April 30, 2017

Obama "had thought about and considered gayness, but ultimately had decided that a same-sex relationship would be less challenging and demanding than developing one with the opposite sex."

That's a paraphrase of something Obama supposedly wrote — "somewhat elusively to his first intimate girlfriend" — that appears in a book by David J. Garrow that comes out next month "Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama." Garrow is, I think, a trustworthy writer. I know him mostly from "Liberty and Sexuality: The Right to Privacy and the Making of Roe v. Wade," a book I read carefully when it came out and assigned in a seminar I taught on the right of privacy.

I'd like to see the text of the original letter, but just going on the paraphrase, it sounds humorous, especially if he used the word "gayness," but especially with this idea — expressed to his girlfriend — that he wanted to do the "challenging" thing and develop a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Speaking of "challenging," he's presenting a challenging viewpoint to his girlfriend, stirring up conversation.

Is it, in fact, easier to be gay, because you only have to figure out how to get along with and be companionable to somebody who is like you or who, at least, you can have the illusion is pretty much like you? Certainly, the same-sex partner has a body like yours, and you might feel that you know your way around the territory and can predict how things will feel from the inside.

And then there's the question whether a person should want that kind of ease or whether it's better to take on the challenge of understanding the body and mind of a human creature who is so different from you. I'm just saying this is a good topic of conversation to bring up in a letter to your girlfriend. There's a lot that could be said here!

Now, of course, it's conventional to say that sexual orientation is not a choice, but:

1. These are still great conversation topics. You can easily make a hypothetical that excludes the problem that it's not a choice. Just say: Assume you had the choice, would it be better to be gay because it's easier (and is it easier?), or would it be better to be straight because it's more of a challenge (and is it more of a challenge)? (You can also tweak the hypothetical to remove complications about discrimination or other externally imposed difficulties to being gay.)

2. The not-a-choice orientation could be bisexual. If you are — not by choice — bisexual, you do have a choice whether to take an opposite sex or a same-sex partner.

3. A person with a homosexual orientation could choose to form a relationship with an opposite-sex partner for social and reproductive reasons and could take on the problem of lack of sexual interest in his partner. (I'm sure plenty of heterosexual individuals have opposite-sex marriage partners to whom they feel no sexual attraction.) Talk about challenges! That's a challenge. I'm seeing some commentators encountering Garrow's paraphrase as a contradiction to the proposition that homosexuality is a permanent and unchangeable characteristic. But I don't see a necessary contradiction.

200 comments:

mockturtle said...

A heterosexual relationship would only represent a challenge if one were innately homosexual.

AReasonableMan said...

Despite all the flak Obama usually gets here, in real life he seems to be a funny and subtle guy.

AReasonableMan said...

mockturtle said...
A heterosexual relationship would only represent a challenge if one were innately homosexual.


You should perhaps bring this up with all the divorced men who post here regularly.

Gahrie said...

If homosexuality is a choice, it is a behavior not an inherent characteristic. If it isn't an inherent characteristic there is no justification in making homosexuals a protected class with Constitutional protections.

I can't wait until the bronies and furries start filing court cases.

David Begley said...

What?!

Obama thought about and *considered* gayness? He would have lost if the public knew this 9 years ago.

Unknown said...

You're running a risk of being labeled a homophobe by asking these questions!

Craig Howard said...

You're right, I think.

There is no contradiction -- and the bisexuality example is the explanation.

Of course the rumors of Obama's, um, fluid sexuality have been around for quite a while. An old blog, "Hillblog", used to have great fun in recounting his supposed adventures in Chicago's Boystown.

So interesting that his vacation with Geffen and now this are coming out. I sense a big announcement on the horizon.

mezzrow said...

It just seems so... calculated.

I don't know about you, but my nexus of desire and partnership was never this well plotted.

It makes me ask "is there a dramaturge in the house?"

Gahrie said...

Are pedophiles born that way, or is it a choice? Does it matter?

MikeR said...

Lots of boys around puberty have doubts about their sexuality. I remember worrying about it. Eventually I grew up more and was totally clear on my heterosexuality. Praise be that I didn't have parents who tried to push me to follow up on my adolescent doubts; they could have warped my whole life.
Men are from Mars and women are from Venus, we know that. That makes life more challenging and more interesting.

madAsHell said...

I don't really understand how you can ponder your sexuality, but this positions him to be the saint of LGBT. I guess that's the only essence of his legacy that is unassailable.

Michael K said...

The psychology of homosexuality has changed so radically the past 50 years that a lot of assumptions are outdated.

I grant that many people, especially male, are innately homosexual for whatever the reason. Maybe it's in utero hormone effect or genetic.

A lot are either bisexual or malleable in the teen years and that may have been what Obama was referring to if he was serious.

The idea of marrying an opposite sex person for social reasons is probably obsolete. Homosexuals are a protected class these days and god help the Christian baker who forgets it.

I've known a number of men who married women and had families before "discovering" their gay nature. It's a dirty trick to play on wives and kids but it may be related to sexual desire changing or being suppressed in early adulthood.

Obama has always impressed me as bisexual, suppressed or not. He certainly is not "manly."

That, of course, is no test as there is a subset of gays who project an image of "manliness."

Rene' Saunce said...

College transcripts, please.

Inga said...

mockturtle said...
"A heterosexual relationship would only represent a challenge if one were innately homosexual."

ARM said...
"You should perhaps bring this up with all the divorced men who post here regularly."

Ha, had to chuckle here. What is the divorce rate among heterosexual marriages? How many heterosexual relationships break up? So all of them were unhappy or ended in divorce because one of the spouses was secretly gay, mockturtle?

AlbertAnonymous said...

Everything's a choice nowadays... everything.

Fernandinande said...

Obama walks into a bar and the bartender says "Why the long face?"

Obama answers, "Not long after 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites', I started to wonder if I was a homo."

Ann Althouse said...

"A heterosexual relationship would only represent a challenge if one were innately homosexual."

That's SO hilariously untrue!

Watch almost any standup comedy routine or read any novel or eavesdrop on strangers or look at your own life. Incredible! I cannot believe you would say that.

Unknown said...

Didn't Rush Limbaugh point out that Mr Clinton was the first black president (not original with him) and that Mr Obama was the first gay one?

Ann Althouse said...

"You should perhaps bring this up with all the divorced men who post here regularly."

Yeah, or read the comments on Instapundit whenever he puts up one of his "men's rights" posts.

Bob Ellison said...

If Obama came out tomorrow, he'd be cheered.

That's not who Obama is. He's the guy who opposed SSM. He's either confused or a liar.

Laslo Spatula said...

Sketchy Guy Who Works at the Adult Bookstore says:

I see it quite often. The customer walks hesitantly to the counter to purchase his porn. There are several choices of conventional straight porn-- blondes with big tits, no obvious tattoos -- but tucked in there -- usually second from the bottom -- is a Gay Porn selection...

It is obviously not a misunderstanding: there is a guy with a cock in his ass and a cock in his mouth, right on the cover: you can't say it was misleading -- especially with the title "Fucked Behind the Ball Sac, Volume 6"...

The customer is nervously looking away as I ring him up. I COULD ask him if he picked up the title by mistake -- "You know this is Gay Porn, right?" -- but I am not an Asshole. I act like it is no big deal, because it really IS no big deal. I work in a Porn Shop: I sell product to people who want to see various things go into various orifices. As long as children and animals aren't involved I am not a Social Critic...

Some of these men eventually drop the pretense, and just buy the Gay Porn by itself. They might even make brief eye contact. And -- when they include a small dildo in their purchase -- I know they are preparing themselves for the Next Step...

I am Laslo.

Curious George said...

Gay or straight. Easier or harder. Choice or birth. Let's settle this once and for all. Get Aaron Rodgers on the line.

tcrosse said...

