Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« drop a gem on 'em | Praise For Mizell's Praise of ... »

Friday, December 9, 2005

Josh Is Mistaken

Posted by on December 9 at 12:39 PM

In response to my post about an auto-fellatio book, Josh wrotes, “Consider this a hetero preemptive strike against your maneuvering to turn the SLOG into a gay porn site. And the pics will get even hotter.” Then he posted a pic of… Mary Pickford or something. But there’s nothing gay about auto-fellatio, Josh. A man sucking his own dick is no gayer than a man giving himself a handjob, you homophobe.

Or is it? Discuss…


CommentsRSS icon

You didn't post a picture of a man giving himself a blow job. You posted a picture of hot nude guy.

Oh...and that's not "Mary Pickford or something..."
That's Fay Wray, Circa 1928

i'll tell you what's gay: the fact that safari's spellcheck dictionary doesn't include the word "fellatio." how is dan ever going to learn to spell the word with two Ls now?

i'll tell you what's gay: the fact that safari's spellcheck dictionary doesn't include the word "fellatio." how is dan ever going to learn to spell the word with two Ls now?

sorry. i punched post twice.

Punching post twice is so gay.

And, I'm sorry, aren't some hot nude guys straight? And would the pic have been *less* homoerotic if he had been sucking himself off? Or would the pic only be "straight" if it were a homely guy sucking himself off?

Josh, you seem to have some internalized heteroguyphobia. Not all straight guys are ab-less.

And you what else? Half the population is female. 98% of those females are hetero. Only about 3% of all men are gay. So that photo of that hot man appeals to a lot more straight women then it does to gay men. There are just way, way more straight women. Is that why straight guys are always so quick to dismiss images of hot guys as homoerotic? "Nothing here for you to see, ladies, just a picture of some fag waiting for another fag to come along and fuck him. A guy who looks that? He wouldn't want a woman, you know..."

Hm...

As a straight woman I have to say that picture is really fucking hot, gay or otherwise.

Dear Dan,

There're a minority of gay bars on Capitol Hill that cater to a minority of the population, i.e., gay men. Sometimes I wander into these bars, just wanting to enjoy myself and have a drink. Sitting there, and seeing men paw each other and kiss one another . . . well, that really really disgusts me. It's a filthy, disgusting thing. And I have to endure it.

Not only is it filthy and disgusting, but I find it damaging to my mental health to have to witness such scenes. Who asked for this? Not me. I'm just trying to enjoy my drink, and I have to watch this?

This harms me, personally, and deeply offends me. It's wrong, it's disgusting, and I'm afraid that using the bathrooms there is a health hazard to me. Maybe that's just paranoid, because maybe there's no scientific study that actually proves that using the toilets in a gay bathroom will get you AIDS . . . but I've heard it does, and certainly the atmosphere in these bars is dank and filthy and probably diseased.

It bothers me because it's my neighborhood and I value my mental health, and I value my ethics. I don't feel that I should have to be exposed to gay soft porn when I'm just trying to enjoy a beer.

So I'm going to start a petition drive. Collect signatures. And I'm going to make sure that this is driven out of the bars. Sure, it's only a minority of bars that cater to this kind of pleasure, but damn it, I want to enjoy any bar I wander by. If it's a gay bar, then I'm going to do everything in my power to drive the gays out.

Well, let me rephrase that. I'm not going to actually drive gay men out, but I'm going to make gay sexual behavior illegal. It's already filthy and disgusting and we shouldn't have to tolerate this in any bar, gay or straight.

My petition drive starts this year. I expect to gather quite a few signatures. After all, most of the people who voted for the smoking ban will understand the necessity for banning this form of illict pleasure as well.

No, no one's twisting my arm to go into a gay bar, but I just can't tolerate that kind of behavior anywhere. Just knowing that it's going on really bothers me.

You see, Dan, I know what's best for you. Just like I know what's best for smokers. We won with the smokers. Now we're coming after you.

Yeah, I take that back. Listening to Christopher edit Brendan today ("Bob and weave? Aren't those hairstyles?" / "No, they're boxing moves") was the gayest thing ever.

I already have a commercial in mind for the gay sexual action ban in Washington State.

The setting begins in a cafeteria/restaurant setting. A family is there. A man sitting next to another man at a table in a booth leans over, puts his arm around the other man’s shoulder, and then he kisses him. The children cover their faces and blond-haired, blue eyed mom assumes an enraged facial expression. She stands up, puts her hands on her hips, and raises an eyebrow in a very judgmental expression. Mom steps back, reaches up and turns on a giant fan. The wind "blows away" the two dark complexioned men with black hair who are kissing, table cloth and their meals fly all over them, one man’s toupee is blown off. The closing shot is mom stalking down the sidewalk hauling the huge fan behind her to obviously "clear the way." The end of the commercial shows Yes on the Washington State voter initiative to ban gay sexual acts in public places. Several pro-family, pro-Christian logos are shown on the ending banner.

What does that description say to you? To me it says men who kiss each other are to be "blown away" because mom does not like them and that this is a good and righteous thing to do. The symbolism of stalking down the sidewalk to clear the air with a giant fan is unmistakable in terms of blowing these gay freaks out of our restaurants and bars.

Any delusions that anyone has or had about men who stroke each other in bars, hold hands in restaurants, or kiss in cafes being accepted as members of society should be finally put to bed by this television advertisement. The fact is that commercial says in bold symbolism such persons are to be blown away from society and the streets are to be swept clean of them. You, homosexual citizens, do not belong here and are not welcome — you do not fit in and you are to be forcibly removed.

