Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic

by TerranceDC
Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 03:31:02 PM EST

Note to self: If I ever run into Tucker Carlson in a D.C. area men's room, do not say "hello," nod in recognition, or so much as smile at the SOB.

OK. First the mere thought of Hillary Clinton makes Tucker Carlson want to cross his legs. Then the mere mention of transgenders make Tucker Carlson reach for his balls. So, now Tucker opens his mouth on Larry Craig, and this is what comes out.

These guys are laughing and (naturally) even Wonkette found it funny. But maybe I've spent too much time reading and writing about hate crimes to find it amusing. Tucker may consider himself the "the least anti-gay right winger" you'll ever meet. But if you meet him in the men's room, don't look too closely. Because you'll look right into the face of gay bashing.

Media Matters has the transcript.

ABRAMS: But Tucker, your position has long been on these kinds of stories that their personal lives are not our business. Does this case qualify for that, in your mind, as well?

CARLSON: Let me be clear, Dan. I am not gay. I have never been gay. I overreacted and made a poor decision.

SCARBOROUGH: And you love your -- you love your wife, Tucker. Let me just say for the record, I am not gay, either.

CARLSON: Let me -- let me put it this way. Whether he's gay or not actually is not our business, and I do think it's indefensible that the newspaper in Idaho spent a year interviewing 300 people to answer the question, Is he gay? That's none of your business. Having sex in a public men's room is outrageous. It's also really common. I've been bothered in men's rooms. I think people who do -

SCARBOROUGH: Really?

CARLSON: Yeah, I have. You know what, Let me just say.

SCARBOROUGH: Wait, hold on a second. Dan, hold on a second. I don't mean to take over, but have you been bothered in public restrooms, Dan? Because I know I haven't.

CARLSON: I have. I've been bothered in Georgetown Park. When I was in high school.

ABRAMS: Really?

CARLSON: Yes.

SCARBOROUGH: Wow.

CARLSON: And let me just say, I think --

SCARBOROUGH: That's something.

CARLSON: -- people should knock that off. I'm not anti-gay in the slightest, but that's really common, and the gay rights groups ought to disavow that kind of crap because, you know, that actually does bother people who didn't ask for being bothered. So yeah, I think it's outrageous that he did that. And also, this specter of him getting up there and blaming other people is so Clintonian. You know, if he just said, "I'm not going to talk about it," that'd be one thing.

...

CARLSON: But it's also -- but it's evidence, in Larry Craig's case -- I mean, you know, you just watch the press conference, and you see a man who's not in possession of himself. I mean, there's something -- you know, I'm not a shrink, but there's clearly something wrong with Larry Craig. He appeared to believe it. This is a guy who's been accused repeatedly over the years of soliciting sex from men in bathrooms. So the chances that he's arrested for the same thing accidentally --

ABRAMS: Right, right, right.

CARLSON: What, he's the unluckiest man and he's Job?

SCARBOROUGH: Hey, Tucker?

CARLSON: You know what I mean? It's insane!

SCARBOROUGH: Was he the guy in Georgetown, Tucker?

CARLSON: No, actually. I got that -- my point is -- let me just say --

ABRAMS: Tucker, what did you do, by the way? What did you do when he did that? We got to know.

CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and --

ABRAMS: And did what?

CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!

[laughter]

CARLSON: And then the cops came and arrested him. But let me say that I'm the least anti-gay right-winger you'll ever meet --

[laughter]

CARLSON: -- but I do think doing this in men's rooms appears to be common. It's totally wrong, and they should knock it off. I mean that. I think it's -- I can't bring my son to the men's room at the park where he plays soccer because of all these creepy guys hanging around in there. I actually think it's a problem. I'm sorry.

Tucker left the restroom, came back with reinforcements (why do these guys always needs reinforcements?) and bashed the bashed the guy's head against the stall. If he'd just walked away, that would have been the end of it. But he went back. With a friend.

In that sense, he reminds me of the guy who attacked Dwan Prince for making a flirtatious remark. He went back with two friends, to attack Dwan Prince. He also reminds me of the guy who attacked Roberto Duncanson for allegedly looking at him in a flirtatious manner. After Duncanson kept moving, the guy stalked him and jumped Duncanson as he was leaving his cousin's home. Bella Evangelista's murder returned and shot her. Michael Wrenn's attacker came after him and his companion even though they kept moving after declining a request to comment on the size of his genitals.

And then there's Tucker Carlson. Someone comes on to Tucker Carlson in the men's room. Tucker walks away, apparently unscathed, and then returns with a buddy to "teach the fag a lesson," much the same way Dwan Prince's basher administered a beating because Prince was "talking that faggot shit again."