It's possible to be Born That Way but spend a lot of time in Denial. This is a mainstay of a certain genre of fiction.

Gahrie said...

From what I have heard, it is generally understood that most male homosexuals are interested in frequent encounters with multiple partners (a very male behavior) and that lesbians often bring a moving van on the second date. (a very female behavior)

So the object of their attraction is apparently different, but their behavior is mostly unchanged.

Gahrie said...

@ Althouse:

Interesting choice to put men's rights in scare quotes. yet more confirmation of the belief that men don't have any rights, just responsibilities.

Ann Althouse said...

"I've known a number of men who married women and had families before "discovering" their gay nature. It's a dirty trick to play on wives and kids but it may be related to sexual desire changing or being suppressed in early adulthood."

One reason it's important to accept homosexuality is so that men do not go into opposite-sex marriages that they'll later decide they don't like what they committed to. But it's certainly possible that a male homosexual could — without any deception — marry and form a family with a woman. That was one of the story lines in the last season of "Girls."

Many heterosexuals end up in marriages where they don't have sex with each other and it's more about family and companionship and economics. It could be a power alliance in couples like Barack and Michelle or Hillary and Bill. They could be completely friendly and open about allowing sex outside of the marriage. It's not just something that would happen if a gay person married a straight person.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

This should have the "Obama the Boyfriend" tag. Whole lot of rationalizing going on here.

Ann Althouse said...

Hey, my scare quotes actually scared somebody.

Gahrie said...

Hey, my scare quotes actually scared somebody.

Nope. Actually they offended me...but what the hell, I'm only a splooge stooge after all.

Ann Althouse said...

"But it's OK for lesbians to do this?"

I didn't say that and don't think it, but I suspect it's pretty different.

Gahrie said...

One reason it's important to accept homosexuality is so that men do not go into opposite-sex marriages that they'll later decide they don't like what they committed to.

But it's OK for lesbians to do this? Of course the only person they would be harming is a splooge stooge..so that's OK.


But it's certainly possible that a male homosexual could — without any deception — marry and form a family with a woman. That was one of the story lines in the last season of "Girls.

You do realize that Girls was fiction right?

Bob Ellison said...

The punctuational point of scare quotes is to say, "I think what I'm quoting is bullshit, and I'm alerting you to that by putting it in quotes."

So, for example, "Obama was the best President ever."

Gahrie said...

"But it's OK for lesbians to do this?"

I didn't say that and don't think it, but I suspect it's pretty different.


Wait...so lesbians and male homosexuals are different, and that should be treated differently?


Wouldn't this imply that heterosexual men and women are different and should also be treated differently??

David Begley said...

Hillary and Bill would have gone to town with this allegation.

Michael K said...

"They could be completely friendly and open about allowing sex outside of the marriage. "

The vast majority of "gay marriages" include open sexual relationships with others.

I had to explain to a very nice gay engineer that he had AIDS in the days when it was a death sentence. He said "That can't be true ! I've been in a committed relationship for ten years !"

It was a bit like a Christian Scientist patient of mine who had breast cancer. She said "I lose my breast and my religion at the same time."

Your "scare quotes" around men's rights is just a political statement.

Michael said...

Our first closeted half black gay president!! Progress

AReasonableMan said...

Gahrie said...
I'm only a splooge stooge after all.


Let it go, brother. Let it go.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Althouse wrote: Is it, in fact, easier to be gay, because you only have to figure out how to get along with and be companionable to somebody who is like you or who, at least, you can have the illusion is pretty much like you?
I don't know about "easier," but at the root of homosexual behavior is the desire to make love to the self. Isn't this obvious? Sexual desire for a person of the opposite sex is more difficult to understand than homosexuality.

Big Mike said...

I have family back in the Chicago area and they used to tell me that Obama was called "Bathhouse Barry" for his penchant for frequenting homosexual hangouts. I pooh-poohed them because surely someone in the local Chicago press would have reported it in 2008. Apparently not.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Is it, in fact, easier to be gay, because you only have to figure out how to get along with and be companionable to somebody who is like you or who, at least, you can have the illusion is pretty much like you?

Interesting.....That is a viewpoint of homosexuality that I've never considered or thought about. Yes. It might be easier in some ways because you are getting into a relationship (sexual) with someone who is an image of yourself.

Are homosexuals narcissists? In love with themselves or the illusion of themselves?

On the other hand...a good heterosexual relationship can be founded on finding a person who is like you, in ways other than body image/gender/sex. You can (and should) be companionable and like minded in many things. However, you aren't mirror images of each other in body.

Part of the joy and challenge of relationships, of any kind, is discovering the differences (not just sexual but in all ways), learning what your partner likes, what your partner dislikes, then accomplishing or accommodating those for the mutual pleasure of both of you. I would assume that homosexual couples who are able to successfully do this can be well bonded to each other and just as happy as any other couple.

I think people spend too much time obsessing over sex and sexual things. Concentrate on the relationship....and the sex will naturally follow.

AReasonableMan said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
I think people spend too much time obsessing over sex


Spoken like a true women.

jaydub said...

"That was one of the story lines in the last season of "Girls." "

Hard to get more athoritative than that.

rhhardin said...

Gay is classical physics.

Heterosexuality is more quantum mechanics.

Gahrie said...

Let it go, brother. Let it go.

Nope. Unlike most of the perpetually offended, I've got a reason to be outraged.

Bob Boyd said...

Well this definitely affects my conception of the Choom Gang.
Less Spicoli, more Brett Easton Ellis.

Michael K said...

jaydub, I saw that Prius with the Jay Dub license plate again yesterday.

We are over in OC for my son's birthday.

Back to AZ Tuesday.

Inga said...

"Nope. Unlike most of the perpetually offended, I've got a reason to be outraged."

What? Did someone steal your sperm when you weren't looking?

mockturtle said...

I was not implying that relationships, in general, are not challenging. The salient point here is that he considered heterosexuality the bigger challenge. Why would that be if he were not gay?

Hagar said...

I do not think Michelle would take kindly to be thus coolly considered.

Bay Area Guy said...

In Governor Jerry Brown's California (1974 -1982), even deep blue NorCal was innately anti-gay. It was in our DNA. We regularly used "faggot" and "homo" as generalized put-downs. This was at the tail end of the sexual revolution, so most of the social energy was directed towards getting girls. Swimming upstream against these potent social currents was not a popular move.

But there were exceptions. In SF, there was the Castro District where gay life was thriving to some extent, and there was a "live and let live" approach. The though of going to the Castro to cause a ruckus was never contemplated

On my block, there were 3 woman "couples", who peacefully lived in our neighborhood, without men, without kids, and there was a quiet, generalized understanding that they were Lesbians, but nobody really cared or hassled them.

In 1981, the AIDS hysteria polarized the positions. The fear mongering and scapegoating lead people to actively defend the gays, but also pushed folks in the opposite direction, who became belligerently anti-gay.

I've also adopted the "live and let live" attitude which has worked well in the work place and social gatherings with actual gays. Treat them as individuals with unique dreams, unique aspirations and unique character traits and there's almost never any friction.

As for Obama, I haven't heard any of these rumors. I do believe his transfer from Occidental College in California to Columbia in NY and what he was doing during those years has been largely unexamined.

I do confess that the swiftness of the gay-marriage putsch caught me by surprise. Not a big fan of suing one's way into legal privileges, but c'est la vie. Can one be comfortable with gays as imperfect, but friendly human beings like the rest of us, but not be a big fan of the LGBTQXTRH political agenda?

mockturtle said...

Can one be comfortable with gays as imperfect, but friendly human beings like the rest of us, but not be a big fan of the LGBTQXTRH political agenda?

Lord, I certainly hope so!

ken in tx said...