We are the majority, and we will remove you by force.

He he, John. You're funny.

But let's ban all PDA—lord knows the hetero groping in some bars turns my delicate stomach. But, sorry, your anguish at witnessing same-sex PDA ain't exactly a cancer risk. But you go gather those signatures. Knock yourself out, sweethear.

Goodness, Dan, I'm surprised to hear you say that gay sex is not a health risk. I direct your attention to this link:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

wherein an actual medical doctor states:

"When something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, and homosexual sex, it is my duty to discourage it."

I could point you to hundreds of other studies that have proven that gay sex is a health hazard. Certainly we should not be promoting it, nor should we be exposed to it.

My hope is that if we outlaw gay sex, ban it, make it illegal, then gradually gays will be, just by the sheer force of social pressure, nudged into giving up this nasty habit.

I am also certain that as a member of a majority, I will certainly succeed in my endeavor to ban gay sexual behavior in public places. You see, everyone out there supports me in this. You're just a small minority. As the majority, we really DO know what's best for you.

Call me paternalistic, but the majority is usually right, and their rights deserve to be respected over the minority.

Yours in Christ,
John

Hey, John--I hear hetero sex has its health risks, too. Shall we also ban that?

You have a ways to go before you become this century's Jonathan Swift.

Aloof dude,

Even if you could prove that heterosexual sex has health risks (and I don't believe you), a ban on heterosexual sex will never succeed because heteros are the majority. Vast, vast majority. And we wield the POWER over the minority.

We're going to win because we have the numbers. It bothers me that two gay guys can go into a bar and paw each other while I'm sitting there. I find it incredibly offensive. It stinks of rank immorality and gross indecency.

We already have some laws on the books against indecency. We're just going to expand them a little.

We won against the filthy smokers, and we're going to win against the filthy gays.

Don't like it? Deal with it.

Dan, I don't care if the guy is gay or straight, and I don't care if straight women think he's hot.

All I'm saying is: Every time you post a picture of a hot guy, I'm going to post a picture of a foxy lady.

Yes, John. The straights are big and powerful. And for centuries they banned sodomy—only a couple of years ago did the Supremes toss out the sodomy laws. Many of those laws, by the way, applied to gay and straight sodomy alike. But straight people like their blowjobs too, so they legalized them. But once you legalize hetero sodomy it's hard to argue against gay sodomy. Still, knock yourself out. You go ahead and try to ban gay sex—again. And keep using the Catholic Church's arguments against it. The irony is toooo delicious.

Two things I have to say. I agree with Kate. This picture is HOT! I would buy the book just to drool over the cover.

As for John and his messages of love to Dan and others in the gay community. And I say this with as much respect I can muster for a crazy freak. HOLLY HANNAH! you whack job. Get some thearpy about your repressed homosexual desires and come out of the closet and accept yourself. If you are going to gay bars to "watch" you have to be doing this because you secretly want to participate and have not come to terms with your own sexuality. Find a cute boy toy (like the one on the book cover) to give you a mind blowing, blow job. Nothing like a good orgasam to releax you. This may also do wonders to help you let go of all your hate. Merry Christmas.

"Even if you could prove that heterosexual sex has health risks (and I don't believe you)"

Nope, heteros suffer no STDs at all. Heteros are completely immune from AIDS. Well done, John. We'll all be sure to take your future posts very seriously.

Oh, and about those health risks that homos face: we only bring them on ourselves. That's where your gay sex ban falls apart, John. Smokers impose their health risks on others. If cocks floated around in gay bars and jammed themselves into the asses of men who didn't want to get fucked by other men, and accept the health risks that brings, then you might have an argument here. But it don't. Claiming that gay people traumatize you psychologically isn't going to cut it. Next!

"Smokers impose their health risks on others."

That's bullshit Dan. People impose the effects of smoke upon themselves by entering a smoking establishment, of their own free will.

Get that? OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. I put it in uppercase because I'm beginning to suspect you're not the sharpest tack in the box.

No one twisted your arm to go into the Comet or any other smoking joint in your "progressive" neighborhood. You could have gone to any one of another nonsmoking club or restuarant, which already formed the vast majority of such public places in Washington.

But no, you had to persecute a small minority because you believed bullshit studies about second hand smoke and chose to ride with the concerned blonde Mommies out in the suburbs.

It's funny that so many people here took what I was saying about outlawing homosexual activity in bars for real.

If you can't see the parallels between the kind of hate I was espousing as a homophobe and the kind of hate directed at a mostly bluecollar minority of drug addicts, then you're all actually more stupid than I thought.

The point for the pinheads is this: the majority wields undue power over the minority. Often an unpleasant abuse of power results from the majority view, which is more often repressive and selfish than a disintereted third-party ruling by a judge, for instance.

Think about it just for a second. Is the smoking ban constitutional, or fair? No. Is a gay rights ban constitutional or fair? No.

That is why we have intelligent judges here and there ruling in favor in gay rights while the mob howls.

If full-grown adults want to engage in gay sex while understanding the pleasures and risks associated with it, they ought to be able to do so freely, without state interference. And the same applies to property owners. If they want to smoke on their private property, including their buisness properties, they ought to be able to do so freely. To outlaw smoking on private property is a gross violation of constitutional and civil rights.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).