Does flaming promiscuity indicate a guy is gay?

[DaveyR]

Not unlike this thread, I'd say. Don't like something Ms Coulter says? Especially if there is the remotest possibilty that there could conceivably be anything behind it? Then call her names. Cunt. Very nice. Now go have a group hug and convince yourselves that you've slain yet another nasty ol' dragon.

As for Ms Coulter's claim? Didn't read it or see it on TV, but I've read an awful lot of Internet whining about it. Although her thesis is probably conventional wisdom, that's hardly stong confirmation of veracity. I have no idea, myself, and doubt that any of you have actual, you know, data about the phenomenon, either. Much better to call her names and fret about Brown Shirts. How do you people look in brown, anyway? Such attire would not be inapproriate. The talk of chemical solutions here reminds me of certain National Socialist slogans, not to mention some very bad habits.

The Coulter problem (aside from her being celeb material) is that she can make a reasoned argument, and sometimes actually does. The only way to meet a reasoned argument is with force (actual, not rhetorical - not recommended in this case) or with an opposing argument of the same caliber. "She's a cuntard" is not a very satisfactory argument.

OOOh get you. Lighten up.

 

[dcwrestlefan]

The Coulter problem (aside from her being celeb material) is that she can make a reasoned argument, and sometimes actually does.

um. provide evidence. i've never heard anything remotely close to a reasoned argument from this "woman". she is a tv person in it for the money, so she says outrageous things to get people to watch her. like rush "i hate drugs" limbaugh.

i give her about as much credit in the political arena as mickey mouse when it comes to debating issues. their brains are the same size. (apologies to mickey)

 

[rob_just_rob]

Not unlike this thread, I'd say. Don't like something Ms Coulter says? Especially if there is the remotest possibilty that there could conceivably be anything behind it? Then call her names. Cunt. Very nice. Now go have a group hug and convince yourselves that you've slain yet another nasty ol' dragon.

As for Ms Coulter's claim? Didn't read it or see it on TV, but I've read an awful lot of Internet whining about it. Although her thesis is probably conventional wisdom, that's hardly stong confirmation of veracity. I have no idea, myself, and doubt that any of you have actual, you know, data about the phenomenon, either. Much better to call her names and fret about Brown Shirts. How do you people look in brown, anyway? Such attire would not be inapproriate. The talk of chemical solutions here reminds me of certain National Socialist slogans, not to mention some very bad habits.

The Coulter problem (aside from her being celeb material) is that she can make a reasoned argument, and sometimes actually does. The only way to meet a reasoned argument is with force (actual, not rhetorical - not recommended in this case) or with an opposing argument of the same caliber. "She's a cuntard" is not a very satisfactory argument.

Amusing about how you complain about people not addressing Ms Coulter with an argument here, and then you conveniently fail to address MY argument.

 

[JackbytheSea]

I've never understood how long-standing, supportive relationships became the benchmark of male maturity.

Most of the cats I know who screw around aren't scared of women. In fact, they know women too well and have decided that uncomplicated, short-term arrangements are best for them and the women they deal with. Every guy doesn't have to be Mr. f'ing-Goodbar, and every skanky guy isn't gay.

Anybody read Ann's column online, lately?

This chick is always busting our nuts about not being man enough for this, that and the other thing. She's always crowing about how soft the modern man is. Now, she's saying the only real men are the guys, who spend their Saturdays holding a shopping bag, while their women attack a shoe sale? She doesn't know what the heck she wants!

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
This chick is always busting our nuts about not being man enough for this, that and the other thing. She's always crowing about how soft the modern man is. Now, she's saying the only real men are the guys, who spend their Saturdays holding a shopping bag, while their women attack a shoe sale? She doesn't know what the heck she wants!

Right, Jack.

And bigdirigible, she loses some credibility when she blames every conceivable ill in the modern or ancient world on "those liberal democrats", then proceeds to start her screaming rants. You lost just a little credibility when you referred to Ann's detractors as "you people."

 

[D_Poppy_Cocque]

The "flaming" part might indicate that he's gay,
the "promiscuous" part might indicate he may be randomly having sex
(if unprotected - that's bad... very very bad...)