Not everyone who practices homosexuality is born that way. This is my experience and I also defer to authority, none other than Jesus. In Mathew 19:12, Jesus is talking about men who cannot or do not marry. Some translations use the word eunuch, but that confuses the matter. However, it can easily be interpreted that he is talking about male homosexuality. He says that some men are born that way, and some are made that way by other men. He also says that some men remain celibate in service to God. His disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can hear it." They obviously were not born that way.

MaxedOutMama said...

I really wish we could let Obama's family/relationship life alone. I could discuss the hypothetical, but as for Obama, Michelle and their kids -
1) They're good parents, and it can't have been easy,
2) We all should admire them for that achievement,
3) Anything else is really their business, and trying to make a public issue out of it is really not very respectful of the children.

Rabel said...

After 9 years of research and hours of one-on-one interviews with Obama, Garrow produced a 1400 page biography which he closed with this: "while the crucible of self-creation had produced an ironclad will, the vessel was hollow at its core."

Yep.

mockturtle said...

Rabel: Wow! Just wow! I've always suspected that was the case.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

the "live and let live" attitude which has worked well in the work place and social gatherings with actual gays.

@ Bay Area Guy

Yes. This is default mode for most people. Live and let live. Who cares if you are gay or whatever as long as you don't shove it into our faces and don't make YOUR life a crusade. That goes for religious people, political fanatics and anyone else.

traditionalguy said...

Having grandchildren is a Challenge the success at which requires an established family that honors a Judeo-Christian Patriarchal raising of its own children.

Or to hell with that trouble, just import orphans. Choices, choices, there are so many choices in today's Gay Reparations hustle.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

my scare quotes actually scared somebody.

Shouldn't that be sneer quotes.

mockturtle said...

2. The not-a-choice orientation could be bisexual. If you are — not by choice — bisexual, you do have a choice whether to take an opposite sex or a same-sex partner.

'Bisexuals' [more properly, ambisexuals] should demand the right to marry one of each gender.

Michael K said...

and trying to make a public issue out of it is really not very respectful of the children.

You mean like Jack Ryan's divorce records which Axelrod forced open to damage his candidacy against Obama ?

Those records were about child custody and the wild statements sometimes made by ex-wives when child custody is at stake. They were sealed at the request of both parents and Axelrod got them opened to force Ryan to withdraw.

I understand Obama was fine with that disrespect of children.

Obama is an empty suit with lots of secrets that we should have known. If only he had been more respectful of others' family life.

Earnest Prole said...

Today it's conventional to say that sexual orientation is not a choice and that gender is totally a cultural construct with no basis in biology.

James K said...

"at the root of homosexual behavior is the desire to make love to the self. Isn't this obvious? Sexual desire for a person of the opposite sex is more difficult to understand than homosexuality."

The desire is not difficult to understand, since it seems to be innate to most people. But a successful heterosexual relationship has challenges connected with the innate differences between men and women, whether it's something as trivial as what temperature to set the thermostat, or as complex as differences in emotions and temperament. The challenge for a gay relationship likely does come from the narcissism.

Biotrekker said...

Obama is "Zelig", hollow at his core. It's creepy, actually.

robinintn said...

Wait, is there some question as to whether he's gay? I had thought it was a given, but since people don't really care about sexual orientation, no one was making a big deal out of it.

Yancey Ward said...

I can only call this sort of thing pretension, but not surprising if it were written by a young male. I shudder now at the things I wrote at that age, and am glad that none will be revealed by a biographer.

MaxedOutMama said...

As for the hypothetical - which is not hypothetical, since most men with a sexual attraction to males do seem to have some sort of sexual functionality with women:
1) Historically, most men have married and had children even if they were MSM,
2) I think a better way to engage with the question was laid out in a much earlier Althouse post highlighting research done on male bisexuality (with apparently actual objective testing). There it was split into romantic and physical affiliations, with the given that any individual man might have different romantic and physical sexual orientations.

Now some men who have the "romantic" same-sex affiliation seem to be able to satisfy that need with deep male friendships, and for those men, I would think it would be better to marry heterosexually, providing they can be physically faithful to their spouse (and find one who is compatible).

The best solutions are going to be individual, not categorical. Human beings need companionship. An arrangement that doesn't provide that will produce two unhappy people.

The very high rates of sexual disease and increased morbidity among sexually promiscuous people (true for both sexes and for heterosexuals and homosexuals) imply that some realism in the pursuit of sexual satisfaction is necessary, and that sexual restraint might be more easily imposed if the romantic/friendship/support needs are fulfilled.

Bruce Hayden said...

Let's posit for a minute that Barack Obama II was bi or even full boat gay. And that he was also very ambitious politically, and maybe even being groomed for where he ended up (the White House). Wouldn't it make sense that he married a woman and had two kids with her? Sure, until I switched my residency to MT last year, I was represented by the first married openly gay Congressman (Polis D-CO). But, The House is different than the Senate, and the Presidency is even more different. Maybe in 10 or 20 years, it won't matter if someone is openly gat running for President, but it very likely still does today, and was very, very much the case at the time that Obama was supposedly making that decision. Could it be that he was given the choice of great political power (and now wealth) or being true to his sexuality, and chose power (and now wealth)?

Something else to consider - the GLBGTxyz (being non-sexist, I put G ahead of L for once) agenda probably advanced more under President Obama than under any of his predecessors. We now have court ordered gay marriage, and by the end of his term, schools around the country were being forced to allow males in female restrooms if the claimed to be women. Or wanted to, or at least to hang around women in women's bathrooms. Could Obama have advanced the BGLGTxyz (bi's need their chance in the spotlight) agenda as successfully if he had been "out"? Realistically, I don't think that he would have even had a chance at national office if he had been "out".

Tyrone Workman said...

Sneer quotes because real men don't need no rights.

James K said...

"Those records were about child custody and the wild statements sometimes made by ex-wives when child custody is at stake. They were sealed at the request of both parents and Axelrod got them opened to force Ryan to withdraw."

Just as the media tried to smear Bannon with anti-Semitism over comments his wife made during child custody hearings. Only Democrats' personal lives are considered sacrosanct.

MaxedOutMama said...

Michael K - but aren't you really supporting my statement? If it was wrong when done with Jack Ryan, it must be wrong when done with Obama, surely?

I do think it would have been better to leave Ryan's marital difficulties out of the public realm, and thus I am distressed by using Obama's life in this way.

William said...

I like show music, and I have on occasion engaged in witty banter about women's clothes. My big stumbling block with homosexuality is the sex itself. It seems kind of icky. Ball sacks and hairy assholes are deal breakers. It's a wonder why more women aren't lesbians.

St. George said...

Ann, you write, "It's a dirty trick to play on wives and kids." That is, a man keeping secret his homosexuality from his family.

What if it's a "dirty trick" played on Americans, many of whom voted for him twice?

How did this behavior affect his policymaking decisions?

Comanche Voter said...

I see questions about whether Obama considred gayness or not as profoundly uninteresting. But then there is much about Obama that is profoundly uninteresting. He has made a lot of choices--most of them wrong.

David said...

It's a way to get laid. Man says to woman "I might be gay or I might not be. You can help me find out."

If you have the lady sized up properly, it's a winner.

Trumpit said...

I object to neutering or spaying one's companion furry creature. If one's sexuality is so highly valued, then why would we deny our cats and dogs their sex lives? I object to calling my dog a "pet." He's an individual with human right despite the fact that he is a dog. He was born that way through no fault of his own. He didn't choose to be a dog, and I respect his lifestyle choices anyway. If he wants to chase a ball endlessly, that's fine with me and good exercise for him. I never could see the point of it, however. But, then I might not see the bigger picture of ball play.

