If you don't want your kids to see what's on TV turn off your goddam TV. Stop telling the rest of us what we can see because you don't control your kids. That said, showing her being lifted up by strippers and kissing them was a smooth move indeed.
Dan, you're a few steps behind. Amy is the product of a disgraced televangelist household.……
"I don't want it in my face"

The 'it' to which they refer is not the kiss or any other sign of same-sex affection. "It" is anyone's actions that would illustrate or highlight that their side has lost this cultural battle.

They don't want to see the reminders of their out-of-norm POV. They want to be left alone, to pretend they did not lose on this one.

You can tell when she air-quotes 'mainstream'. She is hurt that she is out of it.
@2 That explains everything.
Let us all shed a tear for all the people who can not express their irrational distaste at actually having to see people who are different from them.

Yes, it is so unfair that you can't express how you just don't want to be reminded that some of us even exist. How cruel the world is... to you. Apparently having to hide in closets and be told by small minded idiots how our very existence is wrong isn't any kind of hardship, but you actually having to be reminded that we exist and it is our world too is just too much for you to have to deal with.

so do you all think she more innocent, or less innocent than a person of the 50s expressing disgust about the exact same situation if Michael was straight but kissed his white girlfriend?

What the signs say when someone reacts like this to two people showing very healthy feelings of affection, she was taught this hatred.

It's what people after the fact, and they are not going to proud on the realization that they are bigots, hopefully she doesn't want to remain a bigot

so what do you think about Tennessee Coates, and Dan baiting readers , and the rest of you authors who might claim to have absolutely no idea of the subtlety I am accusing mister Coates of?
What @1 said.

If someone wants to be a parent then be a fucking parent and monitor your own fucking brood. You are not my parent, leave me the fuck alone.
@2 reminds me that Robert Tilton, Amy Kushnir's dad, is the inspiration for The Farting Preacher.
I take it this is not the type of dialogue the author meant to cause?

if he doesn't have complete and total control by unfair and unconsented to , and illegal obtained advantage, he wants to be left alone

I'll leave both camps full of bigots who don't know they are bigots alone if we can agree that a persons home, car, and personal computer and not areas you have the right to have access to, my kind non-space invading, and totally respectful of a persons rights and not-bigoted, or no wait, just plain old asshole bigot fucking man
She thinks it's way hot, and that makes her a little bit uncomfortable and angry. Anger is a mask for fear, and she's afraid of the wowzers in her trousers this adorable couple gives her.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "the children." That's a handy trope because then they appear to be taking the moral high ground, because they want to preserve the innocence of children and not expose them to the idea that any kind of sex happens.

Except it's such patently transparent bullshit.

So little Timmy happens to see a man kissing his girlfriend on tv--does he ask his mom, "mommy how do those people have sex?" No, of course he doesn't. If he asked, "why is he kissing her?" his mom would no doubt say something like: "He's kissing her because he loves her and he's very happy and he wants to share his happiness with her. People who love each other sometimes share their happy feelings by kissing each other."

There's no reason that exact same exchange couldn't occur between little Timmy and (non-bigoted) mommy, with the pronouns changed if a man was kissing his boyfriend. After mom says "He's kissing him because he loves him and he's very happy and he wants to share his happiness with him. People who love each other sometimes share their happy feelings by kissing each other" does anybody really, really think that 8-year-old Timmy is going to say, "but if he loves him, that means they have sex, and if neither of them has a vagina, how does that happen? I need a description of what goes where to understand the concept of two people loving each other and wanting to celebrate a happy moment through a kiss?"

Not in a million years.

Not one person who invokes "the children" really means it. But who is going to argue against that?

Amy is just too polite to say what is really on her mind.

She doesn't mind PDAs.

What she minds is Public Displays of Perversion. PDP.

@12: What's perverse about an expression of love? Since when is a closed-mouth kiss and a heartfelt hug an example of perversion? It sounds like you have some therapy to do.

