So, McManlyPants: Nice to know we've got each other's backs.

He's not actually so much into that.

Gayest post ever.

I think we can gay it up some more (only, this time, ITGBSW). From the Interesting Statistics department (actually Time Out New York):

Nevertheless, I looked up some various studies, and it turns out that oral sex and mutual masturbation are typically far more practiced in long-term gay male relationships than anal sex. And among the gays at large (single or otherwise), one study I found shows that a full third have never had anal sex as either the giver or the receiver.

Can you oppose abortion in the 3rd trimester and still support gay rights?

Ogged, surely I can claim that title. Becks got nothin' when it comes to gayness.

baa, you racist, of course not.

You're right. That's how the society in The Handmaid's Tale got started.

Well, at least I was articulate.

To Becks' point: I think it's very valid to see a public figure's views of teh gay as indicative of their views on women. I think it's a safe bet that homophobia is in many/most cases a very specific application of too-rigid gender roles. Someone who treats with contempt a man they see as "womanly" is also stating, by extension, that they hold women in some degree of contempt. Play-acting about it not being the behavior itself but a transgression of assigned roles is just a smokescreen in my book.

Reading this very carefully o see what is being said.

"I see people's views on homosexuality as closely tied to their beliefs on gender roles." ...Beck's

Feminism is certainly a logical extension of classical liberalism, and so would most likely variants of the gay rights movement as an extension of liberalism. I can hardly imagine conservative feminists. I can imagine a society accepting of homosexuality that is nevertheless misogynist.

But I can't deny that my views on homosexuality are influenced by its history, for instance Karl Boehm and the Brownshirts in 20s Germany. I have little reason to believe that homosexuals will always be liberal or feminists. I have a lot of evidence that homosexuality is not a determinant of political philosophy. My own views on homosexual rights might track with my feminism, but I would not expect Karl Boehm or Mark Foley to have the same correspondence.

Incidentally, this position did not get me in trouble at Marcotte's, although I think the feminists were uncomfortable with it.

The issue isn't whether you can imagine a society in which views on homosexuality and views on women don't track, bob, it's whether in this society you tend to bet right if you bet they do track.

Actually, it takes little imagination. Ancient Greece. There is an acceptance of certain forms of homosexual behavior in Afghanistan and other Muslim cultures that are extremely misogynist.

I'm not about to claim we aren't just as likely to be small-minded jerks as anyone else, but what w-lfs-n said: it's about making that bet in this culture, right now.

10: The question is whether we are artificially conflating two very different kinds of preference, and in some way dimiinshing gay autonomy and rights by connecting sexual preferences with political preferences.

Diminishing gay autonomy by failing to take the brownshirts into account? I have no idea what you're talking about--I thought the post was about support for gay rights as an indicator of support for feminism, and vice versa. Not at all about sexual preference as an indicator of a political position.

For the purpose of this discussion, "sexual identity" is probably preferable to "sexual preference".

"Priority" is I think also the wrong word, but I do think we privilege say religious identity over political identification, and believe it would be wrong to expect all Jews to be liberals. We might like everyone to be liberals, but we do not mess with religion in that particular way.

Am I making any sense yet?

13: That's not the question at all. It's a question of whether views on gay rights are a reliable proxy for one's views on feminism, in this actual world right here. Not about whether if one likes the boys one also likes the girls but not like likes them.

RMcMP, you pwn, and did you not pwn, I would think you pwn anyway because of your magic handle.

...

If the "gay gene" is ever identified, I doubt many homosexuals will support abortion (for very long, at least).

"Magic handle" s/b "lengthy cog'"

Count me in as a homo who takes abortion rights seriously. This discussion is interesting, as I hadn't previously made the connection between abortion rights and gay rights, but of course now it seems so obvious.

For me, forced-birth advocacy seems such a clear-cut violation of the liberal ideal of personal freedom that that's all I ever needed to be against it. And as a behavioral science guy, I always think of other animals - bad time for procreating? Well, if you can't manage a spontaneous abortion, go ahead and eat those babies & reclaim the resources. Denying humans the same biological functions that other animals have (and I realize they come in different flavors per species- I don't actually advocate baby-eating) is always a losing proposition.

But anyway, there would seem to be a bright line around sovereignty of the body that I can't even believe we have to argue about. It's like pretending for the sake of politeness that scientologists aren't crazy.

