Following protests by LGBT activists, the Energy Department removed Washington University physics professor Jonathan Katz from a select group of five top scientists asked to pursue a solution to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The reason had nothing to do with the physics of stopping oil from pouring into the sea. It centered on Katz's postings on his website regarding his adamant disapproval of homosexuality.
Let's be clear: Katz is a homophobe, and proud of it. As the Washington Times reported, in Katz's website posting titled "In Defense of Homophobia," he opined that "the human body was not designed...to engage in homosexual acts," and that "Engaging in such behavior is like riding a motorcycle on an icy road without a helmet...sooner or later (probably sooner) the consequences will be catastrophic. Lethal diseases spread rapidly among people who do such things."
Pretty offensive stuff. But should opinion written on a personal website get you booted from a government assignment? What about from your job? Where does the line get drawn?
According to the newspaper's account, A.J. Bockelman, director of the St. Louis LGBT advocacy group PROMO, applaued the decision to remove Katz, saying, "It's disappointing at a time like this that when all Americans need to come together and focus on relief efforts and recovery efforts in the Gulf, someone divisive was placed in a position of power." But obviously it's not "all Americans" that Bockelman thinks should come together to solve the Gulf spill, since Katz, too, is an American, and one (unlike Bockelman) with expertise that the Obama administration felt would be valuable to the mission at hand.
Rather than demanding that Katz not be allowed to help solve the spill, in an effort, more or less, to punish him for his wrong-headed advocacy, it would be far more productive to engage him (and the many who think like him) in open and vigorous debate. But that is no longer the progressive way, and hasn't been for many years. Bad speech is to be punished, otherwise some may be misled. End of story.
I might be more sympathetic to the argument that Katz's personal advocacy placed him beyond the pale if it weren't for the hypocrisy of so many on the left, who believe one of the great crimes of the 20th century was that certain American Communist Party members (and yes, they were), who during the time of Stalin worked to advance the cause of communist tyranny, suffered grievously by being denied movie industry work in Hollywood.
56 Comments for “A Punishable Offense?”
posted by Claudius Vandermeer on
How vile.
The man is a scientist and a technicianâremoving him is an act of flagrant ideological hubris.
I wonder if or when a homosexual will stand in the media spotlight and refuse to be someone else’s campus shibboleth, especially when it comes to real and pressing issues of actualânot ideologicalâqualification.
posted by Tom on
The intersection of private views and public service is, to me, one of the most interesting areas of the culture wars.
In theory, private views, however odious and however far outside the mainstream, should not disqualify a person from public service, if the person is otherwise qualified and if the person’s private views are unlikely to interfere with the public service involved.
In theory, so long as the private views are unrelated to the public service, a person who seeks expulsion of Jews from our country should not be disqualified from public service, nor should a person who is an ardent advocate of re-instituting legal segregation and stripping African-American citizens of the vote.
Dr. Katz’ views are not, however, particularly odious or nearly so far outside the mainstream.
Katz’ views are, in comparison to the views of social conservatives like the Family Research Council (see “Throw the Gays in Jail“), moderate and, within Republican circles, mainstream (see “Gov. Bush, Sodomy-Law Defender“, relying as he does on moral condemnation rather than imprisonment as the preferred means of social control of gays and lesbians.
In addition to his relatively moderate views, Katz’ private views would seem to have nothing to do with the public service to which he was called to perform; Katz’ views on homophobia are no more relevant to finding a solution to the undersea blowout than Throbert’s views on frottage or Debrah’s intense disappointment in finding out that men she wants to date are, at least often enough to be a sore spot for her, gay.
Most of us have some pretty wacky private views about one thing or another, but, for the most part, our private wackiness doesn’t impact on our professional qualifications or job performance. So it would seem in Dr. Katz’ case.
Theory only goes so far, however. Presidents have to live in the world of political reality, as well. The fact is that President Obama could not, given current political reality, appoint a self-described “proud anti-Semite” or a self-described “proud racist” to a high-visibility post, any more than George Bush could have appointed a “proud anti-Christian” to a high-visibility post during his administration. Political reality is a factor to be taken into consideration in high-visibility appointments.
