Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


Full Female Crudity (& Gay Marriage)

posted by David Klinghoffer

Herodotus in his Histories describes the primitive tribes that lived on the western shore of the Caspian sea in ancient times. Some, he reported, were said to “couple in the open…like animals in herds.” Perhaps that’s what we as a culture are coming to: animalism.

Following on our discussion of gay marriage and the stake heterosexual women don’t realize they have in opposing it, a friend writes to correct me for giving women too much credit for innate modesty. 
But before getting to that, a brief review: Modesty means keeping private things private. I argued that our country’s radically revising its longstanding collective opinion on homosexuality, placing a gold star of approval on men “marrying” men, would also mean approving the culture that too often goes with male homosexuality. The normalization of that culture would hurt women by pressuring them to adapt, even more than now, to male crudity — represented in its most extreme form by a strain of gay culture. Our prime illustration was the shamelessly crude writing of gay activist Dan Savage at Seattle’s The Stranger, which he edits, and the comments left here by his fans. It’s hardly a marginal publication, by the way. You’ll find The Stranger in any local Starbucks, any Tully’s. Here in King County, it’s given away in stacks in the foyer of public libraries. Amazing. As kids walk in on their way to story hour, they can pick up a copy.
Anyway, my friendly correspondent writes:

Regarding male gay sexual morals, I think you missed that the same morality is now spreading into the female culture. My observation only, not my area of expertise. But look at the ethics promoted by magazines like Cosmopolitan. Who are the female paragons, the role models? Madonna, Britney Spears, etc. I once chaperoned a high school dance. The aggressors, squeezing the boys’ butts, etc. were the girls. Look at the dress codes. Look at the rates of tattoos and piercings, which send a distinct message of rejection of Judeo-Christian virtue (in my opinion). When I was last in Seattle, I was being driven to my hotel, and four girls were walking down the street. One reached between her friend’s legs and vigorously stimulated her privates — in public.
 
So, where once females kept male animalism, as you put it, in check, now I think that the mainstream view is to join in the fun. This isn’t universal, of course. Many religious women and some others opt out. But they are the odd ones now.

Is he right? I suppose it’s possible that women’s nature is more malleable than I assumed and that, under the influence of publicly conducted indecency from men, many women will cheerfully assimilate.

I have to admit that many of the comments left on our earlier threads by women (or people identifying themselves as women) were almost as crude as the ones left by men. Many had to be unpublished. Yes, I find myself wondering about my original thesis. Not rejecting it, but wondering.
Something else I realize is that the story of Lot and Sodom is an even more illuminating parable than I thought when I wrote about it before. You have the city with its depraved, shameless culture that gives us the term sodomy. You have the father (Lot) who, despite being from Abraham’s household, assimilates its values to the point where he’s willing to give his daughters over to the howling mob. Finally you have Lot’s daughters themselves who, escaping from the city with their father, show us the idea of modesty they learned too well from their residency in Sodom.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(64)
post a comment
freelunch

posted July 7, 2009 at 8:05 pm


… placing a gold star of approval on men “marrying” men, would also mean approving the culture that too often goes with male homosexuality.
Nonsense. You might as well say that allowing couples to marry is approving the culture of the pick up bar. Married or settled couples tend to behave in different ways from individuals looking for a mate or just for sex. It doesn’t matter if the couples are opposite sex or same sex.
You really do not understand how condescending you have been to women in this series. Do you really treat your wife the way you talk about women here, as if they are totally unable to take responsibility for their own actions?



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 7, 2009 at 8:29 pm


“You’ll find The Stranger in any local Starbucks, any Tully’s. It’s given away free in stacks in the foyer of public libraries.”
And your blog can be found anywhere someone can put a computer and an internet connection. I can take my laptop to a McDonald’s with wi-fi, and there you are, dispensing your pearls of wisdom among grease and screaming children. Your point?



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted July 7, 2009 at 8:38 pm


Mordred: My point is, that’s a very privileged and high profile perch, and very public. There are countless blogs on the Internet. Anyone interested in reading my blog has to go looking for it. It’s quite different. Public libraries have to make a decision to put The Stranger in their foyer. Actually, it’s shocking.



report abuse
 

POvidi

posted July 7, 2009 at 9:27 pm


Why do women have to passively wait for men to make their own decisions? How in the world can women be expected to reign in men if they simply do whatever it is the men around them do. Your thesis no longer makes any sense, not that it was a paragon of sound reasoning in the first place.
Also, as for Lot in Sodom, with that context how do you then explain the story at the end of Judges that almost completely parallels Lot’s story. The man in that story, a traveler from far away from the scene of action who couldn’t have been influenced by the town’s corrupt morals, gives his concubine without a second thought over to the Benjamites knocking at his host’s door wanting him to come out who then rape and torture her to death. This was the same woman he supposedly followed for days in order to get her back. I fail to see how this story fits into your bizarre worldly concepts.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted July 7, 2009 at 9:35 pm


POvidi, I know the story in Judges you mean, of course, and agree with you in not seeing the relevance to the subject at hand. That’s why I didn’t mention it.



report abuse
 

leora

posted July 7, 2009 at 11:44 pm


Your correspondent’s observation really, really rings true. Girls were always the ones corrupting and initiating poor innocent young boys who didn’t know what to do around girls other than blush and stammer, waaaay back in junior high some twenty years ago. But they learned pretty quickly, once they found out how willing some girls were to experiment.



report abuse
 

Lauren

posted July 8, 2009 at 12:13 am


David,
Please educate yourself on human sexuality. You have a clearly ethnocentric, not to mention extremely dichotomous, view of female and male sexuality. Take a college anthropology course on the subject; I believe you would find it enlightening.
“I argued that our country’s radically revising its longstanding collective opinion on homosexuality, placing a gold star of approval on men “marrying” men, would also mean approving the culture that too often goes with male homosexuality.”
Our “longstanding collective opinion” on homosexuality has been (1)unduly influence by Judeo-Christianity which should hold no bearing in a secular government (2) Our “opinion”—I assume you are referring to the majority of Americans— should not determine who does or does not deserve civil rights. I wonder what American southerner’s “opinion” would have been in the late 1800s on whether or not African Americans deserved civil liberties.
Furthermore, did you ever ask yourself what the long term effects of denying a certain group of people recognized commitment such as marriage may be?
Why don’t you ever touch on divorce, with its acceptability in our culture? I would argue that mens’ “animal” ways haven’t been “reined in” for years, with nothing to do with homosexuality. Divorce allows men to engage in serial monogamy, divorcing one wife and marrying another…usually a younger model at that.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 8, 2009 at 12:23 am


“Something else I realize is that the story of Lot and Sodom is an even more illuminating parable than I thought when I wrote about it before. You have the city with its depraved, shameless culture that gives us the term sodomy. You have the father (Lot) who, despite being from Abraham’s household, assimilates its values to the point where he’s willing to give his daughters over to the howling mob. Finally you have Lot’s daughters themselves who, escaping from the city with their father, show us the idea of modesty they learned too well from their residency in Sodom.”
Whatever happened to free will? Everyone’s actions in the story get blamed on the “sodomites” (i.e. the “depraved and shameless” homosexuals), but doesn’t your god give people the ability to make their own decisions? This “the devil made me do it” type attitude is probably more responsible for society’s current state than non-heterosexuality. Why feel guilty when you can blame someone else for your actions?
And speaking of scripture, I’m curious about something. I’m aware that Leviticus 18:22 says that same-sex intercourse is “abomination”, and I’m not going to argue that. But Leviticus 20:13 says that those who commit this “abomination” “shall surely be put to death” (KJV translation). If the scriptures are the word of God, why is 18:22 considered valid for condemning same-sex marriage, yet 20:13 is seemingly ignored? When did homosexuality become less deserving of the death penalty?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 8, 2009 at 9:33 am