You don't have to kiss your boyfriend, either on tv or in private (honestly, I feel sorry for your boyfriend that you don't want to kiss him, but whatever. He must love you anyway--unless he's jealous and resentful of the torch you carry for Dan Savage), but there's nothing perverse about the publicness of a kiss like Sam's.

And it's not that she's too "polite" to say what she means; it's that she's a hypocrite.
12, you're in for some rough times ahead if you get this overwrought just because you saw a gay kiss.
The vivid imagination and obsession with sex that homophobic bigots have is remarkable. More than one have described Sam's closed mouth peck as "making out." Then, in a Freudian use of a particularly sexual metaphor, they talk about having something "shoved down my throat."

Very telling.
@6 and 9 - you might want to use the Preview Comments option, to check that your comments aren't missing words, and don't have grammatical errors to the point where it's impossible to understand what you are saying.

You're disagreeing with Dan, is that correct?
When my kid was little and he watched TV, I had to explain homophobia a lot more often than I had to explain being gay (especially if we were watching football). TV hasn't yet changed.
Kids are a lot more traumatized by realizing they're listening to their parents have sex than by any form of mere kissing. (Although the two mega-nerd hacker dudes I saw sucking on each other's beards in my campus coffeeshop is second.) (would have been just as bad if it was a lady sucking on a mega-nerd's beard.)
Men kissing is bad for kids. But gratuitous violence and bloody murder scenes are good for kids. No problem. After all we live in the United States of Dumbfuckistan.
nocutename, your comments as usual are awesome.
M? Sgt - You omitted his talk show, which manifest(s/ed) the sort of gynocentrism that galvanizes the most aggressive of the MRAs.
@9, 15: You two are together, right? I mean, I hope you are, because neither one of you makes an ounce of sense and are each completely convinced of your own cleverness, all evidence to the contrary aside. If you're not banging one another, you totally should be.

As to the content of the clip: intellectually crushing bigoted Texans raised in huckster Evangelical households are pretty low-hanging fruit, no?
Thank you, Chase.

humans are heterosexual creatures.

its how we reproduce and keep the species going.

Darwin and stuff.

humans have strong drives to have sex with people of the opposite gender.

its how we are wired.

more Darwin and stuff.

(plus our bodies are marvelously evolved for heterosexual intercourse.)

some folks are messed up.

they claim to have sexual attractions to kids or dogs or people of their own gender.


whether by genetic defect or traumatic life experiences or willful pursuit of a deviant lifestyle (or, most likely, combinations of the above...) they are sad messed up puppies.

they have mustered the political power and cultural support to have their deviant perverted lifestyle proclaimed "normal" but, sadly, that does nothing to alter the underlying deviant perversion.

in the old days we treated mental illness. now we celebrate it.

sadly, however, biology is not suseptable to fad the way popular opinion is.

you can't fool Mother Nature.

there is a very good reason that we (humans) are wired the way we are.

the survival of the species depends on it.

when we embrace perverted deviant reproductive behavior as "normal" and "just as good" we are fucking with things that ought not be fucked with.

the price is high.

dig deep, scrounge up all your spare change; the reaper cometh.....
@25: I know lots of gay people, and I would describe none of them as "sad messed up puppies." Indeed, they seem to be about as prone to depression, sadness, anger, etc. as any straight person. The DSM has long ago stopped considering homosexuality a mental illness or disorder.

It's disingenuous to compare same-sex attraction to pedophilia or zoophilia, and you weaken your already shaky argument when you conflate them. If you want to do that, by all means, please continue to equate being attracted to humans who are the same sex or gender as yourself with being attracted to dogs. If you honestly don't see the difference, then perhaps this speaks to your own levels of deviance.

As far as your point that the survival of the species depends on heterosexuality, surely you can't think that humans are in serious danger of dying out? We have overpopulated the earth to a dangerous degree, and even if a full 10% of the population were gay, which is a very high (and probably unrealistic) estimate, the loss of offspring represented by those pairings wouldn't make a difference, or might even be seen as a blessing. Additionally, through IVF and surrogacy there's no reason gay people can't reproduce (and that's not counting the children born to closeted gay people--perhaps such as yourself--who get married to opposite sexers).

