« notes from the underground | Main | I wanna spread the news if it feels this good getting used »

anna

Big hands I know you're the one

by anna at 06:50 PM on April 21, 2003

Splendid to see the original Bad Samaritan Snaggle on this site. But I swear this piece has nothing to do with his reappearance here. It was actually written last week but I hadn’t found time to post it till now.

So I’m perusing this article and thinking to myself, damn, I was just warming up to my company’s newly instituted policy of putting domestic partners on equal footing with wives and husbands. Come to find out we’re already barreling headlong into the “post-gay” era as embodied by this Cojo. Seeking confirmation, I perform a Google search. Just imagine my surprise to discover that everyone is gay to some extent!

There’s ample historical precedent to support such a counterintuitive notion. In ancient Greece and Rome it wasn’t at all uncommon for respectable married men to keep a boy toy or two on the side. No stigma was attached to this practice. Hell, according to the link above, no less a mind than Sigmund Freud himself believed we all swing both ways. It’s only in modern times that we’ve started making these arbitrary distinctions about sexual preference.

I’d guess that leather-vested gay activists have a vested interest in promoting this premise, in part because their aim is for homosexuality to be widely accepted as an alternative lifestyle rather than deviance as it was in the pre-gay era. And it’s working. In fact, the whole concept of “deviance” has been marginalized, except for pedophiliac priests. Witness the ho-hum reception that greeted the coming-out of lesbians from Ellen DeGeneras to Rosie O’Donnell. When tabloids announced that the First Lady herself was a lesbian, all it elicited was a collective yawn. To say nothing of Today and Access Hollywood’s giddy embrace of this Cojo fellow, who makes Elton John seem like John Wayne in True Grit.

Were we to accept the universal gaiety theory as fact, then surely the converse would hold true as well. Primarily gay men must occasionally stray into heterosexual territory. Ditto for lesbians getting seduced by men. Just look at onetime lipstick lesbian and certified nut Anne Heche, who’s since wed a filthy... guy.

Everyone fancies themselves enlightened when it comes to homosexuality, except as it’s practiced in prison. This was never more in evidence than when the Lecher of the Free World used to invite DeGeneras and Heche to lavish state dinners and beam his approval as they’d paw one another.

It’s also gotten fashionable to lump gay men in with lesbians, as in “the gay & lesbian community.” I disagree, in that it’s clear many dudes revel in lesbian action while few women go in for watching gay guys bugger one another. Then again, correct me if I’m wrong. I’m not exactly hip when it comes to sexual matters. In fact, I just learned what goes on inside glory holes. Eek!

Let me confess one thing before I dig myself any deeper into this morass: Although I have gay friends, I remain woefully ignorant about gaiety in a practical sense. Aside from one youthful experiment in a tool shed, I have yet to explore my effeminate side. Okay, there was that time in Key West when I got picked up hitchhiking. The driver had taped a snapshot of this hot blonde to his dashboard. Desperate to pierce the painfully awkward silence, I inquired about her. The dialogue to follow is indelibly etched into my mind: Him: She’s a pistol alright, but no girl could ever know how to bob on the ol’ knob like a guy. Me: You think? Him: Look at the size of these hands! Me: You should keep them on the wheel.

That one youthful toolshed encounter was a fluke in that it was over before it had begun. It wasn’t... consummated so it didn’t count. Nonetheless, I do wonder what would have happened if I’d taken that big-handed driver up on his proposition. Given that I cringe when touched by anyone aside from my wife or mom, I’d have probably hated it. But if I’d have relished his ministrations and thus elected to pursue a light-in-the-loafers lifestyle, I am so certain I’d bear no resemblance to the flamboyant Cojo or those stereotypically promiscuous gay guys as depicted on Will & Grace. More likely I’d be one of those quaintly monogamous old guys you see holding hands at museums. Gay Me would be more The Birdcage than Queer as Folk. Really.

comments (16)

Funny how I'm always the one associated with gaiety. Oh wait, it's probably because I'm always the one talking about gaygay stuff. :)

by snaggle at April 21, 2003 10:18 PM


Anna, once again your ignorance is showing. Perhaps this is an attempt at humor. If so, it has failed.

by jadedju at April 21, 2003 11:47 PM


I think you confuse being gay with having an effeminate side.
We all act like girlies under several circumstances but it might have nothing to do with sexuality. I mean, it's a social rule to apply behaviors to genres. For example "women are more sensitive" is such a rule. So when a MAN is sensitive he breaks that rule and then they call it his effeminate side.


Apart from that I think it's stupid to try "exploring" any gay sides of yours just out of curiosity! You should feel at least a need to do something, right? Or else why would you like it if it didn't fulfil some need of yours?
When you first masturbated you didn't do it out of curiosity, so that's how it goes for everything!


Final thing I had to say:
It seems being gay or bi or whatever is largely imposed by customs and social structure.
Ancient Greeks used to marry women and fall in love with boys.
Why?
Cause boys were the only ones getting educated in ancient Greece. A man would WANT a woman cause nature called but he would want a boy (note that the difference of age between 2 lovers was always a part of the equation) cause it provided the needed cultural challenge in order to fall in love.
Older men we would today call pedophiles were suppose to guide young boys generally (teach them, in fact) and a part of their guidance was sex.


