• The True Reasons Why Conservatives Are Against Gay Marriage.

    Bill Schmalfeldt of Daily Kos penned an article about why Conservatives take a remarkable dislike to gay marriage, which itself was a response to Larry A. Herzberg's piece at Little Green Footballs. Herzberg starts out by pondering the religious aspect of conservative objection to gay marriage and goes from there, eventually coming to the following:

    Could this be the correct explanation of the fear? Could it be that conservatives (subconsciously?) believe that if same-sex marriage were to become more accepted and hence more common, heterosexuals would actually begin converting their sexual orientation? Could conservatives really (subconsciously?) believe that gay sex is so much better than straight sex, or that switching one’s sexual preference is, at least for most people, as easy as switching brands? It sounds silly, but you do often hear conservatives fantasizing about gay folks - especially teachers - “recruiting” children who would otherwise be straight, as if changing or determining someone’s sexual orientation - even a child’s - were as easy as giving them the right sales pitch!

    The whole "homosexuals = pedophiles" theme was popular among conservatives back in the day, despite how utterly absurd it was to tie pedophilia with sexual orientation. I have a feeling that theme indulged in their idea of homosexuality, which was along the Greco-Roman lines of elder Senators enjoying a bathhouse romp with their catamite companions.

    Herzberg comes close, but it takes Schmalfeldt to get a step closer to what's really tweaking conservatives about gay marriage. Schmalfeldt starts by exploring how conservatives have no problem with certain sexual acts, just as long as it's kept within the confines of smoking-hot fantasy lesbianism (and there always has to be an opening for the menfolk to jump in and turn it into a threesome) and the "giving" end of anal sex (with women, mind you).*

    So finally, Schmalfeldt hits on his two reasons why conservatives dread "teh gey": either it's because conservatives have repressed their true sexual leanings for so long that they tend to explode in illicit toe-tapping sessions in airport bathroom stalls or because they assume that since homosexuals likely have as much trouble as they do when it comes to keeping their sexual drive in check, they'd just as gladly hunt down some prime straight virgin man-meat:

    THAT is the problem with gay marriage. It's not the fact that it's same sex have sex with the same sex (as long as it's only women). It's not that anal sex is disgusting, because who hasn't tried to get away with it at least once in a heterosexual relationship (sorry, honey... I missed!) or that we find oral sex to be immoral and de facto sodomy (which we don't even when we say we do).

    The bottom line (giggle) is that stupid straight people are scared that rampaging hoards of GAYS are going to ATTACK THEM and FORCE THEIR wing wangs up their pooter holes and OBAMA SAYS IT'S OK NOW!

    Close, but no cigar. Not THAT cigar, damnit.**

    Let's back it up to a following passage that got my attention. At least it was one of the things that led to a sort of "Eureka!" moment:

    2. You are ignorant heterosexual who -- because YOU would gladly fuck a warm piece of liver if no one was looking -- believes that all gay men will find YOU attractive and want to force their sexual attentions on YOU! Men over 40 don't even like going to the doctor because they know the doc will stick a well-lubricated, gloved finger "up there." The idea of being run to ground by hoards of pantless gay men with their throbbing manhoods acting like divining wands in the search for "virgin ass" terrifies you.

    Schmalfeldt was right there...and he walked right past the door. Let's back up by isolating one key sentence from the above:

    Men over 40 don't even like going to the doctor because they know the doc will stick a well-lubricated, gloved finger "up there."

    Why not? Here's the second piece to that puzzle that helped put everything in perspective:

    Ladies and gents, what that gloved finger is pressing against is the male prostate. What does it do? Let's see what good ol' Wikipedia has to say about it:

    The function of the prostate is to secrete a slightly alkaline fluid, milky or white in appearance,[5] that usually constitutes 50–75% of the volume of the semen along with spermatozoa and seminal vesicle fluid.[5] Semen is made alkaline overall with the secretions from the other contributing glands, including, at least, the seminal vesicle fluid. The alkalinity of semen helps neutralize the acidity of the vaginal tract, prolonging the lifespan of sperm. The alkalinization of semen is primarily accomplished through secretion from the seminal vesicles.[6] The prostatic fluid is expelled in the first ejaculate fractions, together with most of the spermatozoa. In comparison with the few spermatozoa expelled together with mainly seminal vesicular fluid, those expelled in prostatic fluid have better motility, longer survival and better protection of the genetic material. The prostate also contains some smooth muscles that help expel semen during ejaculation.

    It does that, but it also does something else, too:

    The male prostate is biologically homologous to the Skene's gland;[33][34] it has been unofficially called the male G-Spot because it can also be used as an erogenous zone.[35] It is located where the rectum joins the colon, about 50 mm (2 in) from the anus, and when aroused it is a walnut-shaped swelling.

    Oh dear.

    If done correctly the prostate milking or prostate orgasms can be extremely intense-up to 400% stronger and last up to 5 minutes. These intense prostate orgasms from prostate milking are what makes the prostate milking for pleasurably for males.

    Oh dear oh dear. It all puts those toe-taps and that "wide stance" under an entirely new perspective.

    It's not just that being the recipient of male-on-male anal sex is seen as humiliating (as is any sexual action that involves submissive behavior on a man's part, especially towards another man), it's deriving any sort of pleasure from it that's likely to screw with a conservative heterosexual's head. The concept of "body betrayal" seems just as valid when applied to the idea of an unwilling or hesitant homosexual encounter. The biggest worry of someone with a die-hard heterosexual identity is discovering that being the recipient of male-on-male anal sex...feels good to them.

    Or better still, they dread having the option of trying out homosexuality without any legal, social or moral backlash just to see if they like it or not, and if they do...

    Combine this with the whole idea of being good-looking enough to have gay guys chasing after our conservative friend. In the conservative's mind, they end up falling into the same position of vulnerability as women when it comes to the issue of sexual assault. No man wants to be in that position of vulnerability, nor does any man want to deliberately put himself in that position. By conservative logic, adopting homosexuality is effectively adopting a woman's vulnerability - you're literally downgrading yourself from a "superior" manhood to a "weaker" femininity.

    In other words, hoards of pantless straight men running women to ground with their throbbing manhoods is a socially, biologically and even morally acceptable paradigm, but no straight man wants to see himself being run to ground by hoards of pantless gay men with their throbbing manhoods - they don't want to experience for themselves what the womenfolk experience at their hands. In a way, that'd be acknowledging their own doggishness when it comes to unrestrained sexual behavior. It's why that vivid imagery is effective for keeping conservative men on the straight and narrow - after all, you don't want to be treated like a woman, do ya?

    Dave in Northridge provides the kicker that should send conservatives flying off of their barstools:

    It's also amusing to consider how many of your ignorant heterosexuals don't understand that gay men may be just as uninterested in them as hetero women are. If we're picky among ourselves, we're not going to be picky in general?

    Fear and narcissism. Great motivators.

    Ouch. Even the homosexual men who exist in our conservative friend's mind don't think he's all that and a ball of wax. It's something straight conservatives and even straight men in general tend to gloss over - since they'd "gladly fuck a warm piece of liver if no one was looking," they assume that gay men would behave the same way. And with gay men on the hunt for straight virgin anus...

    But it doesn't work that way. So men who often end up dead last in the sexual relationship draft picks among females also end up dead last among gay men. That's gotta piss off the narcissists and Casanova wannabes who think they're dripping with sexual desire.

    Of course, there's the usual reasoning that conservatives are morally aghast at the idea of gay marriage, as it goes against everything they were taught and everything they know. Allowing gay couples the right to marry one another without incurring social, moral or legislative wrath would go against all convention, conventions that were rigidly held in a "proper" society that respected the status quo. In other words, for all the same reasons sufferage, desegregation and birth control were fought tooth and nail.

    Not to mention the implications on the legislative and socio-religious ends. Maybe I'll cover that in a later blog post.

    *Yes, I do realize that much of Schmalfeldt's piece was intended as biting sarcastic commentary and that he's caught holy hell from a certain section of Daily Kos readers. Why? I think it's this particular passage that gave people all sorts of hangups:
    Heck, if you're a man and you're honest with yourself, you LIKE being on the "doling it out" end of anal sex. How many heterosexual men reading this diary right now have never asked their wife or girlfriend to just take a deep breath, relax, "I'll just put in the tip and we'll see how it goes," and then you ram it home like Captain Kidd jamming his sword back into his scabbard while she hollers "takeitouttakeitouttakeitout" and you tell her to just relax and it won't hurt so bad and she starts kicking and screaming "takeitOUTtakeitOUTtakeitOUT youfuckingbastardpieceofshit" and you finally do (because the walls are thin and your neighbors just LOVE calling the cops) and you tell her she should have at least given herself a chance to relax and enjoy it and she (if she's your wife) doesn't let you anywhere near her with "that thing" for weeks and if she's your girlfriend she stops returning your calls?
    Somehow, they thought Schmalfeldt was somehow characterizing rough anal sex with gay sex, period, while insinuating that all gay relationships involve rough anal intercourse. Or at least that's my understanding of the situation. Also:

    While your intent may have been to use satire, the way in which you have presented thsi material is dangerous. It gives the impression that all men want to rape their wives anally and that all women should just shut up and take it. They just need to "relax"
    If Schmalfeldt was worried about impressions, he surely would have done what so many others would do and soft-pedal the piece into inoffensiveness. Or worse still, not written the piece at all.

    **Think clean thoughts...