City People Fashion

July 2nd, 2009 by admin

Beliefnet writer David Klinghoffer has a theory wherefore women should fight societal acceptance of homosexuality: in a world where men be possible to have sex with men without attendant opprobrium, they won’t want anything but. In other words: all men are merry.

Klinghoffer joins the grand just discovered tradition of social conservatives from bestiality-lover Rick Santorum to sister-schtupper Glenn Beck who view social acceptance of same-sex couples through the accurate prism of their own fantasies. At least Klinghoffer’s don’t involve the family pet!

Klinghoffer does, however, come in the company of another workman, Joshua Berman, a professor who argues that without societal strictures condemning male-on-male anal sex, men would undoubtedly prefer it to heterosexual vaginal copulation. His evidence for this is the widespread acceptance of male homosexuality in ancient Rome.

It turns out that where homoeroticism is granted full social sanction, as it was in Rome, it flourishes — in such a manner much so, that one writer noted that the emperor Claudius exhibited an unusual trait: he was sexually interested in women alone!

Men, we acquire information from ancient Rome, will enjoy sex with other men, granting that there is no social censure.

Well, in the manner that Melissa McEwan of Shakesville points out, homoeroticism in ancient Rome was, more or less, limited to the upper classes and involved some affectedly nice strict hierarchical rules: older men topped, younger, lower-status men bottomed. This is rather a far cry from fully consensual homosexuality, and was far more concerned with the sexual pleasure of who was on top.

Berman, with Klinghoffer right behind him, uses (and abuses) the state of male homosexual affairs to determine that male-on-male anal sex is so good that otherwise-heterosexual men would forgo vaginal intercourse all together if they could. Projection, anyone? His evidence, of course, is specious at best: a cutting play in which (one assumes) a woman offers her husband anal sex to stop having it with his boyfriend, and the man’s refusal. From undivided ancient play, Berman and Klinghoffer extrapolate this:

The winners — big time — are homosexual men, because the historical record shows that they can expect their potential pool of partners to expand exponentially. Of note hither is that this expanded loch of partners accrues to gay men, but not to homosexual women. At the risk of getting too unambiguous, I leave it the reader’s basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find will in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman.

Basically, male-on-male anal sex is good for the highest — and, again, the bottom is left out of the equation — and “the record” (not, obviously, including Greek imaginative thinker Sappho) reflects that women can’t get a good pounding from another woman, so lesbian sex is obviously inferior to penetrative vaginal intercourse.

Berman and Klinghoffer — as one assumes they often do offline — ignore the facts, namely, that many, many women get intense pleasure from cunnilingus and manual or gadget-driven stimulation of their genitalia; that some women — even heterosexual ones — actually don’t achieve orgasm any other way; that women bring forth also been known to enjoy anal sex; that some men achieve orgasm through anal insight; and that not every guy who gets off from anal penetration is homosexual (see: pegging). Then there is this:

The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With full genial sanction given to homoerotic alertness, the historical precedent suggests that tomorrow’s women will be under the necessity a harder time finding and holding on to becoming men. As women will suffer, so will the vitality and stability of the nuclear family.

Klinghoffer, shaken to his core by Berman’s revelation, doesn’t understand how anyone could take that the wrong way. Or disagree! And he is so not pleased that people are life mean to him - on a blog - so he follows up his post about the joys of anal sex with one that, in effect, accuses gay men of being huge sluts and defines monogamy like “feminine.”

Men are unruly in their passions, far greater amount of so than women with their natural affinity for monogamy. This is not a stereotype. It’s reality. I suspect that women in the lesbian community would confirm that it is so. Normally, men’s unruliness is somewhat limited by women. In gay civilization, that’s not the case at all. An important break on male sexuality has been removed.

Wait, so, even though men would be so entranced in what plight awesome it is to stick your dick in another man’s asshole that we need to prevent the civic acceptance of homosexuality, access to pussy is now the reason men don’privately stick their dicks in other men’s assholes more often? And here I thought if we just got the man a little bathroom sex, he’d allowance us ladies alone.

How Women Will Be Hurt by Gay Marriage [Beliefnet]
How Women Will Be Hurt by Gay Marriage: A Postscript [Beliefnet]

Related: Excerpt From Santorum Interview [Associated Press]
In Things That Surprise Me [Shakesville]
Sappho [Wikipedia]

Earlier: “Conservatives: Just The People You Want In Charge Of Your Sex Life”

Bookmark it: