Kevin McCullough of Townhall, and the aptly named, Musclehead Revolution (Christianity Today has called him “the heir apparent to Dobson and Falwell”). He’s whining about “angry gay bloggers,” specifically NGBlog and OutsideTheTent, for “misreporting” on his work. If I had a nickel for all the instances when gay bloggers have had their words twisted by fundies.
Boo hoo, Kevin. How can anyone take you seriously when you say things like this, because “science says so”:
Ah yes, reducing orientation to sex acts alone — the stale argument of the right wing. So one’s gender identity must also be a choice in Kevin’s eyes — you simply need to go to the store and pick out clothing appropriate to your birth genitalia.[S]exual behavior is entirely a choice and something they can control - and race is not.
In other words - we can not codify into law, preferences based on someone’s choices. Whereas equal rights can never be disallowed for someone’s state of being. No one has a choice on their skin color. Everyone has a choice in their behavior.
It is the totality of the entire debate between changing marriage laws to include non-marital unions or not too. The argument these angry gay bloggers and other radicals in the homosexual community have made is that because they were “born that way” they deserve the same special protections as actual minorities.
It’s more than whether it’s a “choice” as we see it — McCullough sees bisexuality as “part-time homosexuality” — religion is a choice as well, so how is “choice” a threshold for civil rights? For the wingers, their illogical reference to choice is that somehow a decision to have homosexual sex is a choice, yet heterosexual attraction/sex is not, it’s God-ordained appropriate fitting of parts with a goal (procreation), and therefore any other sexual activity is against nature, Satanic, and those that participate in it are deviant. I doubt McCullough feels that he “chose” to be heterosexual.
Again — whiny baby Kevin is upset that he’s being chastised by the homos. We should be showering him with hugs, kisses, and flowers for truth-telling statements like these:
On Mary Cheney and Heather Poe having a child:
If they were to choose to engage in sex acts a thousand times over, their biological machinery would never produce what is needed - but for a different reason. There is no dysfunction in this case. Instead, the reason the sexual engagement does not work is because the necessary parts are not even present. It is the equivalent of screwing a nut onto a bolt, by using a hammer. They just don’t fit.More crude drivel:
Homosexual behavior and Christianity do not mix. From the standpoint of theory, theology, doctrine, and practice the two are totally and completely incompatible; as are adultery, pornography, bestiality, pedophilia, pre-marital sex, incest, cross dressing, multiple partner orgies and the list goes on.From his piece Why homosexuals despise marriage:
For instance, a woman who engages in lesbianism will never know the joy of lovemaking that creates within her the product of that union — an actual human life. She will never know the security of a true man protecting her from the dragons of the world and providing for her an environment where she can nurture and give love to that little life once it arrives, or the stamp of approval that God puts on such an experience. And because she and her partner know this, they must defy reason, biology and sexual function to create children and experiences that serve as faulty substitutes for that God-ordained picture.Anyone have the tiny violin?Likewise, a man who seeks his perverse kicks by depositing the seed of life in, shall we say, non-life-giving cavities, may know orgasm, but never complete union, as he uses anatomy in ways for which the Creator did not create it.
94 Responses to “Whiny winger baby award goes to…”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Wait a minute…
I’m supposed to protect my wife from DRAGONS?
Fuck that shit. Where do I sign up to join the radical homos?
I’m accepting bets on how long it takes for Kevin to get caught with a male prostitute.
religion is a choice as well, so how is “choice” a threshold for civil rights
See, from the fundies’ point of view, religion isn’t a matter of choice at all, any more than gravity is. You will find that their notion of “freedom of religion” isn’t “freedom for other people’s religions,” either.
It’s the same kind of thinking that led officials of the Inquisition to think that they were engaged in a desperate struggle for the souls of heretics, undertaken in a spirit of love . . .
What is with the winger obsession with slaying mythological creatures? Nearly every time I discuss gender roles or homosexuality with wingers they talk about slaying dragons. Ah well, I guess since their objection to feminism and civil rights for gays is based on mythology, only mythology can provide the rationale for their position.
I wish I had something novel to say about this, but it’s just the same old shit from the fundies. Interesting, that to be the “heir” of assheads like Dobson, you only need to regurgitate an ungainly amalgam of all the most cliched, witless tropes of their hateful, he-man religion.
Le sigh.
They seem congenitally unable to realize that their arguments against Teh Gays apply equally well to opposite-sex relationships. I guess I’ll go ahead and point out that I “spilled my seed” into an (artificially) “non-life-giving cavity” for years (not to mention countless non-life-giving tissues), until I had a doctor snip it so it wouldn’t spill anywhere, and yet, I would say I have a very complete “union” with my girlfriend. Even moreso because we made sure that no caterwauling, diaper-wearing, sex-kibosher was going to interrupt our relationship. I can’t believe there’s much joy in lovemeaking if you’re terrified it might saddle you with a human parasite.
I’m not an expert, but that’s possibly the worst analogy for lesbian sex I’ve ever read. This man must have done very poorly on his SATs.
He does say one thing right, though:
Which is why religion needs to be tossed on the trashbin of history. (And I notice that, like most fundies, he is unable to see the difference between consenting and non-consenting when it comes to what makes a sexual act ethical).
