Those Astonishing Heteros

Bitchin' Camaro, and other notes

A curious thing about mating rituals—such as they are—in my corner of the Universe, and one that I don't understand in terms of mate selection as an anthropological or evolutionary context, is the priority of criteria.

We might consider the "bitchin' Camaro", for instance. Many unfortunate men, and I am included in this number, remain puzzled at how one's car speaks to mate selection. Certainly, in the case of a new Lexus or Mercedes, it might speak to economic issues in much the same way as the "bulge in the pants" that really counts, the one caused by a fat wallet. But in the case of a '79 Camaro? It seems an aesthetic consideration, and one that is self-centered as opposed to anthropological or evolutionary.

Likewise, music. There are many fine potential mates out there who listen to country music, but I don't select from that market. If someone asks if I listen to country music, the specific answer is yes, but since that limited selection involves artists like Mighty Ghosts of Heaven or Steve Earle, I generally say no. The Mighty Ghosts can also be called folk in the same context as my appreciation for Flash Girls or Boiled in Lead, and Steve Earle has crossover roots that include rock and roll, folk, and alternative (e.g., he recorded with The Supersuckers). But I see the prospect of spending my years listening to ... um ... well, whoever won CMAs last year, for instance, intolerable. Metalheads, goths, punks and "Riot Grrlz", Dead- and Phish-heads, &c. Again, this is a matter of personal aesthetics linked tenuously at best to any anthropological or evolutionary notion of mate selection.

And how about the fine ass (any gender) or the nice rack (women)? How does this play into any sense of mate selection that is not purely aesthetic? In the case of breasts, someone might postulate something about motherhood, but that is superstition insofar as a nice rack does not necessarily translate to good milk for the offspring, and, furthermore, it is not exactly rare to find a man impressed by silicone implants. Beauty does not necessarily translate to anything more than an aesthetic advantage; we might recall that Western standards of beauty, even into the twentieth century, included some traits that happened to come about through what we would conventionally describe as incest. And, incidentally, it is worth noting that much of European incest came about because the nobility, unwilling to marry a lower socioeconomic class, often became so limited that cousins were the most appealing option.

And here we touch on the anthropological. In the first place, the needs and desires of the spouses have not, through the most of history, been the primary concern of marriage. (Coontz, 5-6) And, while marriage itself has evolved and transformed through the years, its one consistent purpose has been to extend "cooperative relations beyond immediate family or small band by creating far-flung networks of in-laws". (6) A gay marriage will do far more to create those networks than an incestuous marriage.

Love has become a necessary part of the equation, and is widely considered essential to consent. In the late twentieth century, the idea became more prominent that a couple producing "illegitimate" or "bastard" children out of wedlock need not immediately run down to the chapel and get married. Why should two people who do not love each other marry? Indeed, in my own life, my parents and brother are much relieved that I did not marry the mother of my child. And so am I.

I think the question is far too limited in its scope. Validation is one thing, but I would refer again to the link I offered in my prior post, as well as an update the author appended in order to accommodate the tremendous public response he received:

Thomas (not his real name) came to live with us on October 13, 2007. Developmentally disabled since birth, Thomas had been essentially abandoned by his father years ago. He’d been living with his mother for the last 15 years in a personal hell he still doesn’t have the skills or even the understanding to describe ....

.... Once the domestic partner and I realized what was going on and rescued him ... we brought him to live with us. The poor guy was a shell of a man, afraid to talk, assert himself on any level or even make eye contact. And he was clearly terrified that he was going to be punished for causing so much fuss on his behalf. In those first few days in our house, he even apologized to me when I “caught” him using one of our glasses to get a drink of water.

Over the last 13 months in our home, he’s learned to smile and talk to strangers and make terrible jokes and hold a part-time job and be responsible for the simple chores we’ve assigned him and feel safe functioning in a world where he knows his caretakers won’t repeatedly, relentlessly abuse him ....

.... Now consider the fact that Thomas is my domestic partner’s brother.

If the domestic partner dies, their parents have legal access to all our shared property, including our house. The mother who told her other son that Thomas “made her” beat him could share ownership of our home and have every legal right to move in and resume abusing him. The father who has NEVER ONCE contacted us to see how Thomas is doing after surviving 15 years of abuse and then living for more than a year with me, a complete stranger, could assume half ownership of our house and try to sell it, leaving Thomas and me struggling to find a place we could afford to live. And I’d have no legal recourse. Because legally I'm little more than a roommate.