While women may be choosing to become more promiscuous due to society’s changing morality, does it mean that they are happier? People choose to indulge in all kinds of self destructive beahviors for all kinds of reasons.



report abuse
 

FlexSF

posted July 8, 2009 at 10:44 am


Hateful, sexless, loveless, obsessive, stalker, christianists have lost all control of our private lives. Is the religious zealot who wrote this hate inciting, reckless attack on everything gay projecting his fantasies? The individuals who talk of sex, and animals, are always “religious.” Personally, I don’t give a damn about what they espouse. The moment that they say the word god, or speak with their bible, I realize that I’m not their intended audience. They’re speaking to their klan.
I’ve been compiling hateful religious articles, like this one, and sending them off to two of the attorneys who are building the case for Perry Vs. Schwarzenegger. We are gathering hard evidence of the christianist animosity towards everything gay, and using it against them. We’re not their litter box, and fed up with their christianist lies.
We’re going to stick prop 8 up their fat asses, hard and fast!



report abuse
 

Vulgarian

posted July 8, 2009 at 11:24 am


Poor Cpl Klinger, he is jealous of Dan Savage. Dan is responsible for one of the most popular and successful alternative papers in the nation, and he did it without an Ivy league education. You gotta hand it to him. He will make lots of money that he will pass on down to his kid someday.
Dan is the mainstream, the Kling is a relic of a past no wants to relive. The demographics are cleary in our favor.The only readers the Kling has are readers from the stranger that have found their way here. He should be on his knees thanking Savage. Dan Savage that is. Not Michael Savage a truly vulgar, crude, evil person.



report abuse
 

Alan Stillman

posted July 8, 2009 at 1:28 pm


more flaws in the logical/emotional arguments offered in this piece:
no discussion of women marrying women. in most states and countries where SSM is a possibility, women slightly outnumber men in their desire to form legal, civil committed relationships with a same-sex partner. this argument continues to exclusively focus on male couples.
why not approach this argument from the other direction? how has the denial of equal treatment towards same-sex partners impacted their expression of sexual and affectional relations. just maybe the lack of societal and legal recognition of our relationships has made it harder for us to maintain the type of monogamy that David clearly thinks is more valuable.
men and women, throughout history, have had a difficult time managing very primal urges. studies have shown (I don’t have the citations at my fingertips, sorry) that a certain percentage of children in large Catholic families do not share the same father. is that not the reason why the Jewish tradition teaches that the tribe or religion of the mother is passed on to her children? because (prior to DNA testing – thank you Maury Povitch) we can not necessarily be certain of the paternity without taking extreme measures to control female sexuality.
is monogamy really so vital? I know many couples, same and opposite sex couples, who have open and honest polyamorous relationships. there is no ‘cheating’ or hurt feelings because these arrangements are out in the open. the couples that I have known are healthy and committed, with greater levels of discussion related to sexuality as a result of their exploration of a diverse sexual life. polyamoury is not a viable arrangement for many people, but obviously monogamy is not either.
as humans – a small subset of animals – we do have animal drives. we also have the cognitive powers to manage these to varying degrees. but we often don’t. we have the ability to solve problems using words but we still go to war (societal, tribal) and beat and kill people in fights (individual). frankly, I see war and physical aggression as a much greater evil than non-monogamy.
perhaps, as a result of not having a societal and legal structure placed on our relationships, gay and lesbian people have permitted themselves to act in ways that are more true to our human/animal nature. in recognizing and embracing a sexual minority identity we have already taken steps to express to our true selves. taking additional steps in exploring human sexuality as a broad and wide experience is not really such a big deal once we have taken a few steps off the straight and narrow (pun not totally intended).
finally, as many of the comments of David’s other posts on same-sex marriage indicate, being gay or lesbian is and will always remain a sexual minority. with greater acceptance we may become a slightly larger minority, but same sex attraction is not going to become a majority orientation.



report abuse
 

DavidF

posted July 8, 2009 at 2:25 pm


Alan Stillman–I am pleased to comment of your thoughts. Indeed, normative marriage is not natural and works against a couple’s natural inclinations for the good of all–especially for women and children. In the bargain, we have created civilization.
Removed from the tenets of Judaism and the expectations of society which flow from the Judeo-Christian ethic–far more people in an advanced society might become far less inclined to keep “old fashioned” marital standards. We lose those standards at our peril and most people have noticed that this is precisely what is happening and we now live at a time when we are becoming more and more decadent.
David K is correct to note how women have changed–especially the manners and morals of young women who have become cruder and more sexually aggressive. Not to be outdone by the young ones–popular movies and TV shows portray older women, described affectionately as “cougars,” exploiting younger men. Just this morning I witnessed a young woman in a sports car and very provocative clothing accidentally hit something by the side of the road which lightly damaged her car. Furious, she jumped out the car screaming every expletive that a only a sailor might have said one generation ago. They do not seem to be made of “sugar and spice and everything nice” any more.
Our culture is breaking down–America is in rapid decline. We have done this to ourselves willingly. People like Allan Stillman believe we are actually improving ourselves while NO one will actually come forward–having had the benefit of a stable upbringing and a great Mother and Father to declare openly and honestly that it would have been fine if Dad had repeated flings or if Mom had a way of leaving town for a few days to go down to Mexico and came back cursing. People seem to want these things without ever thinking about what they are really saying.
The best things in life must be constructed carefully, built up over time and worked at. Just following one’s bliss is a sure recipe for unhappiness and disaster. I believe many, many people divorced from morality and their upbringing would be more than pleased to try homosexuality, and the full array of sexual choices. Why not–if you don’t keep kosher–many people also pursue endless varieties of foods and every variety of ethnic restaurants? “One way” sex is the product of Biblical morality or extreme societal and culture pressure.
I welcome that pressure and I’ll defend it.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 8, 2009 at 3:15 pm


DavidF –
Our culture goes through various stages. If you look at evidence of good things and bad things over time in this country you will see that there is no overall trend. Some things have gotten better, some worse. The fact that women don’t feel forced to behave better than men in public isn’t evidence for anything.
You sound like the crotchety old men who have been whining for thousands of years about how civilization is going to hell. Why not go out and see how things have gotten so much better? It will do you a world of good.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 8, 2009 at 3:16 pm


DavidF: “We lose those standards at our peril and most people have noticed that this is precisely what is happening and we now live at a time when we are becoming more and more decadent.”
Strange. Cicero said exactly the same thing two thousand years ago.



report abuse
 

Alan Stillman

posted July 8, 2009 at 3:16 pm


I fail to see how thoughtful and respectful polyamoury immediately leads to cursing and crude behavior. my poly friends are intelligent and respectful. they have stable homes, wise and respectful children. they are open and frank in their communication with others and can describe their thought and feelings without resorting to locker room language. they do not behave in the ways that you describe, which sound secretive and deceitful.
my guess is that the qualities I see in my friends are not the qualities embodied by the young woman you describe, nor the home she was raised in. do not try to make a causal relationship where one does not exist.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted July 8, 2009 at 3:27 pm