I don't know whether Tucker was afraid to take the guy on one on one, whether he had something to prove to the friend he brought back into the bathroom with him, or whether he just had some to prove to himself. But as far as I concerned, Tucker fits the profile of a gay basher. "Gay panic" and all.

Update: Carlson has responded with the following message to Media Matters.

Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.

Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That's absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn't angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.

In classic Craig-like fashion, Carlson's response raises more questions than it answers.

First, it's markedly different from what he said on MSNBC. How did it go from "hit[ting] him against the stall with his head" to holding him until the police arrived?

So, what was last night? Macho posturing for "the boys"? Why embellish the story with violence that he now says didn't happen? And as for fighting back, Carlson "yelled and pulled away from him" and was already gone. Long gone. For 25 minutes. Why then would he return? Did he know the guy would still be there? How did he know the guy would still be there?

And was it unsolicited sexual attack or an unwanted advance, of the kind that most women have experienced at some point or another? Would Carlson have reacted the same way to a woman making the same kind of sexual advance to him?

And while I'm asking questions, what park does Carlson take his kid to that has a thriving "tearoom"? I've got a five year old myself, and I'm pretty familiar with area parks. But he doesn't go into public restrooms unless one of us goes with him, and I've yet to go into one where there's any cruising action going on? And if I did, I probably wouldn't take my kid back to that park.

Like I said, Tucker just raises more questions than he answers.

Crossposted from the Republic of T.

Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (4.00 / 2)

What if women went around bashing in the faces of every man who propositioned her, or even gave her the once-over. I'd be interested in what Tucker means by "bothered"....did the guy look at him? Did he ask him if he wanted a date? What was the justification for coming back and roughing the guy up? And Scarborough laughs at it like the high school jock that he is.

by Second Nature (denn1214 at gmail) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 03:46:03 PM EST

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (4.00 / 3)

What kind of amazes me about all of this is the degree to which straight dudes have this concept of some kind of "right" not to be hit on. BooMan's example of lack of consent is a different thing -- the vast majority of situations are, or so we (as women) have been told, no problem as long as "no" is respected. But not in the men's room, apparently.

by Spit (spit36@gmx.net) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 04:44:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

The disturbing thing is that they seemed to think it was hysterical that Tucker committed premeditated battery.

As for the Gay Panic Defense:

In the 1993 Barnes & Noble publication "Some Days Nothing Goes Right", a collection of bizarre news articles (ISBN 1-56619-120-3), a story under the title "He 'went crazy,' but is Acquitted" gives an instance of a successful gay panic defense. The Sun-Times Wire reported in Harrisville, West Virginia, USA that one Dean Ludwig Bethoven[citation needed], aged thirty, accepted a ride home from a bar by funeral director Dent Pickman, and fell asleep in his car. When he woke up later at Pickman's house, he claims to have found his body covered with "ketchup, mustard, mayonnaise, pickles - things out of the refrigerator", and Dent Pickman licking mayonnaise off his naked body. "I went crazy", said Bethoven, who stabbed Pickman to death with a kitchen knife. The jury acquitted him of murder.

Waking up to discover you've been converted into a Big Mac would lead to confusion and, perhaps, panic. But that's a case of rape, essentially. It's not really in question that the guy had the right to self-defense. Killing his rapist with a kitchen knife was probably not necessary unless there was some other weapon involved.

I don't see that as a true case of the gay panic defense. That should be reserved for instances where there was no real threat and no real assault.

by BooMan on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 03:57:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (4.00 / 3)

Based on my research, "gay panic" seems to set in after allegedly unwelcome advances are allegedly made. In some cases it sets in after what was by all appearances a consensual sex act. The panic and rage on the part of the attacker usually sets in after the realize that they just had sex with one of "them", and it might get out. Or it just triggers their rage and shame at themselves, and projects it onto the other person.

And some people's panic buttons are so sensitive, that a mere look can set them off. A look, in fact, can cost you your life, if you're gay.

If heterosexual women assaulted every man who looked at them twice, let alone propositioned them, or made a pass, the emergency rooms would be full of men. Or the mourges.

Hell, by Tucker's example, I'd be justified in wailing on the next heterosexual woman who comes on to me. (It's been known to happen.)

Terrance Heath
Washington, DC
www.republicoft.com

by TerranceDC on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 04:13:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (4.00 / 2)

I just read somewhere that 50-60% of women who ride the T (subway) in Boston say they've been inappropriately groped or touched in a crowded car. There definitely would be a lot of wounded men if that was an accepted response.

