Geni-tall tales: Columnist from gay-obsessed outlet says gays are too sex-identified

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/06/2011

by Jeremy Hooper

WorldNetDaily columnist Bert Prelustky has a problem with gays who are too focused on their sex lives. A position he states right after he too fully focuses on gay people's sex lives:

I don't happen to think that homosexuals are bad people, although I do wish they hadn't managed to confiscate a perfectly fine word, gay, which strikes me as an inappropriate moniker for a group that includes so many drama queens. I've never suggested they're evil. Feeling as I do about having an appointment with a proctologist – trepidation bordering on stupefaction – I confess that I find their sex lives extremely bizarre. But, I hasten to add, I know that some people, including my wife, regard my love of baseball as a sure sign of derangement.

What I do find annoying about a great many homosexuals is their insistence on identifying themselves solely on the basis of their sexual activities. To be fair, I have an equal intolerance with heterosexual men whose identity seems to be totally wrapped up in their sexual activities and whose conversation consists of bragging about their conquests. It just strikes me as adolescent.
Gays and grays [WorldNetDaily]

So a straight, married man feels a need to talk about his own personal views on gay sex, couched behind a proctologist joke. But yet it's gay people, the ones who are so often denied on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, who are supposedly too focused on gay sex? Really? Is that so?

Here's the thing: I know a lot of gays. *A LOT* of gays. Many of them are LGBT activists, even. And while mating and dating and marriage are certainly popular topics on the table, I can honestly say that I know almost no LGBT person who I would say identifies solely, or even primarily, on the basis of his or her sexual activities. It just doesn't happen. I can think of no one who puts "gay-sex-haver" on his or her business card. Or straight-sex-haver, for that matter. Inside the world of porn, perhaps. But not within even the most outspoken of LGBT political circles.

The problem is that we still live in an America where social conservatives are so friggin' obsessed with the kind of sex that they do not (or at least claim to not) desire, that LGBT people are forced to make sexual orientation a conversational topic, whether we want to or not. I would argue that most LGBT people would love to stop talking about sexual orientation and start simply enjoying sex when they feel so oriented. But that's not going to happen until outlets like WorldNetDaily stop (a) thinking that they need to find certain relations personally pleasurable in order for them to be publicly viable, (b) seeing a need to scapegoat certain kind of lovers for schtooping forth any and all of the world's problems, and (c) telling the world that something that fits quite fully within the Earth's spectrum of normalcy is somehow "abnormal."

You find gay sex "extremely bizarre," Mr. Prelutsky? Great, well I'll see your dealt penis and raise you a female breast. But it doesn't matter what we each enjoy, because we don't have to personally enjoy each other's biological yearnings: We only have to accept that such yearnings are part of the design. And that, my friend, is on you and your conservative pals. If you would let us shut up about being here and queer, Mr. Prelutsky, then your anal-based fears could remain between you and your proctologist. Step 1: Stop writing columns about us and publishing them in one of the most anti-LGBT outlets to ever exist!

space