I’m not going to check the Liberal gay websites, but I’m not holding my breath that it is important to them.

Thank you. Exactly what I thought.

I did not mean to suggest that the “outrages against gays” included these rapes, but that this was an abusive use of gay sex.

But how does that square with

Their response to outrages against gays in the Islamic world are so predictable, that I’m certain that either this latest abusive use of gay sex escaped their attention or, if they had learned about it, decided not to comment on it

They decided not to comment on what issue if not the rapes to which your blog refers? And why are gay rights groups responsible for speaking out against these rapes when as you’ve stated above gays aren’t the target? Do you believe the rapists to be gay? I agree these rapes are terrible and abusive, but gay and an issue of gay rights? No.

Rape DOES NOT EXIST w/o some kind of sexual contact.

Precisely. There is a metaphorical sense in which rape can be non-sexual, as in “The rape of the American taxpayer” or “The Rape of Nanking” or acts of seizing and carrying off in general. But the sense is just that: metaphorical. And obviously it’s not the sense GPW meant in his post.

I am not claiming that the victims of the rapes were gay… I have since corrected the paragraph

Good enough

Again, you’re wrong. GPW isn’t referring to “something” in the Islamic world. Quoting him:

“Their response to outrages against gays in the Islamic world are so predictable…”

He is referring to what he considers an outrage against gays, not “things in the Islamic world”, a phrase that doesn’t appear in his blog. The basis of his entire blog entry is that these rapes are an outrage against gays and that mainstream gay rights organizations are silent. I disagree. In fact, I find the attempt to link same sex rape with gay sex offensive and irresponsible.

“Most often” utilizes a sex act? Rape DOES NOT EXIST w/o some kind of sexual contact. Read the definition of “rape in a statute–or the Model Penal Code. Just because *you* think that rape isn’t sex doesn’t mean that you’re right.

I think I would have done well to craft my second paragraph more carefully. I did not mean to suggest that the “outrages against gays” included these rapes, but that this was an abusive use of gay sex. So I have since corrected the paragraph to reflect that.

In the original version, “latest” referred to outrages, though I can see how someone might have misinterpreted it.

I’m not suggesting. Rape isn’t sex. Rape is a crime of violence usually using the sex act as its vehicle. A rapist doesn’t “have sex with” his victim — he violates her/him utilizing a/the sex act. As for your phrase nefarious purposes, I agree the purpose of these rapists is nefarious, but raping their victims isn’t “having sex with” them, thus my disagreement with your using the phrase in the context of gay sex. Once again, rape is a crime; merely because it most often utilizes a sex act doesn’t make it a sexual activity. The gratification of rape is power over the victim whereas the gratification of sex is, among many things, physical pleasure. Perhaps if you compare rape with, say, the crime of prostitution it might make things a bit clearer.

Well, in conversation do you say “sex” or “consensual sex”? If someone tells you that they had “sex”, do you immediately question whether it was consensual or non-consensual?

No, because rape is reprehensible and criminal, and in normal conversation – or at least in my normal conversation – one does not presume one’s partner to be a criminal. Nonetheless: There is consensual sex and there is non-consensual sex. Both are sex. Rape is non-consensual sex.

Those terrorists raping young men are clearly engaging in a gay sex act. It’s what’s called nonconsensual sex. And it’s a bad thing when one party forces himself on another who is unwilling.

Let me make clear that I decry this kind of sex as I decry any forced sex, hence the expression in the post “nefarious purposes,” nefarious meaning “wicked” or “criminal.”

Again, rape is not sex

Again, rape is non-consensual sex. As contrasted to consensual sex.

For it to be a “gay sex act”, the perpetrators must be doing it for the purpose of having gay sex.

So – it’s only gay if they meant it? Um, I thought only closet cases – say, closeted “straight” frat boys – thought in such terms.

“Gay” is often, and in the phrase “gay sex act” is very clearly, a short-hand for “involving parties all of the same sex”. Just as “straight” is often, and in the phrase “straight sex act” is very clearly, a short-hand for “involving parties of the opposite sex”. I’m amazed to be explaining that on a gay blog.

The phrase “…thing involving the Islamic world…” doesn’t appear once in his entry

Au contraire. A reference to something “in the Islamic world” appears only words earlier, as you yourself have quoted multiple times now.

This point of difference between us would appear to revolve around what is the precise referent of GPW’s phrase, “this latest”. I agree that GPW isn’t always a perfect wordsmith and a perfect wordsmith could have spelled out his reference better. Nonetheless, his reference was clearly to an outrage (which in earlier haste I called “things”) that possesses the characteristic of having occurred in the Islamic world. You want to find fault with GPW’s post, so you convert “this latest” into a reference to something else, i.e., a reference to outrages possessing the characteristic of having occurred against gays and gays alone, thus creating the new grammatical meaning that you can proceed to knock.

Instead, it’s rape as it has the primary intention of exerting power over the victims, with the power being making them into suicide bombers.

And while you may have a point with domestic based groups and international incidents, I’ll point out that while Iran and Saudi Arabia have identical punishments against homosexual activity (death penalty for both), but Iran’s human rights record in other issues is slightly better. GP has pretty good coverage of Iran’s human rights violations, coverage of Saudi Arabia is much much smaller – especially given that most of the results for a SA search return results in 1) comments, 2) posts criticizing Iran or 3) posts criticizing the UN. Why is that? The cynic in me says that the contributors to the blog don’t really care about muslim gays, and would much rather score points against Iran. Please don’t make me think that, this is the only conservative blog that I still have a reasonable opinion of

I disagree. “…this latest…” in his sentence clearly means GPW is referring to “this latest outrage against gays”. The phrase “…thing involving the Islamic world…” doesn’t appear once in his entry and he’s not discussing gay activist silence re. “Islamic things” but the specific outrage of rape, i.e. rape being the “latest” outrage.

Again, rape is not sex, particularly in the context of a blog decrying outrage against those of a particular orientation; GPW is stating that gay sex is being used for nefarious purposes, mistakenly pointing to the example of rape. That rape usually (but not always) utilizes the sex act doesn’t mean that the act automatically constitutes sex. The two are entirely different in motivation/purpose and thus this isn’t a gay issue based upon the tentative connection of same-sex rape. Rape is a subset of crime, not of sex.