--
When we hear freedom we know it doesn't mean armed occupation. --felagund

by froggywomp on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 04:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 1)

Weird example to use. Where there is no consent given, sure, self-defense is okay -- though I'd draw the line at going and stabbing somebody when you quite possibly could've just friggin' left.

"Gay panic defense", for me, brings to mind Matthew Shepard, who might have dared to glance at the guys who strung him up on a fencepost outside of Laramie, pistol-whipped him, left him for dead, and then claimed they "just freaked out about being hit on".

In less extreme circumstances, I've been accused of hitting on women by nature of being near them and being an obvious lesbian. Wasn't even vaguely interested, as I don't frankly particularly go for straight girls. But that's all it takes, sometimes, people are so paranoid.

That's why these raids are, frankly, pretty uncomfortable to me -- who's to say what constitues a "solicitation"? And if the solicitation of an adult ends with "no, thanks", then why, exactly, is it illegal (ignoring whether it's rude)?

by Spit (spit36@gmx.net) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 04:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

As I said in another post on this thread, some men (like Tucker Carlson, apparently) take being solicited by other men as throwing their masculinity/straightness into question. So one reason that solicitation is illegal is so that men are not put into situations in which they feel their masculine identity threatened.

My sense is that a gay hitting on a straight guy will back off more quickly than a hetero hitting on a woman, since the gay will know that he is dealing with a lost cause, whereas the hetero can always hope that the woman is just playing "hard to get".

by Alexander on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 05:19:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 1)

whereas the hetero can always hope that the woman is just playing "hard to get".

Yep. It's another can o' worms, but we have a whole cultural storyline wherein if men are just persistent enough, finally they'll get the girl. It leads to an amazing number of really fucked up interactions.

There's a quote by somebody that, paraphrased, amounts to:

straight men hate gays because they're afraid that gay men will treat them the way they treat women.

It's a particularly salient quote at the moment, IMO.

by Spit (spit36@gmx.net) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 05:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

I never heard that quote before. It is food for thought. Though I have on a couple of occasions found it interesting to have the attentions of a gay guy upon me, since I think it gives some kind of sense of one aspect of what it's like to be a woman.

But a simpler reason for why solicitation is made illegal occurred to me (other than the one BooMan mentions, that people have a right not to have to deal with other people having sex in lavatories). If gay sexual advances upon anyone (of the appropriate age) were considered acceptable in mainstream society, then that would legitimize gay desire. And that in turn would recognize gays as the equals of heteros. Thus, as far as mainstream straight society goes, gay (if not Lesbian) society must be treated as something repugnant.

by Alexander on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 06:26:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

I'm trying to listen with an open mind to a lot of people in the gay community that are uncomfortable with these sting operations. I know it harkens back to darker days.

But this is simple. Airport police receive multiple complaints about sexual activity in a certain bathroom. They're totally obligated to put a stop to it.

There may be instances where people get unjustly arrested, but there isn't a public restroom in the country where it is appropriate to engage in sexual activity...least of all, heavily trafficked mass transit hub restrooms.

by BooMan on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 05:55:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

I hear you. But here's the thing -- he wasn't arrested for sex. There was no sex. Because all it takes is a cop making a case that there was "intent", and you're arrested for lewd behavior.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think -- given the bigger picture with craig -- that this is a questionable arrest given the law. But it does, IMO, bring up questions about the way these sting operations go, and what that means socially;

What constitutes "solicitiation", and why is that, in itself, an illegal activity, when it involves adults who can, one would assume, say "no"? How can we assume that it was going to lead to sex in the restroom, when it's quite possible (again, doubtful in this case, but still feasible as far as the law goes) that the end result could've been a motel room or whatever? Why is it illegal to hit on somebody in the men's room, but not elsewhere?

Complaints about sexual activity in a bathroom, yes, I think there should probably be a response, IF the complaints seem legit. Where I have a problem is when the response makes something as vague as "solicitation" an arrestable thing. Had the cop taken this to a point where it was unquestionable that Craig wanted sex in the public restroom, I would have less of a problem.

The other problem here is frankly that... to put it bluntly... it's damn hard as a queer to take "police discretion" as an okay thing in these cases. Police departments quite often have problems with homophobia, and there's some serious historical nastiness involved in that. IF we accept that "solicitation" is illegal in itself, then at the very least, IMO, we need to have a set of standards that must be met to confirm that it is, in fact, solicitation of public sex. Because arrests over "lewd conduct" have been a way of bludgeoning the gay community for a long time, and that's far from over.

by Spit (spit36@gmx.net) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 06:06:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

Like I said, I can hear the historical harassment bleeding through the emotional responses and I'm trying to listen to that.

My view is that the real crime here is that Craig was peering through the cracks in the stall at someone that was on the shitter. Now, unless you get it on film, that's a hard one to prosecute.

But if I am on the shitter and I look up and see Larry Craig leering at me I am going to be very, very pissed off. I think it's a crime, and I think it should be punished. A $500 fine and a little community service is a just punishment, in my estimation.

But the cop has to take it a little further to get a prosecution, because he has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Craig isn't just checking to see if the stall is available.

That's the sting part of it.

My bottom line is zero tolerance for sexual activity in public restrooms, and a big part of why is that once you start looking the other way on that, you start getting these loiterers that are going to peer into stalls.

As long as there is no entrapment involved, I am fully supportive of these sting operations. I know there are opportunities for abuse, but it's really pretty simple. Don't look for sex in public restrooms...ever. It's not an acceptable practice.

by BooMan on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 06:32:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

I just have one question. Craig pleaded guilty - and I'm guessing it was to a "lesser" offense than what actually happened. So I'm wondering if what we've heard that was written in the cop's report was the whole story.

Doesn't information itself have a liberal bias? Steven Colbert

by NLinStPaul on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 07:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

No idea.

Craig was most certainly guilty, of at least what is outlined. What bothers me isn't really about Craig -- for whom I have zero sympathy, given that, at very least, he's as responsible for the conditions leading to his arrest as anybody -- but about the way these laws are applied, both historically and currently, in an unequal way toward gay men.

by Spit (spit36@gmx.net) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 07:25:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 1)

Hi SN. That was exactly my first thought also. 99% of the male population would be walking around at any given time with visible bruise marks or worse if we bashed guys for every stupid proposition/creepy remarks...

This whole conversation of Tucker and the other two is downright disgusting and stupid beyond belief. You know these guys should try living as a women for a month and just see how much crap women have to put up with by men on our appearance/stupid sexual remarks/propositions etc..

'Poverty is the worst form of violence'--Gandhi

by chocolate ink on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 04:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

It's a bit different if a man hits on a woman or if he hits on another man. Unwanted propositions to a woman from a guy are of course unwanted, but they imply that the guy finds the woman desirable, which shouldn't be displeasing to the woman, as far as I can tell. (There are probably some feminists who would disagree with that last part.) But if a guy hits on another guy, the guy hit upon has reason to conclude that the guy hitting on him thinks that he might like it. That challenges his straight, "masculine" identity. So he feels he needs to beat up the guy hitting on him to prove or "restore" his masculinity.

I don't know if a guy that beats up a guy who hit on him is necessarily a gay basher. But I think it's pretty clear that a guy who responds in that way is not confident in his masculinity/straightness.

It is impossible to imagine James Bond for example getting angry if a man hits on him. He is aware that he is attractive to everybody. His likely response would be amusement and irony.

by Alexander on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 05:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (4.00 / 5)

Well, most women don't take it as a compliment to be hit on by men every time we walk out the door. That may be the problem that men don't understand....if we have a good self-concept we really don't need someone who happens to have a penis telling us that we're hot in order to feel good about ourselves.

FWIW....I've been "hit on" by women on more than one occasion and I simply tell her that I'm straight. I don't call in reinforcements to bash her face in.

by Second Nature (denn1214 at gmail) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 05:34:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 1)

Can I give you a thousand 4s for this?

"Little people are very stuff-intensive."

by CabinGirl on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 05:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (4.00 / 2)

But if a guy hits on another guy, the guy hit upon has reason to conclude that the guy hitting on him thinks that he might like it. That challenges his straight, "masculine" identity. So he feels he needs to beat up the guy hitting on him to prove or "restore" his masculinity.

Wrong. Not that I go around coming on to straight guys. (I got over having crushes on straight guys a long time ago. It's a road to nowhere.) But if I find a guy attractive, I'm not assuming that he's gay. (But then I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay, or that it makes someone "less of a man.") I'm not going to know that unless I express my admiration. If it turns out he's not interested, then I move on. If he makes it clear he's not interested, and I persist, then I am being an asshole.

Put this another context. Go talk to some lesbians who had to put up with persistent advances from heterosexual men even after they've made it clear they're lesbians. Straight guys can't or shouldn't assume that every woman is open to their advances. But they presume that the women they're dealing with are really heterosexual, even if they say they're not.