(Jake, "Proposition Hate")

• • •​

The domestic partner and I went to what was promoted to us as the best gay attorney in Chicago to make sure we had all the legal protections of marriage. He drew up a thousand dollars in wills and powers of attorney and related documents, and we thought we were all set. But since then we've learned from our financial planner and some other attorney friends that mere wills—especially the wills of gay domestic partners—are easily contested by blood relatives and we need to fork over thousands more to have trusts and who knows what else drawn up to protect ourselves. So we're looking for a better attorney who will give us the legal protections we asked for in the first place.

(Jake, "Wow")​

Consider a man and woman who gets married. The witnesses sign and they fly off on a honeymoon, consummating the marriage as is traditional on their first night together. Coming home, the plane crashes. He dies, but she survives. She automatically inherits what is his, with no question whatsoever; a Last Will and Testament is not necessary. His parents and siblings would have a very weak claim to his estate.

But for Jake and his partner, even a proper Last Will and Testament is vulnerable to contest by the partner's family. There is no automatic inheritance to Jake, and they must go beyond a simple Will and create a legal trust in order to shield what they have built together from potential familial predators.

The point is that it's not about validation. Validation is a wonderful thing, but equality is the most important thing. Consider the story that I told in my prior post about the disowned gay man. Why should his parents or siblings have any claim to his estate? Well, that's the way the law goes. Is it fair that, after having kicked him out of the family thirty years before, their greed should take legal precedent over a committed and loving partnership that lasted decades?

And it's been a grudging piecemeal acknowledgment: "What's that? Validation? Okay, you can have a registry, but only when we run out of ways to prevent it. What? Inheritance? Get a Will. What's that? A Will is vulnerable? Get a trust. Huh? You want to visit your life partner in the hospital? So do. What? Only immediate family? Fine. God, I hope you're happy. We are so oppressed, having to give you these things. What's that? Insurance benefits? Home ownership? What, it sounds like you want to be married! You do? No! No, no, no, no, no! Marriage is a sacrament! What? I'm divorced because my wife caught me having sex with her niece? What does that have to do with anything? Why are you attacking me? Marriage is a sacrament! It's holy! Holy holy holy! God says ... what? What's that? Oh, you oppressive atheists! Why are you trying to violate my rights? What? The court said what? Fine. You can have a partnership. But you can't call it 'marriage'. How about 'civil union'? You know, separate but equal. We've done that before in America, right? Public schools, train cars, drinking fountains? What do you mean the Supreme Court said no! Well, what about public restrooms? See? You can have a separate but equal 'civil union'. What's that? What do you mean it's not equal? Oh, so this is about taxes now, is that it? So what if I was married overseas! What do you mean you got married in Canada? Look, we went out of our way to exclude you on the ballot! The majority agrees with me! What's that? What's an 'equal protection clause'? What do you mean the Constitution says we can't? How dare you subvert democracy!"

And it goes on. And on. And on.

It's far more than mere validation. I actually agree that the piece of paper from city hall is fairly useless. But people have attached so much to marriage that there's much more at stake than a piece of paper that says you're married.

Fair enough. We'll come back to that in a moment.

The relevant question is the degree of common consent. Such as—

Well, the social contract as established in the United States of America is our Constitution. Whatever common consent the people wish to give or withhold is limited by the "supreme law of the land" (Article VI). And here we come to the key element of this argument:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(Amendment XIV, Section 1)​

The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is what is known as the Equal Protection Clause. What it means is that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. From here, the argument is merely a matter of definitions.

An overview of Equal Protection is available through the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School:

The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and its effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. Usually, if a purpose to discriminate is found the classification will be strictly scrutinized if it is based on race, national origin, or, in some situations, non U.S. citizenship (the suspect classes). In order for a classification to be found permissible under this test it must be proven, by the state, that there is a compelling interest to the law and that the classification is necessary to further that interest. The Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel. The Supreme Court also requires states to show more than a rational basis (though it does not apply the strictly scrutiny test) for classifications based on gender or a child's status as illegitimate.