Or is it that you think that if you relax on your irrational hatred of gay people, all heretofore straight people will rush to become gay, thereby plunging population growth into a tailspin?

If that's the unspoken assumption your argument rests on, let's examine it.

Imagine someone is straight (I understand that for you this is an act of imagination, but believe me, many people are); do you really think that the only thing keeping that straight person from becoming gay is the disapproval of bigots like yourself? How exactly does that work?

It is impossible to change one's sexual orientation (though as you know from your own experience, it's possible to deny it); ex-gay "conversion" therapy doesn't work. So how can you imagine that with (not if, by the way, but with, because that day is already here) society's ever-growing tolerance or acceptance with the fact that people are gay, millions of straight people will decide that voila: just like that, they're gonna be gay now?

When you continue to insist that sexual orientation is a choice ("willful pursuit of a deviant lifestyle . . ."), you really undermine your position. Seriously, given the amount of hatred and oppression out gay people have to endure (from straights and deeply tormented, self-hating closeted gay people such as yourself), why would anyone choose to be gay? Maybe someday, when the world is a far better, more open and loving place than it is now, it will seem like a desirable thing for a straight person to envy, but not in these times, improved and improving as they are. That gay people aren't all filled with as much internalized (and externalized) self-hatred as you are, is nothing short of miraculous. That gay pride is a thing at all speaks to mental health, not mental illness, and signifies a real step forward in the evolution of humanity.

I never made a decision to be straight. But were I able to decide my sexual orientation, why would I choose to belong to a persecuted minority?
Logic, please.
Hey troll. What's up?
Surely though, you admit, homosexuality is not the biggest reason the species in trouble. Who is fucking who hasn't effected the number of human beings on the planet. If you care about the species...take care of your mother. She cannot survive all these people. It's a better argument when speaking to a silly troll like yerself. Ya know?
Ms Cute - While I appreciate the argument and your good intentions, the choice argument isn't quite so obvious and clear-cut as those who advance it seem to imply. I might have accepted the persecution as a tolerable trade-off for freedom from reproduction. Surely some of our friends of the bi persuasion have chosen to live lives that appear monosexual out of a strong preference one way or the other on that question.

In general, the two monosexual orientations seem sufficiently different that there would be bound to be some people whose inclinations lean sufficiently strongly to outweigh a built-in handicap. And there are always those who at various times have found opposite-sex relations not all that peachy. Women who identified as lesbian for political purposes only might well have thought they were badly enough off as opposite-sexer women that the difference was immaterial. Making it more current, there's the MGTOW crowd. Having found the current state of opposite-sex relationships so risky for men as to withdraw from them completely, they're an interesting case. I doubt many of them would Make the Choice if they could; some seem optimistic that the tide will turn, and some just buy too strongly into some rather disturbing gender-normed beliefs. But a lot of the gratuitous homophobia in those that display it seems to stem from envy. It offends their delicate sensibilities that gay men have what they take to be a "Get Out of Women's Craziness Free" card without having had to sacrifice anything they themselves have had to surrender.

The closest comparison that springs to mind readily is the way Mrs Norris resents her successor Mrs Grant's large dining table and well-paid cook on a fortune of only five thousand pounds when she herself had had seven thousand (and perhaps to a lesser extent Lady Bertram's surprise at Mrs Grant's marrying so well without ever having been handsome).
Mr. Ven: first off, what does MGTOW stand for?

Second, I don't think when addressing someone whose arguments are as grounded in illogicality as the one @ 25 is, one either should or can introduce all the subtleties. His basic point that some people actively choose to be gay needs to be countered--and the reality is that no one chooses his/her sexual orientation. In fact, one of the examples you give--that of straight people who sometimes (or often) feel that the opposite sex is actually a member of a different species and is envious of gay people's abilities to be only romantically/sexually involved with the gender they fully understand and otherwise relate to--rather underscores the anti-choice aspect of sexual orientation, more than it questions it. I have said many times, after scratching my head in perplexed frustration, that I "wish I could be a lesbian," but the "wish" is couched in the acknowledgment that I am not and can't will myself to be sexually attracted to women.

Political lesbians (those who made a conscious choice to identify as lesbian for political reasons) do indeed exist, but having known several of them who are still, decades in, not truly sexually attracted to women and therefore for practical purposes, celibate, I would say that while the rejection of the opposite sex is choice, while the adoption of an identity can be a choice, true sexual orientation still is not. Are these women much different from any closeted gay person who has relationships with and may marry someone of the opposite sex? In short, behavior may be a choice, but orientation is not.

Now it seems to me that people like the one @25 would be satisfied with behavior changes alone, but surely you don't advocate for that?

Lastly, you said "I might have accepted the persecution as a tolerable trade-off for freedom from reproduction," which seems disingenuous. With contraception so ubiquitous and vasectomies so easily acquired and recovered from, it's pretty easy to opt out of the reproduction game.

humans are mono-race sexual creatures.

its how we reproduce and keep the white race going.

Hitler and stuff.

humans have strong drives to have sex with people of the same race.

its how we are wired.

more Hitler and stuff.

(plus our white bodies are marvelously evolved for single race intercourse.)

some folks are messed up.

they claim to have sexual attractions to kids or dogs or people of other races.


whether by genetic defect or traumatic life experiences or willful pursuit of a deviant lifestyle (or, most likely, combinations of the above...) they are sad messed up puppies.

they have mustered the political power and cultural support to have their deviant perverted lifestyle proclaimed "normal" but, sadly, that does nothing to alter the underlying deviant perversion.

in the old days we treated mental illness. now we celebrate it.

sadly, however, biology is not suseptable to fad the way popular opinion is.

you can't fool Mother Nature.

there is a very good reason that we (humans) are wired the way we are.

the survival of the white race depends on it.

when we embrace perverted deviant reproductive behavior as "normal" and "just as good" we are fucking with things that ought not be fucked with.

the price is high.

dig deep, scrounge up all your spare change; the reaper cometh.....
25, you seem to belive that homosexuality is new. Gay people have existed as long as the human race has been on Earth, and straight people have gone on desiring people of the opposite sex. The human species goes right on existing, and in fact, there are more humans on the planet than in any time in history even though gay people are more visible. Just because you are tempted by gay sex, doesn't mean that actual straight people are as well.
Ms Cute -

[Seriously, given the amount of hatred and oppression out gay people have to endure (from straights and deeply tormented, self-hating closeted gay people such as yourself), why would anyone choose to be gay?]

I was not tackling the question of whether people (barring whatever accommodation one makes for our friends of the bi persuasion who make a conscious choice one way or the other) do or did choose, but was considering why one might make such a choice. Even with your objections, I still might have made the choice because the issue of reproducing would be omnipresent in relationships unless I'd gone with partners of sufficiently advanced age. I'd perhaps agree with your objection if vasectomies were irreversible, or if there were foolproof male contraception available, although even then there would always have to be a serious conversation about it and it would be necessary to be in sufficient agreement, and there would always be the possibility of a partner undergoing a change of mind. One of the great advantages of homosexuality to someone as personally opposed to reproduction as I am (and I'm sure you will agree with me that the world is a far better place with my not having reproduced) - which is not any sort of criticism on those who have felt the calling to do so; I simply claim an equal calling to the contrary - is that it's never been a question; I've never lost a relationship over reproducing, whereas an opposite-sexer clone of me might, even if it began in all good faith. I've seen enough examples of women or men who never wanted children having a change of heart after five, seven or ten years, and enough of the admonition to men that abandoning abstinence EQUALS consent to the legal obligations of fatherhood. (To clarify, I was never adamantly against raising a child, so that the question could have arisen in the relationship I've had without being so likely detrimental.)