 

[headbang8]

Not unlike this thread, I'd say. Don't like something Ms Coulter says? Especially if there is the remotest possibilty that there could conceivably be anything behind it? Then call her names. Cunt. Very nice. Now go have a group hug and convince yourselves that you've slain yet another nasty ol' dragon...

The Coulter problem (aside from her being celeb material) is that she can make a reasoned argument, and sometimes actually does. The only way to meet a reasoned argument is with force (actual, not rhetorical - not recommended in this case) or with an opposing argument of the same caliber. "She's a cuntard" is not a very satisfactory argument.

Big D, I agree with you. You are, as ever, a voice of reason.

Immature name-calling doesn't advance the discussion. "She's a cuntard" is hardly a rational argument.

But then, neither is her assertion that sexual moderation is the only evidence of heterosexuality. There are plenty of gay men who are picky and plenty of healthy, sexually well-adjusted straight men with robust sexual appetites. I'm sure one can find closeted gay men who seek women to help them in their denial. But the majority, from my experience, can rustle up only a meagre interest in the opposite sex. The majority of closeted gay men masquerade as restrained heterosexuals--of the very sort Coulter cites as pillars of straightness.

Here's another thought: Bill Clinton suffered early childhood loss and abuse, which leads him to search for love recklessly. The former is a known fact, and the latter is a demonstrable psychological phenomenon.

More likely explanations for Clinton's behaviour are abundant. In the face of that, Coulter advanced no argument for her alternative, apart from you've got to ask if such men aren't overcompensating for something.

As you say, Big D, Coulter may sometimes mount a reasoned argument. But not in this case. It wasn't even an argument. To me, it sounded like simple slander. To her audience, calling Bill Clinton gay is slander. She might as well have called him a "cuntard", to use our fellow poster's phrase. Probably, she could mount a better case.

Calling Bill Clinton gay because he sleeps around, is like calling Coulter sexually frustrated because she eats carrots. It's a waste of time and energy to refute such poppycock. More important, it's a waste of public discourse.

We should value reasoned debate, and uphold the principle that all voices be heard. But sometimes, the sensible argument is that's just stupid.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

[...] her assertion that sexual moderation is the only evidence of heterosexuality.

That's funny considering how rampantly promiscuous Ann is rumored to be.

 

[DARDS4444]

anybody ever notice the huge adams apple on ann the man coulter.........faux television hottest cross dresser

 

[B_horribleperson]

I saw an interview with Ann Coulter

thats how much i of your post i read. now why you listened to more then 2 seconds of that self hating dyke speak is beyond me.

 

[agnslz]

anybody ever notice the huge adams apple on ann the man coulter.....

...I certainly have!:biggrin1:


And to everyone who has defended this "celeb material" douchebag, evil cuntard - against unreasoned name calling - I'd say: he/she certainly has had no problem using slander and name calling herself! On Chris Matthews' Hardball show a couple of weeks back, a female audience member asked evil Coulter bitch, a fairly simple and reasoned question. It was along the lines of "why do you use such divisive language and are an angry evil bitch all the time?" (I paraphrase, of course), to which all that evil bitch could say in response was to call the lady a "little miss smarty pants."

Two posters ("Big D" and Headbang8) seem to want to defend this ugly, vile, piece of filth from personal attacks, but what else has SHE spewed other than that lately? Calling women who lost their husbands on 9/11 and who don't go in lock-step with the administration on the Iraq war "harpies", and basically calling Pres. Clinton a closet fag, sure aren't reasonable things for one to say IMO! Why should HE/SHE be defended from such things, with this in mind? I hate this ugly, evil bitch like I've hated no one else in my life! I hope all the bad things in the world happen to her/it and only her/it!:wink: Call ME unreasoned and childish in my remarks and I'll give you more examples of HER/ITS wonderful abilities at reason!

As for her 'arguments' - I can't take anyone who is only out to cause scandal and publicity to sell her/his shit-book, and generate more attention for themself - seriously. I don't care what "truths" one can find to any of her 'arguments'! They are still only being said to rowl up attention for this evil, anorexic, ugly, waste of space, lowest form-of-life, slutbag, wanna-be celebrity, gross, skaggy, man-looking, evil bitch and her stupid, bullshit-filled book! Rest assured in the near future he/she will come out with another of its stupid, one-word-titled, 'books'. We will once again be treated to more of this evil bitch's stupidity! I just hope it will be called: "Bullshit! Why I only exist to write stupid one-word-titled books that take stupidity - guised as reason - to another level!"