“as he uses anatomy in ways for which the Creator did not create it.”
But if the Creator created all things, and knows all, then it’s obvious that homosexuality can’t be contradictory …
… unless the whole notion of a Creator is non-existent or worse, misconstrued for purposes of fear, intimidation, and over-righteousness … hmmm
“In other words - we can not codify into law, preferences based on someone’s choices.”
Hold the phone there Sparky. Last time I checked we had this thing called “freedom of religion” in this country. With the exception of some traditionalist Protestant theologians, everyone agrees that religion is a choice. How else can we “give over our lives to Christ”? And freedom of religion is protected by pretty much every civil rights law ever passed.
On a different note, I’m happy to say that thanks to my manliness, my wife and son have never been attacked by dragons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/But_I%27m_a_Cheerleader
Does Kevin think this sort of place is a good idea? If so, he should have watched the movie beyond the first 1/2 hour. Dressing boys in blue and girls in pink, while forcing them to perform stereotypically gendered tasks- oh yes, that will “cure” those confused gays! And lots of reprogramming therapy.
Thank goodness we have people like noble Sir Galahad, er, Kevin, working so hard to save my het marriage. Whew!!
And I’d like to sign up my mother-in-law for the “Dragons To Be Slayed” list, please.
Wait … we DESPISE marriage now? I thought we were destroying society by WANTING marriage?
I do wish these fundies would keep their talking-poinits straight, because it’s really difficult to be satan’s evil world-destroying spawn (now with extra tacos!) if they keep changing the rules on me.
I hate the focus on the biology/neurology of homosexuality. “Are people born with homosexual dispositions” is a complete red herring. Who knows? It doesn’t matter.
It’s a matter of civil rights. Liberals/rational, sane citizens should keep the debate firmly in that paradigm. Because even if we take it to the extreme - that all along, all these thousands of years, all homosexuals were faking it and hating it and just trying to be deliberately provocative - it has nothing to do with whether or not people should be allowed to have homosexual relationships.
Since homosexuality hurts no one, the answer is obviously yes.
Well, some of us aren’t too fond of it…..
Well, does it matter to whether or not we have civil rights? Course not, and it’s a failing short-sighted proposition to base our rights push on.
However, does it actually matter? Well, I’d say yes. Because for the majority of us queers our sexualities are so much experienced as hard-wired, as intrinsic, as born-to, as something so fundamental to who and what we are, that to have people claim that they’re not, is something to be argued against fervently.
Course, there are those that do chose their sexual behaviour, or fall in love with someone of the sex opposite to which they are actually supposedly attracted to, etc, etc. Sexuality is a far more complex thing than is dreamed of in our western philosophy.
However, I didn’t chose my sexuality, and I don’t know a single queer person personally that has. And such claims are used against so many of us in “ex-gay’ “therapies” that do nothing except traumatise, brain-wash, damage and abuse LGBT people. So, such claims DO matter.
“as he uses anatomy in ways for which the Creator did not create it.”
These are the same people who insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that we’re not supposed to masturbate because it makes the Baby Jesus cry. Which is patently stupid if you’re talking about an all-powerful and all-knowing Creator, because why would he make our arms the perfect length for it if S/He didn’t want us doing it?
Exhibit One that NO ONE thinks more about gay sex than a fundie.
I’d love to see someone interviewing this creep point this out to him.
So…help me understand this. When a heterosexual couple is infertile and thus the old in-out-in-out doesn’t result in pregnancy, what happens? I suppose that any baby they make via assisted reproductive technology doesn’t get God’s stamp of approval because it didn’t get created via old-school P-in-V sex–and then the woman then gets barbecued by a dragon. Have I got that right?
Oh now stop squirming and fighting it, MA Jeff; it’s time for the blue shiny clothes and to chop wood! Next we’ll fit you for your tux and put you atop a cake…
You’ll get used to it. We are (straight) Borg- you will be assimilated- and like it.
I wanna jump out of the cake!
Well because those arms are primarily for the holding of bananas, which fit so perfectly in your hand and mouth! Praise Jesus.
On the off chance that I actually managed to hurt a dragon, my wife would be very upset with me. For one thing, she likes dragons. For another, it would mean either: 1) I had risked my life against a whale-sized flying reptile with claws, horns, fangs, and fire breath or 2) I’d gone after a hatchling.
Sarah, you are destroying society by demanding marriage. But you’re not demanding it because you want it, you’re demanding it out of a desire to destroy it, because you hate it. (If you read the article linked to it, that’s actually what it’s about).
And Orange, according to the Catholic church at least, you do have that right. In the Catholic church, infertility is a valid reason to annul a marriage, and assisted reproduction such as IVF is indeed considered wrong. According to a lot of protestants however, it’s only wrong with the gays do it.
All of you complaining that religion is a choice are forgetting one thing. Kevin and his ilk don’t want freedom of religion. They think this country would be a better place if everyone were Christian. Congress making no law should obviously only apply to Christians. The rest of us are deviants. If I don’t want my kid to watch other kids praying in school, I’m killing the country. But if I want their kids to be exposed to my kid’s faith, I’m killing the country.
I have to say, I have so much more respect for my husband now that I know he’s been out protecting me from dragons. And here I thought he spent all day doing chemistry. Clearly, he leaves a lot out when I ask how his day went.