Whether or not tossing Dr. Katz under the bus is the political equivalent (the furor surrounding Dr. Katz seems to revolve around his “I am a homophobe, and proud …” self-description rather than a thoughtful examination of his views) is open to question, but it is not an open-and-shut case as Stephen seems to imply.
This post, by the way, is an unexpected first for Stephen. His typical posts criticize the Obama administration for insensitivity to gays and lesbians (e.g. “If Only Obama Knew”, May 2, “Is the “Charge” of Being Gay a Slur? Ask Obama”, April 18); this post criticizes the Obama administration for sensitivity to gays and lesbians.
The common denominator?
posted by Bobby on
I’m a great believer in ideological diversity, as long as Mr. Katz isn’t harassing anyone he should be judged on his work performance and not on his views.
I think Mr. Katz should sue, and I would hope a gay lawyer defends him.
posted by Debrah on
Tom–
Let me advise you that you need to operate more effectively and make statements about the motivations of others that are reality-based.
All of us have witnessed your thin-lipped, smarmy…..almost rigid……way of conducting your brand of “debate”.
I have always, nonetheless, treated you with respect.
With your bile above, you show yourself to be a sinister, back-biting skirt who is capsulized inside the idea that because of military service you might be entitled to a fora dictatorship, of sorts.
I might need to bring up both my father and grandfather having fought for this country every time I want to put some “balls” into a discussion. Would that help?
LOL!
You have shown above that one can be prissy and vengeful all in one comment!
A typical Leftist with a hard-on for passive-aggressive bile.
Throbert nor I have voiced opinions that are in alignment with Katz’s positions, yet you gratuitously brought us into this debate.
posted by Jimmy on
Personal slights and raging bigotry (Katz) not withstanding, the Obama administration’s tepid response to this calamity is underwhelming. But, let us not lose sight of the fact that the regulatory environment that Big Oil operates within is one created by their minions via a path paved with their “free” speech ($$$). That’s the way bribery works. The level of criminality displayed by BP in this operation must not go out of focus and must not go unpunished.
One stupid oil well, operated in a haze of incompetence, criminality, and cronyism is wreaking havoc on a national treasure, threatening national security. One wonders why those who consider themselves patriots continue to be apologists for these criminals.
posted by Mike on
If this guy is that wrong — ignoring scientific evidence and common sense — on homosexuality, then why should he be trusted regarding the oil issue?
I think if he were just religiously opposed to gay people, that is fine, it doesn’t affect his engineering skills, but this guy’s rants go beyond that and show clear evidence he ignores and disparages scientific accuracy when it comes to gay people – if he ignores science here, whats to say he is any better in oil engineering?
posted by Debrah on
“…..-if he ignores science here, what’s to say he is any better in oil engineering?”
*********************************************
Bizarre analogy.
And just as lazy as the one dragged out by SSM proponents in which perceived “discrimination” is comically and desperately aligned with REAL bigotry and REAL discrimination that took place in decades and centuries past toward Jews and blacks and other ethnic groups.
There is NO logical analogy here, except inside the lazy intellectual nexus of some tendentious minds.
How one expresses their sexuality is in no way comparable or in the same orbit as one’s race or ethnicity…..
……where choosing to go inside a closet for convenience or self-service, or simply dressing a different way, is all it takes to vacillate from one self-identification to another.
There are many—from every demographic in existence—who are simply repulsed for hygienic reasons by the act of men using the fecal canal of other men as a receptacle for what they call “romance”.
And it doesn’t matter who practices it—gays or heteros.
It’s an unhygienic and horrific violation of the human body.
Attempting to cast aspersions on those who hold this opinion by assaulting their unquestionable intelligence and achievements is self-defeating.
posted by Mike on
Somehow, I don’t think Professor Katz or “Debra” would be any more accommodating about gay men who don’t practice anal sex, or for that matter, lesbians.
The simple fact is that Professor Katz’s opinions show him as an individual who is not qualified to make scientific judgments or utilize the methodology of science or engineering to solve problems.