My dog gets overexcited when he encounters a female dog in heat, so I don't think he is gay. I won't insult female dogs by calling them bitches. I'll leave that to Laslo.

The Cracker Emcee said...


"Is it, in fact, easier to be gay, because you only have to figure out how to get along with and be companionable to somebody who is like you or who, at least, you can have the illusion is pretty much like you? Certainly, the same-sex partner has a body like yours, and you might feel that you know your way around the territory and can predict how things will feel from the inside."

Great Seinfeld episode. Some truth to this but unless you're engaged in a specific pursuit (war, sports, work, drinking, crime, splitting the atom) women are easier to just hang with. But that supposes you've already established some kind of relationship, however amphorous.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"Can one be comfortable with gays as imperfect, but friendly human beings like the rest of us, but not be a big fan of the LGBTQXTRH political agenda?"

Can and am. Ironically, it's goose-stepping liberalism that can't wrap their little brains around that. Everybody must conform or we'll never be free!

n.n said...

It was either Barack's choice or Michelle broke the transgender curve. Perhaps both should be credited for building a marriage that bore fruits.

Lewis Wetzel said...

There is a tendency among modern people to think that their culture is normal. It isn't. For most of human history, marriage and family contained the only relationships people had with the opposite sex. Men did not have female friends. Men had emotionally intimate, non-sexual relationships with other men, not women. Basically, men spent most of their time with men, and women spent most of their time with women. Men thought that women were useful for two things: sex, and managing the house and family.
The idea that men and women, married and unmarried, would mix socially and not have sex would have seemed outlandish to people living before World War One.

Tyrone Workman said...

Victims need rights. Real men aren't victims. If anything, they're perps.

cubanbob said...

After enduring eight years of Obama the less he is seen and heard from or about the better.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Now, of course, it's conventional to say that sexual orientation is not a choice -

Not to mention rational and obvious by any conscious standard of observation and thought.

Is it, in fact, easier to be gay, because you only have to figure out how to get along with and be companionable to somebody who is like you or who, at least, you can have the illusion is pretty much like you?

Right. Socially and legally too, pre-Stonewall, pre-Lawrence v. Texas, pre-Ogberfell.

You have a funny way of seeing things.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Garrow is, I think, a trustworthy writer.

Given your less-than-trustworthy thoughts above, I'm not trusting in your assessment/opinion of his trustworthiness.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Not to mention rational and obvious by any conscious standard of observation and thought.
That's not what the pros at the APA say.
Given your less-than-trustworthy thoughts above, I'm not trusting in your assessment/opinion of his trustworthiness.
Ironic.

n.n said...

The Cracker Emcee:

"Can one be comfortable with gays as ... friendly human beings like the rest of us
...
Can and am.


We are conceived with bias, not prejudice. Prejudice must be thrust upon us and nurtured by people with ulterior motives. Transgenders as individuals, in couplets, or in some polyamorous configuration (e.g. "friendships with benefits" with a bisexual orientation), can be judged based on principles and their character. There are a few reasons that society should be concerned, including forced bigotry (e.g. "=" or congruence), corrupting the will of nature (e.g. dysfunction), and progressive conditions that undermine its viability (e.g. Pro-Choice or selectivity).

n.n said...

Barack often comes across as sullen. Not gay at all. Perhaps the psychos and Elaine are right. It is a stable orientation with few defections.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

That's not what the pros at the APA say.

What the hell. Weren't you the one who brought up this silly APA business before? If what you're saying is true, then it follows that you could be convinced to be gay. I didn't know your feelings were that mushy and malleable, Lewis Wetzel. In fact, as demonstrative proof of the correctness of your statement, I ask that you commit to a homosexual (or other previously unexperienced) act right now, or within the next 24 hours (I know it might be difficult; I'm making assumptions of your sexual attractiveness that sound unlikely to the point of far-fetched), and post links to photographic proof of it on this blog.

What are you waiting for? Don't you believe what you say? Show us how easy it is for you to be gay!

Do it now.

DO it.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Lewis Wetzel, who's not sure if he's gay, straight, or other (or animal, vegetable or mineral for that matter), depending on what the folks at the APA say. If today they say he's gay, HE'S GAY! If they say he should bark like a chicken, he'll bark like a chicken.

It's all in what the authorities tell him, you see.

Yep, conservatives are "the real" scientific skeptics. They follow authority that blindly - especially when told to change sexual orientations.

I could never imagine being attracted to, etc., whatever I was told to be attracted to. But I think I'm cracking something in the conservative mindset here wrt to authority and behavior. These must have been the folks all the way at the extremely obedient end of the Milgram experiment. Talk about weak-willed. Wow.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

If Lewis Wetzel got a memo from the APA to pollinate cherry trees with his own sperm, in a personal and intimate way involving much tactile contact, there's a high likelihood that he might actually do it.

Michael K said...

"If it was wrong when done with Jack Ryan, it must be wrong when done with Obama, surely? "

Republicans have spent decades being polite and being good sports while Democrats have had a great time stabbing us in the back and laughing at the death throes of good sports.

I don't care about Obama's sex life but I think he has been dishonest about every aspect of his life,

Only the adulation of The First Black President has saved him from some pretty damaging disclosures. His sex life is a minor issue.

Michael K said...

Well, I see that Ritmo has arrived and I have better things to do.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Getting lost is always the better thing for you to do, coward.

Tell nursemaid I said hi.

exhelodrvr1 said...

So apparently Michelle keeps pulling him back from the precipice - that's not a good thing in today's world, is it? I can't keep track.

David Begley said...

Question. Did Obama ever consider being a typical white person?

John said...

Reggie Love?

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned him in this thread. He was exPresident Obama's body man (a male Huma) for years. He was also long rumored to be in a homosexual relationship with exPresident Obama (Like Huma)

John Henry

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Let's crank up the right-wing rumor mill whisper campaign meme machine.

Let me let all you heterosexuals-by-choice in on a secret:

If Obama actually said what you believe he said, it was to get laid with that girl.

This was back in the swinging seventies, things were fluid. She was probably a girl who would be impressed by that.

Case closed.

Francisco D said...

My best guess (that's a guess Inga, not a diagnosis) is that Obama is a narcissist who cares more about himself than sex. He could go either way, depending on which way benefitted him the most. That seems to be his lifelong pattern.

As far as the gay gene versus gay choice issue, it is not a binary one. Some people have a gay gene and choose to express it or not. Some people choose to be gay for whatever reasons. I have no doubt, based on personal and professional experience, that some percentage of lesbians choose women as their sexual partners because they were sexually traumatized by men, often at at early age.

One is neither a hero or a victim for being gay or choosing gayness. The real victims are those who choose a sexual orientation because of childhood sexual trauma. I pray that they can find joy in their lives, whatever their choice.

John said...

I have no problem with people being gay. I tend to think it is more a choice than innate but live and let live is my motto. As long as they don't try to shove their gayness down my throat. (Or up my ass, so to speak)

I've long thought that Expresident Obama was a sleeper agent (though I've never ruled out incompetence) with an aim of bringing liberalism back to the US and destroying, or at least hobbling, progressivism. He did an excellent job of this.

I don't think he had this idea all by himself, I think there has to have been some group behind the whole thing (Koch brothers, maybe?). Like Chauncy Gardner, Obama was a blank slate on which they could imprint any political ideas they wanted.

For this to work of course, they had to get him elected. They never could have done that if people believed he was gay so he had to suppress his true nature. If he actually is gay.

Now his work is done, he can enjoy a gay life, if that is what he wants. I suspect we will see more of these stories in the coming years

John Henry

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Wow, John.

Maybe Elton John's first marriage was a Koch Industries conspiracy also.

mockturtle said...

With my right arm in a cast, I am typing with my non-dominant left hand and, while brevity may be the soul of wit, it doesn't always adequately convey intended meaning.