If you ask me, there are a lot of straight guys out there who are scared to death of being treated like women.

Terrance Heath
Washington, DC
www.republicoft.com

by TerranceDC on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 06:34:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (4.00 / 2)

Being treated like a woman is one form of having one's masculinity challenged, so that's consistent with what I was saying.

I wrote "the guy hit upon has reason to conclude". I didn't say he had a good reason. I was writing about what was going through the (somewhat paranoid) guy's head, not what was really happening.-But thanks for clarifying. I had suspected that that's the way it works, simply because gay guys tend not to act surprised when you tell them you're straight after they've hit on you.

As for men being persistent with women who say they are lesbians, I don't know if you know about recent studies according to which the two situations are not really comparable. According to this literature, men are hard-wired to be turned on by men or women but not by both, but what turns women on is much less specific. Thus, for women, whether they they have relations with men or women really is a "preference", as opposed to a fixed and definite orientation. (And women have told me that they think a woman's sexual orientation can be affected by her life history way before these studies appeared.) This means that women can be bisexual, but a man is, as the saying goes, "gay, straight, or lying".

by Alexander on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 07:06:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 1)

According to this literature, men are hard-wired to be turned on by men or women but not by both, but what turns women on is much less specific.

Yeah, not a big fan of these studies. They look at adult behavior, and there's no feasible way to control for social pressures etc. From my personal point of view as a bio geek, they're trying to say things that are frankly kind of bunk, when they get into "hard-wired" sort of talk.

by Spit (spit36@gmx.net) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 07:28:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gay, straight, or male (none / 1)

"Hard wired" is just an expression; I don't think many of researchers mean it very literally.

But I agree that the studies are not that conclusive by themselves, since they all seem to involve just hooking men and women up to various monitoring devices and then showing them different kinds of porn.

Still, I think they're suggestive, and there might be something to them, since according to the NY Times, the saying "gay, straight, or lying" comes from the gay community itself.

by Alexander on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 07:45:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh (4.00 / 2)

well, "gay, straight, or lying" coming from the gay community doesn't make it true -- there's an amazing amount of anti-bisexual sentiment in the gay community (it's gotten a little better, but it's still pretty amazing sometimes).

re: "hard-wired", I don't know if the researchers themselves mean it, but it's certainly taken that way in the mass media, and I have serious problems with that. You can argue that men are more solid about their sexuality than women, but if you try to assign that, say, a biological or essentialist component, you're completely ignoring the hugely increased social stigma surrounding male homosexuality and/or (maybe even moreso) bisexuality.

Desire is a funny thing -- it's not rational/conscious, but neither is it necessarily wholly essential/biological. There's almost certainly a really huge -- and nearly impossible to clarify or firmly identify -- social component to it.

by Spit (spit36@gmx.net) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 07:58:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 0)

Male and female desire are different, and I think that means that the differences between straight men and gays on the one hand and straight women and Lesbians on the other will manifest themselves in different ways.

For exmaple, a main stimulus for mail arousal is visual, and there is essentially no overlap between pornography directed at hetero men and at gays. What arouses a woman tends to be less concrete.

I don't think there's much of a social component to how visually based male arousal is.

by Alexander on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 10:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 0)

I don't think there's much of a social component to how visually based male arousal is.

I think you're awfully quick, then, to assume that the social/environmental/psychological can't have strong effects on the physical body -- we treat them as separate things, but they're not always. But leaving that aside for a moment, it's a pretty big leap from "men and women have different responses to different kinds of stimuli" to "men and women have different natural sexual preferences". Desire is an incredibly complex thing.

I don't claim to know where any pattern of desire comes from, and I don't honestly think it's a very answerable question. But I am not impressed by studies that look at differences in adult patterns and assume them to be some sort of "natural state". There are a lot of problems with that sort of thing.

by Spit (spit36@gmx.net) on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 at 11:08:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 0)

I don't assume that "the social/environmental/psychological can't have strong effects on the physical body". Why should I? I am not involved with the medical-pharmaceutical industry.

And I don't come to "men and women have different natural sexual preferences" from "men and women have different responses to different kinds of stimuli", in other words, the recent experimental studies. I come to it from evolutionary biology, specifically, the work of Donald Symons.

by Alexander on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 at 01:55:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 0)

An interesting way of looking at this question is to look what happens to sexual behavior in places where there are either strong taboos on homosexuality or very lax rules about it.

