This is a follow-up to the earlier post on whether or not gay men are more promiscuous than heterosexual men. I just read the transcript of Ann Coulter's comments at Kaus:

Mr. BEINART: It's called bigotry, Ann. What part of bigotry don't you understand?

Ms. COULTER: Are you claiming that gays are generally not more promiscuous? Is that what you're claiming? Are both of you maintaining that gays are not--some segment of gays are not more promiscuous than heterosexuals? Is that the big point here?

KUDLOW: I...

Mr. BEINART: I'm saying that I don't know that there's any empirical evidence whatsoever here.

Ms. COULTER: No. I'm asking Larry here.

Mr. BEINART: And it's a--it's a--it's a bigoted stereotype that you are fomenting.

Ms. COULTER: You don't know any evidence that gays are more promiscuous than heterosexuals?

Mr. BEINART: Where's your--where's your evidence, Ann?

Ms. COULTER: Where have you been?

Mr. BEINART: Where's your evidence?

Ms. COULTER: It's a fact.

Mr. BEINART: Give me the evidence. Cite chapter and verse. You have no evidence whatsoever.

Ms. COULTER: I just cited the bathhouses. We don't have heterosexual bathhouses. It's well known.

Can anyone tell me what modifier is missing throughout this exchange (in which, while I'm not a big Coulter fan, and generally like Beinart, he comes off as an ignorant ass)? Hint, this isn't strictly about homosexual versus straight.

Oh, and for extra bonus points, is it a societal given that "gay" applies only to males, and not to homosexual females (i.e., lesbians)?

Coulter is the right's Michael Moore. She's a bigger liability than an asset. Another similarity is her chutzpa. While not making any judgement on the point in question, I will say that it's refreshing to see someone who doesn't back down from the standard "you're a bigot" ad hominem response.

If heterosexual men are as promiscuous as gay men, then since the former pursue only women, it follows that women are as easy as men.

Ah, I see my point was made in the previous post.

While it's clear Ann has done her research in documenting the phenomenon of bathhouses, she is misinterpreting her own data. Gay men are cleaner than straight men.

Coulter's factual position is highly believable, although it may be true that she didn't wait for a rigorous survey before coming to conclusions. Coulter is a complete bitch, but she is not a complete idiot. She did well at Cornell, after all.

This topic is missing some context, however. Beinart is correct that the stereotype of gay promiscuity is a pretext for mistreating gays. I remember a medical case about a guy who contracted AIDS from his "lifestyle" of grabbing gays outside of bars and beating them with blunt metal objects — their blood came into cuts on his hands. Of course he would say it was because they were promiscuous sinners.

Where Beinart goes wrong is in reasoning that stereotypes that are useful to bigots are necessarily completely false. They aren't. It really is true, likewise, that Jews are more likely than Christians to be bankers.

The only mystifying part of this post, Rand, is your comment that you aren't a fan of Ann Coulter. What did she ever say that you minded? That is, before she bad-mouthed 9/11 widows.

Coulter (and the mysterious M) apparently hasn't done her research about bathhouses. Heterosexual bathhouses DO exist, and in this country, no less. I have no idea where she came up with such a preposterous notion, but it conveniently fits her hypothesis.

The only mystifying part of this post, Rand, is your comment that you aren't a fan of Ann Coulter.

It's only mystifying to people who fantasize that they know me, but are actually quite clueless. Can you point to any posts in which I've praised or expressed admiration for Ann Coulter (other than pointing out the occasional bon mot)?

I think Alan K. Henderson is right. Basically its not gay vs hetero its men vs women. Men are horndogs and its all about opportunity.

Can you point to any posts in which I've praised or expressed admiration for Ann Coulter?

It's not that you did or didn't praise Ann Coulter, it's more that a lot of things that you have on your web site could just as well have been written by her.

For example on Saturday you were recommending summary execution without civil trial of American citizens, if they are Muslims accused of acts of terrorism. That is Coulteresque stuff.

I could believe that there are some differences between your views and those of Ann Coulter. You just haven't explained what they are — other than the recent thing about 9/11 widows that Fox News also didn't like.

in coulter's original comment she implied that most promiscuous men are gay. actually she implied that most men who are promiscuous with women are actually gay. this was her reasoning for why bill clinton is gay. she later clarified that it wasnt a joke.

i kind of doubt her logic.

Well, that's some logic there. That'll be one day when having sex with women is seen as evidence of gayness!

i kind of doubt her logic.

I do, too. But then, I doubt even more your rendition of what she said.

here you go: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Coulter-Clinton-.mov

the only evidence for why she thinks clinton is gay is that he is promiscuous among women. that means she must think most promiscuous men are gay, even when they are only promiscuous with women.

The thing I don't get is that this isn't that hard an assertion to back up. There's a lot of evidence in favor. Higher number of average sex partners, higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases (both according to the CDC), etc. Even if she couldn't quote studies, it's not that hard to come up with something other than blandly stating that it's a "fact".

For some reason, I have this mistaken impression that the purpose behind all these talk shows is to communicate and to persuade. I'm confused as to what people like Coulter are superficially supposed to be doing.

She probably just didn't expect to be asked for evidence. Given past experience, she probably expected instead to be hit in the face with a pie or a water balloon.

If heterosexual men are as promiscuous as gay men, then since the former pursue only women, it follows that women are as easy as men.

Unfortunately, no. You have forgotten that each sexual pairing need not be unique, and hence leaped to the false conclusion that the number of promiscuous partners of type 1 must always equal the number of promiscous partners of type 2.

Here's a simple counter-example: imagine a population of 1000 men and 1000 women. Suppose we know 800 (80%) of the men are "promiscuous," meaning they sleep with more than 10 females per year. Can we now conclude at least 800 (80%) of the females are also promiscuous? Nope. At best we can conclude at least 10 females (10%) are. The 800 men could have each slept with 1 distinct non-promiscuous female ("the wife") plus each of the 10 promiscuous females ("the whores").

Carl, I think the technical term for them is not "whores" but "sluts." And busy ones at that...

The male promiscuity market suffers from this (safe for work).

Depends on whether they get paid or not, Rand.