>Klinghoffer’s read of the Sodom story is a complete
>crock- albeit the standard Christian understanding
>of the tale.
DK is not a Christian; No standard Christian understanding of the story of Sodom exists;
>Prof. Marc Zvi Brettler, Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies
>in the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic studies at
>Brandeis University and co-editor of The Jewish Study Bible:
[Brettler advances the argument that the Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of inhospitality]
First, Brettler’s thesis is not widely held EXCEPT by those seeking to deny the clear Biblical prohibition against homosexual practice.
Second, Brettler misunderstands the Hebrew. This is a hard charge to make because he is an acknowledged expert in this area, but the plain meaning of the text is clear. To infer otherwise, is to read one’s own values into the translation — Which seems to be exactly what Brettler has done. (NB: I read and write Biblical Hebrew and have great respect for Rabbi Brettler – I, and a whole lot of other folks, just happen to think he’s misguided on this issue.)
The demand of the men of Sodom to have sex with Lot’s visitors, along with their subsequent threat to “act more wickedly toward [Lot] than toward [the two visitors], climaxes and establishes beyond doubt the utterly evil character of the city’s inhabitants that had been alleged on other grounds earlier in the narrative (13:13, 18:20-33). The inhospitality here was not a minor breech of etiquette such as neglecting to set out the best dinner plates and utensils. Theirs was not just a case of failing to take a traveler into one’s home, to wash his feet, to offer food, shelter, and protection (NOTE: See W.W. Fields “Sodom and Gomorrah: History and Motif in Biblical Narrative”, (JSOTSup 231) — esp pp 54-67).
Of course the townsfolk were inhospitible. But what made their behavior inhospitible? In other words, those who adhere to this interpretation, have to explain why the YAHWIST chose to illustrate the inhospitality using homosexual rape and not, say, murder, or “run ‘em out of town on a rail” sort of behavior?
>Secondly, DK is spectacularly ignorant of Middle Eastern culture.
It’s not my place to defend DK (tho’ I’m strongly inclined to do so). Just let me say that the cultures within which the ancient Israelites lived, widely practiced, among other things, homosexuality and child sacrifice. Moreover, virtually all of these cultures ordered their lives around a moral code that, for example, viewed adultery as a sin against the husband. This same moral code permitted a rich man to buy his way out of a murder charge by paying off the family of the murdered person. Get it? In the absence of a transcendent ethical God, cases of adultery and murder could be (and were) considered misdeeds against the spouse or the family, respectively. Because adulterers and murderers sinned against an ethical God, the wronged spouse couldn’t demand blood from the adulterer and the murdered couldn’t buy his way out of punishment.
Fundamental to understanding the ancient Israelites is that they were profoundly counter cultural. This alone supports the thesis that the Israelites severely proscribed homosexual practice — if only because all the other cultures celebrated it.
>To summarize: once more, DK has distorted the Torah
>in an effort to propagate a Christianizing agenda.
This is neither a Christian nor Jewish agenda.
Cheers,
Michael



report abuse
 

What's Good for the Goose

posted July 8, 2009 at 3:47 pm


Olorin: You make your opponent’s point: Cicero said it, and soon the Roman Republic collapsed. He was right, and he was soon assassinated. Out of the vacuum came the dictatorship of Julius Caesar, civil war and more civil war, and finally, the Pax Romana of dictatorship with moral probity dictated by Augustus. But eventually even that devolved to Tiberius, Caligula and Nero. Claudius was a bit better.



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted July 8, 2009 at 3:49 pm


People are free to make any claims they want about Sodom because there isn’t any pesky evidence to worry about. The whole story might as well have started “Once upon a time …” like the rest of Genesis.
Moreover, virtually all of these cultures ordered their lives around a moral code that, for example, viewed adultery as a sin against the husband.
As did Israel to a great degree. Look at the difference in treatment of a married woman committing adultery with an unmarried man and a married man committing adultery with an unmarried woman.
This same moral code permitted a rich man to buy his way out of a murder charge by paying off the family of the murdered person.
Again possible in Israel.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted July 8, 2009 at 4:17 pm


Freelunch:
>People are free to make any claims
>they want about Sodom because there
>isn’t any pesky evidence to worry
>about. The whole story might as well
>have started “Once upon a time …”
>like the rest of Genesis.
What an absurd criticism. So what if the story is a myth? A good portion of the Hebrew Bible is myth (just as a significant part is historical accurate). The point is not the historicity of the Hebrew Bible but the enduring truths inherent in the stories (true or not) God chose to reveal to us. For example: Here’s a myth based on a story that is completely fictitious – The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The point of this fable is to illustrate an enduring truth about credibility and how to lose it. You seem to say “No, you can cry wolf thousands of times and people will still believe you because the boy and his flock never existed. It’s all a great big lie.”
Sheesh!
To reiterate: Whether the story of Sodom took place or not is not the point. What is interesting is the truth that the story reveals. And that happens to be what we’re debating – The truth (or falsity) of the Biblical prohibition of homosexual practice.
Furthermore, I never claimed that the Israelites were better behaved that their surrounding cultures. My claim is that they were given a moral code whose transgressions were accountable to a higher authority. As a matter of fact, much (most?) of the Hebrew Bible is the story of the anguish of God at the misbehavior of the Israelites.
So, even tho’ the Israelits were just a human as the rest of their surrounding cultures, in Hebrew society Murderers could not buy their way out of punishment. The Torah of the Israelites largely invented the principle that justice is to be applied equally to persons of all stations in life.
>Look at the difference in treatment of a
>married woman committing adultery with an
>unmarried man and a married man committing
>adultery with an unmarried woman.
First of all, before I answer this question directly, why don’t you go read about the disparate treatment of men and women in the moral structures of other cultures (e.g., the code of Hammurabi).
What you do not seem to grok about the ancient Israelites is that they were a very practical people. Since their God demands that they treat non-jews, widows, and orphans with the same care and love that they treat members of their community, the consequences of female adultery were far more severe to their society than male adultery, if only because females can get pregant and males can not. The Israelite God, unlike the Gods of the people of the surrounding cultures (e.g., Baal), did not permit the culture to kill, sacrifice, or even ignore children born from an adulterous affair. Hence, the disparate “punishment” visited on male and female adulterers reflected, in part, the disparate consequences to Israelite society.
Cheers,
Michael



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 8, 2009 at 5:21 pm


I am pretty appalled by the decay of our culture, just as much as David Klinghoffer and some of his ideological allies are, and for many of the same reasons.
But nothing that he has posted here as anything to do with gay marriage.
If Sodom had gay marriage, the text does not mention it. There wasn’t gay marriage in Herodotus’s time.
Gay marriage may add a little more grease to the slippery slope we’ve been on for some time now. Or it may be a mitigating factor, by limiting gay male promiscuity somewhat. Nobody knows which, because it hasn’t been around long enough.
I think the existence of no-fault divorce, and the acceptance of children born out of wedlock, has already done far more to destroy our culture than gay marriage is likely ever to do. But I honestly cannot make myself wish to go back to stigmatizing the children of unwed mothers, as we used, or condemning unwed mothers to lives of prostitution and poverty as we once did.
Sometimes there aren’t good choices, only choices among evils.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 8, 2009 at 5:26 pm


This same moral code permitted a rich man to buy his way out of a murder charge by paying off the family of the murdered person.
This is often misunderstood. Such legal codes were common in Europe too (it was called “weregild”).
In ancient times there was no such thing as “murder”. There was “killing a man with armed relatives”, in which case the blood feud was on, and so the institution of weregild, and lex talionis, was developed to limit the destructiveness of blood feuds.
Killing a slave meant you had to compensate the owner. Killing a stranger was quite safe.
In medieval times “murder” meant “secret killing”. Killing a man in front of witnesses was something for your family and his to sort out, peacefully if possible. It would depend on the circumstances; did you kill him in ambush, did you kill him for a good reason?
Weregild was much more humane than the alternatives that existed in those days.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 8, 2009 at 7:42 pm