 

[headbang8]

...
Two posters ("Big D" and Headbang8) seem to want to defend this ugly, vile, piece of filth from personal attacks, but what else has SHE spewed other than that lately?

Is it any wonder I love this place?

And I love you, too, agnslz. I think if you read my post you'll find that we're on the same side of the fence.

You're right. Both the Big D and I chose not to call Ann Coulter an evil cuntard douchebag bitch. I certainly don't dispute that she may very well be one.

But I did say that what she spoke seemed to me to be of slanderous intent, and that her argument was just plain stupid. Which is how I prefer to go about an argument.

I can't speak for Big Dirigible, but he was careful not to say that he agreed with her point of view, either.

Here's my point:




When faced with a personal attack, which is the better response?

Bill Clinton is a liar!

1. Of course he lied to protect his family from even more hurt and shame. You'd do likewise.
2. You're an evil bitch!

Bill Clinton is gay!

1. Fucking lots of women makes you gay? How stupid is that argument?
2. You're just saying that because you're a frigid anorexic lesbian in denial!

The best way to fend off a personal attack is to depersonalise it. You'll notice that even the most spitball attack-dog politicians use this tactic when defending themselves.

I've only just recently returned to the USA from living abroad most of my adult life. It really disappoints me that American political discourse has descended to name-calling and knee-jerk arguments.

When the non-US media ask for political punditry, Coulter is never called on (for obvious reasons) so I know little of her work.

But it would seem that you can disarm her easily by engaging with her arguments. From what I understand, the thesis of her latest book is that atheism/liberalism is the new state religion, which has left Christianity and Judaism fighting for their lives. And that liberals believe in liberalism with a religious fervour.

The first deserves a simple "How stupid is that?" Apart from the fact that you can see it's not true by turning on your TV set, it's the wierdest misinterpretation of our state-sanctioned freedom of religion that I've ever heard.

The second question deserves a more detailed answer, and that answer is of course. Political beliefs are just that: beliefs. Beliefs like feed the hungry and care for the sick before you make corporate jets tax deductible. Such things are indeed, a reflection of personal values; an article of faith. And more liberals are religious than not: are the Kennedys Catholic, or what? I think this approach leads to a more productive (and winnable) debate.

So, how do you defend yourself against personal attack? Depersonalising the argument is one way. But arguments are rarely won on facts. Emotions come into play.

Humanising the debater is a necessary part of winning--and that's rarely done in the course of an argument.

Bill Clinton remains politically popular because we have the measure of the man. We can say this of few other Democrats, who for the most part, seem like Republican millionaires who just happen to live on the other side of Central Park.

Bill took his 67 Mustang convertible to the Mustang Owners Association of America convention and declared it the highlight of his presidency. He was poor. His step-dad beat him up. He has a deadbeat brother. He plays the sax badly. He admits mistakes.

By contrast, Hillary comes across as a better-fed Ann Coulter. Yet, when I saw Bill make the oration at his father-in-law Hugh Rodham's funeral, Hillary came alive as a human being. Bill described the atmosphere when he visited the Rodham's house; lively debates over the dinner table, the talk never stopping simply because one's mouth was full. The bright, nerdy sisters laughing over some of the absurd things they found themselves saying. Poor Bill left behind in the mile-a-minute conversation. I saw a picture of a family with heart. And Hillary, the classic smart girl doing the best she can, holding her own among the strong, smart men in her family, and winning.

That's how you make Ann Coulter look like a small-minded, self-loathing, evil bitch. Not just by calling her those names. But by demonstrating the alternative.

The democrats have spent so much time waging arguments, they've forgotten the importance of telling stories. And the storytelling has to begin long before any debate takes place.

Two words: Barak Obama

Sorry for the long post agnslz. You should never get me started! HB8

 

[DC_DEEP]

Headbang8, you HAVE been away too long. The problem is, there is no rational dealing with Coulter. I really was not kidding or being witty when I said I think she desperately needs some psychotropic drugs. Something heavy-duty, like Thorazine.

Everything I have read by her, every time I have seen her on TV, she literally rants and shrieks that every ill in the world is the fault of those god-damned commie-liberal-democrats. The last thing I read by her was a link that another LPSG member posted, something about rape and violent crime, I think... She sounded fairly rational, for about 3 paragraphs... then she started in with the left-field rant about how all rape and violent crime in this country is because of the liberal democrats. No shit, she really did. Every ingrown toenail, every failed history test, every red-wine-stain-on-your-best-linen-tablecloth, every flood, hurricane, tornado, earthquake... it's all the fault of those sleazy liberal democrats.

 

[headbang8]

Headbang8, you HAVE been away too long.

Or not long enough...

 

[dcwrestlefan]

Or not long enough...

nah, you are enjoyable reading around here.

two things...

1) i called her names not as part of an argument or debate. i just don't like the bitch. this is not the floor of congress, and i am not on tv, so i can and will do this if i wanna. :smile: it's fun!

2) she does not present reasoned arguments. why should i be required to, tucked away on a penis chat board on the edge of cyberspace. (the cutting edge of course)

this will sound weird as hell, but i can listen to pat buchanan. i can understand his thinking without agreeing with it. ann just makes no fucking sense to me at all.

 

[agnslz]

Is it any wonder I love this place?

And I love you, too, agnslz.

I LOVE it too, and I love you as well, Headbang!:biggrin1::smile:

BTW, I enjoyed your post in the What Is It With Americans? thread yesterday! Your firsthand exp. and knowledge was very insightful and made me understand more about a culture (Japanese) that I find very intriguing and interesting. Thanks for that as well!:smile:

I think if you read my post you'll find that we're on the same side of the fence.

Headbang, I did read your post and completely understand what you're trying to do AND where you're coming from! I just think that trying to confront her idiocy and rantings with any sort of civilized or reasoned arguments, is about as big a waste of time as she is a waste of space!:biggrin1:

You're right. Both the Big D and I chose not to call Ann Coulter an evil cuntard douchebag bitch. I certainly don't dispute that she may very well be one.

But I did say that what she spoke seemed to me to be of slanderous intent, and that her argument was just plain stupid. Which is how I prefer to go about an argument.

Well, you're a much better person than I, I guess. I'm glad that you at least don't dispute what she IS!:biggrin1:

The best way to fend off a personal attack is to depersonalise it. You'll notice that even the most spitball attack-dog politicians use this tactic when defending themselves.

Generally, I'd agree with you, but this stupid, rancid cunt deserves to be personally attacked - as all SHE ever does, is that!:biggrin1:

I've only just recently returned to the USA from living abroad most of my adult life. It really disappoints me that American political discourse has descended to name-calling and knee-jerk arguments.

When the non-US media ask for political punditry, Coulter is never called on (for obvious reasons) so I know little of her work.

Welcome back!:smile:

I'm sorry you're so dissapointed in American political discourse, but Ms. Coulter and most others like her on the 'Right' (and some on the 'Left' as well) are to blame for its current state!

I'd also agree with dcwrestlefan, Pat Buchanan is certainly off his rocker in his views, but he certainly presents them in a much more reasoned way. He also can be critical of his own kind (Conservatives) and analytical of his own views. Two things which Ms. Coulter, knows nothing about being!

But it would seem that you can disarm her easily by engaging with her arguments. From what I understand, the thesis of her latest book is that atheism/liberalism is the new state religion, which has left Christianity and Judaism fighting for their lives. And that liberals believe in liberalism with a religious fervour.

The first deserves a simple "How stupid is that?" Apart from the fact that you can see it's not true by turning on your TV set, it's the wierdest misinterpretation of our state-sanctioned freedom of religion that I've ever heard.

The second question deserves a more detailed answer, and that answer is of course. Political beliefs are just that: beliefs. Beliefs like feed the hungry and care for the sick before you make corporate jets tax deductible. Such things are indeed, a reflection of personal values; an article of faith. And more liberals are religious than not: are the Kennedys Catholic, or what? I think this approach leads to a more productive (and winnable) debate.

So, how do you defend yourself against personal attack? Depersonalising the argument is one way. But arguments are rarely won on facts. Emotions come into play.

Humanising the debater is a necessary part of winning--and that's rarely done in the course of an argument.

Bill Clinton remains politically popular because we have the measure of the man. We can say this of few other Democrats, who for the most part, seem like Republican millionaires who just happen to live on the other side of Central Park.

Bill took his 67 Mustang convertible to the Mustang Owners Association of America convention and declared it the highlight of his presidency. He was poor. His step-dad beat him up. He has a deadbeat brother. He plays the sax badly. He admits mistakes.

By contrast, Hillary comes across as a better-fed Ann Coulter. Yet, when I saw Bill make the oration at his father-in-law Hugh Rodham's funeral, Hillary came alive as a human being. Bill described the atmosphere when he visited the Rodham's house; lively debates over the dinner table, the talk never stopping simply because one's mouth was full. The bright, nerdy sisters laughing over some of the absurd things they found themselves saying. Poor Bill left behind in the mile-a-minute conversation. I saw a picture of a family with heart. And Hillary, the classic smart girl doing the best she can, holding her own among the strong, smart men in her family, and winning.

That's how you make Ann Coulter look like a small-minded, self-loathing, evil bitch. Not just by calling her those names. But by demonstrating the alternative.

The democrats have spent so much time waging arguments, they've forgotten the importance of telling stories. And the storytelling has to begin long before any debate takes place.

Generally, we are on the same page on all of this, but I think you are being too generous in calling the bullshit premise of her book a "thesis"!:biggrin1:

Also, you spelled "depersonalising", "fervour" and "humanising" wrong!:biggrin1::wink: You HAVE been away from the good old U.S. of A. too long!:tongue::smile:

Sorry for the long post agnslz. You should never get me started! HB8

No problem HB8, and no need to be sorry.:smile: I also can write long posts!:biggrin1: Besides, as you'll notice, I quoted most of it in my response! You certainly are the kind of person that I aspire to be when I grow up!:biggrin1::tongue::wink:

 

[l_a_dude]

Ann Coulter has said a lot of stupid things through the years, but this one -- about Clinton's "latent homosexuality" -- takes the cake!!

 

[headbang8]

While we're on the subject...

 

[Matthew]

Everytime Ann Coulter opens her mouth, the left and progressive politics get a boost.

Keep talking, Ann.

 

[Jeffin90620]

I saw an interview with Ann Coulter... she went too far in this interview claiming that flamingly promiscuous men were gay... She mentioned that these sexually overdulgent men fear a real relationship with women and therefore by default can only have a meaningful relationship with a man. I suppose she used meaningful as a very full physical and mental relationship. She said it so dogmatically I wonder if she is firm ground stating that.

Although Ann Coulter is very intelligent (she was editor of the Michigan Law Review while in college and that job doesn't get handed out to dolts, or even above-average law students), she is also a woman and most women really cannot understand what drives men when it comes to sex.

To most women, sex has to "mean something" (e.g., it has to be part of a long-term, committed relationship). As she is a devout Christian, a "committed relationship" can probably only be marriage. Many women (and a significant number of men) believe that having sex outside of a committed relationship means you do not respect that person or yourself.

Take a look at any Gay Pride parade and you will see signs like "I fuck to Cum, not to Conceive", so it is hardly surprising that sexually conservative people would see similarities between promiscuous straight men and promiscuous gay men.

I did a search on the story and it basically comes down to this quote:

She went on to defend her theory about Clinton's sexuality by stating that "everyone has always known, widely promiscuous heterosexual men have, as I say, a whiff of the bathhouse about them."
​

That's not the same thing as saying that they are gay, only that they share common traits with gay men.

She then went on to say that it has been long-standing "feminist doctrine that wild promiscuity shows a fear-hostility of women." This is not Ann saying that, but women who have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats (and Clinton, whom Coulter has described as a serial-rapist).

There was also talk about whether straight men are as promiscuous as gay men. The short answer is no, but they would like to be. I remember reading a synopsis of a study done several years ago. I believe the population of the survey was men and women in their 20s and 30s. It noted that most gay men had had over 100 partners and 5% had as many as 1000 partners. Straight women had more partners than gay women.

The study concluded that women, on average, do not want to have promiscuous sex and men do (and, please... I know there are exceptions). Women who like other women therefore have fewer partners because their partners are less likely to go off to find new opportunities. Men who like other men are more likely to congregate to engage in promiscuous sex. Where does that happen for women? (it doesn't)

So when Ann Coulter says that promiscuous straight men have a "whiff of the bathhouse about them", she is refering to a similarity in outlook about sex. I don't see where she is saying anything more than that.