When this asshat talks about denying housing, employment, protection under the law or any other civil right to people who purchase pornography or engage in adultery, pre-marital sex or multiple partner orgies (the overwhelming majority of which are hetero), then he maybe can act like any of his rantings are something other than total, hateful bullshit. To say that any sexual behavior that is inconsistent with his view of Christianity can be discriminated against would be one thing, but that’s not what he says. He’s just after discrimination for TEH GAYZ, letting all of those other het “sexual deviants” off the hook. He can go fuck himself — and then add his own name to his imaginary list of people who will be smoted by his bigoted deity for his own deviance.
Note: I didn’t address the other listed acts because they are too dumb to address and are agreed by most to be harmful. Wasn’t making any judgment or association of sexual orientation, just noting the “deviances” I did because they are the kinds of things that bigots like this asshole mention but always ignore from a policy perspective, for the simple reason that they’d get laughed out of any political arena if hetfolk were permitted to see what kind of slippery slope the anti-GLBTQ folk really are. I mean, they can attack GLBTQ people because they represent a relatively small portion of the population (at least, the people who identify as such), but they’d lose a shit-ton of followers if they started applying their civil rights limitations to outwardly het-folk who commit the acts they say are the moral equivalent of being GLBTQ but are entered into by huge numbers of people, like pre-marital sex.
“Likewise, a man who seeks his perverse kicks by depositing the seed of life in, shall we say, non-life-giving cavities, may know orgasm, but never complete union, as he uses anatomy in ways for which the Creator did not create it. ”
So, Kevin, care to show us your .jpg collection on your computer? Your magazine collection? Your video collection? There’s about a 1% chance you’re not a hypocrite, and the remaining 1% chance is that you’re a liar.
And, to quote the openly gay NYU student who rightly asked Scalia in response to Lawrence v. Texas, do you sodomize your wife/girlfriend?
What is with the winger obsession with slaying mythological creatures?
as someone who used to draw dragons on a favorite teacher’s chalkboard in high school, let me spell it out for you:
DRAGON = ADOLESCENT MALE PENIS.
Even as the atheist I am, I may know my bible better than Kevin.
Because I’m pretty sure you could interpret the story of Lot to condone both gang-rape and incest. And the story of Ruth? Even fundies can’t be that dense….
Who are you going to believe when it comes to what our bodies were made for, an annointed preacher or some mythical construct who hasn’t manifested properly for at least two millennia?
If there is a god, s/he/it is going to roast these bigots something fierce for claiming to have a direct pipeline. (and that “Blaspheme!” button never looked so right)
Wait a minute…
I’m supposed to protect my wife from DRAGONS?
A while back, my sister-in-law went to a fundamentalist wedding were the minister listed, at great length, all the things a woman is supposed to do for her husband: clean the house, raise the kids, have dinner on the table every night, obey him without question, etc. But it was all worth it, the minister explained, because he would “take a bullet for her” if need be. My sister-in-law’s response: “I have to make him dinner every night, and he’s going to take a bullet for me how often?”
I think the dragon thing follows a similar logic. As long as you’ve got those damn dragons under control, the little woman can take care of everything else.
Come on, lesbians! Don’t you see what you’re missing out on?
“he uses anatomy in ways for which the Creator did not create it.”
My favorite reply to this argument comes from sex advice columnist Dan Savage who pointed out (I’m paraphrasing here), “Our noses were not ‘designed’ for us to rest our glasses on, but nobody thinks that’s a sin or a crime against nature.”
When it comes to male homosexuality, these people are obsessed with butt-sex. And their obsession leads them to two patently false conclusions: all gay men have anal sex all the time, and straight people never, ever do. And I notice they’re nowhere near as vocal or hostile about the unnatural sin of blowjobs. Their followers would leave them in droves.
And when it comes to female homosexuality, they’re just idiots. They seem to be literally unable to imagine sex that doesn’t involve a penis penetrating an orifice. I feel sorry for their wives. All the slain dragons in the world aren’t going to keep the little man in the boat happy.
When a heterosexual couple is infertile and thus the old in-out-in-out doesn’t result in pregnancy, what happens? I suppose that any baby they make via assisted reproductive technology doesn’t get God’s stamp of approval because it didn’t get created via old-school P-in-V sex–and then the woman then gets barbecued by a dragon. Have I got that right?
Actually, my dad, who’s a fundie Catholic, if you can wrap your head around THAT, assures me in all seriousness that babies conceived outside of the womb do not have souls, rendering them easy fodder for demonic possession.
I am NOT making that up. (Gah, I sound like Dave Barry.)
He never mentioned the dragon part…
does your dad think babies who perish before they are baptised have to be thrown in the ditch outside the town walls as well?
I have to say, I have so much more respect for my husband now that I know he’s been out protecting me from dragons. And here I thought he spent all day doing chemistry. Clearly, he leaves a lot out when I ask how his day went.
Well, ya know, most of us don’t like to brag…
Every time I see this kind of argument put forth I cannot help but wonder how these same people are going to react once science makes it possible for same-sex couples to produce proper biological children.
I’d say his hairstyle is a choice as well… and a bad one.
