The Gay Left has decided that the ideal choice for Honorary Grand Marshal of the San Francisco Pride Parade is convicted traitor Bradley Manning.

Today, the nation’s largest Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Pride Celebration Committee announced on its website that WikiLeaks whistle-blower traitor (-Ed) Chelsea Manning has been chosen to represent the event as a 2014 Honorary Grand Marshal.

Manning thanked the San Francisco Pride Committee from Fort Leavenworth military prison, declaring, “As a trans* woman, I appreciate the Pride movement’s significant role in bringing together diverse communities and elevating the public profile of the fight for queer rights. I have always enjoyed attending Pride celebrations given the opportunity, and I’m deeply honored to receive this title.”

Obviously, he was the only gay person in the military worth honoring.

Then, I remember this article from The Onion, and Bradley Manning seems perfect: Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years

Everybody, it seems, is dumping on the Arizona Legislature for passing a bill that codified what used to be a basic principle of commerce; that a business owner could refuse service to a customer if he didn’t want the customer’s business.  However, that pinciple has been abrogated, and business owners can be forced into involuntary servitude; all because a few hypersensitive, neurotic gheys got their feelers hurt when photographers, florists, or bakers didn’t want to be a part of their “weddings.”

So, why don’t we just cut to the chase and pass laws making it illegal not to like gay people; with fines and criminal penalties for anyone who uses any word, gesture, expression or behavior that any gay person judges to be insufficiently supportive of his or her lifestyle?The penalties could include mandatory sensitivity training at the offender’s expense; thus providing employment to otherwise utterly useless Gender Studies graduates.

Let’s just pass a law and get all Harrison Bergeron up in this b–ch. I mean, that’s the whole point of this exercise, isn’t it? (Something tells me the gay left will *still* be whiny and miserable anyway.)

Welcome to the Community of the Empowered Oppressed, Freaks Who Dress In Rubber Woman Suits. We’ll, um, we’ll make sure you get a float in the Pride Parade right between the Transgendered Taxidermists and the Left-Handed Lesbian Leather WINC Coven.

Robert is one of a growing number of men for whom time off means time spent dressed in an elaborate body suit, complete with breasts and a vagina, designed to make them look like the glamorous women they are not.

Unlike transgender people, ‘maskers’, or ‘rubber dollers’ as they’re also known, do not feel born in the wrong body. For them, dressing up as a member of the opposite sex is a simply a way to have fun.

What’s the Over/Under on the first university to offer FWDIRWS studies? How long before Modern Family incorporates a FDIRWS as a recurring character? What is Phil Robertson’s opinion on FWDIRWS?

Is this a narcissism thing?

When I dress up, put this mask on and the wig, it’s like being a beautiful woman walking down the street. You become one of the beautiful people and you draw a lot of attention, and attention is not something I’ve had a lot of.’

Um… yeah, it’s a narcissism thing.

Hat Tip: Sondra K

(more…)

Imagine if an Obamacare Advocacy Group (i.e., liberal Democrats) put out an ad promoting Obamacare to blacks that featured black men and women eating fried chicken and watermelon while singing a hymn to Obamacare set to the tune of “Camptown Races.”

Imagine if an Obamacare Advocacy Group put out an ad promoting Obamacare to Hispanics that featured Hispanic men and women driving around in low-riders and picking lettuce while singing a hymn to Obamacare set to the tune of “La Cucaracha.”

Now, with those thoughts in mind, ponder this ad put together by an Obamacare advocacy group to promote Obamacare to Teh Gheys.

(more…)

A lawsuit fired by a former gym teacher and coach at a posh New York private school alleges that the Athletic Director, a lesbian, discriminated against him for maintaining a traditional family life.

The discrimination suit claims that Krieger attempted to force Kenney to coach three sports — soccer, basketball and golf — even though his contract only mandated that he coach two teams.

When Coach Kenney protested about the burden of working extra nights and weekends because he wanted to spend more time with him wife and children, Krieger balked.

“We all make choices,” she said, according to the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Kenney’s complaint alleges, “a single, female teacher faced no scrutiny when she refused to coach a third season.”

The suit claims that Krieger ran off three other married coaches who have young kids and notes that Kenney’s replacement is a gay female.

I used to be friends with an uber-feminist who, after college, went to work for a non-profit organization run by a lesbian and her partner. She told me that the constant sexual politics in the office made the job intolerable. The organization’s mission was always secondary or tertiary to keeping up with the constantly shifting alliances and vendettas that the women brought to the office.