Mark Caplan said...

Are same-sex relationships really same sex or is there usually a top dog, bottom dog way of relating that mirrors many hetero relationships?

John said...

Blogger Gahrie said...

lesbians often bring a moving van on the second date.

And not long after that:

Lesbian bed death
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lesbian bed death is a term coined by University of Washington sociologist Pepper Schwartz in her 1983 book American Couples.[1] According to Schwartz, lesbian couples in committed relationships have less sex than any other type of couple, and they generally experience less sexual intimacy the longer the relationship lasts.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_bed_death

John Henry

I Callahan said...

What? Did someone steal your sperm when you weren't looking?

Inga, do you always have to be such an ass? Why don't you grow up?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Lesbian bed death is a term coined by University of Washington sociologist Pepper Schwartz in her 1983 book American Couples.[1] According to Schwartz, lesbian couples in committed relationships have less sex than any other type of couple, and they generally experience less sexual intimacy the longer the relationship lasts.[1]

Lol. One-time to seal the deal, sporadically thereafter for the first year or two, and then onward to lifelong platonic commitment.

Lesbians are ridiculous.

Ann Althouse said...

"Ann, you write, "It's a dirty trick to play on wives and kids." That is, a man keeping secret his homosexuality from his family."

I didn't write that line. I was quoting someone else. Whether it's a "trick" or not would depend on the particular circumstances, as I think the person who wrote the line acknowledged.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

St. George,

Obama's "dirty trickery" may resonate with you. For me, it's the adult, married people who "transition" and therefore turn their husbands or wives into involuntary gay men or lesbians. I think that if you do this, you ought at least to ask for a divorce first.

Ann Althouse said...

"It's a way to get laid. Man says to woman "I might be gay or I might not be. You can help me find out." If you have the lady sized up properly, it's a winner."

Worked for Tony Curtis with Marilyn Monroe in "Some Like It Hot."

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Can one be comfortable with gays as imperfect, but friendly human beings like the rest of us, but not be a big fan of the LGBTQXTRH political agenda?

I keep hearing the slander "political agenda" used in this context but I have no idea what it means. Until just a year or so ago, their rights were inferior to ours. Were civil rights a "political agenda?" Is evangelical Christianity a "political agenda?" Get off of your high horses.

John said...

Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Wow, John.

Maybe Elton John's first marriage was a Koch Industries conspiracy also.


Dunno what Elton John has to do with it.

Would you agree, TR, that ExPresident Obama did a pretty good job of kicking progressivism in the teeth for 8 years? And promoting liberalism? (Ron and Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, President Trump)

I see 2 possibilities how this happened:

1) He is incompetent and surrounded himself with incompetent people. I have never ruled this out and still don't.

2) He did it on purpose.

If 2, the question is "Why?" did he do it on his own or was he backed by some hidden organization?

Do you have any other ideas about his destruction of progressivism?

I do not think President Trump is actually a liberal in the ideological sense. Not like the Pauls or Cruz. OTOH, He did run and was elected to shrink federal government and he seems to be making a good start.

Smaller, less powerful, more local government, untimately the individual, it the basic liberal philosophy. So whatever he may believe, whatever his motives, he does seem bent on returning to a more liberal US.

We have President Obama to thank for that. Whatever the reasons.

John Henry

walter said...

This pursuing the greater challenge narrative sounds like another "composite".

Inga said...

"What? Did someone steal your sperm when you weren't looking?"

"Inga, do you always have to be such an ass? Why don't you grow up?"

I Callahan,
I think my line was quite humorous. Gahrie is often so outraged by what he perceives as a "woman's privilege". That is funny. I'm not sorry or surprised you don't see the humor. It's infantile to harbor ill will toward women because they get some extra consideration because they carry and bear children.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

2. The not-a-choice orientation could be bisexual. If you are — not by choice — bisexual, you do have a choice whether to take an opposite sex or a same-sex partner.

I think of myself as a nonpracticing bisexual. I am attracted to and have had sexual relationships with women. However, very very few people know that about me. I was married to one man for fourteen years and now have been married to my second husband for two and have never had any interest in having a relationship with another woman. This was true even before I was married when I was involved in these girl-girl friends with benefits situations. I never wanted to have a woman as a partner and was always clear about that; I knew I would marry a man and be faithful to him (which is what I have indeed done). It was my choice, but it was hurtful to at least one girl I was involved with, that I was not at all open to an exclusive relationship or marriage with her or any other woman.

Just my experience, for what it's worth.

Inga said...

Pants,

You got a divorce? I kind of thought so from your comments. So, I take it that the reason you divorced had nothing to do with your bisexuality? Sorry about the divorce, happy to hear you found a new husband that suits you better.your first hubby sounded quite controlling, I hope this one is less so as you seem to be quite independent.

mockturtle said...


Misplaced claims: However, very very few people know that about me.

Now we all do! ;-)

Seriously, I appreciate your candid input. I have been attracted to males from at least kindergarten [serious crush on Tommy} but as a feminist in my mid-twenties I wanted to have a female-female relationship for political, rather than personal, reasons. Tried it once, didn't like it.

Inga said...

Well damn! I'm a liberal feminist and I've never been attracted to women sexually, go figure, two conservative women have, lol.

Sebastian said...

"sexual orientation is not a choice" But gender identity is.

The thread has lost track of O's statement that a heterosexual relationship is more challenging. For once, so sue me, I agree with him. Unity in difference requires a greater exertion of the personal and moral imagination, it is philosophically deeper and potentially more meaningful. Which is why I think, so sue me, that heterosexual relationships are intrinsically superior (which does not necessarily entail legal or civic difference).

Of course, O is all presentation and no self, as Erving Goffman didn't say.

David Baker said...

Being married to Michelle has to be as close to being gay as one can get, while retaining the cosmetic option to deny it.

Daniel Jackson said...

Wait a minute! Are y'all sayin' the O'mans had a "political marriage?"

David Baker said...

A general proposition carried forward from the "At The Late Afternoon Cafe":

Girls/women tend to be more "flexible"; same-sex, three-way, "scenes," ugly, beautiful, old, young, well, the possibilities are limitless.

Years ago Diane Sawyer visited a large women's prison and was stunned when the inmates told her quite matter-of-factly that EVERYONE inside the facility had a "girlfriend." I suspect Sawyer faked her immediate moral "orgasm," which seemed to amuse the street-smart convicts.

When she regained her composure, Sawyer then asked, and I'm necessarily paraphrasing; "Are they, are many girls forced into these, uh, relationships?"

"No." Absolutely not," replied the chorus in perfect harmony.

Added: Gay, or not gay: Often, childless marriages are the tip off.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Well, I see that Ritmo has arrived and I have better things to do.

Yeah. Me too. Now that the weather is warm enough to have the windows open and a breeze through the house, I'm scrubbing the kitchen floor with a strong Pine-Sol solution. On my hands and knees with a scrub brush, really getting the grime out from under the Wolf range, hair up in a kerchief like some babuska, sweat dripping off of my nose. Attractive...yes?. Once the scrubbing and rinsing is done drying (which I am waiting for now), then I'm waxing. Way better use of time!!!

Re: Obama or anyone else. I could give a flying f$ck if they are gay as long as they do their jobs, don't let their agenda get in the way and just leave the rest of us alone to live our lives too.

Gayness doesn't have anything to do with personalities. Obama and Michelle have unpleasant personalities...that is another issue entirely from their sex or lack of sex lives.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Would you agree, TR, that ExPresident Obama did a pretty good job of kicking progressivism in the teeth for 8 years? And promoting liberalism? (Ron and Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, President Trump)

Your distinction between liberalism and progressivism is an interesting if curious one, because it's hard to see how liberalism survives post-industrialization with greater extremes of economic power than ever before absent progressivism. A non-progressive president elected in 1932 would have been a disaster for America and the world. And a non-progressive Teddy Roosevelt 30 years earlier would have also been harmful to the nation.

