (especially if the guy isn’t circumcised, of course). And for frot and j/o, artificial lubricants can be helpful, but since you don’t need to worry about condoms being chemically weakened by certain kinds of lube, you have a lot more freedom to improvise when it comes to frot/jo lubes. (Pretty much anything that’s slippery and non-irritating to your skin will do.) But apart from making sure that you’ve got KY-jelly or hand lotion or Vaseline or baby oil or Albolene or suntan lotion or conditioner or olive oil or Crisco or butter in the house, frot and jo can be totally spontaneous and still be totally safe and non-painful and non-stinky.
The thing is, it’s normal for the anus to smell really bad; it’s normal for the rectum to have at least some traces of shit in it, even when it’s not full; it’s normal to feel pain when the sphincter muscles are penetrated; it’s normal for the muscles to reflexively respond to an intruding foreign object by clenching shut; it’s normal for rectal tissue to bleed in response to very minor abrasive force that would NOT cause bleeding in the vagina or mouth.
I know from personal experience, as a man who has bottomed and used butt plugs and dildos, that it’s possible to overcome all of these obstacles, and that the result can be some very pleasurable prostate stimulation.
HOWEVER, I’ve also had my prostate effectively stimulated by a guy in a J/O Club in NYC — not by sticking anything in my anus, ’cause that’s forbidden in J/O Clubs, but by grinding his hairy kneecap against my “taint” while I polished my own joystick. And I swear that the direct prostate massage of having a guy’s dick up my ass doesn’t feel any more intense, physically, than the indirect pressure on the prostate created by a knee against the perineum.
The reason I emphasize the word physically is that, indeed, there can be a great deal of psychological pleasure in bottoming: Your brain likes the idea of “having a man inside you.” And your brain likes the idea of being “filled with hard cock.” The pleasure of bottoming is, to an overwhelmingly degree, purely psychological.
So my feeling is that it’s much wiser to have a guy rub his dick against my balls and perineum and anus without penetrating, and just “make believe” that he’s fucking me — and thereby getting the psychological thrill of being fucked by a masculine stud… WITHOUT the enemas, and the buttplugs, and the physical discomfort that occasionally turns into moments of sharp, stabbing pain. Oh, and also without the HIV risk.
Also, Bobby:
I think that quite a few lesbians would take issue with that — since a lot of them see non-penetrative “scissoring” and “clit bumping” as far more central to their partnered sex lives than vaginal penetration. (Or so I have surmised from talking to actual lesbians about what they and their sisters do and don’t enjoy in bed.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
And by the way, one of the reasons I keep bringing this subject up is to develop written content for this blog, which I started last year but haven’t kept active. I mean to get back to it, though!
posted by Debrah on
“I mean to get back to it, though!”
***************************************
And who better than the cyber bon vivant to keep this significant issue alive!
All parents of young gay males should thank you.
posted by BobN on
grinding his hairy kneecap against my “taint”
Uh… if you really mean “grinding”, I wouldn’t advise making that a regular part of your sex life. Repeated pressure to the perineum can lead to pain and erectile dysfunction.
Though usually caused by bicycle seats, trauma to the tissues can occur from other activities….
posted by Throbert McGee on
Thank you ever so much for the warning, BobN. I’ll be very, very careful!
posted by Debrah on
I think it’s important to highlight Throbert’s blog on this issue.
His comment sections will provide a place for further debate.
Such an excellent idea that he’s actively blogging again.
By the way, where are his other blogs which were so provocative?
The IGF commentariat don’t know what they’re missing!
posted by Bobby on
“I know from personal experience, as a man who has bottomed and used butt plugs and dildos, that it’s possible to overcome all of these obstacles, and that the result can be some very pleasurable prostate stimulation.”
—Well Throbert, thanks for admitting that. You know, sometimes the best things in life come from overcoming obstacles. I went from 265 to 215, it wasn’t easy, and it was certainly painful, but it was worth it.
