Let’s face it Ennis was a hard nut to crack. He was obviously much more bisexual and yeah a ton of issues going on there.

Oh yes, because no man has ever penned a story about the endlessly patient love of a good woman. (Even Pirates of the Caribbean has the lovely theme that the heroine must remain faithful to the hero during his 10 years absence or he’ll remain cursed for eternity – no reciprocal obligation on his side, of course.) Straight men love the theme of faithfulness – as long as it’s their partner’s faithfulness and not their own. /cynicism

Also he’s plain wrong, since – as you say – Jack does go cruising. And very probably the only reason Ennis doesn’t is that he’s terrified of being beaten to death by his neighbours if they ever find out about him – a very romantic theme, I’m sure.

Also, if he’s trying to say that gay men can’t be faithful to their partners, I’d like to see where he proves that with statistics about every single gay couple in the world.

So young, single, straight guys never go to places looking for a chance to get laid? Single women never do that either? Funny, I thought that was what the clubbing scene was all about. I guess that means that straight people are incapable of faithfulness too, and would never even write stories in which it was held up as an ideal.

This guy’s ideas about everything seem to be stuck somewhere in the 1950s.

Some anti-gay organizations, religious or secular, have a veneer of concern over their homophobia. It may make them seem kinder and gentler, and make their message more palatable, but it doesn’t make them less damaging. I guess he’s taking a mix of old information, old myths and theories, and some aspects of scientific findings, and slanting it his way.

The setting is not conducive to gay culture or social life. He wants that, let him go watch La Cage aux Folles or Victor/Victoria or Jeffrey or Angels in America. Hells, let him watch Brokeback FIRST and then comment.

You want a good look at the inside of one of those “ex-gay” programs, watch Peterson Toscano’s DVD “Doin Time at the Homo No Mo’ Halfway House.” I got to see him perform this live during the Love in Action Protests here in town.

The point is Emilie that this quack is still playing in the fields of moral judgment. Despite whatever they insist about their organization not being religious based.

Men typically do not have a concept like “male slut”. We don’t.

You don’t get pregnant and there’s no property entanglements or legal responsibilities caused by it so who cares how many guys you have had sex with as long as you are safe. Who cares? What about it is wrong?

He is trying to create this view of homosexuality as a dysfunction or disease and the whole “sex is bad” thing which is also used against women by the way in order to cast a moral value judgment. The only problem is you call a guy a slut and they laugh at you for being a freaking jealous nut job. As far as I am concerned he is just as bad as any other Bible thumper out there although they at least do not lie about their motives.

Berman’s article is confusing. He says some things which sound like realistic behavior. I believe that a good number of gay men will have multiple partners, especially in the first few years after they come out, if the opportunities are there. I suppose he means for the idea to be off-putting, but it has absolutely no shock value for me. You get a bit of his reasoning as to why men are gay, which would be the cockamamie part of things.

But somewhere in that messy reality we’ve been talking about, there’s the truth that two men can fall in love and commit to each other. That’s authentic, too. Part of the bigotry is the insistence that this doesn’t happen. The various academics who become aware of the melange of people writing about and reading m/m romance can continue to analyze it. Some of us will just keep reading fiction which has aspects which ring true to us.

I guess if you cannot win the argument by quoting the closest Bible the next best thing to do is stir shit up by being an asshole to everyone.