So, I’m a smart ass…So sue me

Technorati Tags: Sexual orientation,Sexual preference,Language

:

Not really…the suing part.

The local newspaper, The Desert Sun had a piece today indicating disapproval of those protesting Chaz Bono’s upcoming appearance on “Dancing with the Stars.”

I liked it except for the use of “sexual preference.”  Now, since I am of the opinion that virtually everyone who is protesting against Mr. Bono’s appearance has participated in his sexual preference activities in one way or another, I doubt very seriously they are protesting that/those preference(s).

So I wrote the following to the “Community Conversations Editor” at the paper. I got carried away.

It was such fun and became so silly that I thought I’d share it.  Have fun.

xoxox

Dear Mr. X:

Today your editorial page gave a well-deserved “Thumbs Down” to those who are protesting against Chaz Bono’s appearance on “Dancing with the Stars.”

There would be disagreement only from those who are unwilling to learn.

There is, however, one phrase with which others might quibble; it is “sexual preference.” It might be good to take a few moments to educate your writer about the more accurate “sexual orientation” for use in this type of discussion.

To personalize the point, Sir, might I suggest that your sexual preference is what you prefer to do during sexual incidents. Everyone has sexual preferences which are unique and of no concern to others.

Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is how you “lean” when choosing a partner with whom to participate in mutual sexual preferences.

Absent a declaration from a person, sexual preference is unknowable; sexual orientation is somewhat easier to discern. Since most of the protesters against Mr Bono themselves probably engage in whatever sexual activities they might imagine he participates, they are more than likely protesting his orientation than his preference.

Please discuss this with your writer.

Sincerely,

gene touchet

Sphere: Related Content

Alas! A crisis of conscience!

Technorati Tags: Sex studies,Bisexuals,Gays,Non-gays,Culture Wars,Box Turtle Bulletin

From Box Turtle Bulletin:

Shocking, simply shocking! A new study has determined that some men are attracted to both male and female persons. Or, at least, sexually stimulated by watching them have sex.

This new finding contradicts and earlier one which denied evidence of existence of bisexuals, but was flawed in its population selection. (NY Times)

For many, many years, I’ve been skeptical about discussions I’ve had with certain serial-one-night-stands.

“How can you date/marry her? What’re you doing here if you’re going to be there?”

“I guess I just like you both.”

Skeptical. Mighty skeptical.

Now some researchers tell us that X and Y, and a couple of other less-frequent Alphabet Letters were correct about themselves after all?

Well, after the brachytherapy, it’s pretty much moot. Still, it does give pause.

Do I apologize?

Or do I wait for the next “study” to give us another way to look at ourselves?

Sphere: Related Content

Why not?

Technorati Tags: Sex,Judicial Activism,Mental Impairment,England

Here, Dear Gentle Reader(s), is an example of a mostly unnecessary sentence—one surely printed with tongue firmly in cheek:  “This ruling is unlikely to impact the vast majority of the gay community.”

Here, too, is a link to a story you might find both appalling and amusing.

Generally, the story discusses the case of “Alan,” a man with an I.Q. of 48, who has been prohibited from any activity other than “masturbation in his bedroom or bathroom – and nothing more.”

The gay element?  Alan had been engaging in sexual activity with another man.

It happened in England.  (It’s happening in England?)

On second thought, the “sentence” above was surely done with a touch of cynicism, eh wot?

Sphere: Related Content

Ah, Larry, we hardly knew ye!

Since there are only 7 or so years between Senator Craig's age and my own, I have some residual memories of the sort of urges with which the senator must deal.

If you came to age in the 50's, and your sexual proclivities were anything more than the "missionary position," you had a lot of what have come to be known as "issues." We dealt with them as best we could.

There was a joke back in the late 50's, early 60's, which went something like this: An irate queen, on her first plane ride, in high dudgeon, demands imperiously, "What do you mean, 'This plane doesn't stop at the nearest Greyhound bus station'?!?"

"Tea room" cruising, as delineated in Laud Humphrey's book, Tea Room Trade, was a rite of passage for nascent gays back then.

And there were rituals which were rigidly followed, among which were the tapping toes, and the caress of the bottom of the stall walls, followed by the come-hither-flick of the index finger.

It was exciting. Unfortunately, it was, all too often, the only way to satisfy the drive.

I would have thought we'd all grown out of it, what with the plethora of places in which we might make contact today.