I doubt more than the tiniest fraction would find the persecution a net plus if weighing the balance, but your statement (very widespread) always seems to be made as if it automatically makes it obvious that Nobody would Ever CHOOSE this orientation; I often suspect that, even if orientation were entirely a matter of choice (and I more or less agree with you about whether it is or isn't), I think the proportion might well be about what it is now. It would be a question of what would counterbalance the weight of the persecution.

Men Going Their Own Way is apparently a relatively new phenomenon. Having decided that relationships with women are not worth the risk, they apparently spend most of their time griping about how Feminism Spoils Everything instead of leading the Awesome Lives that are supposed to be available to them without women. They tend to seem resentful of same-sexers, who can have all the advantages they seek and have full romances and relationships as well.

My point about the political lesbians is that they cho(o)se the additional persecution without its having anything to do with orientation at all.

I don't think we have much material disagreement here except that you may think heterosexuality and homosexuality to be more similar than I do.

I appreciate that, in your argument with the unregistered poster, you had to round things off a bit; it's just that the Who Would Ever CHOOSE This line isn't a favourite of mine. As you may imagine, I heard a good deal of it in my youth, so that, even in your non-hateful context, it rankles. I've found more than sufficient compensation in my orientation for any of the supposedly inherent disadvantages (as well as the truly inherent ones), and just felt I had to defend it against a charge anyone might infer (for I don't think you meant to imply this) that societal disadvantages render homosexuality completely and universally unpalatable.
Mr. Ven: You are absolutely correct that I view ,if not homosexuality and heterosexuality, then certainly homosexuals and heterosexuals to be more alike than you appear to. I think I come off sounding Pollyanna-ish and treacly, saying "we're really more alike than we are different," or like some sort of "Up With People"-ist, or even, like Rodney King asking, "can't we all just get along?" I am not that naive.

Of course there are outliers, but whereas I often feel like you're advocating for a total separatist nation (or would there need to be two, one for gay men and one for lesbians?), I think I'd prefer to live in a more inclusive culture.

I base my attitudes on the same thing on which yours rests: my own personal knowledge of what the world feels like for me--and I freely acknowledge that as a member of the straight majority, I am invoking my privilege and that I sound like any white person saying that there's no longer any racism. I don't mean my perspective to erase anyone else's lived experience. As a member of a religious/ethnic minority, I know all too well the feeling of erasure that occurs when someone tells me that Christmas is an American holiday, and no longer a Christian one, so there is no good reason for me not to celebrate it. No doubt if I were gay, I'd see the obnoxious cluelessness in my own point of view and statements.

So I apologize for insensitivity and obtuseness, as well as assumptions that are predicated on my own world-view.

But if we are to achieve more of a truly integrated and embracing culture, which is my wish and I understand may not be everyone's and I am not sure is yours, I think we need to focus more on what two groups have in common and less on what differences separate them.

I don't mean that to be gay is so socially unpalatable as to be a choice one would never make, were one to be able to make that choice. But I do mean that as you yourself are aware, it is harder to be a minority than the majority in our society. It's harder socially, politically, in some cases economically. It puts one in position to expect and receive criticism, hatred, condescension. It means you're always looked at as the other. It means you're subject to prurient curiosity, to having to be a perfect poster child for your minority group, lest you give the bigots ammunition. It means you're always coming under scrutiny from members of your own minority group to be accurately representative, blending the correct amount of unapologetic pride and non-threatening demeanor that doesn't conform to negative stereotypes. That's hard. It's harder than it is to be part of the mainstream, the majority. This isn't opinion, it's reality. At least as it stands now, it's harder in our culture to be brown than white; it's harder to be a non-Christian than to be one, it's harder to be gay (or bi or trans or gender queer) than straight. It's also harder to be female than male, but that's ironic since women are not a minority, so I won't get into that here, except to say that your description of Men Going Their Own Way sounds too much like a segue into a discussion of #yesallwomen, and I've already done that elsewhere in real life and all over the internet today, so I'm not going to take that on here and now.