I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned the one way that gay men really hurt het women: marrying them. I’ve seen a marriage of 10 years collapse when the man – raised an orthodix jew, BTW, married to a reform jewish woman, could no longer maintain the lie that he was straight. It wasn’t pretty. Does anybody want to be married to a partner who chose them out of fear and self loathing? A marriage that at its very core is based off of deception, based off of a lie?
Gay men who marry each other, in honesty and love, are doing straight women the biggest favor possible, by marrying the man they choose, instead of creating a family based on a lie.



report abuse
 

Lailyt

posted July 8, 2009 at 7:44 pm


The above was me.
And what are you going to do if one of your children is gay, David?



report abuse
 

Mylene McKenzie

posted July 8, 2009 at 8:02 pm


Turnabout is fair play. Women should, of course, be able to marry women. Wouldn’t that solve the problem, David? Or perhaps allowing people to love each other without interference from the state is abhorrent to you. Once equal rights are granted to same sex couples, all of this mucky muck that keeps the issue in the news will die down and we can get onto more important marital topics such as Britney Spears’ annulled Vegas wedding and Michael Jackson’s kids’ DNA.
People coming together in expressions of love, whether they be for the opposite sex or the same sex are the building blocks of family. And women are sentient beings, capable of making their own decisions in life. Just because they don’t have a penis is not cause to discriminate and hold them high on a pedestal. Because then that happens, men tend to look up their dresses.
Get a life, David. Work on building strong marriages from within the institution. I, for one, have no desire to be married and subjugate myself to all of the religious undertones that accompany it. I do, however, wish to have legal standing for my relationship, a relationship based on equality and love. And whether I am a gay or straight female makes absolutely no difference in this argument.



report abuse
 

davidf

posted July 8, 2009 at 8:20 pm


Allan S–so I challenge you to tell me that this one “poly” family you describe would happily tell their children of their “understanding.” Do you really think that the children of a mother who routinely engages in open sexual liaisons with other men can disclose that to her children? How do normal children understand such involvement? Would any child fail to see personal betrayal if they knew their mother was out as one of those “bored housewives” that litter one’s span box–whoring it up with horny guys in the neighborhood? Is this even possible, Allan?
I would clearly assert–no this is not possible but they do it and hide it from their kids and likely hide much of it from their spouses–disclosing only some bits and hiding much of the lustful details which easily seem to shame the other spouse. In the most libertine framework–very few people can tolerate the kind of open arrangement that allows for that kind of regular “action.” And even if there are people who can manage such activity–what does that prove? That people can detach themselves so completely that it does not matter?



report abuse
 

Tizzle

posted July 8, 2009 at 8:30 pm


For just one moment, I’m going to accept that allowing men to marry other men would result in a degradation of our moral values.
As Ms Mckenzie started to say: women marrying women would of course solve the problem. Lesbian relationships would obviously be more morally sound than hetero relationships because they are innately more private and less vulgar. There would therefore be an equal balance of vulgarity, and morals would continue unchecked.
I will admit to not knowing much about Herodotus or the peoples of the Caspian Sea. But perhaps the reason he saw ancient folks coupling in the open is because they were slaves or indentured servants, or at the very least, unpropertied? Perhaps it’s not their fault that they had to make do with having sex ‘out in the open’. And what is this “open” anyway? Out in nature, where they thought they might not be found? It’s hard to say. Maybe Herodotus was an early peeping tom who was trying to find fault with people he thought were “primitive”.



report abuse
 

E. Donahue

posted July 8, 2009 at 10:56 pm


i am a woman. i was born a woman. you’ll have to take my word for it, and i am going to try VERY hard not to be crude or vulgar here, even though small minded, albeit well meaning, people like yourselves make me angry, because you choose to meddle in people’s lives and try to induce the government to do the same. women, and men, adhered to the “morals,” or lack of “crudity” or whatever, because the church for centuries has been very powerful and because it was ingrained into their psyche by the way they were raised. this, unfortunately, no doubt justifies for you your crusade to give christian moralists sway over our actions, but let me make it clear, sexual repression is not human nature, man or woman’s, and shame and denial do far more to harm the psyche than a little honesty about sex. There are plenty of scientific studies to back this up, starting with the good ol’ kinsey report, but since no amount of evidence will ever have any weight over your bible, i am wasting my time. it is just difficult to read such drivel without inserting SOME semblance of logic.



report abuse
 

Damien

posted July 8, 2009 at 11:05 pm


So if women have apparently ALREADY been corrupted by the culture, magazines, TV, freedom of speech, etc. to the point where they have the same “immodesty”, “animalism” and even (gasp) “adventurism” as men, can we drop the Reefer Madness act that allowing gays the same civil rights as heterosexuals will somehow CAUSE this thing that has already happened? Correlation is not causation, but in this case you don’t even have correlation on your side.
Even if you were to argue the existence of a cultural sea-change that included acceptance of gay marriage alongside all these other things you find repulsive, immoral, or uncouth, wouldn’t you want to target the CAUSE, rather than another symptom? Or is this a sort of a symbolic cultural “Custer’s Last Stand”?
If you’d like to change your mind, though, I have a fabulous “spin” you can put on this: You ARE Lot. You can be a moral man living in a world of sinners, and God will reward you and smite the evildoers. You can minister to gay people and tell them the errors of their ways, leaving God to judge.
What seems rather UNchristian is to do, as you seem to be, suggesting that we use fear rather than love to coerce one group of people (Christian heterosexuals) to go against the Golden Rule of treating others as we would have them treat us, or insisting that a political law be created to protect this inequality.



report abuse
 

blondegirl

posted July 8, 2009 at 11:06 pm


Your misogyny is showing, David. Women and men aren’t that different. Please don’t foist your idea of what women “should” be like on us and expect us to follow it. Gender stereotypes are on their way out, so you may as well get used to it. Go and read “The Purity Myth”. You may learn something.



report abuse
 

baraqiel

posted July 9, 2009 at 6:40 am


Wow, you are impressing me with your misogyny. You start out a series of columns by posting a theory that is predicated on the idea that all women have a lower sex drive than all men (false). You then proceed by making up what you think a woman’s experience would be to support your point (“I suspect that women in the lesbian community would confirm that it is so.”) Why didn’t you ask any lesbians about that? Is it too hard for you to actually find a lesbian to ask about her life? Using the words of an imaginary lesbian instead isn’t just bad argumentation, it’s insulting to the women that you are stealing the voice from. In your next column, you quote Monique, who it seems was trying to reasonably explain to you why Dan Savage is actually a friend to women. You then discount her experience and imply directly that she doesn’t understand things that happened in her own life. Thats not insulting at all! Finally, we get to this column. You respond to the words that women have been writing you about our feelings towards your theories — your theory that gay men hurt women, your theory that women aren’t sexual. But you do not revise *those* theories, the ones about women’s lives that actual women are telling you are wrong. Instead, you call women who are disagreeing with you animals. Wow. Sir, I am insulted, but more than that I am impressed. This is a great example of how many socially conservative men who claim they’re trying to help women are actually trying to restrict us and remove our voices and agency, even as you go about completely unrelated goals like trying to prevent marriage equality.