I guess not.

My title is wrong, Larry. We know ye all too well.

We also know there's absolutely no excuse for tea room cruising in the 21st century.

Somehow, in some ways, Larry, you're still stuck in the 1950's. That's too bad. Look what you've accomplished in spite of your sexual drives. Imagine the heights you might've reached had our society been less puritanical.

Sphere: Related Content

A Light at the end of the Ex-Gay Tunnel?

"A hit! A hit! A palpable hit!" (If you don't have to ask, thank an English teacher!)

It didn't make the national feeds yet, but the Los Angeles Times reports on an up-coming "Freedom Conference" to be held by Exodus International. (Those are the "ex-gay" people.)

Here's the on-line title as well as the subtitle: New ground in debate on 'curing' gays. Christian ministries who see homosexuality as a treatable disorder are starting to think that choice may not be a factor.

A leading proponent of tossing "ex-gay" into the trash bin of history turns out to be none other than Alan Chambers the director of Exodus. The money quote from Mr. Chambers: "By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete."

It seems Mr. Chambers, now a husband and father, "...has mostly conquered his own attraction to men..."

The operative word is "mostly," one presumes, which demands of Mr. Chambers more honesty than heretofore he has shown. Good personal progress. His orientation never was, never will be, a choice. It cannot be escaped; it cannot be eradicated. It can be handled, should one choose; that's the only choice.

Discarding the oxymoronic ex-gay is a good step towards eliminating cultural biases against differing sexual orientations.

Let's have more attention paid to precise language.

Good start, Mr. Chambers. Now, get the rest of your organization in line.

Sphere: Related Content

Yoo Hoo, Non-Gay Cross-Dressers!

Here's a question for you: Are you happy to be included in the category of "Queer?"

According to Corey Scholibo, a respondent for The Advocate's letters, you are (well, not happy, but included). Here's the situation:

The Advocate recently ran an on-line headline which lumped Sam, the cross-dressing son on "The Riches," in with "queer" kids on television--the nephew on "Ugly Betty" had already made the pages of the print magazine (--any why is it virtually no one has commented on the great job the writers and Rami Malek are doing on The War at Home with the character of Kenny?).

I protested with an email to The Advocate: "So far nothing the character of Sam on "The Riches" has done indicates a same-sex sexual orientation. Your headline is misleading--"Queer kid on the block."

It wasn't too long before Scholibo answered, quite nicely, I thought, with:

Gene, Thank you for your response. I agree with you completely that there is nothing in the show that implies that the character is gay, as the story clearly states. Queer is a very encompassing term that often includes cross dressing, as it was forged to imply everything out of the realm of “normal,” and has been taken back by our community as a positive word. Nonetheless it was meant to be an adjective and not a noun, nor imply any sort of social group per say.

Thank you, Corey ScholiboArts & Entertainment Editor

Here's my problem (if there is a problem): when I was growing up, "queer" was not in fashion. When it was used as an adjective for someone with a "sexual perversion" (one of the terms du jour), it only meant gay men. (Remember, I'm talking years away from Christine Jorgensen.) Even lesbians weren't usually included.

When did "our community" (not to get into whoever it is who speaks for the community) expand queer to include transgenders and cross-dressers?

And how do non-gay men and women who are cross-dressers feel about that?

Or have they even noticed?

Just asking.
Cross Dressing
The Advocate
The Riches
Ugly Betty
The War at Home

Sphere: Related Content

Testosterone--the great equalizer?

The New York Times today (1/26/07) has an editorial ("More Willful Indifference") in which it wags a finger at the FBI's handling of early indications of Mark Foley's predilections for late teenagers.

A very interesting sentence reads, Now it turns out that the F.B.I. was just as phlegmatic about the scandal as Mr. Foley’s Republican colleagues.

Phlegmatic. That can be interpreted as "So?" Don't most men have an appreciative eye for young adults? My barber in Los Angeles once remarked, "School's starting up again soon, isn't it? I like the beginning of school. Lots of young stuff walking by."

Lesson: non-gays and gays share the same sex urgings. Urgings which are not acted upon are relatively normal among the male of the species.

An objective response between males to the appreciation of young adults is "So?"

One wonders, then, why the outrage at the Times.

Denial?

To appropriate the slogan: We've come a long way, baby.

New York Times
Mark Foley
Sexuality

Sphere: Related Content