It also strikes me as a Sign o’ the Times that one teacher gets fired for having a traditional family, another gets defended for molesting one of his students.

R.S. McCain Reports on Michelangelo Signorile’s typically hypersensitive, overwrought response to a wee incident of what he perceives as an affront to gay political correctness.

Publicity about a relationship between 39-year-old Hollywood screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and 19-year-old British diving champion Tom Daley has inspired criticism even from some gay rights activists. Joshua Epstein, a blogger who identifies himself as a gay progressive Democrat, reacted to the Black-Daley affair on Twitter: ”He could be his father. Yuk.“

That reaction was condemned by Huffington Post columnist Michelangelo Signorile, who said only “internalized homophobia” could cause gays to criticize such relationships. “There is an undercurrent in these comments — the ‘chicken hawk’ charge — that suggests that gay men are more likely to sexually abuse underage teens, the ugliest lie about gay men out there,” Signorile wrote Friday in Huffington Post’s “Gay Voices” section. “Hardcore homophobes are predictably pointing to Black and Daley as supposed proof. But many gay men too, so defensive about the charge and deathly fearful of how it’s used, overcompensate by saying ‘yuk.’”

Signorile specifically defended sites that promote “intergenerational” gay sex. ”Some younger people are attracted to older people, and vice versa,” he wrote. “There’s even a gay website called Daddyhunt.”

Oh, there’s a website promoting that sort of thing and that makes it OK. Michelangelo, let me introduce you to Boychat; a website for pedos.

OK. So, depending on your point-of-view, a relationship between a guy who’s pushing 40 and a guy who’s too young to drink legally can run from “Yuk!” to “You go!” At least in this case, the younger man is an adult (unlike the boys who got involved with Democrat Gerry Studds, Democrat Mayor Sam Adams, and Safe School Czar Kevin Jennings).  But because Michelangelo Signorile believes that any criticism of gay behavior is tantamount to collaboration with the hated Christian Right, only the latter response is considered politically correct.

Never mind that if it were a heterosexual intergenerational pairing, a lot of people would still be going “Yuk!”

The New York Times has noticed that bareback sex is a thing gay people are doing, which is breaking news from about the mid-1990′s when (according to Wikipedia) gay publications like The Advocate first took note of the phenomenon of gay men having unprotected sex and, in some cases, deliberately seeking HIV infection.

Anyway, the Times, perhaps after failing to find a celebrity to comment on the issue, goes to the next best source for information on epidemiology and behavioral psychology… an English professor from SUNY-Buffalo. Who provides this analysis:

What I learned in my research is that gay men are pursuing bareback sex not just for the thrill of it, but also as a way to experience intimacy, vulnerability and connection. Emotional connection may be symbolized in the idea that something tangible is being exchanged. A desire for connection outweighs adherence to the rules of disease prevention.

And some guys are apparently getting intimate, tangible, emotional connections 10-20 times a night in bathhouses.

It also seems that the readers of the NY Times, based on the comments, are in complete denial that this phenomenon exists, and think the author is just making it up to attack the gay community. Liberals choose to blame the recent dramatic increases in HIV infection rates on “the stigma attached to HIV.” Um, excuse me, but don’t stigmas usually make people avoid those things to which stigmas are attached?

In the real world, stigmatizing a behavior results in less of it: Which is why people don’t use the N-word in public any more and smoking has declined as a social activity. When the social stigma is removed … as with HIV infection and teenage pregnancy … you get more of those things.

Bareback sex has major health complications vis-a-vis the transmission of HIV and other STDs that contribute to the high cost of health care. Make you wonder why Bloomberg didn’t try to outlaw it. Hooking up for raw sex with strangers is at least as dangerous as a Big Gulp. Probably.

John Hayward at Human Events reviews all three. Here’s the state of play:

• Persecution of lesbian NJ server still a hoax
• Knockout Game still all too real
• and the World Health Organization (WHO) still muddying the waters about people who self-inflict HIV, as there have indeed been some cases (just nothing like half of all new HIV cases in Greece, as the WHO had originally told people).

As to the Knockout Game, Hayward links Thomas Sowell, who says:

The New York authorities describe a recent series of such attacks and, because Jews have been singled out in these attacks, are considering prosecuting these assaults as “hate crimes.” …this “knockout game” has been played for years by young black gangs in other cities and other states, against people besides Jews — the victims being either whites in general or people of Asian ancestry. Attacks of this sort have been rampant in St. Louis. But they have also occurred in Massachusetts, Wisconsin and elsewhere. In Illinois the game has often been called “Polar Bear Hunting” by the young thugs, presumably because the targets are white…

“White Girl Bleed A Lot”…a book by Colin Flaherty…documents both the racial attacks across the nation and the media attempts to cover them up, as well as the local political and police officials who try to say that race had nothing to do with these attacks. Chapter 2 of the 2013 edition is titled, “The Knockout Game, St. Louis Style.” So this is nothing new, however new it may be to some in New York, thanks to the media’s political correctness.

Sounds like a ‘social phenomenon’, to me. At any rate, many of the attacks are on video (and/or documented in police reports) and, as such, are facts that can’t be wished away.

UPDATE: (thanks Peter in the comments): The WHO has reversed itself on this:

“The [offending] sentence should read, ‘Half of the new HIV cases are self-injecting and out of them few are deliberately inflicting the virus’.”

“This was just a gross editing error for which the WHO apologises,” said its spokesman, Gregory Hartl.

Good for the Greeks! Now, if the other reports about bug chasers in the UK and the US have been retracted or disproved, that would also be interesting and please let us know in the comments.

As if to follow-on to my earlier post, “UK bug chasers: America’s future?”, comes this sad report from the World Health Organization, page 112:

Case study: countries’ experiences of financial crisis – Greece

Suicides rose by 17% between 2007 and 2009 and to 25% in 2010, according to unofficial 2010 data (398). The Minister of Health reported a further 40% rise in the first half of 2011…Homicide and theft rates have doubled. HIV rates and heroin use have risen significantly, with *about half of new HIV infections being self-inflicted to enable people to receive benefits of €700 per month* and faster admission on to drug-substitution programmes. Prostitution has also risen…

Emphasis added. In pursuing the cradle-to-grave Welfare State, Europe has created a society of smothering government regulation, taxes, “benefits” and controls where:

• People can no longer get ahead, or even survive, in the private economy.
• People can survive if they qualify for government-paid benefits.

Is it any wonder that economic crisis results? And that, in the midst of the crisis, some people will do anything to qualify for government-paid benefits?

To escape the trap, Europe must do the opposite. It must dismantle the Welfare State, creating a society of freedom where most people can’t get money from government, and can survive, or even get ahead, in the private economy.

Via New Scientist and ZH.

A commentor (thanks V) points us to this July 2013 article from the UK, on the practice of deliberate self-infection with HIV:

The reckless practice, known as bug chasing, started in the US as a bizarre means of getting a ­sexual high from risk-taking.

Now, according to one man who willingly caught the virus, hundreds of men in the UK are introducing themselves on online forums, Face­book groups and Twitter.

Many then meet up and try to transmit the potentially life-threatening virus, which attacks the ­immune system weakening the body’s ability to fight disease.

Some bug-chasers actually claim the virus gives them a better quality of life because of the medication they subsequently have to take.

Nick, 30, an admin worker from the Midlands, said: “I feel fit as a fiddle. I feel full of energy and healthier as a result of being on my medication.

“I get my liver function tests every three months, my cholesterol tested regularly and I get loads of general health checks so if there are any underlying conditions I know straight away. Even better, I get it all on the NHS.”

Last year, 73,659 people in the UK were treated for HIV – 43 per cent of them gay or bisexual men – a rise of 58 per cent over the last 10 years.

You can read the rest.

Needless to say, such behavior is deplorable for its nihilism. It embodies contempt for self and society alike. It is anti-life.

But for these men, having their behavior deplored is part of the thrill. In thrall to sex addiction as well as their nihilism, they ‘get off’ on doing and being the worst things that their society will peaceably reward (pay) them to do and to be.

What enables their behavior is the payment: the socialized medicine. These men are partly rational. Not completely; for instance, the one man’s supposition that HIV medications are healthy is not rational. But these men have seen that a socialized (and still somewhat wealthy or ‘First World’) society will give them lots of medical care that they have not earned and do not merit.

These men have gauged, correctly, that their society will give them the best care possible, if they inflict some sort of manageable and tolerable medical condition on themselves. Consciously or not, they are ‘playing’ the socialized medical system. That is partly (not entirely) the fault of the system itself: socialized systems for private goods always warp a society’s incentives in some way, and should not exist to begin with.

Morally speaking, these men have a suicide-like ‘right’ to get HIV if they really want to; but no right to have government forcing the rest of their society to pay their way. Yet their government does force the rest of society to pay their way. And so there are enough of these men around to start making a social phenomenon of it.

(NB: Spelling fixes, phrase/wording edits, etc. after initial publication.)

By way of Michelle Malkin’s excellent website Twitchy, I’ve learned of two great hashtag nicknames for Obama and his administration in the past few days: #PresidentStompyFoot and #SpiteHouse.  As appropriate and amusing as those are, in thinking about his behavior, I’ve come up with another one lately which I like to imagine is just as good: President Cha-Cha Heels.

The reference, for those who don’t recognize it, is to Dawn Davenport, the spoiled teenager in John Waters’ 1974 film Female Trouble.  Although the film is one of Waters’ earlier efforts and is therefore full of the sort of rude, crude, and just plain gross humor and incidents which assured it an NC-17 rating, in some respects it is a useful parable about the evils of modern liberalism.

Here’s a brief synopsis: Dawn Davenport wants nothing more than a pair of “cha-cha heels” for Christmas, but when her parents refuse to get her any on the grounds that “nice girls don’t wear cha-cha heels,” she throws her mother into the Christmas tree, runs away from home, gets pregnant, and eventually becomes a criminal before being discovered by Donald and Donna Dasher, a couple who loves to photograph women committing crimes.  They make her famous, and she becomes even more notorious as a result.  The Dashers are the sort of liberals who embrace transgression as art and dysfunction as beauty, until Dawn goes berserk and then they try to pretend that they had nothing to do with it.

So what does this have to do with Obama?  Well, our petulant President seems rather like Dawn Davenport throwing a tantrum because he didn’t get any cha-cha heels to wear with his Mom jeans.

As Thomas Sowell wrote in an excellent article that appeared last Friday: “You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.”

In any case, Obama doesn’t care.  He didn’t get his cha-cha heels, and so he’s determined to “walk all over you,” in the words of this catchy tune inspired by the story of Dawn Davenport and performed by Eartha Kitt and Bronski Beat:

Unfortunately, like the Dashers, his enablers in the press and the liberals who voted for him are rallying around him as though there’s nothing offensive, disturbing, or troubling about his dishonest and spiteful behavior.

This one is probably a year old (like the book), but I had missed it, and found it worthwhile, when I came across it earlier today.

In Sayet’s theory, the left-liberal holds a basic premise that all discrimination is bad (the root cause of human conflict). From that premise, consequences flow: (more…)

Via Bloomberg:

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican…said that homosexuality is inborn and not a sin…as he signed a bill banning therapy that tries to change a minor’s sexual orientation. Christie said such efforts pose “critical health risks including, but not limited to, depression, substance abuse, social withdrawal, decreased self-esteem and suicidal thoughts.”

“Exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate,” Christie, 50, said today in the statement.

The question is whether this is an entirely good thing.

I love it (don’t we all!) that Christie told his constituents the truth about New Jersey’s budget mess, which he inherited from Wall Street rip-off artist and Democrat, Jon Corzine. But some of Christie’s other positions suggest a Big Government, authoritarian streak in him. Perhaps this is one.

Low as my opinion of reparative therapy is, some people (probably a small minority, when we’re talking about men) can change their orientation if they want to, and none of us have the moral right to stop them from getting assistance.

Minors do need a higher standard of protection, but that’s why they have parents. So, either way, I’m not sure this should be Chris Christie’s (or government’s) decision.

At the very least, the “age of consent” for gay sex and reparative therapy ought to be the same. A teenager who is viewed legally as old enough to make his own decisions about sex, should be old enough to make his own decisions about what therapy he may want.

UPDATE: Apologies to Kurt for ‘topping’ his excellent post; I wrote this one in a hurry, without checking the blog first as I should have. Having said that, the issue I’m raising here is the liberty of the one who (rightly or wrongly) may seek reparative therapy. The individual has a right to pursue the life she thinks is best, even when Chris Christie (or gay activists, or anyone else) thinks it’s a mistake.

In today’s Morning Jolt today (available by subscription), Jim Geraghty reflects on “the latest offering from the Family Channel”, a drama called “The Fosters” featuring an interracial lesbian couple raising a “brood of adopted, biological and foster children.”

“After watching the pilot, where the parents come across so saintly,” Geraghty suspects . . .

. . . that the writers will be terrified about portraying them with any flaws, either because they’ll be afraid they’re portraying gay parents negatively, or because they fear their audience will be even momentarily repelled by characters that the entire show’s purpose is to get you to love and accept.

In other words, if Hollywood is afraid to portray a gay character as human, with strengths and failings, moments of character and moments of weakness, and so on . . . are they really being all that groundbreaking or brave or honest in their creation?

Reading that concluding question, I recalled an essay that both Bruce and some eaders shared with me, Bret Easton Ellis’s overlong, but insightful rant, “In the Reign of the Gay Magical Elves,” where the novelist also wondered about Hollywood’s depiction of gays:

The reign of The Gay Man as Magical Elf, who whenever he comes out appears before us as some kind of saintly E.T. whose sole purpose is to be put in the position of reminding us only about Tolerance and Our Own Prejudices and To Feel Good About Ourselves and to be a symbol instead of just being a gay dude, is—lamentably—still in media play.

. . . .

Where’s the gay dude who makes crude jokes about other gays in the media (as straight dudes do of each other constantly) or express their hopelessness in seeing Modern Family being rewarded for its depiction of gays, a show where a heterosexual plays the most simpering ka-ween on TV and Wins. Emmys. For. It?  . . . . But being “real” and “human” (i.e. flawed) is not necessarily what The Gay Gatekeepers want straight culture to see.

Interesting how the views of a conservative pundit and a non-conservative gay iconoclast parallel each other. (more…)

My new post at Ricochet has been up for a couple of hours and it is causing an interesting reaction for me on Twitter.

Here’s a sneak peek:

Let’s be honest: Collins is an uber-wealthy and talented super athlete in our celebrity-obsessed society.  I doubt he has much to worry about outside of his bubble.  So I’m sorry if I can’t get worked up about this.

<…>

Today, most young people think Lady Gaga is an important gay icon and political influencer, yet hardly any have ever heard of Mark Bingham.

I don’t begrudge Jason Collins; I loathe our news media for making the important irrelevant and the ridiculous praiseworthy.

Please read it.  If you don’t read the whole column, I will delete your comments.  Because I now have ESP powers.  HA!

UPDATE:  Let me add a thought I had after I wrote it:  Barack Obama can call Jason Collins and Sandra Fluke, but not the family of Brian Terry or those he left to die in Benghazi.  That says all I need to know about Obama.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

V brought this to our attention in another thread, and I thought it worth a quick post of its own: Brown University’s workshop on gay sex will segregate participants by race.

Students at Brown University will host a workshop called “Protect me from what I desire,” which purports to help gay minority students resist their same-sex attractions to white people…

Students will be segregated by race for a portion of the event. White students will be in one group, and persons of color in another. Organizers described this session as “intentional, anti-racist, and feminist.”

Get it? Racial segregation isn’t racist, in the Brave New World, if it’s intentional.

But wait. Segregation that’s intentional – in other words, racial division that you meant to create; racial division that is actually the point of your gay workshop – is almost the definition of racist. Simply asserting that it’s “anti-racist” when you do it, is a (racist) child’s way of denying reality.

Seriously: Lefties, LOOK AT YOURSELVES.

Y’all know I love the economic issues, and sometimes avoid the “gay” issues (as unprofitable – heh). But hey, this is a gay blog, and courtesy of reader Peter Hughes, we have a couple of gay-themed tidbits.

First, the irrepressible, he-won’t-come-out-but-everyone-knows-anyway singer Morrissey enlightens us that if we had more gay men, we’d somehow have fewer wars:

If more men were homosexual, there would be no wars, because homosexual men would never kill other men, whereas heterosexual men love killing other men.

Where has Morrissey been hiding? Let’s set aside the famous gay male serial killers, let’s even set aside the ancient Greeks: The fact remains that some of the most aggressive (and best) men out there are gays who have made a career of the U.S. military.

And I say, good on them! Real men protect people from evil, and the roughness and aggression of the good men who protect all of us from terrorists, criminals, etc. may (if under good regulation) be a virtue. Sensitive, artistic men are also needed, but I don’t want a world where the type that Morrissey seems to prefer – the effete, self-indulgent eunuch who protects no one except himself and maybe a few cows – is dominant.

Next, we hear that ABC is ready to produce a Reagan-hating mini-series:

The Hollywood Reporter relayed on Thursday that “Mere days after the Academy Awards, ABC Studios has bought rights to David France’s film,” How to Survive a Plague, a hard-left documentary on AIDS activism in the Reagan years, when the Left claimed Reagan wanted them all to die off…

Clearly, the Gay Left’s mythology of Reagan-as-gay-hater is going to be with us awhile. Fortunately, no amount of repetition of a myth can alter the truth.

I was reminded to mention that the now-infamous Chick-Fil-A laser video has been nominated for a Blog Bash Award at CPAC 2013.

Ben Howe and Chris Loesch did all the hard work.  Acting was easy; I just played myself!

Here it is again for your viewing pleasure: Not Without My Chicken.

Last night, I finally got around to watching A Single Man and wish I had seen it on the big screen.  Although the script had a numerous problems, the art direction and cinematography made the flick a real treat.  And Colin Firth‘s portrayal of the solitude of gay man in the early 1960s struggling with the recent death of his life-companion paralleled Katharine Hepburn‘s portrayal of the solitude of a woman in middle age in the mid-1950s confronting her emotional longings (in Summertime).  It really was that good.

Perhaps, it is unfair to fault the film for lacking a traditional narrative.  Perhaps that was not its purpose.  It sought instead to show what it was like for a man to bear the grief of such a significant loss in a time much different from our own.

Visually it was absolutely stunning.

It did make me feel — as good movies tend to do.  And think — as better ones do.

Had I been awake enough last night to write a review, I would have offered a less enthusiastic appreciation of the film than I do today.  The plot seem contrived, the ending relationship too ambiguous, some of the dialogue (when Firth’s Falconer was teaching) too politically correct.  And it’s tiresome to see gay movies where the filmmakers portray a same-sex relationship in a good light while showing straight ones as flawed (his neighbor/close friend Julianne Moore‘s recollections of her marriage).

All that said, like the Hepburn movie, it does remind us of the power of human relationships. As George says to the Nicholas Hoult‘s Kenny, a student infatuated with him:

You know the only thing that’s made the whole thing worthwhile has been those few times when I’ve been able to really, truly connect with another human being.

Perhaps it was the power of the imagery that has caused the movie to leave such a sweet impression now nearly twenty-four hours after first I saw it.  Last night, I considered more its flaws.  Today, I remember the images.

And in a visual medium, perhaps that is paramount.  And the flick once again does remind us of the importance of relationships.

Back when I was in law school, I would, from time to time, run with a lesbian quite open about her sex life. Unlike most women (I had theretofore met) of her orientation, she liked to sleep around (with women) and watch gay (male) porn.

At the time, I had thought this was one of her quirks, but as time passed, I met other women who love women who enjoy watching films featuring men, well, sexing other men.  I had heard there was a scene in last year’s The Kids Are All Right where a lesbian couple watches just such a film.  Well, the DVD just arrived from Netlix; I watched it last night.  (It’s a good flick, well worth your time.)

Early on, Annette Bening‘s Nic asks her life-partner Jules (Julianne Moore) if she wants to watch a movie.  A “movie movie,” Jules responds, all excited.  They’re going to watch two men, well, enjoying each other’s company in the back of a pickup truck.  Nic laments that the men’s chests were waxed (less of that masculine hair?).

When their son learns of their interest in such all-male cinema, he asks “Why do you guys watch gay man porn?”

Nic tries to dodge the issue, but Jules offers an explanation:

Well, sweetie, human sexuality is complicated and somethings desire can be, you know, counterintuitive, you know, um, for example, because woman’s sexual responsiveness is internalized, sometimes  it’s exciting for us to see responsiveness externalized like with a penis.

As her beloved speaks, Nic has a quizzical expression on her face.  The explanation doesn’t work.

She may be perplexed about the explanation.  I am perplexed about the phenomenon.  We gay men tend to prefer porn featuring guys doing things we fantasize about doing.  And these guys often tend to be the type we fantasize about doing them with.

So, why do some gals like to watch individuals about whom they don’t even fantasize — or with whom they don’t seek intimate relations — going at it?

Jus’ wondering.  (Yeah, I know I’m not the first to wonder at this phenomenon.)