Down syndrome babies are aborted currently at 85% rate; what do you think that rate would be for the "gay gene"?

Al, please don't come out of the abortion thread. Seriously, I'm not enjoying your presence here.

I'm not enjoying Al either. I think that Al should be w-lfs-n's complement and only be allowed to talk about sports.

22: Too right. I skip those anyway.

And Tim will act as Al's wingman.

Don't comment about other people commenting about sports, Ben.

My comment wasn't about sports, ogged, it was about Al's status as my complement and Tim's relation thereto.

And why did you think that Tim would be Al's wingman?

Because Tim's present role seems to be soi-disant cockblocker of me.

You're saying Al would cockblock you? B/c I'm thinking that anyone Al tried to cockblock would have women lining up around the block, if only out of spite.

No, that is not what he's saying.

Well, I'm drunk, so I get to be stupid. It's a rule.

Thank you, teo.

You're welcome.

I say to this post: right on and right back atcha McManly Pants and Becks.

Oh, and ban the proven, persistant trolls.

That's "persistent". And you wonder why I thought little of your supposed erudition.

Okay, now that I understand, all I can say is that Tim would be even less successful as an Al wingman than as a Ben cockblocker.

As 36 demonstrates, I am one suave motherfucker.

Not in the least. Hence 37.

It is because of the much time I spent in the France, learning the French and the arts of love from the Frenchmen, that I cannot spell reliably the words ending in "ant" or "ent."

Not the arts of the love?

I do not share my love articles with persnickity pedants!

It's really too bad you didn't write "pedents".

That said, I'm heartbroken. Will I truly never experience Jackmormon's love articles?

Someone at Bitch Phd's blog commented about a novel in which the gay gene is identified, so years later the only gays are Catholics [because in the plot Catholics don't have abortions, but of course they do in real life].

I think it sounds like a good story, and what will happen to gay babies if a gay gene is identified is strange and interesting to think about. But there is no gay gene, so the issue of aborting the gays is only hypothetical and only useful for making people think about how such a scenario might change the views on abortion of both pro-choice and anti-choice individuals.

At any rate right on to this post and to the quoted post.

You might be able to access them on J-STOR someday, but only if you're very good.

J-STOR can never compare to actually holding the journal in one's hands, experiencing the tactile sensation of opening it up and turning the pages, and all that rot.

One of the principles of the fine art of talking of love, young w-lfs-n, is never to contrapose in a single sentence "tactile sensations" and "rot."

Depends on who you're talking to.

Would "spreading" instead of "turning" have been overkill? What about "spreading the leaves" instead of "turning the pages"?

(I actually didn't contrapose "tactile sensations" and "rot"; they were classed together. I suppose you'll gin up some rule according to which I'm still in the wrong, though.)

"Gayest post ever." - ogged

I haven't been around forever, but if this is the gayest you can come up with, you, sir, are deprived. Of the gay. I can give you more (pseudo) gay in one link than has been exhibited here: Brady (ThePoorMan 2006)

Also, afghans don't consider tops gay, only the bottoms, which makes it easier.

Finally, there may not be a "gay gene", but it is determined one way or the other, yes? I mean, have any of you made a considered decision to be gay? I myself would quite like to be, but it didn't work out that way. The only dick I'd suck would be pynchon's, and it's probably old and shrivelled. Still though.

I guess I missed my chance on the other thread, but what I was going to say there is that the "mainstream" feminist movement in this country never lost so much ground as when it consented to compromise on "Free abortion on demand." Once you start talking about rights instead of freedom, and once you start talking about "freedom...except" you've already lost. Same deal with the freedom to claim a sexual identity. The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

50: Or alternatively, a totally manly music video.

As usual, Becks is dead on, particularly in identifying Pants' post as excellent. I do the same thing, using stated positions on gay rights and attitudes toward gays as a canary in the coal mine, indicating how people are likely to really feel about women.

Freedom for everyone's junk!

I'm as far removed from any personal situation that would involve a practical application of pro-choice opinion as possible; I'm a gay man. Just ain't no way never that I'm going to wind up rolling snake eyes on a pregnancy test.

If there's one thing I learned from reading the comments in the other abortion thread, it's that the central issue in the whole abortion debate is about innocent men being raped by ruthless child-support-hungry women. You may think you can deny women your essence. . . .

a novel in which the gay gene is identified, so years later the only gays are Catholics

Sort of like the Mapp & Lucia books only more Papish, right?