Pride in oneself is a mighty thing and I'm all for it. I'm a big believer in standing up proud declaring that "I'm ________ and I'm proud." And meaning it. And even saying that "were it a choice to be ________ (as sometimes it is and sometimes it can't be) I'd still choose to be ________" That's healthy. That's commendable.

But feeling that way doesn't mean I need to ignore the reality that this culture has stacked a lot of barriers up against my naturally feeling that way.

As for your point about gayness being a guarantee that the discussion about reproducing will never arise or that neither party will ever change his mind about wanting to reproduce, there are so many points I take issue with. But I'll just address two of them, and perfunctorily at that:

1) You seem to have either a very low opinion of the integrity of women or a very high one of their persuasive powers. You say you would only concede my point about choice and its relationship to reproduction if vasectomies were irreversible or if male contraception was foolproof. Do you mean that you think a woman who wants a child typically pokes holes in condoms or reverses a vasectomy while the man sleeps? Do you think that even if the man had a vasectomy, his female partner could necessarily talk him into reversing it? Or do you think that a vasectomy spontaneously reverses in the same way that condoms, correctly used, occasionally fail? Yes, some of these things happen. Vasectomies have been known to not work (or vas deferenses to self-regenerate); some women have talked their partners into reversals; condoms have been tampered with. But those are all rare occurrences (and the ones involving vasectomies are extraordinarily rare).

2) It is just as possible for one man in a same sex relationship to have a change of heart regarding wanting to have children as it is for one member of an opposite sex relationship to change his or her mind. It's by no means a given that all women want or will or may want to reproduce down the line when they don't want to or don't think they want to now. Equally, there is no reason that a man's steadfast insistence that he doesn't want to be a father will hold in the future, and that goes for gay men as well as straight. It's just that gay men must do some pretty proactive things to make that happen.

Okay, that was long, even for me. I hope it made sense.
Ms Cute - One does not have to disrespect a partner to think it likely that differences of opinion on the reproductive issue could ruin a relationship. One partner's change of mind about an agreement entered into in all good faith is quite enough.

Case in point - the McGraws, who agreed to have one child. They had one child. Dr M had a vasectomy. Some years later, he was happy, but she changed her mind and wanted another. Had he not reversed the vasectomy, she might not have left him, but she might. I accept perfectly good faith on her side; she had a genuine change of heart. Plenty of people consulting the Prudecutor have had a change of heart in perfectly good faith about how many children to have or not have, often spelling disaster

It would be one thing to say I Can't Ever; I Won't Ever isn't final enough. I respect and don't doubt those people who have an absolute inner certainty that they have a calling to reproduce, and feel equally called not to do so. Some people don't respect that position, or at least don't believe it's the equivalent of the other calling.

I also make a huge distinction between reproducing and parenting. Having been willing to raise my sister's children if necessary, I was always persuadable about parenting. Yes, gay men can change their minds about wanting to be parents, but, if the issue is still being negotiated, there can never be a moment during the couple's sex life when one partner might be tempted to suspect the other. Personally, I don't want the act of love to be tied at all to the possibility of reproduction, and only going in for sexual activities that could never produce a pregnancy was a significant advantage for me.

Remember also to apply the standards of twenty years ago to my specific case. In my prime, gay adoption was not common. I accept that it will be different for the rising generation, although even then the idea of the pregnancy not being part of the relationship might have been good enough for me. Anyone can refuse to commit to or can leave a partner who won't raise a child together, but only a woman can reasonably say that she won't commit to or stay with a man who won't impregnate her. The possible conversations and negotiations just don't extend anywhere near so far.

I did not mean to state or imply that a same-sex relationship was any sort of guarantee of No Change of Mind Ever. But Reproduction Within the Relationship is impossible in a same-sex relationship and possible in an opposite-sex relationship with a sufficiently capable partner.

I'm not sure whether you think I was opposing OS Ejaculation = Consent to Sire; to be clear, I absolutely support that and entirely accept that men in opposite-sex relationships have only vasectomy as a means to have a reasonably absolute final say about their reproductive capacity.