But your question about Obama is an honest one. I think his political failures had to do with unanticipated backlash by a right-wing so shameless, so emboldened over 25 years of ideological warfare, that they saw power as a greater incentive than fixing the messes of 2008.

Ted Cruz is not a liberal. He's a shameless liar that no one trusts - even among politicians.

The Pauls are libertarians. They have overlap with liberals, but it's not the same philosophy. Libertarians are classical liberals who took the decision after industrialization to pretend that the power held by individuals in society had nothing to do with their own financial clout, while progressives and the conventional left understood that labor, environment, education and other needed institutions required to be strengthened politically in order to survive in the face of economic powers that aligned against them.

Trump is a narcissistic opportunist with no clear political ideology other than to enrich himself and to lie to whomever he needs to in order to achieve it. Truth and reality are relative, provisional things to him. Things that can only mean something insofar as they enrich him, or failing that, his own sense of power and legacy.

More localized government is not pro-individual liberty. The history of federalism shows that usually a stronger federal government has been the only thing to protect individual liberties in the onslaught of states' and cities encroaching on the rights - to not be slaves, to not be forcibly segregated, to ban Nazis from marching through their streets, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. You are confusing a geographic continuum of scale with agencies best positioned and with the best record of protecting the rights of the individual. For every used rhetorical line you want to throw out there about that, I can provide a concrete example to disabuse you of that presumption.

Lewis Wetzel said...

My, you are really manifesting your self-hate today, R&B!
Take a chill-pill fella.
If you are going talk about what is a choice and what is not a choice, you should educate yourself before opening your pie-hole.
http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A22014/ethical_theories/Aristotle%20on%20voluntary%20action.pdf

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Shorter Wetzel: Your expectation of accountability and reality is so hateful!

What the heck does Aristotle have to do with anything? He was famously off-the-mark on a lot. I thought you were going to defend the APA? Was Aristotle a psychologist now, or something?

Krumhorn said...

I think Henry Higgins properly addressed the matter:

One man in a million may shout a bit
Now and then there's one with slight defects
One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit
But by in large we are a marvelous sex

Why can't a woman take after a man
Men are so friendly, good natured and kind
A better companion you never will find
If I were hours late for dinner would you bellow?
Of course not
If I forgot your silly birthday would you fuss?
Nonsense
Would you complain if I took out another fellow?
Never!
Why can't a woman be like us

Why can't a woman be more like a man
Men are so decent, such regular chaps
Ready to help you through any mishaps
Ready to buck you up whenever you are glum
Why can't a woman be a chum


So you sit around drinking beer and eating pretzels watching Brokeback Mountain, Judy Garland concerts, and reruns of I Love Lucy. I could do that if necessary. But the hairy ballsack is a showstopper for me leaving me completely flaccid. That would, then, make me the catcher....which is when the Beretta comes out.

I'd rather deal with birthdays and send flowers.

- Krumhorn

Jupiter C. said...

Sexual orientation is not a choice. That's an absolute. Whether people want to quibble over it or not, is irrelevant. The fact that Obama indicates that he could choose says several things. He's lying, he's bisexual, he's spewing out BS, etc. He was & is a poseur & a narcissist. What is clear is that he thinks he had the power to choose or wanted to convey he had the power to choose his orientation. None of which is flattering as a profile. People make gaffes, stumbles & mistakes. The days where there is a ready made troupe of party faithful to believe everything that comes out of his vile mouth - is over. He does have his fan base, though. A much smaller audience. That will shrink with time.

Krumhorn said...

but as a feminist in my mid-twenties I wanted to have a female-female relationship for political, rather than personal, reasons.

Mockturtle, even one-handed, you make far more sense than most others with both paws.

- Krumhorn

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Well damn! I'm a liberal feminist and I've never been attracted to women sexually, go figure, two conservative women have, lol.

All the closeted, conservative heterosexuals-by-choice on this thread (insofar as giving into social/peer pressure can be called a "choice") remind me of the classical psychological theory that homosexuality was a form of narcissism in that it involved an attraction to the "alike."

Which would make sense, given how narcissistic some conservatives are (and their leader is).

Trump masturbates to a mirror.

Krumhorn said...

I sell product to people who want to see various things go into various orifices. As long as children and animals aren't involved I am not a Social Critic...


Ok, I could live with Laslo. Many fine laughs....but the hairy ballsack would still be a showstopper. Sorry, bud. I'll just have to visit you here where you are a true gift to this blog.

- Krumhorn

mockturtle said...

Males and females are, quite literally, made for each other. There is that.

brylun said...

Islam has the right view about sexual relationships and the role of men and women in society.

Inga said...

"Trump masturbates to a mirror."

That might explain his dementia, all the blood has rushed from his brain to his penis with an assist of Viagra.

Just kidding folks, don't get mad.

brylun said...

Is Saudi Arabia Inga's tongue would probably be cut out...

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Males and females are, quite literally, made for each other. There is that.

How the heck does one engage a homosexual act/connection for the sake of politics anyway? If anyone can explain that to me then I think I will start to finally understand conservatives. Or women. Or whatever. Riddle me that. I don't see any connection at all.

brylun said...

In Iran Toothless Revolutionary would be stoned and then pushed off a cliff...

Inga said...

Blogger brylun said...
"Is Saudi Arabia Inga's tongue would probably be cut out..."


Oh no, how could I ululate then?!

mockturtle said...

Mockturtle, even one-handed, you make far more sense than most others with both paws.

- Krumhorn


Thank you, kind sir!

Inga said...

"How the heck does one engage a homosexual act/connection for the sake of politics anyway? If anyone can explain that to me then I think I will start to finally understand conservatives. Or women. Or whatever. Riddle me that. I don't see any connection at all."

Being a woman has nothing to do with having sex because of politics, unless one is behaving like a prostitute that is looking for payment or rewards.

Inga said...

Well, men can be political prostitutes too, to be fair.

brylun said...

Inga, you would be allowed to ululate but only in the presence of other women.

Inga said...

Blogger brylun said...
"Inga, you would be allowed to ululate but only in the presence of other women."

My dear man, how can one ululate without a tongue? Impossible.

brylun said...

Howling, wailing and ululating can be done without a tongue. After your tongue is cut out and you are severely beaten you certainly will ululate but only in the presence of other women.

brylun said...

Until you learn your place in Islam.

brylun said...

See the Zazidi women captured by ISIS. If you don't know your place you will be taught or exterminated.

brylun said...

Yazidi, sorry.

Francisco D said...

Inga,

If you are going to make vulgar and insulting jokes in collusion with Ritmo, why should I take it lightly?

Leftists lecture us on civility all the time, but fail to practice it themselves. Look up the word "hypocrisy." It's a big word that you likely have a vague understanding of, as a nursing school graduate.

It's like all the AGW crowd that cries about fossil fuels, but flies private planes to a Climate Change conference in Paris.

I used to be a liberal, but stopped when it became a mindless cult.

brylun said...

Within a few generations, with current trends in birthrates and conversions, forced and otherwise, Inga's granddaughters and great granddaughters will endure the Islamic experience of female genital mutilation so these women will no know pleasure and will know their place in Islam. See what is currently happening in Detroit, Michigan.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Political prostitution would make sense. I mean, that's basically how the Republican party operates anyway.

Paul said...

So was Obama saying in the letter he was a shit stabber?

brylun said...

2nd doctor, wife charged in female genital mutilation case: http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2017/04/21/doctor-genital-mutilation-detroit/100742726/.

Girl's genital mutilation injury worse than doctor claims: http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2017/04/21/doctor-genital-mutilation-detroit/100742726/

John said...