report abuse
 

davidf

posted July 9, 2009 at 7:00 am


Allan S–so I challenge you to tell me that this one “poly” family you describe would happily tell their children of their “understanding.” Do you really think that the children of a mother who routinely engages in open sexual liaisons with other men can disclose that to her children? How do normal children understand such involvement? Would any child fail to see personal betrayal if they knew their mother was out as one of those “bored housewives” that litter one’s span box–whoring it up with horny guys in the neighborhood? Is this even possible, Allan?
I would clearly assert–no this is not possible but they do it and hide it from their kids and likely hide much of it from their spouses–disclosing only some bits and hiding much of the lustful details which easily seem to shame the other spouse. In the most libertine framework–very few people can tolerate the kind of open arrangement that allows for that kind of regular “action.” And even if there are people who can manage such activity–what does that prove? That people can detach themselves so completely that it does not matter?



report abuse
 

davidf

posted July 9, 2009 at 7:01 am


Blondegirl–may I ask you who is really the misogynist? There are opposing notions of female empowerment. One side wants to encourage the intelligence, dignity and higher inner wisdom of women as empowering while the other always wants to emphasize–first and foremost and beyond all other matters–issues involving sexual freedom. You take the low road and wish to see it as the high road.
The sexual empowerment of women is quite a sick tale. Women have and always have possessed the power to entice men–nothing needs to be added to the basic equation. Women are alluring, men are prone to be enticed–it is built into how each of the sexes were made.
The question for discussion here is how best for women to progress in our culture and one excellent model here is the ancient Jewish woman. Modestly dressed to de-emphasize her sexuality, while banking on her special and unique gifts–women have equal “power” in the sight of God. But women today have chosen to attempt to play up on the whole sexual angle–emphasizing their bodies while de-emphasizing their true natures. This plays to men’s worst instincts while creating disincentives for men to stick around. Hence, the married man and woman of 40 years ago is now married and divorced 2 and three times. This is not in the interests of anyone and has a huge societal price.
Men and women are profoundly different–they have very different natures and encouraging women to take on the same base instincts of men is not at all empowering to women. It is a conventional lie. The alley cat woman is a fiction blended through the writings and fantasies of homosexual and and male-chauvinist men but many women are now living out that fiction as their reality.
When women stop playing a role written for them by these men and start living lives to emphasize their higher characters and different talents–their standing will again be a model for the world instead of an embarrassment.
It is truly shocking when women in the corporate world, for example, are routinely seen with tight skirts and displayed bosoms. What is going on here? Do women lack the confidence to make it in the world without playing a sexual trump card?
Even the call-line “blonde girl” seems to play up on the sexual allure of the alley cat woman. One would truly struggle to find a self-respecting man with a caller id that referenced a physical part–if he is called “red-headboy”–it would be fair to assume he is gay and on the prowl.
The goal of accepting strong women in what might be considered a male profession is great. The reality of denigrating women by forever playing up and focusing on sexual freedom trashes the first goal, breaks a normal family life and gives women nothing but heartache. The only thing that is really served is the fragile egos of men who can have a pile of sexually available single and married women at his disposal so he can be torn down as well and so he can copy the lifestyle of the homosexual man.



report abuse
 

Jeno

posted July 9, 2009 at 10:34 am


I suppose it’s possible that women’s nature is more malleable than I assumed and that, under the influence of publicly conducted indecency from men, many women will cheerfully assimilate.
This is such an astonishingly naive view of human nature that I’m surprised that the author would dare to let us know he holds it. There is no such thing as “women’s nature” and “men’s nature,” only “human nature,” and human behavior shows that it is extremely variable. Humans are malleable — it’s one of the factors that has led to our success as a species. We adapt to our surroundings, sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse.
The traditional female role of morality police for ungovernable men is a low-reward one, and one that women engaged in because they had few other options. Now that women are financially independent of men and have access to birth control, they can give up on that tedious chore (a produce of socialization, NOT innate nature).
Why don’t you call on men to become less crude, David, instead of lamenting the fact that women choose to no longer rein them in?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 9, 2009 at 11:09 am


First of all, many women aren’t all that pure. Secondly, we are NOT Taliban. For those who want to be modest, fine. For those who don’t, that is ok too.
Last but not least, you speak of men marrying men, but you don’t speak of women marrying women.
Lesbians also exist.
G-d made homosexual people. Did He make them to be miserable? I just don’t think so.
So, I disagree with your entire premise.



report abuse
 

Salty HO

posted July 9, 2009 at 11:09 am


There was no Sodom and Gomorra, as evidenced by the literal meaning of these two words, “burnt” and “buried”. It is a man made myth. The pillar, which is lots wife, is a common salt formation. Even Dan Savage at his friskiest, would not advocate paternal rape. lol
This would be a good time to recommend a Dan Savage book:
http://www.amazon.com/Skipping-Towards-Gomorrah-Pursuit-Happiness/dp/0525946756



report abuse
 

The RH Rev. Father Damascus O'Leary, OLPH, KSC, IDLE, TBD

posted July 9, 2009 at 11:18 am


The Curse of Greyface is upon thee! Be cleansed, and know Goddess for Goddess’s sake.
To be cleansed:
1. Stare thee into the Chaos Star below. Contemplate the nature of Existence and your place in it. You will know when you’ve finished.
\ | /
\ | /
\|/
———
/|\
/ | \
/ | \
2. Drink heavily, and go into the world free of prejudice. Try to love other humans just for being alive. Feel genuine affection for ten humans (or robots).
3. Know that you are a Pope of Discordia, and that you are exalted in the sight of the Goddess Eris and all who love her. You will know when you know this.
4. Consider the lillies of the field. If you can find a field, live in it — you’re halfway there. Consider your field, lie in your field, and defend your field against any hostile dogs or farmers that may invade your field. In the end they will only prove a distraction. At night, fall asleep looking at the stars. Choose which one is your favorite, and by God consider it too.
5. Partake of a hot dog on a Friday, then consult your pineal gland for further instructions.
In the meantime, chant this as often as you like:
Hail Hail Hail Hail Hail
Eris Eris Eris Eris Eris
Or don’t.



report abuse
 

Alan Stillman

posted July 9, 2009 at 12:20 pm


DavidF: I am not avoiding your questions – I posted a response earlier today. it has so far not made it up. although it was respectful and not crude, I assume that it somehow did not meet the standards of the reviewer.



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted July 9, 2009 at 12:38 pm


DavidF: I am not avoiding your questions – I posted a response earlier today. it has so far not made it up. although it was respectful and not crude, I assume that it somehow did not meet the standards of the reviewer.
It probably fell into the black-hole-of-too-many-links.



report abuse
 

Vulgarian

posted July 9, 2009 at 12:59 pm


Lot made easy. If you want to raise moral children, PLEASE HAVE THEM WATCH THIS. praise the lord.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bar3GOzDNzg



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 9, 2009 at 2:04 pm


After reading this article, i wonder if the author has ever been in the company of a gay man at all let alone in the company of woman and gay man at the same time. As a woman i employed in theatre management for many years I can say without a doubt that gay men are much more respectful and well mannered. Perhaps it is because they tend to look at women as friends and equals rather than something to have sex with. If his only experience with a gay man is a Dan Savage column no wonder he is confused. I don’t assume all Jewish men are crude just because Howard Stern is celebrated in the media. What a silly and predjudiced thing to say-that women will suffer if gay men are allowed to marry! I have never been insulted, grabbed, or disgusted by a gay man’s behaviour but i have had all these things happen from straight men (married ones too). I would encourage the author to write about things they know (isnt that the cardinal rule of writing?) and stop commenting on things they obviously know nothing about (eg. gay culture or what it is like to be a woman)-I personally would love an article on his views on changing the tax laws so that gays would be allowed to pay a lower rate of taxes since they are not provided the same rights as heterosexuals. BTW I am a happily married woman.



