Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Um . . . we know his wife had kids. That's not necessarily proof that he had kids.

Posted by Karl Gallagher at August 14, 2004 08:22 PM

Rand, let me break it to you gently: That's not true. For a man to be able to have an erection in foreplay with a woman is not a litmus test for one's sexual orientation.

The expression, "Put a bag over her head and do it for Old Glory" is just as applicable to gay men as it is to straight men.

Posted by Scott Ferguson at August 14, 2004 08:31 PM

Are you saying he put a bag over his wife's head? If not, then I don't get the point (actually if he did, I still don't, since the gender would be apparent even with head concealed). Or is the only way you can differentiate the sex of a human by their face?

It would take more (a lot more--probably genetic surgery) than putting a bag over a man's head for me to get it up for him.

If what you say is true, there is no meaning to the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual." As an irredeemable heterosexual, I don't buy it. He's bi, by any rational definition.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 14, 2004 08:43 PM

Agreed with Rand, no man could give me a stiffie.

Hell, many women couldn't. Just showing me a pic of Janet Reno renders me impotent for two weeks minimum! Janet Reno has probally caused the demand for more Viagra than anyone else.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 14, 2004 08:56 PM

Karl, that's an entirely separate issue. If you're accusing his wife of adultery, I would think that at least some non-zero level of evidence would be required, other than his new-found (and suspect) status of being "gay."

Sorry, I still don't buy it. I think that he just likes to stick it into wherever his...muse...seems to take him.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 14, 2004 09:11 PM

Look, I'm gay. Trust me on this. I've known gay men who have been in loveless relationships and have had children with spouses in varying degrees of cluelessness. I've also known lesbians under similar circumstances.

In the gay world, the show wife -- the "proof that you're straight" -- is called a "beard", as in "She's McGreevy's beard".

So, if he says he's gay, we have to assume he's gay, in the absence of any other evidence (such as an adulterous relationship with a woman who is not his wife).

As for a man's not being able to get a hard-on at the prospect of intimacy with another man: If in some alternate universe you were infatuated with being a political animal, and having sex with another man was your only way to achieve your dream, you'd be asking your doctor for Viagra!

This points to the key issue about McGreevy, of course -- his character. How many people do we know of, straight or gay, who have put their families on the back burner in pursuit of some career? How many marriages have been wrecked by such men? It is this aspect of the story that disgusts me most. McGreevy's moral ugliness as a man who will subordinate everything in his life to his political career has been exposed.

If what you say is true, there is no meaning to the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual."

Maybe there isn't, Rand. "Gay" marriage makes more sense in such a context, doesn't it? :-)

Cheers.

Posted by Scott Ferguson at August 15, 2004 05:29 AM

In order to further clarify Scott's point, try to separate orientation from performance.

Regardless of McGreevey's ability to perform with his wife, I doubt that looking at pictures of nude women, or lesbian sex, for example, does it for him. OTOH, I have no doubt that pictures of male nudes, or gay sex would be quite a turn on for him.

Check out this article from the WaPo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64115-2004Aug13.html

No doubt there are men who are equally turned on by both men and women, and that is where the definition of bisexual differentiates itself from a man who is able to perform with a woman, but nonetheless self-identifies as gay.

From my experience, it's more of gradual coming out, and acceptance of your own homosexuality that folks use the bisexual label for a period time - cattily noted in the gay community by the phrase,

'Bi now - Gay later'

We could get into a whole Kinsley Scale thing, but it's probably a digression.

Posted by Ray Eckhart at August 15, 2004 05:58 AM

Sorry, guys, still not convinced. If you believe that anyone can do anyone, then the words homosexual, bi-sexual and heterosexual have no useful meaning. Both wives (ex and current), claim they had no clue prior to the announcement.

And for what it's worth, Tammy Bruce (avowed lesbian) agrees with me. He'll do anyone. He's just wrapping himself in a mantle of victimhood by claiming he's gay.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2004 09:26 AM

Not trying to convince you of anything, just pointing out the difference between a gay man who can perform adequately with women with no real enthusiasm (who knows what's going on in his head during the event) versus a truly bisexual man who is equally attracted to both men and women, and finds each experience equally satisfying. McGreevey aside, is Bishop Robinson gay or bi?

If you saw any of HBO's OZ, there are gay characters, and straight characters who nonetheless, given the circumstances, perform well enough with men, regardless of their preferred partner. Are these straight men, therefore, by your definition, bi?

When Elaine on Seinfeld had a brief affair with a gay man, getting him to switch teams for awhile, did he then become bi?

Ellen DeGeneres is gay, regardless of whether or not she has ever had sex with a man. Ann Heche is bi, and a bit nuts, I think. I hate to use women as an example, because I'm not one, and I believe there is a difference in the Venusian mind on the issue, than there is in the Martian one. The science here is not yet sound, or consistent.

Bailey at Northwestern has some studies on this, but his research is controversial, and unconfirmed.

The difference is more than semantics, since you seem to be defining the individual based strictly on behaviour, not orientation. A gay man, who has never had sex with another man, but has tried sex with a woman, and found it wanting, even if he was able to perform to the point of ejaculation, is no less gay. In fact, until recently - the last 30 years or so, it was the rather normal path for gay men to follow in their self discovery process. Another WaPo article, written by a gay man, illustrates this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61427-2004Aug12.html

Don't ignore these words by McGreevey.

"As a young child, I often felt ambivalent about myself, in fact, confused,"

"By virtue of my traditions, and my community, I worked hard to ensure that I was accepted as part of the traditional family of America."

Part of that hard work is trying to convince yourself that sex with a woman is satisfactory, when you know it isn't. It becomes perfectly clear, once you experience sex with a man. At that point, you either deal with it, or go into denial for a longer while, or live a double life. McGreevey's denial, and closeted double life, could no longer be sustained, given the pending lawsuit.

I also ask the question, that absent the sleazy corruption stuff, would McGreevey have taken the same course of action.

Dunno. But I can see both scenarios taking place - resigning like Livingston did, or fighting on, like Clinton did, depending on the character of the individual, and the circumstances.

There is also this new wrinkle, where Cipel's lawyer says he's not gay, but strictly a victim of harassment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/15/nyregion/15lawyer.html

So. Is Cipel straight, or bi?

Posted by Ray Eckhart at August 15, 2004 11:33 AM

I don't think people "become" anything as a result of sexual experiences. If a "straight" man can do it with a guy, he's clearly bi to some degree, and always was. To me, there's a difference between "unsatisfying" sex, and disgusting sex. I can't do it with a guy, no way, no how. I can't even think about it, and it's not because of societal strictures or morality, because I'm really indifferent to it from that standpoint. I just have a fundamental extreme distate for the notion, and I think I was wired that way from birth. I assume that a homosexual man, in the strictest sense, feels the same way about a woman.

I do think that a large portion of the population is bi, to one degree or another. For them, the term "sexual preference" actually makes sense, in a way that it doesn't for me. I suspect that it's a skewed distribution (and it's a continuum) with most people tending toward het and a few going the other way. I fall way over to the right (het) side of the curve. Clearly, McGreevey prefers men, but he can go either way, and he's somewhere in the middle, but closer to left than right..

If there were no bis, there would probably be little debate about sexuality. The problem arises when people assume that everyone is like them. Someone who is bi actually does have a "choice," and he (or she) assumes that everyone else does as well. Thus, if he thinks that homosexuality is immoral, than he looks with opprobrium at those who didn't resist temptation, and make the same "choice" as he did. I know I never had a choice, and I assume that homosexuals don't either. Having never been tempted, I have no sense of moral superiority to gays (other than the rampant promiscuity among the males, though that's a consequence of the fact that, without a woman in the loop, there's no governor over the behavior).

As for Cipel, there's not enough information to say. If what he says is true, and all of the activity was non-consensual, then I'd say he's straight. If he were raped in prison, I certainly wouldn't say that made him bi.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2004 12:13 PM

More detail in this NY Times report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/15/nyregion/15NJTOCK.html?pagewanted=1&th

"On my way into the governor's mansion, he stopped me in the garden and, stuttering a bit, said, `I think I'm gay,'" Mr. Lesniak said. "I said, `You think you're gay?' And he said, `I know I'm gay.' Then we stood up and we embraced." Mr. McGreevey also sought counsel from a ranking administration official who is gay and offered advice about the intense emotional turmoil of coming out.

"The political people all said that the public might accept that he was gay and overlook the fact that he had an affair," said one person involved in the debate. "But having a lover on the payroll, in a job where they weren't really qualified, whatever their sexual preference, would be devastating."

Posted by Ray Eckhart at August 15, 2004 12:17 PM

The continuum you speak of is the Kinsley Scale I referred to earlier. The following is lifted from an extract.

http://www.academicdb.com/origin_sexuality_biological_pathological_or_socio_5398/

"In the 1950's, Kinsley conducted research on sexuality and in his findings he stated that a persons sexuality can be placed on a scale ranging from one to six, the Kinsley Scale, one being 100% heterosexual with no homosexual thoughts; and six being 100% homosexual with no heterosexual thoughts.2 "

"He also found that practically no one was either one or six, the vast majority of people ranging from two to five, especially around adolescence. "

That research has been superseded, for the most part, over the last 50 years, with no absolute conclusions.

Here is an extract of Bailey's research, where some of the new wrinkles are explored, and a more objective methodology for study is used, instead of subjective interviewing.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/06/030613075252.htm

"Sexual arousal is the emotional and physical response to sexual stimuli, including erotica or actual people. It has been known since the early 1960s that homosexual and heterosexual men respond in specific but opposite ways to sexual stimuli depicting men and women. Films provoke the greatest sexual response, and films of men having sex with men or of women having sex with women provoke the largest differences between homosexual and heterosexual men. That is because the same-sex films offer clear-cut results, whereas watching heterosexual sex could be exciting to both homosexual and heterosexual men, but for different reasons. "

Still, by your definition, Cipel must be bi. It appears he admits to a (non-consensual) oral encounter in a passive role. He seems to have performed adequately enough for McGreevey, whereas, a Kinsley one heterosexual would have remained completely flaccid, no matter the circumstance. In the same way Cipel can perform in that role, or perhaps take the active role in anal sex, so could a gay man so perform with a woman, and not interfere with a definition as having a gay orientation.

Submitted to Bailey's research methods,McGreevey, if gay, would find the lesbian sex unarousing, whereas Cipel, if he is straight, would be aroused. A true bisexual man would find both lesbian sex and gay male sex equally arousing.

The whole thing is a lot more complicated, apparently, if women are the subject of the study. If you read the whole extract of Bailey's research, he even used post operative male to female transsexuals as a control method.

Posted by Ray Eckhart at August 15, 2004 02:05 PM

I guess on that scale, I'd be 1, or a 0.1.

I find the men in porn irritating and distracting (and think that the come shots are stupid). I want them to get out of the way so I can see the women. I can put up with the guy as long as he's pleasuring her, but seeing someone fellated does nothing for me. My preference would be to remove all such activity.

I really do find men disgusting. I'm sure that if I were a woman I'd be a hard-core lesbian. As a man, I'm just glad that most women don't share my view...

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2004 02:14 PM

Yeah no kidding. I mean having sex with a bearded
and/or hairy guy with large shoulders and hands like
shovels? Yuck. Women are so much more interesting,
in more than one way. I also think I'm lucky they
don't think of it the same way.

Posted by GodZirra at August 15, 2004 03:16 PM

Your testimony lends credence to what some in the queer theory camp describe as 'male lesbian', or lesbian trapped in a male body. Sometimes comes with the descriptor 'self-loathing' in front of it. Testing the theory via surgery seems a rather radical step. ;-)

And I'll also note, that the vast majority of straight men, will be loath to admit to being anything except a Kinsley one, in a public setting. Please don't view that statement as doubting you, I don't, I'm simply making an undeniable observation.

Would that it were not so.

Science aside, I'm more interested in the sociological impact of McGreevey's story, as explored within conservative circles by both WFB, and Jonathan Rauch.

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200408131319.asp

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/15/opinion/15rauch.html?th

Posted by Ray Eckhart at August 15, 2004 04:00 PM

I don't think of myself as a "lesbian trapped in a male body." I very much like being a man, and I would never voluntarily undergo such an experiment. I'm just saying that if I were a woman, and my sexual interests didn't change, I'd be a total lesbian.

And I've no doubt you're right about most men's unwillingness to publicly express any non-heterosexual interests. Regardless, mine are quite sincere and unalterable (and, as noted, explain why I've no problem with homosexuals).

I am a little leery about gay marriage, though. While it obviously wouldn't affect my relationships, it might cause additional confusion among kids. But I don't believe that the state should be involved in marriage at all--leave it to the churches.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2004 04:18 PM

To come full circle, then, gay men also very much like being men, and would also never voluntarily undergo such an experiment, whether or not they consider themselves a six on the Kinsley scale, although the social pressure to admit to a lower number is far less prevalent in gay circles, even if T shirts with 'I'm a Kinsley 6' on them were fairly popular back in the 70's/80's. Absent any objective data via the Bailey mechanism, I have to believe McGreevey means it when he says he's gay, and is just now coming to terms with the total impact of that self-awareness.

Posted by Ray Eckhart at August 15, 2004 05:01 PM

I should add that:

Your testimony lends credence to what some in the queer theory camp describe as 'male lesbian', or lesbian trapped in a male body. Sometimes comes with the descriptor 'self-loathing' in front of it.

...makes me think that if this is representative of the quality of logic in "queer theory," then it's all about as invalid as I've always suspected. It fails Occam's Razor. A man professing to be attracted to women can be either what he says, or a lesbian trapped in a man's body. Both hypotheses match the facts. But it would take a queer theorist, apparently, to hear the hoofbeats in this case and think zebras, rather than horses.

Posted by at August 15, 2004 06:02 PM

I happen to, generally, share your assessment of Queer Theory. However, if you read the Bailey extract above, where Bailey used some post operative transsexuals as a control for his methodology for measuring female sexual arousal, there is this paragraph.

"In a sense, those transsexuals have the brains of men but the genitals of women. Their psychological and genital arousal patterns matched those of men -- those who like men were more aroused by male stimuli and those who like women were more aroused by the female stimuli -- even though their genital arousal was measured in the same way women's was."

That paragraph suggests that there were some post operative male to female transsexuals in the experiment, who like women. Born male, preferring women, but for some reason, underwent surgery to live as a woman, still having an orientation that prefers a woman for a sexual partner.

Posted by Ray Eckhart at August 15, 2004 06:49 PM

Oh, I've no doubt that there is such a thing as a "lesbian in a male body," Ray. I just don't think that all self-professed heterosexual men would fall into that category...

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2004 06:51 PM

Nor do I, Rand. Nor do I think that all self-professed gay men in McGreevey's situation, fall into the category you want to redefine as bi...

Posted by Ray Eckhart at August 15, 2004 07:14 PM

I have a number of gay friends, including some who've had sex with women. I also have friends who are genuine bisexuals: the difference is not academic. A man who's thinking about a man while having sex with a woman is not the same as a man who's in the moment. Making the distinction between gay and bi in terms of the equivalent of a 'single drop theory' seems nuts to me. The fact that a guy can fake it with a woman says little about his core sexual identity, and that's what really matters. This is all the more true for a non technical term like 'gay' which is a self identifier for a community who presumably ought to be entitled to decide for themselves what the word means.

Human sexuality is far more complex and plaible than can be fitted into a simple linear scale. Any attempt to bin humans into a few simple categories is going to be problematic. Even using more technical terms like homosexual and heterosexual it doesn't make sense to bin people in terms as strict as you seem to want, Rand. By that standard a man could not be considered honest if he'd ever told even a single lie, no matter the circumstances, nor could he be considered hardworking if he'd ever slacked off. The terms homo-, hetero-, and bi-sexual make pretty good sense as they are actually used in practice. McGreevey may be bi, but just having sex with a woman isn't sufficient evidence.

Posted by Andrew Case at August 15, 2004 07:19 PM

Andrew, since I've already said that it is a continuum, I don't know how I'm "binning" anyone. I just think that McGreevey is taking political advantage of his situation, and pretending to be something that he's not necessarily in order to do so. I can't see into a man's mind, let alone his heart, and perhaps he's really "gay" (whatever that means) but we certainly shouldn't grant him any special dispensation for it, as unfortunately, the Jersey populace seems willing to do.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2004 07:25 PM

Please don't misunderstand me, Rand. McGreevey strikes me as a sleazy, corrupt politician, who used his wives and family in order to selfishly gain political power. Had he any integrity, he would have dealt with this years ago, after his first marriage, before any more innocents would be hurt. I understand the pressures that put him in that place, but a man of character, would have dealt with them earlier. I have no doubts that he would have continued in the closet, without the threat of the lawsuit, and the use of his homosexuality, to deflect attention away from his lack of character, is equally sleazy, though no doubt effective, unfortunately. Any pillorying of him for those reasons, is earned. If you followed the Enron and Martha Stewart stories, then you understand that someone's homosexuality does not inoculate them from corruption and lack of character judgments. However, It is not necessary, and I would argue a distraction from those issues, to have to re-define homosexuality as bisexuality because of 'ability to perform' in a heterosexual context, in order to make them. As Andrew said, McGreevey may be bi, but the evidence to support that contention that you use, is unsustainable.

Posted by Ray Eckhart at August 17, 2004 03:24 AM

Post a comment