And thank God my girfliend isn't pregnant finally (nothing to do with the rest but I can breathe again :p )

by necropethamenos at April 22, 2003 4:58 AM


I think you confuse being gay with having an effeminate side.
We all act like girlies under several circumstances but it might have nothing to do with sexuality. I mean, it's a social rule to apply behaviors to genres. For example "women are more sensitive" is such a rule. So when a MAN is sensitive he breaks that rule and then they call it his effeminate side.


Apart from that I think it's stupid to try "exploring" any gay sides of yours just out of curiosity! You should feel at least a need to do something, right? Or else why would you like it if it didn't fulfil some need of yours?
When you first masturbated you didn't do it out of curiosity, so that's how it goes for everything!


Final thing I had to say:
It seems being gay or bi or whatever is largely imposed by customs and social structure.
Ancient Greeks used to marry women and fall in love with boys.
Why?
Cause boys were the only ones getting educated in ancient Greece. A man would WANT a woman cause nature called but he would want a boy (note that the difference of age between 2 lovers was always a part of the equation) cause it provided the needed cultural challenge in order to fall in love.
Older men we would today call pedophiles were suppose to guide young boys generally (teach them, in fact) and a part of their guidance was sex.


And thank God my girfliend isn't pregnant finally (nothing to do with the rest but I can breathe again :p )

by necropethamenos at April 22, 2003 4:58 AM


I never posted that twice. Really.

by necropethamenos at April 22, 2003 4:59 AM


JadedJu, I am sorry if I came across as woefully ignorant in your eyes. But I think the post contains those very words. And yeah parts of it were intended as humor others weren't.

by Anna at April 22, 2003 7:44 AM


Jaded Jew. How redundant.

by Lockheed at April 22, 2003 3:43 PM


JadedJu, I don't think it's a crime to be ignorant of something you've never experienced or been a part of in any real sense. I don't think many here can say they haven't made light of things they don't understand either. I, like Anna, am pretty ignorant of the homosexual lifestyle because I don't walk in those circles. That's not to say I think it's wrong or dirty. Hell, the couple of times I have found myself in the heterosexual minority, in a given situation, it didn't make me uncomfortable. That's probably because the people I was around knew I was straight and didn't feel the need to make a big deal out of it. I feel that everyone has the right to pursue whatever lifestyle they choose as long as they aren't, consciously, hurting others. I don't think Anna meant any disrespect. You might lighten up a bit.

Congrats Necro. That's great news man. Now be more careful you knucklehead ;-)

by Ezy at April 22, 2003 4:12 PM


Two simple notes: When you say "... as it was in the pre-gay era", you were probably trying to refer to a previous era less accepting of homosexuality. There never was a pre-gay era, as homosexual behavior has been around forever.
Second, speaking as a biologist, the notion that "everyone is gay to some extent" is not surprising. There are few traits that fall neatly into binary categories - yet our laws do not always recognize that distributions of form can exist. Remember histograms and distributions? So if 98% of the surface area of a histogram can be used to accurately quantify maleness or femaleness, or homo or heterosexual preference, that's still a fair amount of area left to margnilize that which doesn't fit - especially since we like to think in binary terms (i.e. laws apply to 100% of the people, or I'm 100% heterosexual).

by chris at April 22, 2003 5:24 PM


Anytime you write about a subject like this, it is liable to elicit a wide variety of responses. And I must say, I hav learned something from these. Also, in the post I mentioned some of my gay friends, one of whom presided over my stepdaughter's marriage. What I see as the cool part of or relationship is that when we're talking, matters pertaining to their (or my) private lives just don't come up. It's not that we're uncomfortable talking about, we just haven't. And no, Ezy, I meant no disrespect to anyone. As you've seen, when I mean disrespect it's all too obvious.

by Anna at April 22, 2003 6:39 PM


Yesterday, my roommate said she lived with two lesbians, a sexually-ambiguous roommate, and her boyfriend. I was the sexually-ambiguous one. Although I don't like labels, I kinda liked that one. And when I was in high school, I remember being asked if I was homophobic. I responded that I didn't know if I was or not. Then I met my first gay friend and was enlightened. It's all a matter of being exposed (not literally) to gay people and being somewhat open-minded when it comes to gays. And never be afraid to ask questions. Those who consider themselves to be in the sexual minority are usually more than willing to enlighten the ignorant.

by Leaffin at April 23, 2003 1:04 AM


I could have saved myself a lot of keystrokes and just left it up to Leaffin, who just expressed what I was trying to say in one paragraph. Touche.

by Anna at April 23, 2003 1:22 AM


I'm still trying to understand. Anna WAS supposed to be ignorant. Right? I mean that's more or less what he wrote.
So why is he under attack?

by necropethamenos at April 23, 2003 4:35 AM


Is Anna under attack? Aside from JadedJu's annoyance I don't see it. Expressing opinion and experience in public is likely to draw some kind of response - but I don't see the responses above as unfavorable or agressive.

by chris at April 23, 2003 11:55 AM


I'm terribly offended.

by Lockheed at April 23, 2003 4:05 PM


While I fully agree with Chris about the comments, I think I'll lay off the "provocative" posts for a while. It's spring, man, time to have some fun.

by Anna at April 23, 2003 6:30 PM