report abuse
 

Bridget

posted July 9, 2009 at 2:41 pm


What does he mean, people who identify themselves as women? And the movement to allow homosexual marriages are for men and women. I am a gay woman who some day hopes to be married to another gay woman, GOD WILLING! As far am i am concerned, this lovely man is one of the many voices that are getting harder and harder to hear, let alone understand, as the cries for equality thunder onto Washington.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted July 9, 2009 at 2:53 pm


Bridget, what I mean by “people who identify themselves as women” is that on the Internet, people pretend to be other than who or what they are all the time, often to try to score a point against ideological opponents. This is especially popular with liberals leaving comments on conservative blogs or sites. See the definition of “Mobying”:
http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/February2004_2.html#jrm1884
I had this happen to me most recently when a commenter pretended to be an Evangelical Christian and wrote ugly things precisely to discredit Christians.



report abuse
 

Al Eastman

posted July 9, 2009 at 3:07 pm


Contemporary scientific research has posited that male and female homosexuality is genetic. Let us push for stimulus money to delve further into this theory. Determine what gene(s) cause it. Determine how and/or if the gene(s) get transmitted.
In the mean time, let those so inclined to couple with those of their own gender “wed”. Who knows, it may ultimately result in the disappearance of the condition….. or not. To me it is a better use of the money than what has been reported to date.



report abuse
 

DavidF

posted July 9, 2009 at 4:02 pm


Let me spark some more discussion here. It is truly shocking concerning the number of people who believe that there is no difference between men and women. This is precisely the kind of statement NO ONE could have possibly made 40 years ago–everyone would snicker and laugh at such a ridiculous notion.
The primacy of the male/female bond is the hub of the opposition to homosexual marriage. If the Left is right and there is no meaning, no significance in gender–they must be logically correct–why not homosexual marriage?–at least this is a foundational belief one must assume if one is to make the mistake of believing that homosexual marriage is a good thing. Next, is to make flatten any difference between homosexual and heterosexual (they sound so close, right, and they both end in “sexual” (which is so good) so what is the difference, right? Lastly, mankind must be assumed to be the same as any other animal–this is another foundational belief. All of these beliefs are wrong-headed.
Any married man knows full well that when he steps into a marital bond with a woman, he is dealing with a radically different brand of human being. Understanding who women are, what they need, how to give to them takes an enormous amount of training. The entire point of the bond is to pair individuals unlike the other so the bond, this marital bond, creates profound changes in each of the people in the marriage. Modern liberals reduce and degrade marriage by turning it into a business proposal, with two equal partners–each needing to compromise without a sense of giving to the other. Marriage involves a whole heck of a lot more than a compromised business plan. Two men operate on a ego gratification level where neither is required to learn to deal with another–the only thing to work out is the schedule and division of the chores. Two men know nothing of what is needed to live with a woman. Two women live happily while disparaging the masculine in society. Gay relationships are oftentimes ruled by sex rules with faux “masculine” and “feminine” roles–“tops and bottoms” (which grossly misstates the terms of masculine and feminine which is never based on one party on top and the other on the bottom)–and all of this is a tip of the hat towards the functionality of normative marriage and complimentary presentations. But no two women and no two men are complimentary–no matter how much they try to fake it. They are two men–two of the same out to express their own way of expressing affection. Sure this is love but it is not marital love. No two gay men can have a marriage since they are not a man and a woman and the terms are not the same.
So how are men and women different? Wow. In every way imaginable. They have radically different brains and emotions, they have radically different needs, they are very different in their bodies, they have different sex drives, they require so many different things it requires huge volumes just to get at some of it.



report abuse
 

Allie

posted July 9, 2009 at 4:07 pm


Though the Stranger is not a marginal publication, Dan Savage is a sex columnist and entertainer – he’s not at all representative of the entirety of gays. Many form completely monogamous, dedicated families and even religious families. They do not have sex in public, or condone that act, they are not crude, they are soccer moms.
And yes, as a woman why should my moral values be different than the men I know? It is not my job to keep men in check. Men, such as yourself, are intelligent and capable of civility without a woman chaining them down.
How dare you imply that loving homosexual couples are similar to a man who gave his daughters to a mob to be raped. Also, the bible seems to say that g-d was on Lot’s side. That’s depravity.
I beg you, find a homosexual family. Maybe even one who shares many of your values. Talk to them, watch them care for their children. Then tell me that they are an example of the downfall of the human race.



report abuse
 

S

posted July 9, 2009 at 4:18 pm


DavidF –
No one is suggesting men and women are exactly the same. In fact, women and women are not exactly the same. However, there are no emotions felt by one gender that has yet to be experienced by the other. There are women (even heterosexual women) who are masculine in their feelings and thoughts, just like there are feminine men. And no, I am not talking about tops and bottoms.
You seem to be confining women to a very narrow conception of femininity to which many of us (even heterosexuals) can’t conform. I am a hetero woman, who finds that I identify my thought patterns much more with stereotypical men’s, than with women’s. And no, I am not confused. Should I date women, because my mind complement’s theirs better?
Homosexual couples can be every bit as complementary as heterosexual ones. Just as masculinity is not about being a top, compatibility is about much more than sex organs.



report abuse
 

S

posted July 9, 2009 at 4:30 pm


Wow, and DavidF – you really think two men living together is easy from the start? Do you really think they instinctively understand each other’s needs, because their needs are exactly the same???
No! Gay as well as straight couples need to work hard to understand each others needs, quirks and emotions. Gay marriage is not a business contract. It is a commitment to be loyal, to accept the faults in your partner and to work to change your own. It is a commitment to work through problems and to work hard to make each other happy and healthy to the best of their abilities.
Talk to a gay couple!



report abuse
 

ACG

posted July 9, 2009 at 4:41 pm


DavidF – Sure, there are differences between men and women. A basic glance at an anatomy textbook will tell you that. But to say that men are dealing with a “radically different brand of human being” is ridiculous. As S points out, there are no emotions that a woman might experience that a man wouldn’t be able to. Brain scans indicate that men and women absolutely don’t have radically different brains. Men and women generally do, in fact, have similar needs – we’re just socialized to express them differently and, in many cases, do without. Ditto sex drive – maybe I’m just an ungodly hussy, but I know plenty of women who enjoy and pursue sex as much as (or more than) their male partners.
It all comes down not to genetics but to socialization. If women are, in fact, more crude (which I suspect actually refers to sexual openness and assertiveness rather than a tendency to fart and use coarse language), it’s probably because their natural desire to pursue what they want is no longer stymied by society’s insistence that only men get to do that. I have male friends who are, after years of unhappy relationships, finally experiencing fulfilling lives because they’ve learned to express their need for things like thoughtfulness and physical affection, even though society has always told them that such things are only really needed by women.
The men you refer to who seem so desperately befuddled by female nature when they enter into a relationship with a woman are probably confused because they aren’t actually dealing with a woman – they’re dealing with some mythical gender construct of what “woman” SHOULD be, not what she really IS. If they could have the presence of mind to look past this delicate, feminine ideal and address their female partners as actual individuals who may or may not conform to that ideal, they’d probably have better luck relating to them and spend less time being confused.



