Before we examine one of the top sex gossip stories of the day, I would like to give a respectful nod to another decent "lifestyle" feature in the NY Daily News with a women friendly slant involving sexual dynamics. Today they managed to find some of them, all normal looking (all white, btw), and have them discuss their sex lives ... with a sign including saying the last time they had sex. From last night to never; though one is 28, they basically are all thirtysomethings. And, have serious things to say about the subject, including one who is Catholic (not the virgin), and decided to wait until she gets married to have sex with her current mate.
[There also was a pregnant woman, who spoke about how "we" are pregnant. Oh? Were "we" nauseous? Seriously, that is a nice way of looking at it -- it surely is in many ways an event both parents share. Still, sounds a bit funny.]
The Kinsey scale, whatever its limitations, was premised on the assumption that sexual orientation in human populations is not a matter of either opposite-sex or same-sex, or of healthy desires and polluted ones; rather it involves a continuum of possible orientations that are spread across a population distribution-- as are so many other human traits. What Haggard and his friends particularly want to deny is this fact, because it changes the meaning of normalcy and undermines their way of seeing the world.
-- Jack Balkin
Anyway, yes, there are various top gossip laden sex stories out there. There is the story, with at least one detail that we didn't need to know, about the crazed woman astronaut. Also, there is the update of the saga of Rev. Ted Haggard, who we now learn is "100% heterosexual," just in time for Alexandra Pelosi's (yes, the daughter) HBO documentary on conservative religious movements, which included comments from him -- before the scandal broke. In it, he spoke about the healthy sex lives of evangelicals, a statement with which many of both sexes would agree. And, they are not just full of it either, since you can obviously be conservative and have a healthy sex life.
Still, people like TH here do ruin it -- Glenn Greenwald might be right that many of that class have selective vision when it comes to this sort of thing when looking for leadership (so Rudy might actually have a good shot), but this sort of thing only underlines the stereotype that they are a bunch of hypocrites. People who say this should be a bit careful -- consider that even Al Sharpton warned a local black leader to be wary about making support for Barack Obama a "black thing," since the senator is supporting the white mayor of Chicago over black opposition. (h/t Democracy Now!) And, we all know that moralists on the left are hypocrites too ... or, rather, human. It is not a right/left thing, and neither side as a monopoly on moral outrage. We just have to focus on what sort is at issue.
The news does emphasize the problem with trying to work around "accepted wisdom" that leaves something to be desired. I referenced the point last time respecting faith in God that is defended on a quasi-scientific basis (e.g., some form of teleological reasoning). If one works upon some premise, one that is "true," the very unlikely quite possibly might be brought out to defend it. This works both ways. One might consider the resurrection of Jesus as rather unlikely; thus, any number of things, including psychological visions, can be used to examine how it was accepted as true. Some might be deemed a bit unlikely, but much less so than resurrection from the dead (especially under the conditions put forth here). If you do believe in the Resurrection, on the other hand, some of this might seem like trying to stretch things to avoid "the truth."
This sort of thing cannot be seen in a vacuum. The idea TH can, after a short period of counseling and such, be declared "100% heterosexual" is quite honestly ridiculous. It is a bit hard even under the premise that homosexuality is not a part of oneself, but a fake "identity" that grows out of particular conduct. So, if someone stops having that sort of conduct, you are not a "homosexual." One wonders ... don't you need some grace period to determine this fact? It's like an alcoholic declaring himself "dry" after a few weeks -- you need more time than that to prove you won't fall back. Or, let's just say that he was always "100% homosexual," a long term affair notwithstanding. Still, even if you stop murdering, you are still a "murderer," right? It is a bit confusing.
[A comment in the entry linked in the opening quote references those who label themselves "black," even if they are biracial. This is a real issue and reflects the universal issues addressed here. But, in this sense, race is a social construct of sorts, while homosexuality is to my understanding ultimately something deep inside of someone. If TH means "socially" he is heterosexual, I might accept it in some fashion. But, I think he also means in a sexual sense. That is, from now on, he won't be attracted to guys, or have his life affected by such attraction. This doesn't quite fly.]
Seriously, TH appears to at least in part like guys -- at least, he appears to be a bisexual. To be fair, one really cannot know without looking close at his case, or closer than I have (perhaps, there is enough stuff on public record to make a good judgment ... I simply have not researched the point). Basically, I do feel comfortable saying that he has some homosexual tendencies. It is not credible to say otherwise given the information available. So, basically, one has to lie to oneself ... selectively look at the evidence to promote a presupposed viewpoint. One cannot cabin this tendency that easily. It will flow over to other areas, especially related ones (sexually, etc.). And, this is a great area of concern -- people are particularly concerned given the disproportionate influence granted to this group.
So, we can make fun of TH's "100% heterosexual" bona fides (sounds like one of those online tests you take where you can get an icon for your website/blog), but it won't stop there. This mentality helps promote bans on gay marriage and so forth. An actual reasoned out policy that passes the laugh test is ideal and all, but it isn't quite how the world works. The world works this way -- especially in the area of sexuality -- if teenage girls can act more slutty than Kelly Bundy and still be "virgins," TH can be 100% heterosexual. It's just a way of looking at things.
You know. Like criticism of a failed disastrous policy is "bad for the troops." Right, McCain?
[This blog is politics heavy, but again, the open-ended nature of this problem goes way beyond politics. It's like dating a liar. The person's a liar ... s/he might be selectively so, but quite often it's a consistent thing. They don't just lie about one specific thing.]