[Well, ya know, most of us don’t like to brag…]
And we wimmin should be able to figure out the skidmarks we find on the husband’s chainmail, as we try to beat it clean against a rock.
“Big dragon, huh sweetie?”
It is the equivalent of screwing a nut onto a bolt, by using a hammer. They just don’t fit.
Actually, if it’s the right size, a nut will fit perfectly on a bolt. That’s exactly what it’s for. The hammer is probably not the best tool for the job, but you could do it. So this guy fails as a “real man” as well — real men know their hardware.
does your dad think babies who perish before they are baptised have to be thrown in the ditch outside the town walls as well?
Probably not - there’s the whole public health thing with the rotting bodies. But, the unbaptized babies do not go to heaven, they go to Limbo, even tho’ Catholic doctrine was amended to eliminate Limbo.
See http://www.tldm.org/ or http://www.roses.org/
Y’all wonder why I became a Good Pagan Girl…
“as he uses anatomy in ways for which the Creator did not create it.”
which would make teh gays SMARTER THAN GOD!
Here’s my argument against this stupid natural function argument:
If the genitalia’s sole purpose is to reproduce the species, then why don’t we have an estrous cycle–like nearly all other mammals?
With estrus, coitus can only occur when the gemale is in heat, and heat is linked to ovulation. It’s a nice system, and saves a lot of unnecessary badabinging.
But not with us. Humans and a couple of other primate species. We are in heat and can have sex all the time.
Why did God give the animals a regulator and not us?
Might it not be that, in man, the genitalia serve more than one function?
Otherwise why do it differently for us than for other mammals?
does your dad think babies who perish before they are baptised have to be thrown in the ditch outside the town walls as well?
Probably not, there’s that whole public health thing and the smell. But their little souls would go to limbo, not heaven.
http://www.roses.org/ or http://www.tldm.org/
And y’all wonder why I became a Good Pagan Girl after years and years of therapy.
Well, Coin, I’m praying to the Disco Ball that the cognitive dissonance causes a huge rash of head-explosions among the fundies.
As for the regulation of estrus, I think pbg is on to something here. I remember something from my undergrad women’s studies course about a biologist who had just recently (I’m thinking 2002, could be earlier or later) done some research on the clitoris. Turns out that the clitoris has the densest concentration of nerve endings anywhere in the human body (more dense than the fingertips), and that its only function is to give pleasure.
Which begs the question: “If the Creator intended human genitals to only be used for reproduction, how do you explain the existence of the clitoris?”
Maybe the clitoris, dinosaurs and platypus were all created on the same day, as God was in a particularly silly and playful mood and wanted to pose Man with some puzzlers.
Helps balance out all that brimstone and smiting stuff, you know.
1. To prove that humans are in fact different than other animals, thereby creating a hook for all the other commands that apply uniquely to humans (not sure where the monkeys fit in. Must be Satanic influence, specifically designed to make weak-faithed people believe in evolution.)
2. To give humans a chance to exercise free will. We have to have some things that feel good but are not allowed so that we can show God how much we adore and worship him. Not doing things that don’t feel good doesn’t count. (So either God is deliberately screwing with us, or that pesky Satanic influence again. Damn snake.)
3. “Cause OBVIOUSLY, in the Garden of Eden, Eve DID have estrus cycles. Remember the curse on Eve: ” Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. ”
See, she only started desiring her husband AFTER the think with the fruit and the snake, so again, must be that Satanic influence again. It is clearly not a feature, it’s a bug. Witness, too, that Jesus, the perfect man, is never recorded as having had sexual feelings or relationships, so there y’go.
Sorry for the double post, everyone.
Now, I’m about as straight as it gets, and I have two kids (conceived the old fashioned way), but I want to go on record as saying that the most joyful lovemaking I’ve ever experienced was when there was little to no chance of creating “an actual human life.” In fact, if there was a likelihood that I would conceive again, there wouldn’t be any lovemaking at all, joyful or otherwise, because the last thing I need is more children. I love my birth control for a reason, although I realize that these idiots don’t like that either.
Well, IIRC, there’s some evidence that female orgasm aids in conception. (The mechanism was unknown last time I heard about this.) So clitoris could = more pregnancy.
As an aside–and this isn’t aimed at any person in particular, I’ve seen a lot of people do it–we know you didn’t mean to post twice. Posting an apology is therefore two, not one, unnecessary comments. Can we all agree that computers have glitches and, therefore, ignore multiple posts?
Homosexual behavior and Christianity do not mix. From the standpoint of theory, theology, doctrine, and practice the two are totally and completely incompatible; as are adultery, pornography, bestiality, pedophilia, pre-marital sex, incest, cross dressing, multiple partner orgies and the list goes on.
Funny, he doesn’t mention divorce on that list; I’m pretty sure Jesus had some harsh words about it. I wonder if that’s because he got a divorce.
I understand what you mean, Melanie. During the female orgasm, the contractions cause the cervix to move lower into the vagina, acting as a plunger and suctioning semen into the uterus, splashing the semen against the sides of the uterus, and so forth. I saw a film of this happening once, which was absolutely bizarre.