Although it is amusing to see bigots get tied into knots with their bizarre poop fetishes, let’s not forget that they object to the mere existence of all gay people — including women, celibate gays, and basically anyone else who doesn’t conform to their strange version of “morality.”
posted by Debrah on
Mike—
I’ll simply reply to your bigoted and knee-jerk effulgences with questions:
You don’t read the IGF fora very often, do you?
Do you feel comfy inside that silly insularity of yours?
Didn’t Mommy and Daddy teach you that the world isn’t filled with people who stroke you and agree with everything about you as they did?
posted by Jimmy on
“How one expresses their sexuality is in no way comparable or in the same orbit as one’s race or ethnicity…..”
But, it’s more than just sexual expression, isn’t it Debrah? Heterosexuals, of whatever race or creed, interact with the world through the totality of their psyche, including the sexual part, and the world responds to them in kind. They, as complex human beings, see and understand the world through that orientation (which is a profound element in the totality of being) giving it no second thought.
It’s no different for homosexuals. Our experience with the world at large is as much informed by our ingrained orientation as straight people’s. So, to merely pigeon-hole one aspect/behavior as something that occurs in a vacuum, separate from the entirety of the person, is wrong, IMO.
posted by Debrah on
Jimmy–
Thanks for bringing nuance to this subject.
Of course everyone goes about the tasks and the joys of life with their own particular “orientation” informing their identity.
(But I should really qualify that statement……there are some people who, for all practical purposes, appear to be asexual and do not exude a vibe of sexuality, one way or the other.)
I’m sure you know a few people about whom that characterization would apply.
I believe you and I have engaged in enough exchanges here to enable you to have gleaned that “gay” in general, or how that might be expressed in every day life, is not really an issue with me.
There are aspects of every area of life which some people find…..how do you say?……not to their liking.
No one is asking anyone else to “like” the differences. Personally, I couldn’t care less if the population, in general, agrees with me on anything or not. If I were gay, I wouldn’t be spending my time begging for acceptance.
And if I were gay, I’d also realize (because I was born with a brain that works quite efficiently) that the whole idea of “marriage” was dreamed up by people who like to marry those of the opposite sex…….
……..and, consequently, I wouldn’t shed crybaby tears begging them to assign that appellation to my own coupling in life.
It’s the whole relentless effort of gays trying to co-opt a heterosexual aspect of life—while at the same time sticking out their collective tongues and shouting “HETEROSEXISM” at very turn—that provides such a disconnect.
I don’t expect people like Mike who show up here and have not really read my views or my exchanges on IGF for quite some time now to understand the nuance involved with regard to this culture war issue.
He actually thinks that I dislike gays because I find anal sex repulsive.
I actually don’t care who practices it as long as it isn’t someone I like, respect, and adore.
Then it’s a real scream!
And such a kind of sadness that I don’t expect you to understand.
posted by Mike on
“I’ll simply reply to your bigoted and knee-jerk effulgences with questions”
Translation: I can’t refute any of your points, so I will ignore them and offer some random aad hominem bon mots instead.
posted by Jimmy on
“And such a kind of sadness that I don’t expect you to understand.”
Oh, but I do understand. There are people that I love whose behaviors and beliefs cause me deep consternation and disappointment. Their mode of having sex is not one of them. But, that’s just me.
” If I were gay…”
But, you’re not. And, you can not possibly, fundamentally understand what that means anymore than I can see the world through the prism of heterosexuality. You are who you are today based on all of the experiences that have informed your understanding of the world around you. If you were a lesbian, all those experiences that you would have had from the moment that realization hit you, that you were something other than the usual, would likely inform you differently, regardless of your views of marriage.
I don’t mean to belabor a point, but I do thing this is crucial and should not be taken lightly. It has taken me a while to reconcile that people are complicated and not so easily caricatured.
posted by Jon Rowe on
“the human body was not designed…to engage in homosexual acts,”…
The overwhelming majority of married heterosexual couples do things that the body was not “designed” for according to this argument. Genetalia was not “designed” for mouth. Most Thomists even reject this “the body was designed for” argument. Robby George admitted to me (after I read Ed Feser on Andrew Sullivan) that oral sex between married men and women is okay provided the act ALWAYS acts as a means to procreative sex. George even told me that official Catholic sex manuals for married couples discussed foreplay.
Still, it remains the mouth was no more “designed” for genetalia than the anus was designed for genetalia.
posted by Jon Rowe on
Debrah:
“It’s an unhygienic and horrific violation of the human body.”
The goal when folks, either hetero or homo, practice anal sex is almost always for the act to be as clean as possible. If you wear a condom or wash when done, it’s not unhygienic.
I take the “horrific violation” to be personal opinion and hyperbolie. I understand the argument from design. I noted the problem with that argument in my above post: Oral sex even between married heteros (something 90% of heteros practice) equally violates the “design” argument.
The Thomistic argument against anal sex is that it results in sperm purposefully being desposited not in a potentially fertile womb. In short anal sex is wrong for the same reason masturbation or married couples putting on a condom is wrong.
Just because you find something “repulsive” doesn’t mean it’s wrong in any kind of objective or normative sense. George HW Bush found brocchli repulsive. But he was smart enough to know not to try and make a normative argument over it.
posted by Debrah on
“Their mode of having sex is not one of them.”
***********************************
Well, let me introduce you to the real world, Jimmy.
Your world.
Your liberal heaven…….a very similar place in which I reside.
The only people who exist in my midst are those who voted for Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008—(Obama, whom I also supported and about whom I am beginning to have “voter’s remorse”)—who will voice their undying “gay rights” support, publicly, but will voice decidedly different opinions in private conversations.
I consider myself to be a gift of candor in such discussions and someone who has no “closet” insecurities as so many of your SSM “supportive” urchins do.
In short, there are a multitude of people out there besides “conservatives” and the “right-wing” who have issues with the so-called “gay agenda”.
But as Michael Jackson offered up in one of his videos (half lyrical, half dialogue)……
……..”Keep dreamin’ baby.”
posted by Debrah on
“George HW Bush found brocchli repulsive. But he was smart enough to know not to try and make a normative argument over it.”
**************************************
You’re a gem.
I love people like you.
Coincidentally, I don’t really like broccoli that much, either.
But I always don my Whole Foods diva ingenuity and go for the arugula!
posted by Tom on
Probably not. You typically avoid direct discussion on this forum (not fora, or even flora) by launching into extended discussions of anal sex. You will never see things from the male point of view because you are not male, and you will never see things from the perspective of a gay or lesbian because you are not gay or lesbian.
Borrowing “balls” from your father and grandfather would accomplish nothing other than adding yet another layer of artifice.
Uh huh.
I brought Throbert’s notions about frottage and your strong negative reactions to discovering the someone you “like, respect and adore” is gay as examples of private views that are irrelevant to public service outside the sphere of your private opinions, likening the irrelevant of those ideas to the irrelevance of Katz’s views on homophobia.
I did not suggest that either you or Throbert expressed views similar to Katz.
However, as my high school wrestling coach used to say, “If the shoe fits …”
You note this often. Exactly how is this different from the Katz quotes cited by Stephen as “pretty offensive stuff”?
posted by Debrah on
“Exactly how is this different from the Katz quotes cited by Stephen as ‘pretty offensive stuff’?
**********************************************
I don’t know, nor do I care about Katz or any other peripheral entity.
I will simply say that anal sex and the open grotesquerie of men salivating after the azz holes of other men, as well as men openly and visually craving the quest of sucking the appendages of other men, as something that can literally make most people, male or female, puke.
I consider myself (and most people who know me would as well) quite liberal with regard to such issues; however, you haven’t seen sludge until you catch some very accessible gay male YouTube fare which illustrate “the life” of gay male culture.
If this were average heterosexuals engaged among such sh!t, they would be ruined professionally.
But in “gay society”, it’s obviously “the norm”.
posted by Jon Rowe on
Debrah:
I find it bizarre that you obsess over things that you find repulsive. I don’t find heterosexual sex per se repulsive. But given how most folks look, the idea of most particular heterosexual or homosexual couples having sex makes me feel queasy; so I just don’t think about it.
I do not think about how much or whether, to use my past example, George HW Bush and Barbara have sex, when he is on top, when she is on top or whether they still have sex at all.
On the other hand, the idea of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie having sex doesn’t make me feel the least bit queasy.
But again I realize the “ick” factor tells us little if anything about the normative nature of a particular act.
I also think that more heterosexual couples than you think are very kinky and more gays have vanilla sex than you let on. Further, heterosexual couples can be as kinky as they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms and not have their professional reputations ruined.
posted by Debrah on
Jon–
We’ll all cease “obsessing” when the “gay agenda” isn’t used to contaminate each and every arena which an openly gay, or a semi-openly gay, or a closeted gay finds him/herself.
Many have had quite enough of this issue being used in totally unrelated milieus. But gays fully expect to assault unsuspecting, albeit supportive, people with this never-ending bullsh!t.
I find your “surprise”—real or affected—a bit surprising.
The only people “obsessing” are the gays who use their “agenda” to beat this drum as soon as they feel an ounce of power—real or imagined.
Please.
Save your lectures for such tendentious, obsessed, and destructive morons.
posted by John on
If this were for a position during normal times, I would agree that Katz is unsuited and would oppose him – especially if this were something that involved profit at the public expense. Katz’ views on the matter ceased being private when he voluntarily aiired them quite publically which in the spirit of the First Amendment invites response, or backlash if you prefer. Now since this spill constitutes an emergency in my book, I don’t care what his views on this or other matters are. Is he the best man to contain the situation? I haven’t a clue. If he is than the job should go to him. We can fight later after the emergency is over.
posted by Tom on
Nonsense. Have you looked at the kind of things straight men look at?
posted by Throbert McGee on
First, if Katz’s essay was “unscientific,” it was because he sloppily treated “homosexual acts” (many of which are low risk for STDs, and some of which are essentially zero-risk) as interchangeable with “anal sodomy” (which presents a high risk for HIV transmission whether it’s done by homosexuals or heterosexuals).
And if Katz were being considered for a position at the CDC, or for the job of Surgeon General, this kind of immense sloppiness would be enough to disqualify him. But he was, instead, tapped to be on some sort of ad hoc brain-trust team to deal with an ongoing emergency involving an oil-spill, and it really isn’t pertinent if he has wrongheaded ideas about HIV transmission, or for that matter if he thinks that the Earth is 6000 years old. (Since the news story said he’s a “physicist,” I would make a wild-ass guess that he has specific expertise in “Fluid Dynamics” — a specialty within physics that could be pretty helpful if you’re trying to do a predictive computer model about how underwater oil spills are going to behave.)
Second, he might’ve used the misleading term “homosexual acts” because he’s such a dainty religious prude that he’s unwilling to use more specific terms like “anal sodomy,” “fellatio,” and “mutual masturbation.” But this doesn’t mean that, if pressed for clarification, he would reveal himself to be completely ignorant of basic medical and scientific facts by insisting, for example, that homosexual mutual masturbation can lead to HIV. It’s possible, in short, that he’s quite well-informed and unconfused about the science behind HIV, but chose to use highly non-scientific language in an essay that was quite obviously meant to be a inflammatory polemic, and not a fact sheet summarizing the findings of HIV epidemiologists.
posted by Jon Rowe on
Debrah,
This issue has clearly driven you batty. Yet you keep coming back to fora like this for more. You seem to be a masochist.
posted by Throbert McGee on
No, this post criticized the Obama administration for completely ridiculous hypersensitivity to the plaintive whining of SOME gay activists.
posted by Debrah on
Dear Jon–
Sorry, fellow.
Like most “progressives” (LOL!), I live in the global world.
And coming to IGF is not “masochistic”, but total Diva exhilaration!
You must try to find more adventurous friends. They might enlighten you on the chess game of life.
Life is short. Not a dress rehearsal.
Don’t hang only with those who echo your opinions, honed inside the safe confines of imagined gay culture.
posted by Throbert McGee on
@Jon Rowe:
What’s YOUR definition of “vanilla sex”? (That is, what are some specific acts that fall under the vanilla umbrella, and which acts do you consider to be non-vanilla?)
posted by Throbert McGee on
Hey, Deb — the comments have mysteriously returned on that ENDA thread that had, for a while, been “email responses only.”