(Legal Information Institute)​

In defining marriage as "one man, one woman", a state invokes an inherently sexist standard. Furthermore, since Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, many states have rushed to put such definitions in place. These are of exclusionary intention, reacting to the sudden recognition that gays, in fact, could be married; that is, there was nothing on the books that would, in many states, stop them—before Lawrence, the states' anti-sodomy laws sufficed.

The effect of these laws is to say that, "You cannot marry him because you are a man", or, "You cannot marry her because you are a woman". That is, your sex prevents you from marrying certain people. In an effort to work around this, some traditionalists have argued that, since gay men can marry women, and gay women can marry men, everything is good, and everyone is equally protected. However, the problem with this is that it pretends that the sex of the spouses is the only criterion of marriage. In truth, there is far more to it than that. How do you force your child to marry someone he or she does not love? How do you force your child to not marry someone you don't like? In either case, the coercion comes through means other than the law itself. That is, you can bribe them with money, or threaten to withdraw an inheritance. You can beg and plead. The point is that, while there are ways to accomplish this end, you cannot go before a judge and compel the court to force your child to marry someone. Nor can you go before the court in order to use the law to forcibly prevent a marriage just because you don't like the future spouse. Thus, it's really hard to sell our daughters into arranged marriages if they simply don't want any part of it. If marriage was merely about the sex of the spouses, what then?

As it is, part of the heterosexual right to marry is to marry the partner one loves and trusts and wants to marry (e.g. consent). With these inherently sexist definitions of marriage passed in several states of late, the difference between permission and prohibition is entirely based on the sex of the partners. Either you or your gay spouse is the wrong sex, and thus the marriage is prohibited.

It should not be surprising that some traditionalists overlook consent. In the seventeen years since I became aware of gay-rights issues (at the insistence of homophobic Christians), I have encountered a handful of arguments, repeated with minimal variation, that disregard the idea of consent entirely. Indeed, if you slog your way through The Gay Fray (somewhere around pp. 15-19), you'll find some of these ideas. Gay sex is like raping a goat, for instance. In 1992, Christians in Oregon put up a ballot measure concerning "homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism, or masochism". Not only did the ballot measure compare two adults consenting to sexual contact to the rape of a child, but the campaign rhetoric was fraught with bizarre comparisons. Homosexuality, we heard, was like bestiality or necrophilia, and that was just for starters. Hmm ... pedophilia? Well, we have statutory rape laws because children are deemed unable to give proper consent. Is operant conditioning, say a dog getting a boner, the same thing as you consenting to have sex with someone else? And how, exactly, does a corpse consent to sexual intercourse? In seventeen years, I have never once heard heterosupremacist, homophobe, traditionalist, whatever you want to call them, explain this blatant disregard for consent. So, no, it doesn't surprise me that consent is not important to some of these opponents of gay marriage.

Roe provides some consideration, but I think the constitutional remedy will be more like Loving v. Virginia, which struck down anti-miscegenation laws. Indeed, the United States Congress has already considered the possibility. The whole purpose of the Defense of Marriage Act is to circumvent the means by which the Supreme Court extended miscegenation to every state. And it was important enough to Congress to send a bill to President Clinton with a veto-proof majority that defies the United States Constitution (Article IV, Section 1).

That's right: DoMA is, technically, unconstitutional. And this is important to remember because, when it comes to persuading the majority, there are some—many, and a seeming majority—who just don't want to hear it. They don't actually care what the law says.

The slang on this one is interesting, since gays will have to suck the cocks of of the traditionalists in order to persuade them. And you know what? While it is true that a horde of bigots will have to be sweet-talked into obeying the law before the "people" will give common consent, the reality is that the common consent they want to give or withhold may well be outside their authority.

DoMA is unconstitutional, as it abrogates the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV of the Constitution, and once that falls, this war will be over, and the traditionalists will have to find someone else to thrust into the spotlight in order to pick a fight they will eventually lose. In truth, I figure polygamy will be the next battleground, but only because certain parties will drag it into the spotlight. Maybe bestiality, because some states—and my own state of Washington is an example—never passed specific laws against it because they never had to deal with it; we only passed ours after a man died while having sex with a horse, and the only person they could find to charge with a crime was the guy who was filming the incident, and he was charged with trespassing. But in either of these cases, the argument in favor will necessarily have to be different. Equal protection does not cover numbers, and it does not include animals. How does a sheep say, "I do"?