However, due to the fact there is more than one kind of female orgasm (clitoral v. vaginal and combinations thereof with others, like anal, nipple, etc.) and that the nerves in the clitoris are connected directly to the central nervous system, rather than the reproductive system, I still like to put the clitoris up on a pedestal and think of its funtionality as being “pure” and free of any of the mundane functions of reproduction.
Indeed. I think this pretty much sums up the conservative viewpoint. I do find it odd that odd that desire to persecute and deny gays/lesbians their rights while at the same time crying that they are a persecuted minority. Hypocrisy and logic are so beyond the grasp of these people that it boggles the mind.
Additionally, I would point out that wankery is also a choice; a choice that McCullough has exercised in abundance.
I hate that they keep tying bigotry (misogyny, homophobia) with “masculinity” (i.e. how males ought to behave and think) itself by calling this hysteria a “Musclehead Revolution,” which seems more like a WWE show than a religious movement.
This blurring of ideology with maleness is the reason why most men still fervently believe that feminism–the radical idea that women and girls are human–is misandry.
Oh, and on the issue of choice: how odd that when rape is discussed the “Musclehead” types typically present rapists as without choice in the matter, victims of their own overwhelming sexual instinct to torture and destroy another human being. So telling a man simply to choose not to rape is more of an injustice than telling a gay man simply to choose not to be gay? Why, of course it is.
Don’t you see what you’re missing out on?
They’re missing out on dragon slaying, is what.
But I think they have some kind of proto-magical super virginity or something, so they get to ride around on unicorns.
If we legalize gay marriage, lesbians will be required to defend their spouses against dragons AND still get unicorns. They can ride into battle on their unicorns, with flowing, brightly colored clothing with their magic swords with their awesome, awesome battlecry of MAGIC FUCK YEAH! WOOOOOOO!
And since all lesbians would have wives, both partners get both a unicorn AND a dragon. That just isn’t fair. and the overhunting might extinguish the dragon population.
Eventually, there will only be one dragon left, it’ll be soul-bound to some snotty evil prince, and then Dennis Quaid would have to kill Sean Connery.
Is that what you bitches want? Dennis Quaid killing Sexy Old Sean? and a species of beautiful, inspiring animals going extinct? That’s why I’m against gay marriage.
[During the female orgasm, the contractions cause the cervix to move lower into the vagina, acting as a plunger and suctioning semen into the uterus, splashing the semen against the sides of the uterus, and so forth.]
1. Well, this would only occur if the orgasms were simultaneous. Else no semen to suction and splash.
2. Ick. This description takes the ole fun right out of it. Too much like Mechanics or Plumbing 101. But maybe that’s because I can hear Ben Stein reciting this to Ferris and the gang.
However, due to the fact there is more than one kind of female orgasm (clitoral v. vaginal and combinations thereof with others, like anal, nipple, etc.)
Oh, sure! Just like there’s fifty billion different kinds of male orgasms, depending on whether he’s having his ear tickled or his ass slapped or his nipples twisted when he comes.
Except, oh wait, those aren’t actually “different kinds of orgasms” in any biological or anatomical sense, and this kind of goofy Freudian drivel serves only to make female sexuality sound weird and mysterious and totally different from male sexuality in a way that it’s, you know, not. Also, it’s not 1940.
um, it seems to me like people’s choices are indeed protected by rights-based law, all the time. Like, oh, the choice to own property, and the choice to get married, and the choice to say whatever blessed thing is on your mind at any given moment.
I’m not saying that it necessarily is a choice to be LGBT, but for christ sake, if it were a choice, so the fuck what? We all make choices all the time, and I kind of thought (silly me) that the whole Idea was to protect the choices we make (so long as they do not hurt others and everyone consents, yadda yadda).
and, pardon me if I’m wrong (I’m not), but since when do we not discriminate against people because of “things they can’t help”, like race or oh I dunno what genitalia we happen to be born with?
logical inconsistencies, they actually do make a difference.
Karpad wins.
“um, it seems to me like people’s choices are indeed protected by rights-based law, all the time.”
Exactly. “Freedom” is not just a word to precede “fries.”
You laugh, but there are creationists (ex. Kent Hovind) who honestly believe that’s how the dinosaurs died off after Noah’s flood.
So, basically he’s saying all those screaming, rip-roaring, mark-leaving orgasms I’ve had with women aren’t as good as the ones you straight chicks get?!
DAY-AM!
Colour me envious!
;)
I’ll see your “lesbians don’t get the full impact ‘cause they can’t get preggers” with Cameron’s “gay sex is like heroin.”
Sarah in Chicago:
One of the reasons I’ve decided to leave the Catholic church is because they, too, seem to think that some great mystical magical thing happens when penis meets vagina (sans birth control) that no other form of sex can match. Did I mention that includes penile-vaginal intercourse when contraception is used? I consider myself sex positive but this elevates the sex act to a ridiculous level. I recently read an article in Commonweal written by a Catholic woman (also a lesbian) in defense of the church’s position. I don’t recall the whole gist of her argument. The part that stands out is she seemed say she felt called to give up sex. That’s it. In every other way she could continue to carry on a relationship with another woman. I’m pretty sure there is a lot more to being in a lesbian relationship than having sex with a woman.
I guess these kinds of arguments leave me conflicted. On the one hand I think sex is very important as I said. On the other hand, it’s not the sole defining feature of my life so can we please stop obsessing about it and move on?
“God-ordained picture.”
Is it just me or is the crudeness and superficiality of that expression fitting?
I’m not conflicted at all. My sexuality isn’t totally defining but it’s significant; it shapes my friendships, the career (please, I teach sexuality, gender, queer theory…), the communities I’m a part of….It’s not just the sex act.
However, to that lesbian who accepts the Church’s teachings, she is accepting self-loathing as a starting point. If you want to live without sex, fine. If your religion tells you your a broken person and calls your love-making evil, it’s an evil religion.
That dyke is going to be a big problem for the rest of us, too, because being the devout orthodox Catholic that she is, she will follow the proclomations of Nazinger and vote against pro-gay legislators and for anti-gay policies. The RC Church is no place for any self-respecting queer. It hates us. (Yes, Dana, et al, I know the Church says all this stuff about not-discriminating and loving and stuff, but those of us who’ve been its targets know all that rhetoric is complete and total bullshit.)
“gay sex is like heroin.”
Great. Juuuuuust great. Now I’ve got GNR’s “Dancing with Mr. Brownstone” locked in my head.
YOWZA!!
WRT biological and anatomical differences, I respectfully disagree. Just speaking from personal experience, there is a whole order of magnitude of difference between an orgasm that I have during clitoral stimulation (either on its own or in combination with vaginal and/or anal penetration) and the orgasm I have when my partner touches my g-spot with his finger.
They’re both orgasms, but they are completely dissimilar. I can only speculate that the reason for this difference is that the clitoris is connected directly to the spinal chord and the Graffenberg area is inside the vagina, and therefore its nerve endings are connected to nerves within the vagina.
Now sophonisba, if you’d like to argue the position that male orgasms and female orgasms are exactly alike and include all the same sensations, despite the fact that different organs and structures are involved in each case, I’d love to see how you make that argument. However, if you’re implying that I believe that male and female sexuality are different (the psychology of desire), then I must have been unclear, because I think there are more similarities than differences.
You know, most of the people I’ve seen making this argument are of the male persuasion. You know, the ones who can’t get pregnant.
Personally, I’m tired of men telling me how wonderful and magical pregnancy is. How the fuck do they know?
Like my wonderful friend Jeff above, I’m not conflicted in the slightest. Yeah, sex isn’t the be-all and end-all of a relationship, However, an intimate relationship without being sexual in some way or form is just NOT an intimate relationship.
Similarly, yeah, sure, while it is that woman’s choice to hate herself so much that she would deny herself the beauty that is the entirety of her body, I’m not inclined to give once inch of ground regarding sexuality to the RCC. They are possibly one of the most hate-filled religious organisations on the planet, and promote policies that encourage overpopulation, death, rape, disease, misogyny and violence.
Sex is a highly crucial and wonderful part of being a human being, in all it’s wonderful diversity. As Jeff said above, if your religion tells you that your love for another consenting adult, your desire for that consenting adult, is somehow wrong, that YOU’RE wrong, then it is an evil religion that the earth would be better off without. Sex should be celebrated … hell, it NEEDS to be in opposition to bigots like those this thread is about.
However, I don’t obsess about sex, and honestly, I have doubts about your comprehension skills if you somehow see that in what I wrote above.
In the “Queers Read This” flyer handed out at the 1990(?) NYC Pride (the larger piece containing the “I Hate Straights” section I’ve linked to before) there’s a line I love: Every time we fuck, we win.
This is actually starting to sound pretty awesome!
I’ve just started reading the Science of Orgasm, and it directly addresses this in the first chapter. There’s a yes and no. In one test, males and females were unable to guess the sex of a person based on their description of an orgasm, which you would think they’d be able to recognize if the whole experience were different. So, in that sense, no, there’s no difference. Anatomically, though, when it comes to producing orgasms, there is. Several studies have confirmed that people (mostly women) were able to have an orgasm from different types of isolated stimulation–i.e., just from having their nipples rubbed (some were able to orgasm just by thinking about it really hard, which is beyond awesome). Also, there are three main nerve sources for the genital area in women (I forget the names, but they roughly correspond to clitoral, cervical and anal, with vaginal floating somewhere inbetween) that can be stimulated individually, or in combination which produces an additive effect that is less present in men. this would seem to jib with my experience with my girlfriend who says she experiences different “types” of orgasms depending on what we’re doing and what’s being stimulated. Men, of course, can also experience orgasms that don’t directly involve stimulation of the penis. Point being that orgasm isn’t inherently tied to the genitals, and although men’s and women’s meta-experience of orgasm is roughly equivalent, how we get there isn’t.
I’ve just started reading the Science of Orgasm, and it directly addresses this in the first chapter. There’s a yes and no. In one test, males and females were unable to guess the sex of a person based on their description of an orgasm, which you would think they’d be able to recognize if the whole experience were different. So, in that sense, no, there’s no difference. Anatomically, though, when it comes to producing orgasms, there is. Several studies have confirmed that people (mostly women) were able to have an orgasm from different types of isolated stimulation–i.e., just from having their nipples rubbed (some were able to orgasm just by thinking about it really hard, which is beyond awesome). Also, there are three main nerve sources for the genital area in women (I forget the names, but they roughly correspond to clitoral, cervical and anal, with vaginal floating somewhere inbetween) that can be stimulated individually, or in combination which produces an additive effect that is less present in men. this would seem to jib with my experience with my girlfriend who says she experiences different “types” of orgasms depending on what we’re doing and what’s being stimulated. Men, of course, can also experience orgasms that don’t directly involve stimulation of the penis. Point being that orgasm isn’t inherently tied to the genitals, and although men’s and women’s meta-experience of orgasm is roughly equivalent, how we get there isn’t.