I think it is obvious that people will engage in less sexual activity if it comes with higher potential costs. The easiest thought experiment is to ask how people would change their sexual choices if they suddenly discovered that a) there was no legally available contraception, or (since this is a thought experiment) no contraception whatsoever, and b) that there was strong social pressure to marry anyone with whom you were discovered to have had sexual relations.

But would people actually have less desire?

In Ancient Athens, women were basically shuttered within their homes, except for special occasions. There is not much literature about it, but I assume lesbianism was common and accepted. What is certain is that male gay relationships, at least among the aristocracy, were accepted as normal, and even idealized as superior to relationships with women. The shame component was significantly diminished. How did this effect sexual behavior? How did it effect desire?

I don't know the answers, but it gets to the social v. hardwiring question.

It also gets to the social policy question. Before you can answer the question of whether certain sexual practices should be discouraged through social policy (like criminalizing contraception) you have to ask whether it can actually change behavior...or will it just push it underground...create a black market, etc.

One area where we regulate is based on age. The hope is that by creating strong social taboos and legal penalties for having sexual relations with teenager minors, people will not do it. And, it is also hoped, that people will not want to do it.

Since most people agree on the wisdom of this goal, the question is about the effectiveness of the taboo and the laws on changing both behavior and desire.

But for more controversial taboos and laws that are sought by social conservatives (about homosexuality, sex out of marriage, and contraception) we could possibly make social science arguments that say, even if this were a desirable goal, it won't work all that well.

by BooMan on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 at 01:52:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 0)

There are problems with your approach, though, and I'm not going to get into all of them. Examining taboo, etc, across cultures is sometimes a useful exercise and is a staple of some fields, but it does have its limits in what it can tell you about humanity in general or about culture specifically. Basically, there are a huge number of variables in a culture, and you can't control for them -- so it's certainly not as if Athens was just like here except that it had different taboos about sexuality. It was a totally different place and time that you're talking about, and so you really can't move from "they had x different attitude" to "that led to y different behavior". It's not as though all cultural changes happen the same way in response to the same factors -- this isn't algebra, there aren't universal rules, particularly. Cultural comparisons are IMO something that have to be done with a clear eye on their problems, and using them to firmly ascertain what is "hardwired" is pretty flawed, as far as I'm concerned.

by Spit (spit36@gmx.net) on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 at 11:18:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 0)

Well...that's true. There are limitations...but that is what standards in social science are for.

Going back to the thought experiment:

If in Ancient Athens, it was thought that the most meaningful sexual relationships were only possible between men, then what did that do to the ostensibly straight guy?

If you take me, for example...I'm straight. I could live a thousand years and I'm never going to be tempted to fool around with a guy.

But what kind of effect would it have on me if my peers, people I really respected, were fairly unanimous that sex with women was a spiritually empty exercise and that I should try men if I wanted to really experience something sublime?

The answer to that question gets to the heart of the effectiveness of taboo (and laws) in changing sexual behavior. And I don't know the answer to that question. Could it change my desire patterns? Maybe. I just don't know.

by BooMan on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 at 11:34:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 0)

then what did that do to the ostensibly straight guy?

How many of these were there? Because you had your marriage with a woman, of course, for practical reasons, but you also had your male lover, generally speaking, no? So who's "straight"?

This is part of why what you're doing here is problematic to me -- Athenians didn't have a concept of "straight" or "gay", and -- while I'm not really an expert on Athenian history, it seems to me that men's sexuality was conceptualized as a bit more fluid through time. You're trying to apply our modes of sexual relationship to the context of ancient Athens. It just doesn't really work.

If you were an ancient Athenian, you would probably have an entirely different concept of self and sex (among many other things) than you do -- so trying to place yourself, as the current you, within that framework -- maybe a fun thought exercise, but not very useful for figuring out anything about human sexuality, IMO.

by Spit (spit36@gmx.net) on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 at 11:55:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 0)

Actually, I'm not trying to place myself in ancient Athens, I'm wondering what I would be like if I grew up in a society like this one, but in which my peers held Athenian views about sexuality. Would it be possible to change my sexual orientation and/or desire patterns (fantasies) etc, just through social pressure?

I suspect not, but I don't know.

by BooMan on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 at 12:03:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (4.00 / 3)

No, we don't like getting "hit on" - it's not a compliment, or even just a neutral thing. It's an assertion of power.

It's an assumption of a right to judge, and having judged a woman "attractive", that you have the unquestionable right to voice your judgment. We women are supposed to feel especially "complemented" by men's positive judgments - because men's judgments carry real weight.