In the meantime, the arguments of the majority in the gay-marriage issue are tenuous at best, and some of them outright falsehoods or contradictions. Consider a recent opinion article in The Daily newspaper of the University of Washington. Every one of the author's arguments is factually erroneous. There is nothing constitutional about gay marriage? Courts in several states, including Iowa disagree. Indeed, so did the voters in California, who just amended their state constitution as several other states have done. Homosexuality is an "emotional condition"? Science disagrees, as it slowly unravels the mystery of where homosexuality comes from. Homosexuality is a problem that needs to be dealt with? Pure conjecture with no evidence to support it. Why not incest? Psychological, sociological, and anthropological dynamics; incest might work if we restructure familial associations, but in the meantime the potential for exploitation is great enough to constitute a rational basis for concern and a legitimate state interest for intervention—these seem to be the core issues for incest advocates. Why not pedophilia? Well, children make decisions according to different criteria and, indeed, brain processes than adults; the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with that notion well enough to spare juvenile offenders the death penalty (Roper v. Simmons). Social dysfunction? The author's rationale here pertained to protests in the wake of California Proposition 8; what would we think of the same argument against the Civil Rights protests of the 1950s and '60s?

And protests did occur in the wake of that article. The Stranger, a local weekly tabloid, asked The Daily's editor why she ran the article.

"I think in this case, the arguments being made by John [Fay] are arguments being made in this discussion," said Jeglum, 21, striking a confident tone and sticking to her talking points when we met in a small office across from the Daily's cluttered newsroom last week. "The arguments are out there, and it's important that people realize that, well-founded or not, these opinions and ideas exist in the context of this debate."

(Sanders)​

If traditionalists don't like being called bigots, perhaps they should conduct themselves differently, and make better arguments. The problem with that is two-fold, though: they don't want to, and they don't have anything else to go on. Certainly, it would be better for everyone if they would simply be honest about the contrast between their opinions and the law, but it's pretty clear at this point that they simply don't give a damn about that. In the meantime, they will eventually lose. All of this action at the state level is intended to stave off a direct challenge to DoMA because they know that when that one gets before the Supreme Court, it's over.

Think of it in terms of Christianity in society, for it is in the first place Judeo-Christian values motivating the idea that homosexuality is taboo in our society, and, secondly, it has been Christians at the forefront of the battle the whole time. As John Fay explained in The Daily, "Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment." In other words, Christians aren't equal unless they are superior.

They appeal to a higher power. They have no use for the Equal Protection Clause that is the supreme law of this land.

What makes you think they're going to wake up one morning and start abiding by logic? And how many more decades should people spend taking pains to appease them when they won't be appeased?
_____________________

Notes:

Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a History: from Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking, 2005

Jake. "Proposition Hate". NoFo. November 5, 2008. http://nofo.blogspot.com/2008/11/proposition-hate.html

Jake. "Wow". NoFo. November 9, 2008. http://nofo.blogspot.com/2008/11/wow.html

United States Constitution. Legal Information Institute. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

"Equal Protection: An Overview". Legal Information Institute. Accessed December 12, 2008. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Equal_protection

Kennedy, J. Anthony. Lawrence et al. v. Texas. United States Supreme Court. June 26, 2003. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

"Oregon Ballot Measure 9 (1992)". Wikipedia. Accessed December 12, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_9_(1992)

Warren, J. Earl. Loving v. Virginia. United States Supreme Court. June 12, 1967. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZS.html

"Defense of Marriage Act". Wikipedia. Accessed December 12, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Fay, John. "Gay marriage? Let’s stop and think about this". The Daily. November 25, 2008. http://dailyuw.com/2008/11/25/gay-marriage-lets-stop-and-think-about/

Kennedy, J. Anthony. Roper v. Simmons. United States Supreme Court. March 1, 2005. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html

Sanders, Eli. "Lecture to the Editor". The Stranger. December 10, 2008. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/lecture-to-the-editor/Content?oid=833629

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks again for your thorough reply. This is exactly what I was looking for, I'll spend some time studying the DoMA and other references you provided.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting priorities

Okay, let us review. As of this writing, there are forty-two posts in this thread.