I’m on the “there are different kinds of orgasms” bandwagon, for what it’s worth. Just last night my girlfriend & I were reflecting that both of our second orgasms for the night had felt significantly different to the first: the first, more clitoral, or superficial, the second ‘deeper’ (I would speculate more g-spot driven, due to an increase in the blood flow around the genitals after orgasm). Not exactly a scientific study, but given that on this occasion we’d reached orgasm twice each using very similar methods, relatively comparable results.
I think my girlfriend & I are going to be busy with this Very Important Research Into Female Orgasm for a while- can someone remember to save us a dragon? And which way to the unicorn stables?
I’m hetero, I’ve been pregnant, and the sex acts that resulted in pregnancy weren’t any more or less joyful than any other sex acts during the context of my 15+ year marriage. They’re truly on drugs if they think that the sex act that results in pregnancy is somehow more magical and special.
My husband protects me from dragons, but I do the same for him. And if it’s a huge, ancient dragon, it’s best to approach the fight with a large party of decent level with preplanned attacks to maximize damage to it and minimize the damage it can deal out. And if it’s fire breathing, better decide whether it’s worth wearing your Crown of Lordly Might. The fire resistance is good, but if it fails to save and self-destructs, it will probably take out the dragon, you, and all your friends.
I thought fundies weren’t into RPGs, though.
You don’t kill a dragon with weapons, Samantha. tactics are the key. pick up ranks of Profession: Executioner as detailed in the Book of Vile Darkness, have a squad of friends who have ranks in use rope to get a pin on a successful grapple check. At that point, all you need is an axe and an 18 on your Profession check. Dead dragon, ignoring all armor, resistance, and hitpoints.
Heir apparent? Well, he’s certainly got the looks.
Can I kvetch for a second? You Pandagonians are too kind.
Two days ago my mother - progressive Democrat, delegate to the state convention for over a decade, my own mother! - told me she thought homosexuality was unnatural. This is the woman who told me to go out and have sex before I got married, for god’s sake! I didn’t know what to do. I wanted to turn around and ask her if she’s had sex since she got her hysterectomy. Because God knows turning off your baby-making ability is a LOT less natural than any partner choice you could make. Its not like sex has any other desirable effects that you might want to take advantage of without fear of getting preggers, right?
Instead I told her about lesbian prairie dogs (okay, technically, they’re transgender). That seemed to at least slow her down. But fuck the Good Lord Jesus if I haven’t been stewing over her stupidity for two whole days.
I constantly find myself astounded that anyone feels they have the right to question whether other people’s sexuality - which, lets face it, is almost always more intimate and more private than religion - should be protected under the law. People have no sense of scope sometimes.
Simple answer. Eliminate the clitoris (and labia minora, and labia majora, and anything else that looks even remotely icky-female-pleasuring), and problem solved!
It’s not just the uber-misogynistic cultures “over there” that do it… I’ve heard our own Murrican fundies arguing that FGM would actually help solve the teen-sex and teen-pregnancy problems Here In This Wonderful Country Of Ours. (Because, as we know, it’s all those slutty girls’ faults….)
Explain the fucking pleasure in massaging the prostate, then.
The Creator does not want us to experience pleasure?
Only explanation I can come up with.
Screw that.
Margaret Cho has this bit about one of her gay friends telling her that in order to end a blowjob sooner, “You need to stick your finger up his ass.” I’ve had that exact same conversation with several straight girfriends. As a general rule, their boyfriends were grateful.
In other words - we can not codify into law, preferences based on someone’s choices.
I still can’t get my mind around what an idiotic statement that is. I guess we can’t have any laws concerning crack cocaine, because some people prefer to smoke it and some people prefer not to.
So… what do bisexual folk get? The man of the house fights dragons, the woman of the house gets a unicorn… this leads me to believe that I get a half-tamed dragicorn that I have to defeat in battle before I get to ride it.
…
Awesome.
So… what do bisexual folk get?
Bisexuals already have the power of invisibility. Why the fuck would you get anything else?
In other words - we can not codify into law, preferences based on someone’s choices.
Does that mean we should dump all these silly freedom of religion laws because chosing to worship one sky fairy or another is clearly a personal choice? For that matter, if sexual orientation is really a choice, aren’t the het only marriage laws already codifying laws based on someone’s choice?
as he uses anatomy in ways for which the Creator did not create it.
Ha. Foolish man to think he knows the mind of the Goddess. The Creator told me that as mouths were made for breathing, eating, and talking, so anuses were made for the elimination of solid waste and for sexual pleasure. Futhermore, She added, hets and lesbians can play too, not just gay men. As everyone, apart from those who have undergone grave illness or severe trauma, has an anus, so everyone may use it for all its purposes.