However, the longer thread about non-cisgendered people is still gone, as far as I can tell.
posted by Debrah on
“However, the longer thread about non-cisgendered people is still gone, as far as I can tell.”
**********************************************
Throbert, chalk it up to the fact that you are ahead of your time…….
……..and for the unwashed masses, too hot to handle!
posted by Jon Rowe on
You must try to find more adventurous friends. They might enlighten you on the chess game of life.
Life is short. Not a dress rehearsal.
Don’t hang only with those who echo your opinions, honed inside the safe confines of imagined gay culture.
Heh. You obviously don’t know me very well.
posted by Jon Rowe on
Throbert,
How about oral sex as vanilla. Oral sex is the MOST COMMONLY practiced behavior among gay men. It is also the central way lesbians express their sexual affection. And roughly 90% of heterosexual couples practice it. Oral sex is what links us all. Let’s have three cheers for oral sex, between two men, two women and a man and a woman.
posted by esurience on
How are we supposed to get people to behave better and create a better society if we don’t attach consequences to bad behavior?
Katz’s views legitimize hate against gay people, that’s wrong. Negative consequences should attach to that.
There’s always going to be vile homophobes around, we’re not going to convince 100% of people with reasoned argument and debate. Some people just don’t have the empathy.
But there might just be enough good people out there who we can convince, to make the homophobes think twice about opening their mouths, lest they face the consequences of it.
posted by Jon Rowe on
Throbert,
I also don’t understand your anti-anal sex activism. I understand perfectly that you’d prefer not to have it but rather have frottage instead with your same sex partners. I wonder, though, why you pick frottage instead of intercural or interfemoral (whichever the right term is) relations.
Dr. John Corvino wrote an article a little while back (perhaps you commented excessively there) where he pretty much noted he feels the same way you do about what he prefers to do in bed. Though, he noted frottage, among other things, as one of many substitutes, not what should replace anal sex as the central act.
But he doesn’t hold anything against the practice of anal sex per se.
In terms of STDs and AIDS, there certainly is something serious to be talked about. I suggest gay men, never ever have promiscuous unprotected anal sex. Save anal sex for monogamous relationships after the two partners have an AIDS test, if you are going to have it at all. If all gay men followed this advice AIDS and many other STDs wouldn’t be an issue.
posted by avee on
Katz’s views legitimize hate against gay people, that’s wrong. Negative consequences should attach to that.
Punishing people for advocating “incorrect” ideas is a very dangerous path that the left has been taking us down. Beware of where it will end.
posted by Jorge on
Shouldn’t an emergency situation such as an oil spill which threatens wildlife and local economies be grounds for neutrality on things like gay rights? Okay, so someone probably needs to complain about it. I’m not impressed by a hypocrisy accusation that goes back almost twice as far as my birthday. Doesn’t mean they should win, though. “State of emergency and shut up” is a perfectly acceptable response to political pressure.
Am I the only person here who is beginning to find Debrah’s obsession with internet lingo almost as annoying as her obsession with graphic depictions of sex?
posted by Jimmy on
It seems to be a pattern within the conservative world view that two wrongs are just fine and surrendering the very best of your ideals, one’s better angels, for expediency’s sake is not even worth a second thought.
Then they want to run their yaps about “real American values.”
Please.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Jon, I don’t have time to answer all of your points right this second — I’m doing some late-night cooking (pasta sauce on the stovetop, bread dough rising in the oven) and will be going back and forth from my computer to the kitchen for the next hour or two.
But just to get a definitional point out of the way, I consider “frottage” to be a generic, unisex term encompassing all sorts of non-penetrative sex where one person rubs his or her genitals against a partner’s body part, without going into orifices. So putting the penis between the thighs (for which interfemoral and intercrural are synonyms) is a “type of frottage,” and so is lesbian “scissoring,” and so is hetero “titty-fucking,” and so are armpit-fucking and asscrack-fucking — they’re all specific types of “frottage.”