Note the opening post and subsequent two posts concerning heterosexuals.

What follows is five posts, four of which are short personal inquiries. One of them is a vague commentary on a broader situation.

There is then a response to a couple of those.

Evolving from that discussion is a focus on gay rights. Posts 10-32, a total of twenty-three posts, concern gay rights.

One post addresses heterosexuals and attempts to answer contextual presumptions about the thread.

There is a mod hat indicating a splinter thread discussing those contextual presumptions. As of the splinter, that comprises thirty-two posts.

Another two posts addresses heterosexuals.

One post purports contextual presuppositions.

Five posts consider gay rights.

Add the thirty-two posts splintered out, and there are a total of seventy-four posts made in this thread. Less the topic post is seventy-three.

A total of five posts out of those seventy-three pertain to heterosexuals.

Twenty-eight posts address gay rights directly.

The remainder, some forty posts, deal with side issues entirely.

Now, I may have added wrong, changing the outcome by one or two posts split between three directions. We'll see.

The point is that I find people's priorities fascinating.

In a thread about heterosexuals, only five posts are on-topic. This is about 6.8% of the responses. Approximately 38% of the discussion is about homosexuals. Just under 55% of the thread pertains to complaints and side issues, and many of those depend thematically on homosexuals. Which brings us back 'round to about 93% of the thread either directly or peripherally concerning homosexuals.

Curious, I suppose, but I'm not sure it's surprising.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Apparently, heterosexuality is best defended by pointing out what it isn't, or better yet, by pointing to the faults of non-heterosexuals, or sickos, perverts, whatever.

Honestly, the premise of this thread was pretty interesting and illustrated something very important. Opponents of homosexuality find a valid argument in pointing to a case, say, of a "gay" person blah blah blah fill in the blank : molesting children; spreading HIV or other STDs, etc.; having hundreds of sexual partners in a lifetime or even just one year; being a drug user; overtly effeminate and therefore not a real man (or the opposite for females); a dysfunctional heterosexual due to either poor psychological upbringing or having been abused as a child; capable of only short-term relationships; generally a detriment to society and the "productive" scheme of things.

Probably one of the most effective for the moralistic, conservative Christian types is the homosexual who lived the lifestyle, as embodied by one or more of the attributes above, topped overall with a sense of unhappiness about themselves, which is very common in ex-gay literature. That by having been immersed in the "gay lifestyle" they realised some type of hollow existence or whatnot about how they were living, and hence they were unhappy because they were homosexual. And for a very good commentary on what an ex-gay conference entails, Jim Burroway has written an unfinished series of articles about his visit to a Love Won Out conference at http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/12/220.
In his notes, he recounts that one of the lecturers says that basically all homosexual persons has sexual abuse in their past.

His observation about that:

It's an interesting read, and I hope he will finish it sometime soon.

Anyhow, if I understand this thread correctly, it is to point out the inconsistency, that certain people can point out individual cases of homosexuality as indicative of an overall sickness or immorality for all same-sex attracted persons, but examples of heterosexual impropriety are apparently invalid and will immediately draw some to defend heterosexuality by bringing the perceived flaws of homosexuality to the fore. And of course, when attacking homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality are almost always brought in to the conversation, as if they had any relation to two adults of the same gender in a relationship.

Note to Tiassa: I saw you mention in this thread or another one about you having had a daughter and that the relationship that brought that about was, well, screwed up.
I had a co-worker for a while who had another job and there was a guy there he described as being gay that had a child from an earlier relationship, though he was into other guys. Humorously, this old co-worker also once or twice stated that he thought "gay" guys were women trapped in men's bodies, which I found really simplistic and kind of absurd, not to mention just slightly insulting.
But anyhow, I was wondering if maybe you'd care to enlighten me about this previous relationship??? I'd be interested to know exactly what that was about, if you care to fill in the blanks.

 

Inspired by family, eloping to Africa ... at ages five and six

Source: Guardian
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/05/german-children-elope-mika-annabel
Title: "German lovers – aged six and five – try to elope to Africa", by Kate Connolly
Date: January 5, 2009

After receiving some unspecified inspiration on a family holiday, Mika made a plan. He would take his girlfriend, Anna-Bell, to Africa where they would be wed in the sun, and do some swimming. Anna-Bell apparently found the idea marvelous, and so the two set out to elope, with his sister Anna-Lena in tow as a witness for the ceremony.