Karpad wins, with the invisibility comment. Fucking brilliant!! (off to clean up the coffee now)
“Anyone have the tiny violin?”
Can I have the emesis basin…instead?
Good for her! Rock on! Say hi to her for us the next time you chat.
To chime in on the choice thing - I think the observation was poorly worded.
It isn’t that we can’t make laws regarding people’s choices. It is that just because something is a choice doesn’t define it as being suitable or unsuitable for a law.
Murder is a choice. Religion is a choice. The content of our speech is a choice. Rape is a choice. Which side of the road to drive on is a choice.
Some of those things are absolutely suitable for laws, while others are not.
It isn’t at all about the choice component, so the whole choice discussion regarding gay rights is a red herring. It’s never about choice. It is about harm.
And since being gay and living openly, including things like getting married, inheriting property, making medical choices, etc, do nobody at all any personal harm, that’s why we keep seeing “arguments” like “it destroys traditional marriage” or “it’s bad for the kids” - because, underlying all the choice rhetoric, the wingnuts really do understand that for a law to stand, it has to be related to some valid effort to prevent harm to others - and they don’t have a leg to stand on.
Of course, that isn’t to say that there aren’t plenty of stupid laws on the books all over the place, many of them enforced, that are regulating non-harmful behaviors, but that’s an entirely different discussion.
Samantha -
Really? Because I would think Rocket Propelled Grenades would be right up their alleys …
After all … “BRING ON THE HOLY HAND GRENADE!!”
;)
Sexual pleasure, while not inherently at odds with procreation, sure is harder to obtain when procreation is the goal. The sex the husband and I had to get pregnant was, bar none, the worst sex we’d ever had. It was perfunctory beyond compare. I totally wasn’t into it, and he only was in a purely functional way. I have no idea how he came, frankly. But it was the right time of the month, and so we needed to do it, and so we did it.
We’d been trying for 18 months to get pregnant without success, and we’d already started seeing a reproductive endocrinologist. Nothing was discernably wrong with either of us, so we just had to pass through their gauntlet of procedures. I was grateful of the idea of using artificial insemination to get pregnant, because I was hoping that sex could again return to a source of pleasure and not of source of obligation with side orders of guilt and failure. We did one cycle with ovulatory drugs (that made me feel like I was bubbling with eggs…creepy shit, man) and an insemination, and it didn’t take. The next month we couldn’t do another cycle for various reasons, but we had a hard time mustering up any desire to have sex. We were emotionally exhausted from the trying, the fear of procedures ahead, and the stress of figuring out what ways of becoming parents might work for us. But it became time when I was sure I was ovulating, and so we had sex, and at the end of the month I found out I was pregnant.
That it worked is awesome — I’m happy to be pregnant, and I look forward to parenthood even when it scares the ever loving shit out of me. But any asshole that says that sexual pleasure is for procreation hasn’t had to try to get knocked up. When you’re trying to procreate, sex can be no fun at all.
After I got the pregnancy test back, I said to my guy, “Want to have some strictly non-procreative sex?” Only then did I see the light in his eyes that I’d missed for months, and that sex just for fun rocked the party that rocked the body.
But not with us. Humans and a couple of other primate species. We are in heat and can have sex all the time.
Why did God give the animals a regulator and not us?
There’s a wonderful Ainu legend about that (the Ainu are the original inhabitants of Japan, now only found in the north). Apparently, at creation God called a meeting of all living beings to set their breeding times. Man was last in line, and in front of him was the horse. The horse was so excited when God told him the breeding season that it jumped for joy and planted a hoof right in God’s forehead, severely inconveniencing the Divinity. Man marches in for his word, and finds God groaning and holding His head. Man still puts the question, and God, who is thinking about other things, groans “Oh, do it whenever you want!” And that is why man does not have a breeding season like the animals.
“They’re truly on drugs if they think that the sex act that results in pregnancy is somehow more magical and special.”
Not necessarily. Let us envision the average fundie as he engages in the sex act which could result in pregnancy. That makes him think about babies — naked, naked, babies — which increases his sexual pleasure to a degree unknown by the non-fundie.
“For instance, a woman who engages in lesbianism will never know the joy of lovemaking that creates within her the product of that union — an actual human life.”
Hmm, I’ve never engaged in lesbianism, and I STILL don’t know what that’s like–possibly because every instance of heterosexual sex doesn’t automatically result in a baby, thank God.
“She will never know the security of a true man protecting her from the dragons of the world and providing for her an environment where she can nurture and give love to that little life once it arrives,”
Man, has this guy been living under a rock. If he thinks all heterosexual unions are perfect fairy tales, he should try reading the newspaper sometime. Oy.
“adultery, pornography, bestiality, pedophilia, pre-marital sex, incest, cross dressing, multiple partner orgies and the list goes on.”
Can I see the rest of the list, please?
Just checking…
“my sister-in-law went to a fundamentalist wedding were the minister listed, at great length, all the things a woman is supposed to do for her husband: clean the house, raise the kids, have dinner on the table every night, obey him without question, etc. But it was all worth it, the minister explained, because he would “take a bullet for her” if need be.
@shaenon: My response would have been, “Oh, he’ll need to, all right.”