Blogger Jupiter C. said...

Sexual orientation is not a choice. That's an absolute.

Really? And you know this how? Just because anyone that says different gets shouted down? Is there any science to support that statement? Like a particular gene that all gays have and no non-gays do? Or vice Versa.

Homosexuality used to be a choice. According to the gay pride movement. Then, in the 80s and 90s they started telling us it is innate.

If it is innate, and the gene can be identified, gays could be identified in the womb and aborted by parents who do not want a gay kid.

They would eventually be an even smaller minority.

If abortion is woman's choice, the reason for the abortion would be her choice as well. Or would you restrict women's rights if they want to abort for sex or sexuality selection?

John Henry

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Republican Party motto/selling point:

Morals for Sale! Inquire within!

Principles for Sale! Inquire within!

Political Leadership for Sale! Please see Fuhrer-Kanzler Reince Priebus!

John said...

Blogger brylun said...
"Is Saudi Arabia Inga's tongue would probably be cut out..."

A shipmate once told me about a whore in Port Said who had her tongue cut out. Instead of giving knobbers, she gave nubbers.

rightguy2 said...

It makes you wonder what Obama was doing stag in Tahiti recently. Surely he was bonging pretty hard. But maybe bumming around a little bit ?

J. Farmer said...

For what it's worth, my best friend is heterosexual, and he routinely jokes about how much easier things would be for him if he were gay.

glenn said...

The point of all this is the press double standard. Had there been an (R) behind Barry's name we'd know everything from what he had for breakfast as a baby to his 5th grade transcript to comments from his first boy/girlfriend.

~ Gordon Pasha said...

I once dated a woman whose husband divorced her when he discovered his true sexual orientation. She was a tiger in bed because she was trying to prove herself that it wasn't her fault that her husband was gay. For pure libidinous activity she was awesome.

Krumhorn said...

A few years ago, an attorney in NY decided after many years with a wife and 4 kids, that he really wanted to be a woman. Apparently, he was dressing up in his wife's clothes and smearing lipstick on while prancing around in the basement. He went through the operation and took the hormone pills, and then loudly announced he was now a lesbian

So he had the twig and berries trimmed...so that he could be like the fabled lesbian dinosaur, the lickalotopus. I'm sure his wife was completely mystified.

- Krumhorn

exiledonmainstreet said...

Inga wrote:"Well damn! I'm a liberal feminist and I've never been attracted to women sexually, go figure, two conservative women have, lol."

I have never been attracted to women either, but perhaps conservatives are rather more complex individuals than either you or Ritmo can conceive of, since you're both so wedded to your dumb stereotypes.

It is in fact, possible to be friendly or indifferent to gays, and to still object to the Gay Gestapo who want to force Christians to bake wedding cakes for them.

As far as Obama goes, it's old news. I heard a long time ago that he frequented bathhouses in Chicago.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Obama could never have been open about his sexual preferences while in office because he surely would have lost the black vote. The most openly anti-gay people I have met in the past few decades have been black men.

Now that he's out of office, he doesn't need their votes anymore.

mockturtle said...

Exiled, it seems our little provocateur has wrongly inferred that I said I was attracted to females. She either misread my post or--surprise!--she is just trying to provoke.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I have never been attracted to women either, but perhaps conservatives are rather more complex individuals...

Complex, eh?

Confused, confounded, self-unaware.

We're not psychiatrists here. Figure out your own damn self first before you blame others for not getting you.

How typically conservative to blame a misunderstanding of people who don't even understand themselves on others.

Milwaukie guy said...

Obama thought being gay was easier but he decided to "man up."

lol.

lol lol lol lol.

lol. lol.

l.o.l.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Exiled, it seems our little provocateur has wrongly inferred that I said I was attracted to females.

No. She just couldn't be expected to relate to your little ploy of being gay for political play.

It's weird for those of us who believe in freedom of conscience and individual expression to relate to the idea of getting jiggy with people we don't have an intimate interest in being intimate with.

I guess that's another difference between us and you.

Gahrie said...

It's infantile to harbor ill will toward women because they get some extra consideration because they carry and bear children.

Interesting admission....you don't hear it very often from the Left.

It would be much more convincing however if so many women didn't spend so much time making sure that we had the most permissive abortion laws possible to make it as easy as possible for women to not carry and bear their children, but to kill them instead.

By the way, just for the record...I want to give women extra consideration because they carry and bear children. I want to treat women different from men.

It's YOUR side that is demanding that women and men be treated exactly the same, EXCEPT when it comes to reproduction.

Gahrie said...

A few years ago, an attorney in NY decided after many years with a wife and 4 kids, that he really wanted to be a woman. Apparently, he was dressing up in his wife's clothes and smearing lipstick on while prancing around in the basement. He went through the operation and took the hormone pills, and then loudly announced he was now a lesbian

IIRC, he ended up changing his mind and saying it was all a huge mistake.

walter said...

Gordon,
Sounds less like rebound, more like catapult.
Exiled,
Apparently the guy/gal needed a complete..disconnect.

Oh looky..
Obama's V-day

Inga said...

TTR,
They are indeed "Confused, confounded, self-unaware."

Hypocrites too. Mockturtle who is agast that anyone could find the LGBTQ "lifestyle" attractive, as she exclaimed upstream. Yet she admits to a same sex sexual encounter for "political" purposes. Hahahaha, oy!

mockturtle said...

No. She just couldn't be expected to relate to your little ploy of being gay for political play.

We feminists of the 70's considered men to be our oppressors. Therefore, I [briefly] thought my strong attraction to men to be counterrevolutionary. Trust me, Ritmo. You had to have been there.

John said...

Toothless Revolutionary,

I use the term "liberal" as synonymous with libertarian, classical liberal, minarchist and the like.

I know that when you get deep into the weeds there are all sorts of differences and overlaps between them but in general they all believe in limited and local goverment as much as possible. Military needs to be national. Schools should be municipal for example.

They all begin with the premise that the individual is sovereign and that govt works for the individual not the other way round as progressives.

I consider myself a free man which is the original latin derivation of the word.

I believe, with Hayek, that "Liberal" is a good word that has been hijacked to mean almost its exact opposite. I do my little bit to take it back.

So the Pauls and Cruz may call themselves libertarians and that is fine with me. I'll anser to it as well. In general, I prefer just plain old "liberal", I don't think it needs, or should need, the "classical" modifier.

I don't think President Trump calls himself anything in particular. His views on smaller less intrusive govt certainly make him a fellow traveler, at the least.

John Henry

Inga said...

"We feminists of the 70's considered men to be our oppressors."

LOL! Really? Not all of us. Some of us actually liked men.

Inga said...

Mockturtle is bullshitting. She is attempting to paint a picture of feminists of the 70's using a caricature of a feminist. I doubt she was ever a feminist. Maybe she just had the hots for some chick.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

LOL! Really? Not all of us. Some of us actually liked men.

Those who see people as individuals and relate to or disagree with them on that basis.

But John (above) is here to lecture me and everyone else on how only conservatives understand the idea of individual rights.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

We feminists of the 70's considered men to be our oppressors. Therefore, I [briefly] thought my strong attraction to men to be counterrevolutionary. Trust me, Ritmo. You had to have been there.

Well, seeing what a broad brush you overstroked? with back then in misidentifying your oppressors, I suppose we can infer that those among you calling the entire government your enemy today are also similarly mistaken.

John said...

Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...


But John (above) is here to lecture me and everyone else on how only conservatives understand the idea of individual rights.

Hardly. As far as individual rights go, I see little to choose between most conservatives and most progressives, most Demmies and most repos. Both groups have no problem whatever trampling on them in the name of their label.

I am not a conservative, I am a liberal. Classical liberal, libertarian, minarchist if you prefer I'll answer to all. A pox on conservatives in general. Please don't lump me in with them, I won't answer to it.

You call yourself a revolutionary. In what sense are you revolutionary? Would your revolution support individual right or would it be a socialist revolution? If the first, sign me up. If the latter, go fuck yourself.

Individual rights are fundamentally incompatible with socialism. There is no way to have both simultaneously. Socialism requires, by its very bedrock principles, force and murder. Marx lays out why pretty clearly in Capital. (Another book for the Portal. An interesting read, if a bit challenging.)

Is "toothless" just a euphemism for squeamish?

John Henry

mockturtle said...

The tenet that has always set America apart is that rights of the individual supersede the collective 'good' of society.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

The tenet that has always set America apart is that rights of the individual supersede the collective 'good' of society.

Then stop prioritizing the "individual rights" of billionaires over those of ordinary people.

John said...

Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...


Then stop prioritizing the "individual rights" of billionaires over those of ordinary people.

And which rights might those be?

They do get some favored treatment from government. If govt has it for sale, someone will buy it. That is why the liberal answer is to shrink govt. Eliminate most of the things they have for sale.

A flat tax, for example, would eliminate the ability to buy special treatment for one's business. It would put the billionaires on a par with everyone else. In that aspect, at least.

John

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

And which rights might those be?

Political access. Opportunity for a fair redress of grievances.

A flat tax, for example, would eliminate the ability to buy special treatment for one's business. It would put the billionaires on a par with everyone else. In that aspect, at least.

Hahaha. How gullible do you have to be? Here's a hint: If a billionaire proposed it, it's not in your interest, but theirs.

You're doing their bidding.

mockturtle said...

Ritmo, I believe a person has the right to become a billionaire if he does it honestly and legally. Do you?

exiledonmainstreet said...

We're not psychiatrists here. Figure out your own damn self first before you blame others for not getting you"

Who are you talking to here? Given that it is your side who is championing the rights of those confused souls who believe they were born into the wrong body and spend tens of thousands to tamper with their bodies so they can become their "natural" sex, perhaps you should be giving that spiel to the trannies.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"We feminists of the 70's considered men to be our oppressors"

Second-wave feminism certainly did contain man-haters, as Camille Paglia has attested. Not every feminist was one, but the man-haters were pretty vocal.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

You got a divorce? I kind of thought so from your comments. So, I take it that the reason you divorced had nothing to do with your bisexuality? Sorry about the divorce, happy to hear you found a new husband that suits you better.your first hubby sounded quite controlling, I hope this one is less so as you seem to be quite independent.

Thank you Inga :) Am blisteringly happy now. He was always the one, but the timing wasn't right twenty years ago and we remained great friends while resignedly unhappily married to others for a long time. And now, the time is right, and now I understand why people make a fuss about love and sex ;) Turns out it's pretty damn awesome when you are with your other half, not a stranger with whom you share a house.

By the way, I seem to recall you mentioning a good low-carb cheesecake recipe? We're looking to drop a few pounds but still like our treats. Mind sharing?

mockturtle said...

Second-wave feminism certainly did contain man-haters, as Camille Paglia has attested. Not every feminist was one, but the man-haters were pretty vocal.

I was never a man-hater. Even when I believed men to be women's oppressors, I liked men only too well. :-)

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Ritmo, I believe a person has the right to become a billionaire if he does it honestly and legally. Do you?

Is this really what we're debating?

We're debating whether they should have more loopholes written into the tax code for themselves and better access to legislation or whether ordinary people should.

John said...

Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Political access. Opportunity for a fair redress of grievances.

mostly needed when politicians have things like tax breaks, regulatory carveouts and so on to sell. Take those away and the need and usefullness of access is greatly reduced. For billionaires and paupers and everyone in between.

Hahaha. How gullible do you have to be? Here's a hint: If a billionaire proposed it, it's not in your interest, but theirs.

It could not be good for both? Perhaps not, if you believe in progressive taxation. If you believe in fairness, as I do, everyone pays the same rate. No deducts no special treatments no loopholes after some basic exemption in the $20-50m range. Good for everyone.

Are you OK with the fact that Jeff Bezos, closing in on the world's richest man only paid $1-2mm in income tax last year? I am. He'd pay even less under a flat tax. Not a problem for me.

Buffett paid $10-20mm. I have no problem with that, either.

I suspect that you are not. You seem jealous of anyone doing better than you.

John Henry

Inga said...

Pants,

I'm glad to hear you're so happy, that is great news! So here are some excellent low carb cake and cheesecake recipes. This lady has the best lowcarb recipes on the internet, I love her site. Here is a link to her cakes and cheesecakes, but take a look at the rest of her recipes, so many good ones.

Splendid Lowcarbing

Lewis Wetzel said...

FYI, this is what the APA says about the causes of "sexual orientation":
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

Personally, I believe that "sexual orientation" is figment. It is a word used to describe something some thing that cannot be shown to exist. The idea is that "sexual orientation" is what causes certain sexual behaviors. But we can't read minds. All we can ever measure is behavior. We can't test for sexual orientation other than by self-reporting (which is behavior). Psychologists usually run away from self-reporting when it is possible to do so. If you ask people how tall they are -- an objective, repeatable measure -- people frequently misreport their height for a variety of reasons.
There is no "gay gene" or "straight gene." There is no blood test that can be done. There is no biological basis for homosexual or heterosexual orientation. There is no biological evidence that your sexual orientation is set at birth, or at puberty, or at any particular time of your life.



Unknown said...

Not that there is anything wrong with that...

Who do you think President Twinkie was on the downlow with?

Holder?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

You seem jealous of anyone doing better than you.

You seem jealous of anyone who doesn't confuse his interests with someone else's.

Michael K said...

"You seem jealous of anyone who doesn't confuse his interests with someone else's."

Not many billionaires working at McDonalds I see.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Obama had thought about and considered gayness

Funny thing to say after we have finally got his dick out of our ass.

Let's push this thread over 200.

Rusty said...



Who do you think President Twinkie was on the downlow with?

Betcha some guys at the mens retreat in Fiji know.

tim in vermont said...

That's a reach, Althouse. Technically correct, but a reach.

tim in vermont said...

If he is gay, I hope he just comes out and lives it, though.

Matthew Sablan said...

This is the sort of thing that "if a Republican had written," would have been considered prima facie evidence of being bigoted and homophobic.

wendybar said...

Didn't Joan Rivers "get killed" after saying this?? (rumor) https://thinkprogress.org/joan-rivers-was-one-of-the-earliest-and-loudest-gay-icons-7364394a6229

David Docetad said...

"Is it, in fact, easier to be gay, because you only have to figure out how to get along with and be companionable to somebody who is like you or who, at least, you can have the illusion is pretty much like you?"

This may well be true in a sense. Perhaps if it is any sense easier it is because men are promiscuous by nature and women less so. Gay men on average have vastly more sexual partners than heterosexual men, perhaps because there are so many willing partners available.

I'm sure it is easier to have an all-male executive board than one that includes women.

It is indeed odd that progressive leftists celebrate homosexuality and same-sex marriage as "diversity" when it is in fact the exact opposite of diversity.

In any other endeavor it is seen as better to have a woman included, but not marriage!

Michael Gazonymous said...

even though he's not gay, he knows more about being gay than any gay dudes. I'm sure he schooled David Geffen on the subject.

wendybar said...

Oh Pul-leeze...look at his mannerisms...https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/tag/obamas-gay-pictures/

readering said...

Opening of NY Times Review: “Rising Star,” the voluminous 1,460-page biography of Barack Obama by David J. Garrow, is a dreary slog of a read: a bloated, tedious and — given its highly intemperate epilogue — ill-considered book that is in desperate need of editing, and way more exhausting than exhaustive.