Mika is six, Anna-Bell five, and Anna-Lena seven.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Left to right: Anna-Bell, Anna-Lena, and Mika at the Hanover railway station. (AFP/Getty)​

Astonishing? Maybe. One wonders at that unspecified inspiration. Could it be that heterosexuals have so idealized marriage in both social custom and law that children are feeling the pressure? What could possibly influence such young children to undertake such a daring and dangerous plot? After all, Mika and Anna-Bell just wanted to do what good, proper lovers do.

 

When irony hides in tragedy

Does anyone remember Duncan Hunter? A U.S. Representative for California who ran for the GOP nomination in this last election cycle?

Hunter once said,

Every child deserves both a father and a mother. Studies demonstrate the utmost importance of the presence of a child's biological parents in a child's happiness, health and future achievements. If we chip away at the institution which binds these parents and the family together, the institution of marriage, you begin to chip away at the future success of that child.

(On the Issues)​

No, this isn't really about him.

It's about the former Michigan chairman of his campaign. Phillip Hardy also ran an unsuccessful campaign for state representative in 2006, losing to a Democrat named Terry Brown.

Anyway, it looks like Hardy's political career is finished:

Tuscola County prosecutors have charged a former state representative candidate and his wife with abusing two children.

The criminal complaint(s) against Phillip W. Hardy, 46, and his wife, Sheila K. Hardy, 42, both of Clifford, allege the couple "failed to provide food and clothing for the children and locked them in a room, left the children home alone for hours at a time." Prosecutors also allege the couple denied the children use of a restroom and beat their children with a belt.

(Langley)​

On the upside, if convicted, they only face four years.

But the irony ... when irony hides in tragedy like this, it's absolutely sick.
_____________________

Notes:

"Duncan Hunter on Civil Rights". OnTheIssues.org. Accessed January 24, 2009. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Duncan_Hunter_Civil_Rights.htm

Langley, Stacy. "Former candidate faces abuse charges". Huron Daily Tribune. January 22, 2009. http://www.michigansthumb.com/articles/2009/01/22/news/police_-_courts/doc49789888a7994992035240.txt

 

Tiassa, you are just being a bigot. You can make all the excuses you want but at the end of the day you are very much like what you evidently have a problem with.

 

Best thing to do is discuss it so we can get to the root of the problem.

 

Oh, give it a rest

Do you intend to actually contribute to the topic?

I've covered this before.

Too bad you didn't respond then. Perhaps you might consider actually contributing to the thread instead of just bawling about it.

 

Tiassa I don't see any of your posts saying anything of note about any heterosexual issue. Its just odd sensationalist articles which you'ld rightly object to if they concerned gays.

All-in-all the real purpose of this thread seems to be you fluffing your ego.

 

Ouch!

Ouch!
Or, "No way! Really?"

Item #1: This week's "I, Anonymous". For those unfamiliar with this column, it is exactly what it sounds like. Seattle weekly tabloid The Stranger receives letters purporting to discuss real circumstances and publishes them anonymously. Easy enough? Good.

In fact, I can't think of a single person more deserving of getting herpes than you, with your overinflated ego and lack of self control. I am sick of hearing about all the boys you hook up with and the "adorable" things they say. I know you know I'm not interested—you actually have to ask me to ask you about what happened with so-and-so, and I still never do. Just so you know, a blank look means "get the fuck out of my room, it's three in the fucking morning," NOT "please spend the next hour and a half telling me every excruciating detail of your life." If I have to have one more conversation about how herpes is affecting your sex life, I am going to punch you in the ovaries.​

Ouch! I mean, I sympathize with Anonymous, but only to a degree. There might be factors we're unaware of, since the story is both one-sided and anonymous. But one thing worth trying is to look at whoever it is relating every pathetic detail of their sex life and say, "If I was supposed to be a part of your sex life, I'd be fucking you right now."

Of course, you can be more gentle with it, but at some point it seems like some people want their friends to live vicariously through their own sex life. Even without the herpes, it's not an attractive thought. In fact, after the fascination wears off—a variable period depending on the storyteller and the audience—it gets downright annoying.