“I think that quite a few lesbians would take issue with that — since a lot of them see non-penetrative “scissoring” and “clit bumping” as far more central to their partnered sex lives than vaginal penetration. (Or so I have surmised from talking to actual lesbians about what they and their sisters do and don’t enjoy in bed.)”
—Well, I’m not a lesbian, but I do think they do buy dildos and all kinds of sex toys and paraphernalia. They also penetrate with their fingers. I haven’t studied the subject with much enthusiasm for obvious reasons, so I’ll let someone else educate me about whether they penetrate or not.
posted by Greg on
Debrah asserts”For you are fighting nature…….a battle than none of us will ever win.”
No I am most certainly not fighting nature. In fact, to the extent that ‘nature’ exists, I am cooperating with her, doing what she clearly ‘designed’ me to do. Doing it with parts that you would find difficult to prove weren’t ‘designed’ for that purpose. If Nature didn’t want humans to have anal sex she could have designed us differently. She could have made it impossible, or at least extremely difficult, or at least unpleasurable. None of those things is true. Even if anal sex were unknown in other species (which is most definitely not the case)I don’t see how you can use ‘design’ as an argument when the parts work together, humans have a desire to engage in the behavior and they find it pleasurable (something that “nature” usually uses to increase a behavior).
BTW I did not say I was an exclusive bottom (I’m not) nor that I am inexperienced with women. I was married to a woman for 17 years and we had sex more than a few times (now that was against nature!)
Disgust is simple an expression of taste (an extreme expression but still one of taste). So my disgust with heterosexual sex implies no moral opinion about it. I don’t want to do it because its icky, that’s all. If hets didn’t try to turn their taste into some sort of moral imperative we’d all get along fine (and lots of them don’t do that but too many do). The problem arises when they use their dislike as a reason to condemn anyone who does what they find distasteful.
People that don’t like anal sex (gay or straight) shouldn’t do it. People that do like it should feel free to do so. That doesn’t seem like a difficult concept to me.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Greg, as I wrote on my “Frot Blog”:
As you say, Greg, people who like anal sex should feel free to do it — and here in the U.S., they ARE now totally free to do it. (Granted, we lagged behind the Dutch by almost two centuries in decriminalizing consensual sodomy.)
However, since anal intercourse is by far the riskiest sexual activity for spreading HIV, it was eminently logical of the Dutch government to recommend abstinence from anal sex first, and then recommend condom use for those who don’t want to follow the “abstain from anal” suggestion. But out of deference to dainty gay feelings, pretty much all modern HIV-prevention education for MSMs reverses the Dutch message — saying, first and foremost, “Use a condom every time you have anal sex.” Only as a neglected and inadequately presented afterthought do gay men hear, “Oh, yeah — another safer-sex option is to do, um, handjobs and erotic massage.”
posted by BobN on
the Dutch government
Well, first of all, the Dutch government, unlike our own, seems to have actually cared about what happened to gay men. Being a practical people, they tend not to mince words.
As to the later change, “use one every time” is, I suspect, part of the message sent to the larger population which is mostly heterosexual and which, from what I gather, hardly ever leaves out the “main event” (something I’ve always thought was rather odd).
posted by Greg on
Thorbert comments “However, since anal intercourse is by far the riskiest sexual activity for spreading HIV, it was eminently logical of the Dutch government to recommend abstinence from anal sex first, and then recommend condom use for those who don’t want to follow the “abstain from anal” suggestion.”
I don’t have any issue with the original dutch wording, though I wonder if their wording to straights was similarly worded (that is best to abstain from penetrative sex period). I kind of doubt that was the case, most likely because they knew that they wouldn’t avoid penetrative sex.
And there are other methods of mitigating risk that are more likely to gain compliance than abstinence. So featuring them prominently makes sense.
posted by brandon on
hey .
check out this new video of mine .
comment , rate &+ subscribe to all my videos PLEASE !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kMrx_-WfLw