Leave it to Sean Kinsell to point out gems I might otherwise have missed. In this case, some gay jokes by straight men. Sean has noticed a direct relationship between the quality of the gay jokes and the attractiveness of the straight men who tell them. I found Sean's observation too important to let pass:
...gay jokes told by unattractive straight men are lame, offensive, retrograde manifestations of deep-seated sexual insecurity, gay jokes told by exceptionally handsome straight men are witty, bravely edgy, and charming.
I'm older than Sean, but I had never in all my life really stopped to think about that.
The "exceptionally handsome straight man" involved in this case (I put that in quotes because I don't want to take sides one way or the other) happens to be Reason's Tim Cavanaugh. In one piece, he couldn't resist comparing Glenn Beck's crying to, well, taking it up the ass:
I don't want to traffic in crude stereotypes, but crying is exactly the same as being the passive partner in anal sex.
I don't like trafficking in crude stereotypes either but really! Shouldn't there be a warning posted at all funerals? And at all theaters showing tear-jerker films?
And there's this reflection on a college dress code which forbids cross-dressing:
Men want to dress up like women. You can pass all the rules you want, but men will find a way.
That is absolutely true, except that most cross-dressing is done by straight men, who tend to do it in private. Gay cross-dressers, OTOH, usually engage in campy theatrical cross-dressing in public. There are exceptions to this general rule, like Rudy Giuliani, and as to transgendered people, I would put them in a class apart from straight men or gay men, with their cross-dressing arguably not being cross-dressing at all. Obama's recent appointment is a good example. (I hesitate to call her attractive lest I be seen as lacking in conservative principles.)
I agree with Sean that Tim Cavanaugh's comments are witty and charming (and I took the first one literally only for fun), but the whole thing reminded me of a remark I saw earlier which wasn't all that witty or charming, by prominent anti-gay activists who do not like the fact that a gay conservative group is on CPAC's list of co-sponsors. Predictably, "anti-gay Matt Barber and Liberty Counsel is threatening to boycott CPAC if GOProud isn't kicked off the co-sponsors list," and both he and Peter LaBarbera are hopping mad about "violent cramming":
Covering this story for anti-gay "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality", Peter LaBarbera writes: "there is nothing 'conservative' about -- as Barber inimitably puts it -- 'one man violently cramming his penis into another man's lower intestine and calling it 'love.''"
Well, I would agree that the act described is not conservative. But neither are any of the various possible sex acts which human beings are known to engage. Or are they? Can anyone tell me the definition of "conservative sex"? Better yet, can anyone tell me whether this is a serious question? Is oral sex conservative? Or is it only conservative when practiced by heterosexuals? And do the latter have to be married? What about missionary position sex? Or must that also be done between married people? How about masturbation? Can that be a conservative act, or is it irredeemably liberal? As to "violent cramming" of any sort, that would seem to be rape unless the violence was consented to. But if it was consented to, then it might not be violent. So, is a distinction being made between violent and non-violent anal intercourse? Is the rule that all penetration is violent? Don't laugh. Some feminist scholars have opined that all sexual penetration is violent. But if they are right about all penetration being violent, then I would think that because they're on the left, violent cramming would have to be on the right.
To be fair, though, Mssrs. Barber and LaBarbera did not say that all violent cramming was an anti-conservative act; only that it ceases to be conservative when performed between two men. And even then, it isn't the sexual act that fails their conservative litmus test so much as it is the calling of it "love." Which is fascinating, because it means that apparently they think there should be a loophole allowed at CPAC for homosexual rapists who engage in such behaviors as long as they don't call it love.
Why should prison rapists be allowed to get away with calling themselves conservatives?
Don't ask me. I don't make these rules.
I guess it's possible that Barber and LaBarbera were joking, though. If so, they prove Sean's point about gay jokes told by unattractive straight men being "lame, offensive, retrograde manifestations of deep-seated sexual insecurity." But even that would depend on whether the jokers are "unattractive straight men." I'm not feeling sufficiently judgmental for a detailed analysis of the attractiveness or straightness of anyone, and while both of them are pictured here for readers who might be interested, I need to be more selective about the number of images I upload to my server.
Too much violent cramming might put a strain on the already exhausted hard drive.
posted by Eric on 01.05.10 at 12:48 PM
Comments
To make a very long comment brief, the historical figure that best describes my political beliefs is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It's been a while since I read Confessions but still think it's one of the funniest books written.
To the Freudian, what a man does is important. I would suggest another alternative, that what a man says is the best indicator of what's on his mind.
There is, in other words, a degree of discombobulation that must occur in review of your post.
Is "gayness" a predicate of an ability, or conversely an inability, to understand economic theory? Is a wearing a dress--as a man--anathema to real politik? Does the man who believes in reincarnation have a greater or lesser ability to advocate for freedom of speech than the man who believes in Heaven and Hell?
Is my poverty, or your wealth, an indicator of my ability to discern truth?
We might as well begin the battle to search for ethics to which we can all agree than continue to assert preferences for moral choices that perpetuate schisms in the conservative/libertarian movement.
There's plenty in the GLSEN organization that I find offensive, wrong and stupid. But, being gay in and of itself can only be viewed as a legitimate objection by those who cannot rise up above the temptation to rely up ad hominem argumentation.
It's time for those who self-fashion themselves as "moral conservatives" to face up to the fact that their disdain is flawed argument.
.
As for this: gay jokes told by unattractive straight men are lame, offensive, retrograde manifestations of deep-seated sexual insecurity, gay jokes told by exceptionally handsome straight men are witty, bravely edgy, and charming.
I'm kinda with him, I'm not gay so I think chicks with big boobs tell funnier jokes.
Personally, I think the conservative position is that who screws what and how is nobody's business but the involved, so long as they're all consenting adults or vegetables.
I'm surprised no one mentioned the "Sarah Silverman Effect" already. The idea being: she's funny, but nowhere near as funny as drooling dudes react as though she is, evidently in vain hope of winning her heart (or boobs, or something).
This enrages other comedians, so they came up with a name for it that they only speak if they think they're not being recorded, or they're really drunk, or they're gay, or they're Doug Stanhope.
Cavanaugh deserves to have something named after him, and "The Gay Version Of The Sarah Silverman Effect" is pretty unwieldy, so...
guy on internet · January 7, 2010 3:02 AM
The Cavanaugh Caveat?
The Cavanauveat?
I've always thought of it in terms of Tea Leone. She's had at least 2 tv shows and been in a bunch of movies and, while she's hot and all, she's not very interesting or good. She mostly annoys me.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
To make a very long comment brief, the historical figure that best describes my political beliefs is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. It's been a while since I read Confessions but still think it's one of the funniest books written.
To the Freudian, what a man does is important. I would suggest another alternative, that what a man says is the best indicator of what's on his mind.
There is, in other words, a degree of discombobulation that must occur in review of your post.
Is "gayness" a predicate of an ability, or conversely an inability, to understand economic theory? Is a wearing a dress--as a man--anathema to real politik? Does the man who believes in reincarnation have a greater or lesser ability to advocate for freedom of speech than the man who believes in Heaven and Hell?
Is my poverty, or your wealth, an indicator of my ability to discern truth?
We might as well begin the battle to search for ethics to which we can all agree than continue to assert preferences for moral choices that perpetuate schisms in the conservative/libertarian movement.
There's plenty in the GLSEN organization that I find offensive, wrong and stupid. But, being gay in and of itself can only be viewed as a legitimate objection by those who cannot rise up above the temptation to rely up ad hominem argumentation.
It's time for those who self-fashion themselves as "moral conservatives" to face up to the fact that their disdain is flawed argument.
.