As far as the societal disadvantages of homosexuality, I don't disagree with you, but rather treat it as one factor among many in a theoretically choice of orientation. If one could choose one's (mono) orientation, I'd put it at something like a +3 or a +5 in the Hetero column. I see enough difference between Hetero and Homo that about the same total 6-8% or so who don't present as Hetero would find themselves sufficiently better suited to Homo to overcome the handicap and choose it anyway. As a bridge player, I'll compare it to the odds when declarer holds AKQJ2 in a suit in hand and 543 in dummy and will take five tricks in the suit unless one opponent holds all five of the outstanding cards in the suit, which happens about 7.5% of the time. Much more often the suit will divide 3-2 or 4-1. Sorry if you're not a card player, but if you are my paradigm of their being five factors that land in either the Hetero or the Homo column and needing the 5-0 division to overcome the bias in favour of Hetero oversimplifies a bit but at least explains why I think some people have enough natural fit with Homo to choose it even despite the disadvantage.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the sort of integrated culture you seek, but I do think that seeking similarities has been overemphasized without sufficient understanding of differences to allow for such an integrated culture to be genuinely embracing. And I am natural a little suspicious of majority embracing anyway, as it frequently turns out to be a code word for a path that, however embracing it may seem at the start, leads to near-erasing - think of the great sculpture in When We Dead Awaken and how the originally primary figure got pushed into the background.)

As far as MGTOW, I've seen refutations (perhaps deserving of quotation marks) of their rationale, but don't concern myself with that one way or the other. I'm not going to judge whether someone's feelings are right or wrong. I don't care for much of what they say (at least of what I've seen, which is admittedly not much), but if they're so convinced that opposite-sex relationships are too dangerous, they and their potential partners are probably all better off if they remove themselves from the pool.

Okay, 1:00 a.m. here. Dormez bien. I hope I clarified things a little, but I've been rather tired all the way through.

First of all, Darwin was a punk ass grammarian who thieved most of his theories like the inferior set of people who use grammar to substitute for lack of knowledge and understanding elsewhere

Evolution is very real, and very true, and a process that Darwin didn't know jack shit about other than what he overheard.

you are confusing reproduction with physical expressions of love or lust shared between those engaged in sex acts.

I am glad that you figured out that two men cannot produce offspring, however there is always the option of adoption as well as a family who has both lesbian mothers and gay fathers that can produce offspring without having to adopt because being homosexual does not bar a person from being able to have children, it just means the person they marry may not be a biological contributor to the creation of their child.

And that is actually viewed by some people as just one of the many beautiful miracles of life in Heaven,

as it is the parent who raises the child whom is better qualified as the Mom or Dad titles given to parents

the biological contributors, especially on the male side of the equation, is so insignificant and so little needed is required from the male gender that they aren't even technically necessary accept for very brief and often uneventful instances for the concept you are speaking of, which I believe is reproduction but you seem pretty fucking confused and I am thinking you might be talking about religion,

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about, but I think you had made the connection that sex is such a pleasurable experience because it is a necessary component to unassisted reproduction.

You must be a college professor and lecture routinely on the subject, as your understanding of sex and mammalian reproduction is as impressive as my spelling and grammar
Dear Mr Venn, imagine a mini me of you?
I'm still trying to process, this notion of a MGTOW
Crowd- believing feminism has spoiled everything. Envious of
Gay men, because the latter has the
" get out of women's craziness free" card- AND romance
And sex.
How has feminism spoiled everything? By confronting the patriarchy? Men want women , back where they had no voice, no power? As it is, capitalism has so appropriated feminist energy, it's been way distorted.. Always about causes and conditions..
Relationships between men and women are
( by all intents), an equal playing field- until children turn up.
Then the story changes. Then the work , and a deeper joy,
Is it at this point those MGTOW crowd decide women are too
" crazy" ?
Ms Lava - Just to show you how off kilter they are, yesterday I came across an article responding to a post about how lucky gay men have it when they are in a domestic dispute because they can hit back. Many of them feel they've had raw deals in custody or divorce cases. Again, I merely report; I do not endorse. In a similar line to my always retroactively approving of any divorce even if I wouldn't have recommended it beforehand, I usually think people who voluntarily withdraw from the dating pool are doing the right thing.