Another specific type of frottage is “frot,” which is when a male rubs his genitals against the genitals of another male — in other words, “frot” has the narrow meaning of “cock-and-balls against cock-and-balls.”
I think all types of frottage are great as a safe-sex approach, but I give particular attention to frot because (a) it “belongs” to gay and bi men as something that is uniquely ours — by definition, lesbians can’t do frot, and neither can a man and a woman; and (b) by emphasizing/maximizing direct penis-to-penis contact, frot is especially conducive to both partners experiencing the same type of physical pleasure at the same time, which can induce a subjective feeling of total sexual synchronization and spiritual merging, etc.
In short, I would argue that “frot” has some spiritual/psychological advantages that are quite separate from its utility as a safer-sex approach.
And I’ll break at this point because it’s just about time to punch down the bread dough.
posted by Bobby on
Dr. Katz is a bigot, but in my line of work I’ve had to work with bigots who hate conservatives, Christians, republicans, George W. Bush, white people, etc. It seems unfair to me that Katz get fired yet I have to put up with all kinds of people doing their thing. If Katz was to sue there’s a chance he might win, I may not like Dr. Katz and I certainly hate the way he thinks about gays, but punishing Katz for his views about gays is no different than firing a heterophobe or any number of nutcakes on our side.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Back from the kitchen, but rather than reinvent the wheel, I’ll just quote a paragraph from the Wikipedia entry on frot as a gay cultural concept (with italics added for emphasis):
So, my positions as a frot advocate are basically:
(1) Anal sex should be de-vanillafied and de-centralized, although I have no objections to it as a mildly kinky niche practice; and
(2) Frot and mutual masturbation should be placed front-and-center, and emphatically singled out as the “Gold Standard” of safe-sex practices for gay/bi men; and then we can argue about how anal-sex-with-condoms, and fellatio-to-swallowing vs. fellatio-but-don’t-come-in-my-mouth, and rimming, and fisting, and watersports, etc., should be ranked as “Silver” or “Bronze” or “Leaden” standards.
In other words, I advocate the safe-sex model that the Dutch government adopted in 1985, but dropped by the early ’90s because of political pressure from gay activists, who were offended by the mere reminder that not having anal sex at all is a perfectly valid option:
(1) If you’re a man who has sex with other men, the best way to avoid HIV is to abstain completely from anal intercourse.
(2) If you’re unwilling to abstain completely from anal intercourse, then you must use a condom every time.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I am a big fan of oral sex in general, and make no apologies for my love of sucking on another man’s “appendage,” as our Diva quaintly phrases it.
I would also argue that fellatio is the Sara Lee snack cake of gay male sex practices — nobody doesn’t like it!
But that said, I’m not totally sure that oral sex is the MOST COMMON gay sex practice, since mutual masturbation is just as easily done on the spur of the moment, yet is even lower risk. And I’m not sure if lesbians would agree that cunnilingus is the “central” act for them.
It’s possible, however, that some lesbians consider cunnilingus to be the “rite of passage” act that separates bi-chic college girls from actual lesbians — just as, in some mid-20th-century gay erotica, a willingness to fellate another man was the “rite of passage” that separated the definitely-homosexual from the str8-curious dilettantes. (In later years, a willingness to bottom anally replaced cocksucking as the “defining act” and rite-of-passage for the self-accepting homosexual… and we all know what the consequences were for the gay community at large.)
posted by Jorge on
It seems to be a pattern within the conservative world view that two wrongs are just fine and surrendering the very best of your ideals, one’s better angels, for expediency’s sake is not even worth a second thought.
Then they want to run their yaps about “real American values.”
Please.
The worth of human life is one of the highest values, Jimmy.
Indeed, under a conservative administration, as we waged war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the dignity and lives of our enemies in war have been preserved and protected at great cost to ourselves with little recognition. Most prisoners can expect to be medically treated of any injuries and detained under existing lawful conventions–despite the fact that they do not obey the laws of war. In cases of clear breaches of American and international law, our soldiers have been aggressively investigated and prosecuted, often without sufficient evidence to convict. In contrast, our captured soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have been humiliated by being shown on videos across the world, can reasonably fear being sexually assaulted if they are women, and are pressured into making public statements denouncing their cause.
Oh, but we torture Muslims by having strippers flash them in their cells, flushing the Koran down the toilet, punching them, waterboarding their mastermind murderers, and mutilating their bodies and hanging them off bridges–wait, that last is what they did to us.
I think the conservatives have it about right.
posted by Debrah on
“Am I the only person here who is beginning to find Debrah’s obsession with internet lingo almost as annoying as her obsession with graphic depictions of sex?”
**************************************************
(((((((((((() Kiss! Kiss! ())))))))))))
You would do well to learn some “internet lingo”.
And graphic depictions of sex were not invented by moi.
I do, however, believe in love!
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
Had no idea you knew how to cook.
Also, your illustrious and always-riveting sex tutorials deserve a gold star.
Throbert-mania conquering!
posted by Jimmy on
“I think the conservatives have it about right.”
From you, I would expect no less. How we behave really should only be measured by the yard stick of our own ideals, not the perceived inferiority of those is which we are in conflict. Do we rise to the challenge that our own principles require of us?
So much of the conservative MO has to do with lip service paid to some ethic based in Christianity, and to which this country should, as many conservatives would say, return. The requirements of actually doing that would mean living the gospel – something that is in deep conflict with the other component of conservatism which is focused on sending as many people to Hell as they can.
As philosophies go, reptilian Rand gets way more play here than the Prince of Peace; I get that.
So……..yeah.
posted by Jorge on
“Perceived inferiority”? Give me a break.
I will admit to nothing less than that we are the greatest country in the world, not just because of our ideals and principles (thank you for admitting that), but because of how we have strived to live by them. This is no less true under conservative administrations, which represent half of what America is. I have already shown you how we have strived to live by our ideals in war, and you have chosen to ignore me.
It seems to me you are dissatisfied with the fact that a conservative Christian US President must act like the President of a nation before he acts like a Christian. Maybe you’d be happier if Christians stayed out of government.
posted by Jimmy on
“Maybe you’d be happier if Christians stayed out of government.”
There are many Christians in government that “get it” with respect to Christianity. There are others who practice a kind of Christianity that I am very familiar with, and had to reject, because it is revolting, unchristian, and purely self-serving.
posted by Bobby on
“As philosophies go, reptilian Rand gets way more play here than the Prince of Peace; I get that. ”
—Jesus was not a socialist, he did not ask for bailouts, did not demand high taxes, he wanted INDIVIDUALS to choose to help the poor without coercion.
posted by Jorge on
There are many Christians in government that “get it” with respect to Christianity. There are others who practice a kind of Christianity that I am very familiar with, and had to reject, because it is revolting, unchristian, and purely self-serving.
A Christianity that’s unworthy of being called Christianity? Are you related to Queen Isabela or something? Or have you been reading too much Gandhi?
This is like talking to a wall. Here’s the bottom line: there is NO such thing as a president or culture that 1) Has lived the gospel better than the US has AND 2) Has done better for their people and for the world. I defy you to prove me wrong.
posted by Jorge on
That came out wrong. Should read more like culture or nation but I got two ideas mixed up.
posted by Jimmy on
“there is NO such thing as a president or culture that 1) Has lived the gospel better than the US has AND 2) Has done better for their people and for the world.”
Proverbs 16:18
Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
posted by Debrah on
“Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
**************************************
Is this really a Bible verse?
What could possibly be sinful about haughtiness?
Leave it to the self-righteous religious nuts to tell everyone how to behave and how to think.
What fun is that?
LIS!
posted by Jimmy on
That is also from the preferable King James Version.
posted by Jimmy on
Haughty-ness betrays a prideful spirit.
posted by Debrah on
“Haughty-ness betrays a prideful spirit.”
****************************************
And……..someone might show up at your funeral in a red dress!
:>)
posted by Jorge on
Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
1) Hey, the truth hurts.
2) I will admit to avoiding gay pride events for much the same reason, although I do not use the comtemptable King James version.