report abuse
 

Olorin

posted July 9, 2009 at 4:48 pm


What’s Good for the Goose (July 8, 2009 3:47 PM): “Olorin: You make your opponent’s point:”
Why did you think I was disagreeing with him? Just because I’m a disagreeable person?



report abuse
 

clarimonde

posted July 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm


I’m astonished at this article. A woman is first, a HUMAN BEING. An individual. As a woman, mother, wife, daughter..I find your assumption that my morals are shaped by gay rights offensive, condescending and ignorant of my God-given gifts of reason, intelligence and will power given to me by my Father. Your conclusions prove that you know and understand almost nothing of the depth and reality of an individual human soul/child of God and therefore are not qualified to speculate on such things.



report abuse
 

Kris

posted July 9, 2009 at 7:51 pm


There is still one society where women are considered the gatekeepers of morality and responsible for keeping the animal sexuality of men repressed. All women there act and dress modestly. It’s against the culture for women to touch men they aren’t married or related to or even go outside the house with them. It seems that you’d be a lot happier if you just moved to Saudi Arabia where the dominant culture shares your views instead of railing against the end of civilization because women here act like human beings instead of the chaste, non-sexual stereotype you have of them.



report abuse
 

Vulgarian

posted July 9, 2009 at 8:48 pm


You have mentioned on more than one occasion your painful encounter with Concerned Evangelical. You mentioned that he said ugly things. But if you read exactly what he said, there is not a word he wrote that is not correct. You might not like the tone or you might find it crude, but it is TRUE. You wrote off what he said by saying that evangelicals only say this stuff from the pulpit! I find this stunning. They can say that non Christians will suffer a fate worse than your worst nightmares. Worse than anything a medieval dungeon torturer could come up with for an eternity. This would be done to non Christians (that would be you and your wife and children) but it is OK as long as they don’t say it to your face. A real man would not take this attitude, unless he has some alterative motive. I have to much dignity to have such a motive. You further said that only children say what they believe, in regards to this matter. Well brother, “out of the mouth of babes…
You don’t like Concerned Evangelical’s tone but you have to concede his estimate of evangelical theology is pretty standard. The Southern Baptists would agree. It is standard Evangelical theology that nonchristians go to hell.



report abuse
 

Chris

posted July 10, 2009 at 12:18 am


Have you ever stopped to think that the “culture that too often goes with male homosexuality” is a side effect of growing up being told constantly that God doesn’t love them (they are an abomination), and that they are excluded from marrying and having a normal family life? If religion/society doesn’t find it acceptable for them to marry (i.e. enter a permanent, monogamous relationship), if a gay person doesn’t have the spiritual gift of celibacy, what are they supposed to do? Yes, I am one of these gay people. My partner and I have been “married” (i.e. a “wedding” with our family and friends, followed by a monogamous relationship) for 14 years. We are raising 2 children together. Gays and lesbians encompass a wide spectrum of beliefs and values, just like heterosexuals do. It is an undisputed fact that there are many, many examples of heterosexual sex workers, and heterosexual people in “open” (non-monogamous) marriages. Of course, these fringe cases are not representative of the average heterosexual marriage. Likewise, they are not representative of the average gay marriage.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted July 10, 2009 at 12:36 am


Writing in response to Your Name, July 8 11:19
>…have great respect for Rabbi (sic) Brettler”
I do. His book, “How to Read the Jewish Bible” was one factor that encouraged me to take up the study of Biblical Hebrew.
>..no one these days writes BIBLICAL Hebrew-
I could be wrong, but this statement suggests to me that you’ve never taken a class in Biblical Hebrew. I write extensively in Biblical Hebrew — For me, it’s the best way to learn the language. For example, I will pick a pick a passage from a well-known English translation and back-translate the english text into Hebrew. By comparing my written translation with the standard Biblical Hebrew I can assess how much progress I have made. I get it mostly right now. Where I hose up is in the cultural/idiomatic understanding of the words and phrases. But such knowledge takes a lifetime of work and I’m not anywhere near that point. Hence, my sagging bookshelf.
>…And Marc Brettler is NOT a rabbi…,
You are correct. I honestly thought he was a Rabbi. Good catch.
>There is indeed, a prohibition against homosexual practice in the Torah, but it does not stem from the Sodom passage;
This is also correct. But, I did not assert that this was the intent of the Sodom story. In fact, the use of homosexual rape is the author’s means to an end. I took great pains to suggest as much when I wrote:
[i]”Of course the townsfolk were inhospitible. But what made their behavior inhospitible? In other words, those who adhere to this interpretation, have to explain why the YAHWIST chose to illustrate the inhospitality using homosexual rape and not, say, murder, or “run ‘em out of town on a rail” sort of behavior?”[/i]
I’m curious, tho': The tone of your response seems, well, insulting as if you were trying to denigrate me personally rather than refuting the points I made. Why would you take such an approach?
Cheers,



report abuse
 

Jane

posted July 10, 2009 at 1:37 am


David, I was reading your column with my young children (one boy, one girl) and I was put in the uncomfortable position of having to explain “coupling in the open,” “virgin,” and “rape.” I thought your column was a family column?
My daughter is too young to hear the story of how Lot gave his virgin daughters to an angry mob to be raped. (Particularly since, as you should know, the story is to show Lot’s sacrifice for God — I had to explain why his actions were a good thing.) My daughter, who is 10, had a nightmare about her dad handing her over to our neighbors to be raped. She is now afraid to go to sleep at night.
Whatever your feud is with other columnists, you should not allow it to make you write columns that scare and traumatize young girls and upset Christian families. Until you apologize and return to writing family columns, I will no longer be reading your column.



report abuse
 

DavidF

posted July 10, 2009 at 4:17 pm


Regarding S and AVG and others–when people reduce the complexity of the gender differences by saying that all of us are “human beings”–what is really being indicated is the thought we are merely all animals. Which brings us to David K’s favorite topic–evolution–and his complaint that we have fallen for the evolutionist’s argument without enough critical thinking and I agree with him. As only a more highly evolved animal–what is the real difference between a female cat and a male cat beyond the obvious? And when others wish to elevate homosexual relationships to equate them with normative marriage–they say things such as coupling can be complicated and they have the same quirks and frustrations as everyone else who is married–this is merely to admit that homosexuals are like cats. Anyone who owns a cat can associate with the belief that each cat has a unique personality, they have quirks which must be worked through and the bond takes time to develop. Reducing complex human relationships to the standards of animal interaction and animal-human interaction is inadequate, misleading and insulting–all at the same time.
Further, to observe that some men have feminine attributes while some women have a more masculine approach brings us to page 150, so to speak, of a volume concerning gender components which might be some 25,000 pages long. I implore people to be a bit more broad minded in their thinking and dig deeper.
The male-female bond is not at all a social convention and gender differences are not simply social conventions. They are not even “genetic” but built into our natures by the Creator for good reasons. Gay activism, and the liberal heterosexuals who follow the lead)in leveling out differences between the genders wish to re-educate people to believe that a father and a mother have no specific roles, a husband and a wife, no specific attributes. The simple fact that a man might wash dishes and a woman might be one’s lawyer–has no affect on the basic formulation that men and women generally and fundamentally hold specific gender-based attributes.
At the same time a young man in a family learns to become a man who is capable of being in a marriage with a young woman by modeling from his father and his mother–there might be a homosexual or a child from a single parent and there is a need, from activists–to make them feel whole. Sadly, they are not. We once admitted that the children from “broken homes” needed help–today, we deny that they are affected in any way and we serve up phony psychological surveys to prove there is no disadvantage. Gays once proudly understood their orientation as different, “bent,” out of the mainstream–they now demand to be fully in the mainstream as even better models for what is healthy and wholesome and there are elaborate studies (all of them flawed or concocted)to demonstrate that homosexuals serve as equally good parents and are fully equal in every respect in their relationships with each other as married couples. This is the call to activism and it is not a demonstration of the truth and the actual reality.
And so the activists are on the march and the first thing they do is to shout down religious believers who are wrongly portrayed as bigots and misogynists–without ever noticing what is being said. In actuality, the sin of homosexuality is no greater, in the Jewish tradition, than many other sins. The greater sin is the societal need to honor homosexuality in a way that encourages the sin, brings disincentives to those who do *not* wish to follow their impulses and could change– and alters the special standing of the marital unit only so homosexuals might be made to feel comfortable with their circumstance. In any other context, this kind of approach would never be tolerated.
Regarding the role we assign to women–much of this is not simply a convention but feeds directly into a woman’s best nature. I had a woman who was my associate for many years and from time to time she might say, at a rare moment when we had a rude client or something bad came up–“I almost felt like saying something unladylike.” What is going on here? Women are by nature less confrontational and prone to want to avoid the kind of crudity of a man. Therefore, she would not simply have said, “I had to hold myself back from being rude in exchange” since rudeness is not the precise issue. Maintaining poise is something desirable we set as a social convention for women–that’s right–it is a learned behavior. It is the precise need of activists to diminish natural male aggressiveness and natural female charm so as to make the men feminine and the feminine more crude. This is bringing us great damage since the squirming boy needs to vent his aggressiveness and lacks poise by nature and the charming girl needs poise to bring out higher and natural feminine virtues.
Look at the horrible results we are getting from this kind of gender bending. Women who are discouraged by new social convention to act in a ladylike manner instead dress themselves as sexual predators and actually harm their ultimate need emerge as strong, mature, confident and moral wives and mothers. The drive to make women into sexual beings FIRST crushes the higher ideal and distorts the male-female relationship. Men, confronted by sexually aggressive and masculine women, and being badgered into being “metrosexual” and can’t help being confused by the women they encounter. My wife advises that the difference today between hooker and high fashion is only in the quality of the accessories.
For the liberal women who are reading this, understand you owe nothing to men to clear their confusion but you should address your own. While a healthy body is excellent, isn’t there a bad message in displaying your breasts and tight bottoms as a woman who is not a call girl? Is it really a demonstration of ‘feminism’ (wrongly named because it worships the masculine for women)to portray oneself as alluring sexually?
I attended a lecture given my liberal Rita Kempner, WashPost media critic, some years ago about women in cinema. She must have exuded joy over examples of “sexy” women dozens of times through her talk. Is this a good measure of the progress of woman’s supposed liberation in our society or has all of this created merely the enslavement of women instead?



report abuse
 

Dennis

posted July 10, 2009 at 6:46 pm


Once again we see the ancient conflict between obedience to ancient authority vs. the freedom of the individual. If the behaviors of people are not harmful to themselves or others, then these actions are simpy not an ethical issue. If your religion forbids certain actions, then don’t practice them, but don’t try to impose your mythologies on others. The liberation of minorities, women, and gays from the bondage of patriarchical religions invented by old alpha males is a further step in the diretion of empathy, compassion and respect for all. People who obsess about the non-harmful sex lives of others usually have repressed frustrated sexual desires of their own. They can’t stand the joyous sexual freedom of others.



report abuse
 

What's Good for the Goose

posted July 10, 2009 at 8:02 pm


Dennis: But what if the behaviors are collectively harmful to society, as promiscuity–whether gay or straight, male or female–clearly is, e.g. STDs, chaotic lives, single parenthood, millions of abortions, broken marriages and relationships, etc., etc. etc. Many now castigate smokers for the social harm they cause and the costs to the health care system. The dangers of promiscuity are as bad and come on much faster.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 10, 2009 at 9:19 pm


What’s Good for the Goose: “But what if the behaviors are collectively harmful to society, as promiscuity–whether gay or straight, male or female–clearly is, e.g. STDs, chaotic lives, single parenthood, millions of abortions, broken marriages and relationships, etc., etc. etc.”
If you guys believe that gay promiscuity is the end of Western Civilization as we know it, then why do you work so hard to discourage gays from moving away from those stereotypical super-promiscuous “lifestyles” and entering stable long-term monogamous same-sex relationships by insisting…that doing so would also lead to the end of Western Civilization as we know it? What is it going to take for the gay community to satisfy you and to stop you from screaming “the sky is falling” every time someone shows attraction to the same sex?



report abuse
 

LilithianNun

posted July 11, 2009 at 1:22 am


You’re a moron, I can’t believe you actually live a place as cool as King County. Dan Savage may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but you make him look like Einstein.
Of course men and women are equal.Binary Gender is a lie. It doesn’t exist. There are hundreds of ways in which a person can express their gender identity.
Lesbian Pride!
=)



report abuse
 

Vulgarian

posted July 12, 2009 at 12:06 am


What makes america great can be seen in the following link. Its not a bunch of orthodox jews dressed up like Amish men:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzNiZ4CjSsc



report abuse
 

Yirmi

posted July 12, 2009 at 11:17 pm


No, Dan Savage is not right. Women aren’t grabbing each other’s privates in public in the vast majority of America, I think that’s safe to say. I don’t think women have become as sexually aggressive as men. Maybe in some areas and subcultures, especially among those most steeped in popular culture (or those who read Dan Savage!). There’s been movement, perhaps, but not a reversal of roles.



report abuse
 

Husband

posted August 11, 2009 at 4:25 pm


Here’s some clues for the obviously clueless…
“so he can copy the lifestyle of the homosexual man.”
There’s more than one of both. That assumption is the cause of much mis-/dis-information.
And, speaking of false stereotypes,
“Even the call-line “blonde girl” seems to play up on the sexual allure of the alley cat woman.”
It DOES? Maybe to you. To me, it means the color of her hair.
“One would truly struggle to find a self-respecting man with a caller id that referenced a physical part–if he is called “red-headboy”–it would be fair to assume he is gay and on the prowl.”
Not only would it NOT “be fair to assume that, it would be ridiculous. But then again, ridiculousness is in great supply on this thread, beginning with the outor’s false postulations about human beings, both male and female.
Next to “Jane” who thinks reading Cpl. Klinghoffer’s column to her 10 year old girl is a great way of ‘parenting’ and must now quit because there’s an adult topic: Does this mean you will no longer read the Bible to her? There’s more than enough adult material in there to traumatize a young “Christian” child. DO BETTER!
As for this nonsense: “At the same time a young man in a family learns to become a man who is capable of being in a marriage with a young woman by modeling from his father and his mother–there might be a homosexual or a child from a single parent and there is a need, from activists–to make them feel whole.” Hmm, I was a homosexual child of heterosexual parents. I did not “learn to become a man who is capable of being in a marriage with a young woman”; I learned to be capbable of being in a marriage. Period! My husband is still my husband. Not sure how “activists” can make the child (gay or str8) of a single parent “feel whole”. Care to ‘splain that one?
“But what if the behaviors are collectively harmful to society, as promiscuity–whether gay or straight, male or female–clearly is, e.g. STDs, chaotic lives, single parenthood, millions of abortions, broken marriages and relationships, etc., etc. etc.”
So, why not allow gay people to enter into committed monogamous marriages then? Sorry, but you have failed utterly to make your point.
Sorry to go on so long, folks. There’s just SO much bullsh!t in this blog, perhaps I should just not come back.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.