Item #2: From this week's "Savage Love". And for those who don't know what that is, well, get on the trolley.

First, the question:

My girlfriend and I are into male-orgasm denial. We've recently tried putting Orajel on my cock and then covering it with two condoms so she can use me as a dildo without me getting off or even feeling anything. It works great. Is there any chance of long-term health issues if we do this once a week or so?​

Some brief quotes from the reply:

• ... I hope it's not Orajel Advanced Tooth Desensitizer. Its active ingredient ... is something called "2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate," which sounds like something you might find in baby formula that was made in China.

• A very quick search of the interwebs using that Googlemajob turns up a paper in the Journal of Dental Research with this rather alarming title: "2-Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate (HEMA) Is a Potent Inducer of Apoptotic Cell Death in Human and Mouse Cells."

• I don't know about you, NDD, but I've always erred on the side of not smearing my dick with shit that kills mice.

• It seems particularly foolish to smear any kind of Orajel on your cock when there are products on the market specifically designed for desensitizing cocks, things like Mandelay gel and Prolonging's "penis desensitizing aid delay spray."​

____________________

Notes:

Anonymous. "I, Anonymous". The Stranger. February 5, 2009. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/i-anonymous/Content?oid=1064911

Savage, Dan. "Savage Love: Hurtful Questions". The Stranger. February 5, 2009. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=1064921

 

So what would you like?

What heterosexual issues would you like to see included?

If you say so. After all, issues of public concern are all about me, aren't they?

 

Prude Pride

Prude Pride
Something goes here, but I'm not sure what

Prude Pride is perhaps a rising trend, or maybe it will remain somewhat flaccid. It's hard to tell at this point, so let's just skip to the photo:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Proud to be a prude: Yes, this is for real. (Image via Slog)​

Dan Savage explains:

The Passion 4 Christ Movement is proudly anti-gay (naturally), anti-fornicators (straight ones too!), anti-players (they tend to fornicate a lot), anti-divas (who do you think players be fornicating with?)—P4CM is even proudly anti-masturbators. And they're selling the t-shirts to prove it ....​

I must admit, these t-shirts are effective. If I saw one of those in a crowd somewhere, I would know straight away that person should be avoided.

The desperate. The prudish. The proud. Say it strong, say it loud.

Or just buy a t-shirt.
____________________

Notes:

Savage, Dan. "The Internet Is a Race ..." Slog. February 5, 2009. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/02/05/the_internet_is_a_race

 

Priorities

Source: Slog
Link: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/03/08/a_followup_question_your_holi
Title: "A Followup Question, Your Holiness", by Dan Savage
Date: March 8, 2009

Dan Savage sums up the strange traditions of the heterosexual world:

So, your holiness, any word on the stepfather? Has he been excommunicated? Or are you worried about the repercussions for the Church if you start excommunicating child rapists left and right? The Church is having a hard enough time retaining priests as things stand now, huh?​

The sex columnist's outrage regards the excommunication of a woman and a small group of doctors; the woman authorized an abortion for her eighty-pound, nine year-old daughter, and the doctors performed the abortion.

The stepfather, meanwhile, has been jailed on accusations that he sexually abused the girl. "God's law is above any human law," said Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho. "When a human law is against the law of God, that law has no value."

In other words, the Catholic church would see a raped child forced to carry incestuous twins to term at grave danger to her life. But the accused rapist? The CBC reports,

Upon learning of the abortion, the regional archbishop excommunicated the doctors, as well as the girl's mother. He did not excommunicate the step-father, saying the crime he is alleged to have committed, although deplorable, was not as bad as ending a fetus's life.​

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re told an Italian newspaper, "It is a sad case, but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated". At least their priorities are clear; the symptom is the disease.
____________________

Notes:

"Vatican backs excommunication of Brazilian MDs over child's abortion". CBC.ca. March 7, 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/07/catholic-abortion.html

 

someone said this stuff before, but whether or not certain people want gays to have special rights, what's being suggested is that everyone would have the right to marry same sex. no special treatment.

and what do you care what two consenting adults do with their genitals? are you the crutch police?

 

Damn near speechless

Do Not Read This!

A 4-year-old boy was found suffering from severe injuries to his eyes and hands when police were called to a disturbance at an apartment in southeast Bakersfield late last month.

The investigation led officers a few blocks away to East Terrace Way where they arrested the boy's father, 35-year-old Angelo Mendoza.

Court documents filed since the April 28 incident have shed light on the alleged abuse of Angelo Mendoza Jr., who was reportedly found lying naked on the floor of an Ohio Drive apartment with one eye missing and the other eye damaged badly.

The boy had told officers that, "My daddy ate my eyes," and, "Daddy bit my eyes and hands," according to a police report filed with the court.

(BakersfieldNow.com)​

Really, for your sanity's sake, do not click that link.

Suffice to say that Angelo Mendoza, Sr., has been charged with aggravated mayhem, torture, willful cruelty to a child, and inflicting injury upon a child.
____________________

Notes:

"Abused boy: 'My daddy ate my eyes'". Bakersfield Now. May 15, 2009. BakersfieldNow.com. Accessed May 20, 2009. http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/45185112.html

 

sadly the fact that this happened somewhere doesnt suprise me very much. the fact that a sexual sadist has oviously left his victom alive long enough to not only get a women pregant and have the child but also to keep under the radar long enough to have a relationship with that child does suprise me

 

The faithful ... employee

"Have you tried staples?"
Or maybe there was no safety word ....

Now here is something you don't hear every day. And that's probably a good thing. Jonah Spangenthal-Lee, the resident hetero-insurgent at Slog, brings us the painful details:

King County prosecutors allege a 41-year-old Seattle man attacked his wife and girlfriend with a staple hammer at their South Seattle home earlier this month after a night of rough sex turned unpleasantly violent.

Seattle Police Department records say the 41-year-old man, his 38-year-old wife and the 24-year-old woman are "intimately involved, sharing [a] 'BDSM' Bondage Dominance, Sadomasochism relationship."

According to a police report, the man woke up his 24-year-old girlfriend for sex at about 2:00 a.m. on June 3. The 24-year-old woman—who has lived with the couple since November 2008—told police that the man had choked her during sex, but suddenly "became violent" and began punching her as the man's wife lay next to them in bed.

Police records say the man began yelling at the two women, calling them "Babylon whores" before he left the room. The man returned to the bedroom and resumed hitting the 24-year-old woman, striking her in the face more than 20 times, records say. The man then turned his attention to his wife, striking her several times.

Police records say the man then forced both women into the basement where he grabbed a "hand held contractor's 'Hammer Stapler'" and forced his wife to hit the 24-year-old woman with the stapler. According to police records, the man became angry when his wife "would not hit [the woman] hard enough to make the staples stick." The man then grabbed the hammer stapler and struck his girlfriend's breasts, records say, before he attacked his wife with the stapler.

Police say the 24-year-old woman received 20 staple wounds on her back during the attack.

After attacking both women the man left the house three hours later and went to work.​

The suspect, according to court records, was convicted of assault in 1997, and is a manic depressive on Lithium.

I think the moral of the story is clear. But, for those who need it spelled out: Don't get yourself involved in a three-way BDSM relationship with a violent lunatic.

Easy enough, you think?
____________________

Notes:

Spangenthal-Lee, Jonah. "Rough Sex Leads to Stapler Attack". Slog. June 19, 2009. TheStranger.com. Accessed June 20, 2009. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...cking-wife-girlfriend-with-stapler-during-sex

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What the fuck problem do you have against Patch Adams Tiassa?

Hehehehe. ooooohhhhh. Funny.

I'm disgusted at how those heteros walk around arm in arm with there opposite sex partner like it's something to be proud of. I mean, If I wanted to see that shoved in my face I'd watch When Harry Met Sally or something. Next they'll be wearing a ribbon, only it wont be crossed over fastened by a little saftery pin, it'll be straightened out symbolising their despicable pride in how they think it's nothing to be ashamed of to be straight.

 

tiassa to be fair that is a little harsh, it sounds like the man had a genuine psycotic break (especially if he is now on lithium). Actually what sadens me is that (assuming that is what happened of course) that he was charged and convicted. Why is it that people with GENUINE mental illness and there for are legitimatly not compitant at the time of the incident seem to be the ones convicted while (at least in the media) the "video games made me do it" crowd seem to be sucessful with an insanity defence?