Does flaming promiscuity indicate a guy is gay?

[Jeffin90620]

Quote:
Originally Posted by headbang8

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

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

And where did you hear this? I have never heard any rumors about Ann Coulter being sexually promiscuous (and I just went looking on Google). Bill Maher (nothing close to a conservative, politically or sexually) has said that the best time he ever spent with a woman without having sex was with Ann.

 

[headbang8]

Check this out.

Jeff, in law there's a notion called the average reasonable man test. In Britain, judges have often referred to him as the man on the Clapham omnibus.

It was pretty clear that an average reasonable man would interpret Coulter's remarks as saying Clinton is gay. I find it hard to imagine that wasn't her intent.

As a clever lawyer, one assumes Coulter was just leaving herself legal wiggle room. Though she hasn't given herself much legal wiggle room. If Clinton wanted to sue for slander (note--not libel. I understand she's been careful to say these remarks rather than write them), he'd probably win.

Her logic is faulty. Gays are promiscuous. Clinton is promiscuous. Doesn't that make Clinton gay? Just because the argument is unsuccessful doesn't mean she didn't try to argue it.

It really doesn't matter whether she said the words "he's gay". "There is something that is of the bath-house" about him is waaay good enough. And Coulter knows it.

HB8

P.S. Coulter's personal sex life is irrelevant here. Whether she's as chaste as a nun, or bangs like a dunny door, who cares?

 

[D_alex8]

P.S. Coulter's personal sex life is irrelevant here. Whether she's as chaste as a nun, or bangs like a dunny door, who cares?

Surely any revelation of promiscuity on her part would merely underline the two-faced nature of what she's saying? In that sense, a salacious National Enquirer exposé on how she bedded 30 marines could do no end of good imho. Equally, knowing that she's chaste as a nun while declaiming so vituperously against others having and enjoying sex might also send a clear message about her own repression influencing her views. A little biography on a person can always offer useful insights into (how they arrived at) their worldview.

 

[DC_DEEP]

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.

Speaking only for myself, I never declared or insinuated that Coulter isn't intelligent. Adolph Hitler was intelligent and a persuasive speaker. Enough Said.

<...>
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.
<...>

Is she, actually, really and truly, a devout christian? She certainly does not act like one. Any person who trumpets their own "christian faith" and then behaves as Coulter does have, as I say, "a whiff of the hypocritical liar" about her.

<...>
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 have been to several gay pride parades, in several states plus the district of columbia; I have NEVER once in any of those parades seen a sign like "I fuck to Cum, not to Conceive." Never. Not once. Which parades have your seen those signs in? What city?

<...>
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).

Interesting that someone who rants so often and so vehemently against feminists would quote them in her favor, when it is expedient. See above comment about devout christians. As for calling Clinton a serial rapist, what is her basis for that statement? See above comment about devout christians.

<...> Where does that happen for women? (it doesn't)

Actually, yes, it does.

 

[50%more]

I saw an interview with Ann Coulter whom I cannot stand but sometimes watch out of curiosity. Though she is loud, obnoxious, opinionated and bombastic sometimes she comes uncomfortably close to truths I believe in to ignore her. But I wonder if she went too far in this interview claiming that flamingly promiscuous men were gay. I know that blatantly promiscuous men often as not are misogynistic i.e. distrusting, fearful and contemptuous of women and their intellect, but 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. I have known a few mixogynistic men (my father-in-law is one) and I know beyond any reasonable doubt that these men would do anything to degrade women and blame them for all the evils of the world and casual sex is one of their means of controlling them. What do you guys think?

She is a bit of right wing lunatic or should I say a psuedo right wing extremist. Anyone who claims that the Democratic party is godless political party because it supports a woman's right to decide is obviously out to advance their agenda of the government deciding for a woman.

I like what George Carlin has to say about it. "Have you heard about the
government? They want to get out of big business and into the womb."

I think I would rather be a myxogynistic philanderer, than a narcisitic virgin. Keep in mind, I am neither.:wink:

I am wondering what she means by "blatant" promiscuity. When Clinton tried to conceal his promiscuity they accused him of trying to deceive the nation. What lengths does a philanderer have to go to in order to not be labeled "blatant" by Coulter?

Her connection between the promiscuity of gay men and the promiscuity of philandering heterosexual men is a non sequitir in regard to the issue of homo or hetero sexuality. Is she saying that since gay men are notoriously promiscuous that any man who is promiscuous is gay? It seems that she is putting the cart before the horse here.

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

It's hard for me to weigh in seriously on anything Ann Coulter says because to debate her words legitimizes her, but I feel confident that her statement about male promiscuity was meant to be just what she said. She becomes almost rabid in her dislike for Democrats, and though she is a very intelligent woman, she sometimes loses rationality when she starts in on her special targets. In this instance her ordinarily keen intellect failed her. When I first heard her supposition that gays are promsicuous and that supposedly straight men who are promiscuous are therefore gay, the first thing that popped into my mind was a syllogism from a Woody Allen movie: (this may not be verbatim but the essence remains) Plato was a man; Plato was a Greek; therefore all Greeks are Plato. While Ann Coulter makes a good living and has achieved celebrity status being outrageous and provocative, I bet she would like to retract that statement which is beneath her customary level of thinking. What I find most dangerous about her brand of rhetoric is that there is usually at least a kernel of truth behind her claims, which she then wraps in her inflammatory attacks. Many of her devoted readers justify her assaults on Democrats by clinging to that tiny piece of core evidence that she twists, mutates, cites out of context, etc. -- all old sophistic tricks, but she does them better than most. As much as I would like to be dismissive and write her off as a self-serving harridan, I give the woman her due: She is a formidable presence with a huge voice. It is for that reason that I enjoyed her uncharacteristic lapse and her comeuppance. A small chink in the armor...

 

[DC_DEEP]

...While Ann Coulter makes a good living and has achieved celebrity status being outrageous and provocative, I bet she would like to retract that statement which is beneath her customary level of thinking...

John, sweetie, you know I love ya, but... have you been keeping tabs on a different ann coulter than I have? I have not once seen her approach any subject at all, without finding some reason to interject rabid denouncements of "those goddamned slimy liberal democrats". Nothing is "beneath her customary level of thinking," because all her thinking (that I've ever heard or read) is so deep in the sewers.

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

John, sweetie, you know I love ya, but... have you been keeping tabs on a different ann coulter than I have? I have not once seen her approach any subject at all, without finding some reason to interject rabid denouncements of "those goddamned slimy liberal democrats". Nothing is "beneath her customary level of thinking," because all her thinking (that I've ever heard or read) is so deep in the sewers.

DC, what I meant was that she screwed up so egregiously on this one that I bet she'd like this particular pronouncement to go away because it leaves her more vulnerable to criticism than usual. Even her fans who revel in her tactics are scratching their heads on this one because it's so...well, retarded. Her attacks on Democrats are relentless and abusive but not usually so aggressively stupid. Even Hitler had his bad days, I suppose. I think we are on the same page here, DC. I just didn't communicate well enough.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I think we are on the same page here, DC. I just didn't communicate well enough.

Apology accepted <DC sniffs poutily>

And it is just fine if you state that AC is intelligent.

But if once more, just once, you insinuate that her "customary level of thinking" is anything more than mudslinging, I will have to track you down, strip you naked, and spank your bare buttocks.

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

But if once more, just once, you insinuate that her "customary level of thinking" is anything more than mudslinging, I will have to track you down, strip you naked, and spank your bare buttocks.

Promise?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Promise?

It's either a threat OR a promise. Take it as you will.

<begins plotting whether to spank left-handed or right-handed...>

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

It's either a threat OR a promise. Take it as you will.

<begins plotting whether to spank left-handed or right-handed...>

OMG, you're ambidextrous? You ARE talented.

 

[headbang8]

OMG, you're ambidextrous? You ARE talented.

Do I detect a whiff of the bath house?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Do I detect a whiff of the bath house?

LOL not on me you don't, you cheeky monkey. I may be 100% gay, but have never been to, nor do I desire to go to, a "gay bathhouse."

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

Do I detect a whiff of the bath house?

No, that was a faint whiff of an Indian food fart.

 

[Jeffin90620]

Check this out.

Ok... she came out and said that promiscuity is related to homosexuality, as opposed to my perception that she was referring to the irresponsible aspects of bathhouse sex.

Jeff, in law there's a notion called the average reasonable man test. In Britain, judges have often referred to him as the man on the Clapham omnibus.

It was pretty clear that an average reasonable man would interpret Coulter's remarks as saying Clinton is gay. I find it hard to imagine that wasn't her intent.

Uhmmm... a great deal of vehemence has been expended here pointing out that Ann Coulter (being compared to Hitler and all) doesn't think like the average person, so it seems a bit specious to contend that Ann would intend the average person to infer something other than what she said.

As a clever lawyer, one assumes Coulter was just leaving herself legal wiggle room. Though she hasn't given herself much legal wiggle room. If Clinton wanted to sue for slander (note--not libel. I understand she's been careful to say these remarks rather than write them), he'd probably win.

I read the link you provided at the top and she said, "I think that..." every time, which is all the protection she needs. She did not call him a homosexual, but said that she thinks he has homosexual tendencies.

Her logic is faulty. Gays are promiscuous. Clinton is promiscuous. Doesn't that make Clinton gay? Just because the argument is unsuccessful doesn't mean she didn't try to argue it.

Personally, I disagree with Coulter's link between promiscuity and homosexuality, but I think her opinion has more to do with her being female than right-wing.

 

[JackbytheSea]

It's just the way we're raised.

Most guys are brought up to believe that introspection is a woman's thing. If you've got a problem with a guy, confront him with it - never considering that we may be the problem. If you're restless, don't write a journal entry; go sweat it off or jog it off. And finally - if you're insecure and a little lonely,...

Get out and get laid. No excuses.

For men, the problem or angst is always outside of yourself - a mountain, a dragon, a deadline or an enemy. We're taught that we must face these external challenges to know ourselves better, and any athlete or soldier can confirm this. We're taught that fucking is the quickest way to polish our perpetually dulled sense of manhood.

I remember helping this girl out with a social activity she was directing, and it was awful. The old folks in her group looked at me, like I was something she'd scrape off her shoe. These people hated me, and I walked around half the night wanting to chuck half of them through a stained glass window, but was very respectful, as I am of most older people. When it was over, we went in an office, and I did her facedown on a sofa for an entire hour, like so deep into the pillows, I don't know how she was breathing!

And it was GREAT! These old ladies had basically chopped my nuts off and made me feel like some two-bit loser, and they grew right the hell back! It was great, and I'd be lying, if I said it didn't work.

Some guys feel like that all the time. Typically, they're a little egotistical (even the quiet ones), and they feel their manhood is always under attack or in question. So, they go out and hump the first piece that sashays by, and most of us applaud them for it - woo, how does he do it? Two, three every night?

He's a f'ing hero, and nobody ever asks why he's doing it. Always how.

Maybe, it's low points that a str8 man might be most likely to let his guard down and try something different, and maybe sometimes it's a gay connection. I guess it's possible, but don't know anybody, who's experienced this. Even so, I don't think that necessarily makes him gay - desperate, but not gay.

Promiscuity is just indicative of the fact that we haven't learned much in the last ten-some thousand years.

 

[headbang8]

Jeff,

Even though we differ, I am delighted that we're having a reasoned debate about this. And I thank you for it. There should be more of this sort of discussion around the watercoolers, shopping malls and internet chat boards of the nation.

Now, you'll have to forgive me. I'm a law school dropout, as I said. And the last time I closed a legal textbook was about 20 years ago.

It's been noted that while we have a good many engineers, teachers, businesspeople, doctors, men of the cloth, and even some rather shapely pilots, we're short on lawyers here at the LPSG.

So, in the land of the legally blind, the half-baked lawyer is king. Sign your disclaimers before reading further. Here's my (very possibly flawed) arguments, m'lud. It was springtime in Kent...

On the subject of the average reasonable man test.

... a great deal of vehemence has been expended here pointing out that Ann Coulter (being compared to Hitler and all) doesn't think like the average person, so it seems a bit specious to contend that Ann would intend the average person to infer something other than what she said.

Alas, slander is a tort, not a crime. That means her intent really doesn't enter into it. If the court judges that

• She spoke of her own free will, and...
• The average reasonable person would have regarded what she said as a denigrating remark, and...
• Clinton had actually suffered real damage to his reputation (A smart lawyer could argue the toss on this one...), and
• (In the USA) it's true...

...then slander is proved. You may be right, she "doesn't think like the average person". But the law does. It thinks like the average reasonable person. And I'm afraid it would hold Ann to the same standards.

You'll note that in my previous post, I held her to those standards, too, when I judged her sincerity.

The only time when the law is interested in whether you "think like the average person" is when you're pleading insanity.

I read the link you provided at the top and she said, "I think that..." every time, which is all the protection she needs. She did not call him a homosexual, but said that she thinks he has homosexual tendencies.

It may afford some protection, depending on how the court interprets the context. "I think that..." doesn't really defend against anything per se. Take the following

1. I think that you're ugly, Miss Supermodel
2. I think that your building is ugly, Mr Architect
3. I think butter is fattening
4. I think that he was driving unsafely
5. I think I heard someone say he pulled the trigger.
6. I think I saw him pull the trigger

If, in context, any reasonable person would judge, you were trying to assert the substance of any of those statements as truth, you'd be liable. No matter how many "I thinks..." you qualified them with. The further up the scale you go, the less likely that an "I think" would come to your aid. I think butter manufacturers have sued for number three, from memory. (Um, er, let me rephrase that, you honour. I would be surprised if butter manufacturers hadn't sued for #3.)

Imagine the shoe were on the other foot. Bill Clinton says, "You know, I look at how skinny Ann is, and I have to ask myself if her comments are not explained by the fact that anorexics...well, they have an air of sexual frustration around them, don't they?" Same diff. In fact, Coulter could even try to sue me for posing this as a plausible example. If her lawyers were that petty...

Personally, I disagree with Coulter's link between promiscuity and homosexuality, but I think her opinion has more to do with her being female than right-wing.

Now THAT'S an interesting thought.

Ladies of the board, especially those who lean left: Are gay men promiscuous, or are all men promiscuous?

What about you gentlemen? Do straight right-of-centre males agree with Ann? Or was Casanova a fag?

More likely, though, as Jack points out, sexual compulsion can have much to do with issues of power, authority, self-esteem, security, and pent-up anger. Both your average gay guy and a certain ex-president of the United States have plenty in common around those topics, lemme tellya.

Good to talk to you, Jeff.

 

[B_UNKNOWN321]

It's just the way we're raised.

Most guys are brought up to believe that introspection is a woman's thing. If you've got a problem with a guy, confront him with it - never considering that we may be the problem. If you're restless, don't write a journal entry; go sweat it off or jog it off. And finally - if you're insecure and a little lonely,...

Get out and get laid. No excuses.

For men, the problem or angst is always outside of yourself - a mountain, a dragon, a deadline or an enemy. We're taught that we must face these external challenges to know ourselves better, and any athlete or soldier can confirm this. We're taught that fucking is the quickest way to polish our perpetually dulled sense of manhood.

I remember helping this girl out with a social activity she was directing, and it was awful. The old folks in her group looked at me, like I was something she'd scrape off her shoe. These people hated me, and I walked around half the night wanting to chuck half of them through a stained glass window, but was very respectful, as I am of most older people. When it was over, we went in an office, and I did her facedown on a sofa for an entire hour, like so deep into the pillows, I don't know how she was breathing!

And it was GREAT! These old ladies had basically chopped my nuts off and made me feel like some two-bit loser, and they grew right the hell back! It was great, and I'd be lying, if I said it didn't work.

Some guys feel like that all the time. Typically, they're a little egotistical (even the quiet ones), and they feel their manhood is always under attack or in question. So, they go out and hump the first piece that sashays by, and most of us applaud them for it - woo, how does he do it? Two, three every night?

He's a f'ing hero, and nobody ever asks why he's doing it. Always how.

Maybe, it's low points that a str8 man might be most likely to let his guard down and try something different, and maybe sometimes it's a gay connection. I guess it's possible, but don't know anybody, who's experienced this. Even so, I don't think that necessarily makes him gay - desperate, but not gay.

Promiscuity is just indicative of the fact that we haven't learned much in the last ten-some thousand years.

Next time I want some serious discussion about sex and the male ego I will come to you -- you are amazing in your very savvy assessment of men and their problems with their sex egos. Thanks for these comments. Tom

 

[headbang8]

Enjoy!