They occasionally stumble upon the germ of a point. Again, it isn't my place to White Knight for opposite-sexers, but there is perhaps a decent case to be made that, as the ratio of income between opposite-sex partners becomes more level and the percentage of women outearning their male partners climbs, it could be time to retool such things as jewelry campaigns where the paradigm is fifty or sixty years behind the times regarding the gendered expectations around Valentine's Day, to take their best example. I can certainly agree with disgruntled straight men that the "Every Kiss Begins With Kay" (Jewelers) commercials I see all too often during my television viewing give me an LMB (Laissez-Moi Barf, as you're fairly new here), though for the heteronormativity rather than for Which Gender is (perceived to be) On Top.

Ms Cute, if you read this, may I add freedom from gendered expectations as a huge personal plus in the Homo column? I think it's my freedom from gender roles that leads to my being about a 1.2-1.5 on the cisgender equivalent to the Kinsey scale, because my colouring isn't fair enough to look all that androgynous. I'm not in Pat-and-Chris territory, but it's definitely another plus for me (obviously some others like gender roles for providing them with boundaries and clarity; such people would be more inclined to pick Team Hetero even without the societal push).
Mr. Ven, I think that you are probably right that the gay (or more accurately, queer) community allows for more fluidity of gender conformity and a broader definition or acceptance.
Isn't there a substantial number of gay men who count "looking straight" or "straight acting" as a plus? In fact, Dan just dealt with the topic of the "gay voice" as being a turn off to many gay men and thus limiting the dating pool on a recent podcast.

But you're right in that when you step outside old social definitions of gender or roles, many new possibilities open up. This is where I think same-sex marriage is really frightening to those who are against it. Because the two people in any same sex marriage have to make up their own roles, and because they are essentially absolutely equal (assuming that sex=gender and gendered roles are assumed). It's no surprise that a lot of those against same-sex marriage are also anti-feminist.

As for your example of the MGTOW who said that gay men are lucky because when they are in a domestic dispute they can hit back, I was reminded of the time a lesbian friend of mine stated the obverse, saying: "the problem with being a lesbian is that when you have an argument with your girlfriend, you can't say 'Women! Who can understand them anyway?'!"
Ms Cute - Well, again, these are all things for which I contend that a personal preference would give one a lean. It works out well for me because I don't want to attract SASAS (straight-acting, straight-appearing seekers). For those who do but can't, desire not to have freedom from gender roles might be a reason they would choose Team Hetero if they could and did.

No dissent on the marriage paragraph. It does remind me, though, of the anti-marriage-equality feminists whose posts I've seen on various matters. They are almost all religious in a way that often paints them into a corner as they try to reconcile traditions they love with the problematic aspects of their beliefs. (This isn't just the anti-marriage-equality segment; bringing this back to Men's Rights Advocates, some of whom devote time and energy to opposing infant circumcision, I know a Jewish atheist trans woman who with great verbal dexterity has established that, while she personally is opposed to it, any criticism of or opposition to infant circumcision she mentions or to which she responds is anti-Semitic and thus worse than the practice itself. Therefore, not only can criticism of infant circumcision come only from someone Jewish, but, because she's not a believer, she can't be pinned to any of the problematic beliefs attached. I don't have any stake in that matter, but admire the way she seems to have staked out supposed invulnerability on the issue.)
amy kushnir is a disingenuous sack of crap. she came to cook in a store with an overwhelmingly gay staff and was an undercover homophobe all the time. she clearly has no tolerance for the free expression of others, and that makes her a bad american, a shamefully bad citizen, and a hypocritical whore. i'm burning her lousy cookbook. those strippers should have dropped her on her ratty ass. also, her highlights are atrocious. go to to tell her what you think of her intolerance and hatred. please be vicious. we should organize a kiss-in at her next live appearance.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.