And therein lies the problem. Men have the power of approval (and disapproval). It's a huge leaver that is used to coerce women's actions. Or to put it more bluntly, men have created a system where they can exchange mere words for things of real value, chiefly access to women's bodies and energies.

Even if you don't mean it that way, we'd be stupid to not feel the unease of the imbalance. Because, for women, getting it "wrong", dropping our guard, has really nasty consequences.

Every woman has had the experience of some guy complementing her appearance - often butting in while we are otherwise engaged or talking with other women, etc., and feeling either forced to respond (and I do mean forced), or if we don't respond getting the "bitch" treatment - as in "hey bitch, I gave you a compliment, can't you at least say 'thank you', ignore your friends and talk to me, suck my dick, etc."

It's not just "displeasing" it's frightening, and it's meant to be.

by keres on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 07:34:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

Interesting. I just responded to two of your posts on the other thread. I had been wondering if you were a woman, but guessed you were not, simply because women are in a minority here. (I did guess that you're not American though, from your mention of "trade level".)

Nothing in the post you are replying to implied that women like getting hit on. I explicitly said that if attention is unwanted, it is unwanted. I merely wanted to contrast the difference between a man hitting on a woman and his hitting on a man; in the first case, he can be perceived as affirming her "value" as a woman (if not her "real identity" or "worth" or whatever), whereas in the second case, he can be perceived as challenging or undermining the person's masculine identity. I certainly understand that tact (a word that has fallen completely out of use) requires that a man not give a woman complements, especially ones relating to her "femininity", especially in a professional setting, if there is not a good indication that she might be receptive to them.

But I must admit that I was taking for granted a man's right to judge (if not an unquestionable right to voice the judgement). But here we are getting into pretty theoretical and possibly Utopian territory. Don't all the glossy women's magazine, not to mention the advertising and entertainment industries, assume that the way to perceive women is from the point of view of masculine desire? Society makes it all too easy for men to feel, when they are judging women, that they are doing so not from some subjective point of view alien or hostile to the object, but actually from an objective point of view.

by Alexander on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 09:53:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

Unwanted propositions to a woman from a guy are of course unwanted, but they imply that the guy finds the woman desirable, which shouldn't be displeasing to the woman, as far as I can tell. (There are probably some feminists who would disagree with that last part.)

Yes, there are some feminists who will disagree, and I'm clearly one of them. And, btw I am female and an American (but I live in Australia).

No, you didn't say women liked getting hit on. You said that a man's assertion that a woman is desirable "shouldn't be displeasing to the woman". Which I disagree with.

I totally agree that 'society', "makes it all too easy for men to feel, when they are judging women, that they are doing so not from some subjective point of view alien or hostile to the object, but actually from an objective point of view." But I add that it takes a lingustic bit of doublespeak to eliminate from this statement the agents who makes 'society' - i.e. men. Power is always self-serving in ascribing its own actions and motivations.

Yes, men get afraid when their masculinity is called into question. As can women when their femininity is challenged. Being singled out as "other" is scary and dangerous. The big difference is that for a woman, one is already "other", and potentially a target of male violence, so there's not much further to fall, status wise. For a man, there a huge danger and significant loss of status in being cast as other/female. The second difference is how men and women are entitled to respond to our fears. Men are entitled, and I might argue to some degree they are required, to respond with violence as a way of refuting the "lie" that they are not men. While conversely, women who resort to violence give up any claim to the feminine, and therefore remove what little protection that position might afford them - they become monstrously other, and open themselves up to any and every abuse.

by keres on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 11:38:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

You said that a man's assertion that a woman is desirable "shouldn't be displeasing to the woman"

I didn't say that. I said that a man's finding a woman desirable (in itself) shouldn't be displeasing to the woman (provided that he does not express that desire in any way, if that is her wish). I was making the point that women shouldn't find male desire being directed at them objectionable, so long as it does not reveal itself in ways that annoy or intimidate them, whereas some men (erroneously I might add) are bothered by even the thought that other men might find them desirable.

I add that it takes a lingustic bit of doublespeak to eliminate from this statement the agents who makes 'society' - i.e. men.

You've got me there, although calling it "doublespeak" is a bit unkind, I think. But your point is well taken: men certainly do have a much greater role in running society than women do.

Nevertheless, I do not think that my statement was misleading, because I evidently take a more "structuralist" point of view than you do: I do not think that "agents", whether male or female, make society, but society itself. (This is a core Luhmannian idea.) In so far as a human agent participates in society (other than in his or her close personal relationships), he or she does not carry out his or her own personal goals, but the goals that the particular functional subsystem he or she operates in has programmed into him or her.

In the other thread you spoke of "anti-women". I would argue that men who serve to reproduce the system, passively accepting the goals it imposes on them, "anti-men". In other words, the problem with society is not that it is patriarchal, but that humans, men and women both, have lost control over it.

by Alexander on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 at 12:58:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

OK- tucker is gay! it will only be a matter of time.
Now, as to the other pigs involved in the conversation, they all should be thrown off the air. They haven't a clue.
Does anyone realize that if your cruising for somebodys' dick for a quicky, prime meat is: young meat! Craigs crime, for which he will not be prosecuted for is the horror of seaking a kid and getting that kid into a stall. Don't think for one second that that is not floating around in that sick bastards mind! So, when the "humor" flies- it is simply a horror. And guess what- they don't even know that they are doing it.

by billjpa (billjpa@aol.com) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 03:42:05 PM EST

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

the officer was not a kid.

by BooMan on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 03:44:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

Thankyou. I know that. The problem is that you are missing the real problem. Craig is a sick bastard that wants a youg boy. He settles for "Men" because so far his fear of getting caught is probably stopping him from going for what he really wants. Get it?
However, way back when "things were simpler"- what did good old craig stand up and deny even though he wasn't even being charged with anything---- How about Cocaine and diddling YOUNG boys! Get IT?

by billjpa (billjpa@aol.com) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 04:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

If you are Republican and spout platitudes about family values you are likely to be a pedophilic sexual predator. If you are a Republican, used to wear a preppy bow tie, and talk about how tough and what an ass kicker you are when a gay guy flirts with you, you are gay. The louder Republicans spew their anti-gay venom, the more certain we can be that it is their self-loathing for being themselves gay spewing out. Because in this area of life, as in all other areas, Republicans live in a second reality of their own making, and this little fake universe of the mind is more real to them than the evidence of their own lives, desires, dreams and senses.

All Progressives need to become ardent supporters of the Second, as well as the , First Amendment

by phronesis (swwiener@gmail.com) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 04:23:18 PM EST

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

Thankyou!

by billjpa (billjpa@aol.com) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 04:32:55 PM EST

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 1)

If I had to bet, I'd say that Tucker made up that whole story about going back and bashing the guy's head up against the stall right there during the interview. He looked real uncomfortable when the other two started laughing at him for having been propositioned in the men's room. His homophobia (or closeted gayness) was triggered and he was afraid of the implication that someone thought he might be gay and that's why they propositioned him. So he needed to add on the "macho" thing about going back to beat him up. And I think it makes him even more of a stupid weasel than if that part of the story were actually true.

Doesn't information itself have a liberal bias? Steven Colbert

by NLinStPaul on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 05:07:53 PM EST

Oh, I don't know. (none / 1)

I kind of agree with you NL that it stinks of BS, but OTOH I think if he had made it up he wouldn't have admitted he needed help beating up the poor guy.

Tengo un sueño.

by ejmw (ewitham (at) umich (dot) edu) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 05:15:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, I don't know. (none / 0)

Gotta agree. The way Carlson tells it, he's not even man enough to bash his own fairies, which in that narrative makes him a SERIOUS wimp; it's not something to brag about unless he was, y'know, just inviting his pals along for the esprit de corps male bonding experience.

Which, when you think of it, has HUGELY homoerotic implications...

(It's worth noting that most of the gay guys I know could take down the average straight guy Without even getting their hair out of place, and I do think half the gyms in town would go out of business if they lost the gay guy trade, so that narrative's severely disconnected from reality, but we knew that...)

I've always found "I'm flattered, but I'm also straight," to be all the response I need; I've even heard guys who hit on me quietly wave off other guys who might be thinking about it just to save the time. I can't help but think that the guys who get hit on repeatedly enough to be seriously wigged out are giving off some other kind of vibe (about which I will not speculate. Well, not here, anyways.)

We are all captives of the pictures in our heads - our belief that the world which we have experienced is the world that really exists. - W. Lippman

by stormkite on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 06:06:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

you pegged him. He is a frightened closet prettty boy. Slammed his head into a wall? My ass. that cute piec of meat would love to turn one for someone.
What I find fascinating is that tehy have all been on the air- the pundits, the heads the full of shitter
and they don't get it. You got it! bravo.

by billjpa (billjpa@aol.com) on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 05:55:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic (none / 0)

Isn't Tucker the one who use to wear the "bow-tie"/ on his show?

by americanforliberty on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 07:34:59 PM EST

Tucker Carlson's Gay Panic | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile