Don't forget, Trump was the first president to ever appoint an openly gay cabinet member, Richard Grenell. Democrats like to tout Pete Buttigieg as having that honor but it is a blatant lie that he was the first.
Compared to Biden's appointment of future felon and "kink specialist" Sam Brinton. I still laugh when remembering he stole a Ghanian designers one of kind clothes at the airport, and thus was so much easier to catch through the photos documenting his fetish!
I think of Sam every time I think about Biden's bromance with kinky males. It always makes me laugh! He looked so ridiculous in that long red gown, especially with the second set of eyebrows he drew on his forehead. I can imagine how incredulous, then pissed off the designer must have been! LOL!!
oooh, it was a "bromance?" Meanwhile, I keep getting bumped from appearing on Megyn Kelly because of the Kamala video for Al Smith dinner, last time it was Obams talking to the 'bros.' While those across the pond might not understand, dissing the Al Smith dinner is really idiotic, politically. And somehow, Trump nailed it. Kamala is obviously afraid her crossdresser drag queens will vote for Jill Stein. And so they should. Meanwhile I'm biking around after dark, placing political stuff, against the institutional creep, in front of the houses with the 'trans flags.' Just little tidbits about the women and children killed by the men in prison that KH wants to make me pay for that incontinence surgery. I have been carrying rocks from my woods around to weigh the papers down, but now thinking like the Max Manus or Pelle group Norwegian resistance, perhaps being caught with a rock not so good. I'll collect acorns. That should weigh down my message until the "hypocrite, filthy rich" flag peeps are on their way to work. Oh! Look up the real estate of the flag houses! Of course they virtue signal, like those gay guys with the trans flag who have ALL of their lights on, to the third floor--the NKVD and the Komintern would be on their case! Until next time, keep planting!
I used the term “bromance” not because I have any information about was between Biden and Sam, but because Biden made such a display of inviting exhibitionistic trans activists to the White House.
I live a couple miles from an upper middle class neighborhood where EVERYBODY has confessional signs about the ever present list of woke causes. I used to go walking there because of course it is lovely. It is just so weird, though, that the entire neighborhood is testifying and preaching the exact same memes. This started during the 2020 mass conversion experience. What preceded it was the temporary appearance of political signs during elections, mostly signaling support for Progressive Dem candidates. That neighborhood and mine are in the Congressional District of one of the most “progressive” representatives in the House.
Aha! I'm in the process of printing out my 2 sheet list of damage to society (like the women murdered by their "trans identified" husbands, the coerced speech they demand from trans widows and the ludicrous "gender unicorn" fantasies.) I bike around like the Norwegian resistance, the Pelle group, leaving messages to be found by others on the side of sound mind/bodies! I'm especially promoting vote NO on Proposition 1 here in NY.
Many decades ago, there was a study comparing the longevity of gay, straight and lesbian marriages. I think it was during the Seventies or Eighties and was published in Psychology Today. The results showed that female couples had the most long lasting marriages of the three, with gay men having the least. It is also well known within the gay and lesbian subcultures that gay men commonly have non-monogamous relationships whereas lesbian couples commonly commit to monogamy. I of course do not think that women are always faithful to their partners, whether they be male or female. Nevertheless, it makes sense to me why two men would explicitly agree to create non-monogamous relationships and why two women would not.
** Edit: Oops, sorry. This is Leslie, (male). Substack gets us mixed up even though I sign in with my own e-mail address.
Male homosexual sexual promiscuity is like what all men would be like if straight men didn’t have to deal with women needing to be choosy. Men will quite literally fuck anyone of the correct sex who lets them. Most women won’t let them (and if they do they won’t let them fuck other women.). But homosexual men are down with it. They have no reason to say no because they give up nothing by saying yes. (Except risk of infectious disease.)
Men have good evolutionary reasons for not wanting their women to be promiscuous—raising another man’s children and having surreptitious bastards becoming heirs—but men have no such reason to control male partners that way. It just comes down to hurt feelings and jealousy but what’s good for one gander should be good for another. Besides, a rejected homosexual man can find another willing partner, or ten, in half an hour in a city of any size.
Woody Allen was wrong in his joke about how being bisexual doubles your chances of getting a date for Saturday night. It increases it by a factor of ten. And not only do you have ten to choose from. You can do it with all ten.
It’s easy to see why lesbian women make more stable marriages. The incentives of both partners are aligned with each other *and with maintaining the marriage in the first place.*
WoMen have good evolutionary reasons for not wanting their men to be promiscuous—money from her household going to raise another woman’s children. Just saying.
Of course! Until fairly recently, men didn’t have to pay to support their bastard children, which they usually regarded as mistakes. But certainly, today where men must pay to support all children they father, then absolutely women do not want to risk having to divide the household resources. Very good point. (This was why women supported temperance and, later, Prohibition. Men’s drinking was Hell for women and children when the tavern-keepers got most of the money men earned.)
Yeah? And how many men actually consistently pay child support for the first 18 years? They really don't like to. That's why homicide is a (the) leading cause of death for pregnant women - mostly committed by boyfriends and husbands.
You may be thinking of this editorial, not original research, that makes the claim that homicide is *the* leading cause of death in pregnant and parturient women....in the United States. As the authors point out, black men with guns — a peculiarly American affliction — account for a disproportionate number of these tragedies. It takes a stretch for the rest of us to get our minds around this.
Not all sources say that homicide is the leading cause of death, though, but granted there may be an undercount if you go by death certificates which may not capture pregnancy in the deceased.
The issue in the Black lower income communities is more that the men are proud of fathering kids, and according to Glenn Loury, brag about how many they have. This often occurs in the context of Black adolescents and young men having "multiple relationship values," meaning that multiple simultaneous relationships with girls and women are normalized, and condom use is resisted. All of this contributes to high rates of STD's and abortions. Black women living in poverty are overrepresented among women who have abortions. Among Black women generally, close to 50% of pregnancies are aborted.
If that’s true, it just means that the other causes of death in pregnant women have been lowered so much — nearly to zero — by modern medical and public health advances, and safer automobiles, that thankfully rare events like homicide are now the most common.
Nonetheless I challenge you to prove that claim. Otherwise I say it’s like the statistic that the day of the year with the highest number of calls to women’s violence shelters was Super Bowl Sunday: totally made up out of thin air.
Why men default on child support is complex but I don’t see how it relates to homicide of currently pregnant woman. If men commonly killed women they are currently sleeping with merely to get out of paying child support in the future, you’d think it would be more common. There are easier ways to avoid child-support obligations: just don’t pay. You yourself say that men often don’t. I suspect the kind of man who would murder a pregnant woman is not really much of a provider anyway.
One reason men lose interest in paying child support is that the money goes to the child’s mother. This often causes friction in new relationships where the new woman resents money being spent on this other woman instead of herself and *her* children. Divorced men with children are a bad investment for women with an eye on the prize.
The "evolutionary" argument is used to justify male promiscuity and chastity belts for females. An evolutionary and fertility argument could be made for women mating with older males, since female fertility ends sooner than it does for a male. Since there are too many men that unzip the pants and leave the taxpayers to fund the results of their unzipped pants, I would love to see legislation requiring all parents asking for taxpayer $ to have to agree to paternity tracing through genetic genealogy. Condom sales and vasectomies would skyrocket. Then there's those single mothers who don't want the male involved but want the taxpayers to fund her choices. The reindeer games need to end.
I agree that there should be more effort to collect child support payments from fathers, which may be effective mostly in situations where the father is employed. Being unemployed can get dads off the hook. The issues around human reproduction need to be addressed somehow.
We cannot address the problems as long as we talk about women and pregnancy as if a woman goes to the store to "get" a pregnancy. It's ABORTION!, ABORTION!, ABORTION! every day, all day. It should be CONCEPTION!, CONCEPTION!, CONCEPTION! every day, all day. The former purposefully leaves the male out of the discussion. I'm a hardliner on this topic. If a single mom wants taxpayer support, then she agrees to DNA testing and genetic genealogy. I keep hearing we need poor illegal immigrants (slaves) to pick vegetables. If the male is alive, he either pays child support or goes to a prison work farm. Two problems solved at once.
Many men don't pay child support, and the baby mamas often prefer the taxpayer for child support since then she doesn't have to bother with dealing with the male donor. I'm fed up with both sides.
HIV is also still an issue. The virus has spread through the Black communities due to people, mostly men, having multiple partners and resisting condom use. In lower income Black neighborhoods there has been an association between ideas about manliness and fathering children with multiple women. See my reply to Sufeitzy, posted below.
Or perhaps you mean to say that women find men “off a leash” irresistible, especially when they are young. It so sad when women lead poor young unsuspecting men down a road of perdition into the consumptive arms of spectral promiscuity.
Twenty years ago I did a partial literature review of peer reviewed articles on cheating in heterosexual relationships. At that time, and I think still, the highest rates of infidelity were in the Black culture. Several qualitative studies involved interviewing Black male and female adolescents and young (30's) people about their views regarding monogamy and non-monogamy, consensual or otherwise. The general theme was that the Black culture viewed males as inherently non-monogamous, and both men and women viewed their infidelity as normal. The boys and men mostly said that they believed men should be allowed to have multiple relationships at the same time, but a minority of men dissented. The males in many cases had not thought about whether women should have the same rights, but when they did, some thought women also should be allowed to have multiple partners and some disagreed. The girls and women who were interviewed did not particularly like the setup, but starting in adolescence, were already resigned to the idea that their boyfriends and husbands would also have other women. I will post one of those articles below, but people can't get access to it without a professional subscription of some type. The title is: "The Ball Was Always in His Court."
Folks, let’s clarify - the probability that a straight man or woman are non-monogamous is roughly the same.
More women have fewer partners, more men have more partners, the distinction is skewed.
And surprisingly, the skews are the same for gay men and straight men, a few men have a lot of partners while most men don’t.
Gay and lesbian marriage is new. Any comparisons of straight to gay marriage are meaningless since in the US it is legal for - take a breath - 9 whole years.
Any comparisons of straight to gay male promiscuity are meaningless for a key reason that that because gay men could be punished in many states for having a visibly committed gay relationship up until - take a breath - 9 years ago. There is no equivalent random sample of gay men to heterosexual married men, the ones most likely to be monogamous.
HIV has gutted gay male communities. I knew men who developed HIV and died after one sexual encounter. I knew men who developed HIV slowly and died after a decade. All close gay friends that I had before 1990 are dead, one reason I moved to France in 1989. Consider statistics when 100% of men I knew who would have been in a sample group are dead.
All long-term and multi-partner gay statistics are rendered fairly useless because there is no random sample for long term monogamous relationships, the sample selects for HIV survivors who are monogamous. That’s statistically unreliable and can’t be used to make valuable comparisons among population groups. It’s bad math.
Personally, I may be the first married gay American - the Dutch consulate thinks so. I’ve been married 25 years. We’ve been together 31. Most of my oldest friends are married, and I’ve moved into the age group where those marriages are changing because a partner dies of age-related disease.
My partner and I are on the extreme curve of sexual partners. I’ve had sex with almost all of my friends of the last 25 years, and I continue to while enjoying sex with my husband. I had sex least when I was young (sorry Sandra Pinches) in LA in the 80’s because school was intense (Caltech), I wasn’t of legal age (21) for bars, and soon after I arrived in LA I had a boyfriend (9 years together). By the time I was 21 HIV hit and sex was more problematic - I didn’t drink and never really went to bars.
In Europe I had quite a bit of sex, it was easy to have new opportunities every day, though after 3 years I moved in with my future husband.
We agreed within a few months that we were both men with very high sex drives, so other partners were fine but we would always prioritize the needs of each other. I kept my promise 31 years.
In the early 2000’s I became the head of a global research firm and traveled once or twice monthly around the world alone, with my team or with my husband . I’m far over 2 million miles in air flights. And due to that schedule I was afforded the chance to meet men for friendship and sex in most major cities of the world, many times, from Amsterdam, Abu Dhabi, Auckland, Athens Austin Atlanta; Buenos Aires to Brussels, Berlin, Barcelona, Brisbane, Bangalore Bogotá; Cairo, Copenhagen, Chicago; Dallas, Dubai, Dublin, Detroit. Glasgow, Göteborg, Gdańsk, Houston, Hong Kong; Jerusalem, Johannesburg, Jeddah; Kuala Lumpur, LA, London; Madrid, Mexico City, Melbourne; New York, New Delhi, New Orleans, Nashville; Philadelphia, Quebec City. Rome, Rio, Riyadh; Stockholm Seattle Seoul, Shanghai, Sydney, San Francisco, São Paulo, Tokyo, Toronto, Taipei; Washington DC, Warsaw, - the difference Ian Gay life are striking.
It turns out I am homozygous for the CCR5 Delta-32 mutation, rendering me immune to HIV thanks to some marauding Viking 1000 years ago. That’s why my lifetime partner number is probably in the high thousands. I’m older, and fortunately in the gay community my exaggerated secondary male characteristics became even more attractive the older I got. Bill Goldberg as Santa Claus.
In my family, I have by far the longest marriage and longest relationship. All of my siblings had at least one
divorce as the result of female infidelity, not male. All of my siblings have had at least three marriages.
So as the extreme gay sex partner count and friend count, as well as extreme longevity of marriage, and my continued sexual relationships I’m off all the scales.
Which wow why when I read a description of gay circa Eisenhower or Kennedy or Nixon administration, I have to laugh. I lived the mythic gay life of money, professionalism, theatre and music around the world with handsome men at my beck and call as
Well S the gay love of $25 gay pulp fiction novels. And found myself with extraordinary men in mind blowing encounters cherish, the sex the hallucinogens, celebrity and down low plain old. Been a life
And as Eva admonished, never let someone sucker
You into bullshit politics through dear. Conservatives
Long ago developed a kind of gay affirmative action which keep them fluffy and fun behind the scenes
As I said, the article about gay marriage was quite a while ago. Since you mentioned the number of years gay marriage was legal, it did jog my memory of the lead author of the article I referenced commenting that gay marriage had been made legal earlier in some states than others, and the researchers had to take this into account in their research design. It might have been in about 2014 I read the article, which was about 10 years from the time Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. You are of course correct in your argument that gay marriage has not been legalized long enough to be able to research gay marriages in the legal sense that have lasted over 30 years. Nevertheless, it is of interest to me to know if the legalization of gay marriage has affected the longevity of gay partnerships in the 10 year range.
The HIV crisis was a horrific viral event. I was involved as a volunteer. The loss of so many men was catastrophic, and included important friends. I am glad for you that you are immune from the virus, which is horrific. And you accurately point out that the men who survived the AIDS crisis may not be a random sample of the population of gay men who lived prior to it. Taking that point into account limits generalizability of any research on the gay men who went through the AIDS crisis when it was killing very high percentages of infected people.
We think alike. I’d be foolish to make any attempt to say gay men given the opportunity don’t have as much sex as they can, but something collapsed in the community after 2012 and it related to what gay men have in common, having sex.
I was in the gym this evening in the center of gay central Castro San Francisco California. Perhaps 60 men, 25-60 years, boys daddies, bears, twinks, bodybuilders, most bearded or mustached, straight out of a circa 1978 gay fantasy magazine. I watch people, and enjoy men particularly. There were a few women clearly protecting their straight male partners there with them. There was a moment when I saw 20 or 30 men on my floor paused, staring at their phone.
Nobody was talking, no exchanging turns on machines, nobody was looking at others while resting (except me), no glances, hello kisses, gossip, eye rolls, absurd getups, loud talk, nothing social. Do a set, on the phone, do a set, on the phone.
And what I find men do on the phone is “cruise for sex” with other men who are cruising for sex on the phone, surrounded by voluptuous masculine half-naked men. Surreal.
And the irony is that they make contact with so many men - on the phone - that in the end they don’t have sex, sex consists of talking about meeting sometime.
I think the main promiscuity with gay men since Covid is promiscuous use of an app on a phone to contemplate sex with men who are contemplating sex with men on an app.
Mirthless, joyless, sexless, monastic, focused attention on something in their hand about the same length as a cock, but just not quite the same.
If the statistics on gay promiscuity change, it’s not because they are monogamous, it’s because they are in the zombie clutch of an app that promises more than the “friend” of Facebook, but almost never delivers.
The only sexy people in the gay gym in gay land were straight couple, women and men tenderly patiently working out with each other.
Awesome post! Young heterosexual people report doing the same behavior you described. When they feel "ready to date" they mean "I am back on the apps." They tell me they spend hours scrolling through potential "profiles" without being able to make a decision. It gets exhausting and frustrating for them, so they then "stop dating" for a few months. Or sometimes they actually initiated a "conversation," which means a text exchange. They might continue conversing with someone for weeks without meeting them in person. That gets boring, gains no momentum, so they drop the effort.
Remember reading a study a few decades ago in which gay men were the least faithful to their partners, followed by straight men, followed by straight women, and lesbians the most faithful. As the old joke goes: "What do lesbians do on a second date?" "Rent a U-Haul!"
That joke is still with us. Getting married doesn’t say much, however, about the extent of extramarital sex that will go on. I would be interested in seeing if there is any more recent research on the subject. As an aside, infidelity is strongly related to ethnicity in the U.S., with Black men scoring the most points, so to speak.
I obviously do not speak for all gay men, but my husband and I just celebrated our 43rd year together. Our best friends, a Canadian couple, have been together almost as long. My Midwestern cousin has been with his partner even longer than I have been with mine. I can think of two other couples who are at or past the 40-year mark.
It would be interesting to see the results of a comparative longevity study today.
I think there would be different results in a relational longevity study today. I did see one that came out not long after gay marriage became lawful. I don't recall it in detail, but the results indicated that legally married couples stayed together longer than those who were in other arrangements, including cohab.
Considering the level of difficulties that all couples face in sustaining relationships in our culture, I suspect that female couples do not have the stability and longevity that they had decades ago.
I would add here that I did not use the term "promiscuous" in my post as it has a derogatory connotation. I personally do not view the practice of consensual non-monogamy as "worse than" monogamy, and I do not know if male couples who are non-monogamous have more or less lasting partnerships. Also, to the extent that I can remember the studies I mentioned, they measured "average longevity" for the people included in the study. When the statistic used is a mean score we lose a lot of information about individual circumstances, and outliers pull the mean in their direction.
As a gay conservative woman of almost 60 years! one can only imagine how utterly sick of this I am. I've heard it all, argued, persuaded, and most of all, lived my life as I have chosen. My wife, recently "legalized", of over 50 years, and I have simply lived honestly, unabashedly but not confrontationally; we are blessed to have close friends who are straight, gay, mostly conservative, and loving, close, supportive family. Young, old (like us!) and a growing number of grand babies. Did we do anything unusual? No. Are we extraordinarily fortunate? Maybe. All I know is that none of the nonsense out there over those years, made our life the joyful journey it has been. I would change nothing. Be an example kind, trustworthy, in short, be the person you would be proud of. The rest will take care of itself.
Bravo! Great post, Eva. I agree with you in that I am constantly trying to fight off the anti-conservative people due to their pre-supposed ideas of conservatives. It is them projecting their “religious” mantras over and over with no substance. (I am Albertan.)
Looking forward to pictures of your new baby bundle!
<<However, more might lean conservative if they entertained the idea that conservatives are not their enemies and that those suggesting otherwise might not have their best interests at heart.>>
Well...for a long, long time it was absolutely true that conservatives were the enemies of gay people, absolutely. Those of us who were alive in the 80s remember well when White House press secretary Larry Speakes made light of AIDS in a briefing, and nobody in the Reagan administration said a word against him. Jesse Helms was a lifelong enemy of gays and lesbians, and evangelicals blamed us for all manner of societal ills. Conservatives were our enemies, without question.
Are they still? Not as much, I concede; even evangelicals seem to have moved on from same sex marriage, although they opposed that to the bitter end, assisted by conservatives like George W. Bush. And before anyone starts with false equivalence, while it is true that liberals weren't always allies, they were not pushing marriage amendments and military bans and whatnot. They might have gone along with some of that stuff, but there's a moral difference between getting on the bandwagon and *driving* the bandwagon.
I'm not telling people how to vote--you do what you do--but the notion that conservatives are not the enemies of gays and lesbians is a relatively recent one.
Don't be so sure; there are conservatives who still want to repeal the Social Security Act, for crying out loud. The law is nearly a century old, but conservative support for repealing it is there. Medicare, too, although that's only about half as old. The Affordable Care Act was signed into law 14 years ago, and that's still in Republican crosshairs. Roe vs. Wade was precedent for a half-century, but that didn't save it from the Roberts court.
Conservatives don't want to protect ALL of the status quo, for sure.
"If conservative politicians can help us course correct, then we can continue enjoying the fruits of the hard-fought gay rights battle, which aimed to live openly and integrate into society."
If we consider conservatism a preference for the status quo, at least in part, we must consider the presence of a status quo. In many parts of the world, that status quo is something akin to "we may be different, but we're all getting along as well as people ever do."
That's what so many of us "reimagined" half a century ago. Now that it's become a widespread reality, what now calls itself "progressive" becomes reactionary.
Public service msg to New York voters: NO on Proposition 1, sneaking "gender identity" and "gender expression" into our state constitution. It would end girls' rights to girls' sports.
Thanks, Eva, and mazal tov on the new life inside you! Tip for labor, even though it seems impossible, walk up and down the hallway during the first stages. Have someone follow you with a chair to sit on during contractions. It will go faster. I did it the second time, very fast labor.
The captured language of the "trans movement" which does iatrogenic harm to the patients through hormones and surgeries shows through in this video I did on the affidavit a "gender psychologist" put out way back in 1996, as she inserted ideology into the law. That's what they do.
It's true, the Biden administration, the Democratic Party's elite and, even moreso, its cadres have drunk deeply from the well of gender nonsense. It's telling how hard they have endeavored to conceal their efforts and how scrupulously their allies in the press have collaborated in the deceit. I doubt more than a tiny fraction of the public knows of the efforts to substitute "gender identification" for "sex" in law by means of the Equality Act and the Title IX regulations, the efforts of the Justice Department to compel states to pay for sex change treatments for children, or the surreptitious effort of ADM Rachel née Richard Levine (who really does need to find a new stylist) to delete the minimum age for genital surgeries from the WPATH standards of care.
Sadly, VP Harris has not tried to put any distance between herself and these efforts. Even worse, MAGA has, as I have long expected, caught on to the emotional political value of attacking them. The past few years of seeing the preposterous proposals pushed by the radical trans activists have already stimulated a recrudescence of the most vicious, superstitious forms of anti-gay sentiment. It may prove to be fertile soil for the flourishing of MAGA's current campaign. If Trump is reelected, I will blame the trans fetishists and their half-witted "allies".
In a normal election, I'd vote against any candidate who did not adamantly reject the trans nonsense, but No, I cannot vote for someone who attempted to overthrow the U.S. government by force and violence, who stole documents classified Top Secret (and heaven knows what additional, higher classifications) all for undoubtedly nefarious purposes, who praises the worst example of naked criminal aggression in over half a century and does so because the President of the invaded country declined to cooperate in a scheme to concoct a fraudulent smear of a political opponent, who threatens to dismantle the system of alliances and economic arrangements that have given the world an unprecedented level of peace and prosperity, and who clearly is afflicted with untreated mental illness involving psychotic degrees of narcissism, grandiosity, and feelings of persecution, probably aggravated by delusions if not hallucinations.
This. I totally agree. If you’re going to be a single issue voter, then voting on democratic norms and rules being upheld, most importantly the peaceful transfer of power, must take precedence. Then, win the war of ideas with the left about the gender ideology.
As a fellow Albertan I love Eva’s perspective on gender ideology and how it’s being addressed by our provincial political parties. Our current premier is making very sound policy decisions regarding gender-affirming care for minors. But that is about the only thing she’s doing that makes any sense. Most of her other decisions and policies are incredibly damaging to our institutions and our vulnerable populations, and have a distinctly authoritarian bent (though she isn’t Trump).
Though I'm a left-winger I hate the label "progressive". It reeks of elitism & dishonesty. Thinking progressively is one thing but calling yourself a progressive is something else. Left-Wingers(whatever degree) aren't the only ones who have taken on that label or have been bestowed with that label by another person or another group. Right-Wingers(whatever degree) have also taken on that label or have been bestowed with that label by another person or another group.
Amen sister! Gay conservative here from Vancouver - yes we exist although a threatened species. My husband and I have a gay conservative friendship what’s app group and it’s vindicating and therapeutic to know we aren’t the only ones. We are immune to group think that’s sadly infected the LGBT + who feel compelled to go along with so much absurdity. ( Compelled is a word that makes me shudder. ) I was thrilled when Danielle mentioned gay conservatives in her discussion with Dr Peterson; we have been recognized and are not part of this militant alphabet mafia that’s highjacked our flag and legacy and smeared it with bad colours.
I'm not afraid that Trump himself will abolish gay rights. And it horrifies me what the Left has done, with all the "identity" shit. But I'm voting for Harris because I AM deathly afraid (and rightfully so) of Project 2025, which is the Heritage Foundation plan for a 2nd Trump presidency. Trump was by no means prepared the first time he won, so he didn't do much except try to build a stupid wall and cut taxes for the very rich. This time around, the 980+ page plan is in place, ready to be enacted. It won't matter much what Trump does after he replaces all government workers with his Heritage Foundation pals, and they set out to returning us to a time before women could vote. And if Trump wins we are one heart attack away from having TheoBro JD Vance for president. He wrote the forward to the Project 2025's author's book. He is also a terrible human and we would have him for president without knowing much more about him. One might hope that we can course-correct via future elections, but that is assuming that there are any, and Trump & co's plan is that elections will be a thing of the past.
Oh Eva, there is so much I love about you, and I certainly agree about the Left often being our enemy, but the Right Wing is too. I was just going to say what I agree with about your post until I got to the part that you'd vote for Trump if you were in the US. Please, reconsider giving him your support on any level. He lies constantly, including pretending to be against men allowed in women's restrooms, where I recently found his quote saying he has no problem with it.
His Project 2025 will set up a dictatorship and stop our right to vote. We will lose health care and any ways those of us who are poor have to survive. Those who are rich can just leave, but most of us can't.
What he thinks of women and Lesbians is clear in how many women say he raped them and how he's bragged about grabbing women's vulvas. His racist and classist comments about Kamala are shameful and horrific. He daily says unimaginable terrible things but somehow gets away with it. If he loses, he'll try to start a civil war and could care less about the people who died during his last coup attempt. Almost everyone who has worked with him in the past is against him, including his past VP, Pence. His current VP candidate, JD Vance, is another liar about everything imaginable, including being Appalacian. Trump packed the Supreme Court with right wing maniacs, so now ten year old rape victims are forced to have the rapists' babies and women whose babies died inside them are force to carry the dead fetus to term because doctors are too afraid of losing their licenses. (Some I know say they can just go to another state, but how, with what money?)
Please find his public comments and reconsider. A good source is his Lesbian niece,
Mary Trump, who has written two books about him and what he did to her father.
Don't forget, Trump was the first president to ever appoint an openly gay cabinet member, Richard Grenell. Democrats like to tout Pete Buttigieg as having that honor but it is a blatant lie that he was the first.
Compared to Biden's appointment of future felon and "kink specialist" Sam Brinton. I still laugh when remembering he stole a Ghanian designers one of kind clothes at the airport, and thus was so much easier to catch through the photos documenting his fetish!
I think of Sam every time I think about Biden's bromance with kinky males. It always makes me laugh! He looked so ridiculous in that long red gown, especially with the second set of eyebrows he drew on his forehead. I can imagine how incredulous, then pissed off the designer must have been! LOL!!
oooh, it was a "bromance?" Meanwhile, I keep getting bumped from appearing on Megyn Kelly because of the Kamala video for Al Smith dinner, last time it was Obams talking to the 'bros.' While those across the pond might not understand, dissing the Al Smith dinner is really idiotic, politically. And somehow, Trump nailed it. Kamala is obviously afraid her crossdresser drag queens will vote for Jill Stein. And so they should. Meanwhile I'm biking around after dark, placing political stuff, against the institutional creep, in front of the houses with the 'trans flags.' Just little tidbits about the women and children killed by the men in prison that KH wants to make me pay for that incontinence surgery. I have been carrying rocks from my woods around to weigh the papers down, but now thinking like the Max Manus or Pelle group Norwegian resistance, perhaps being caught with a rock not so good. I'll collect acorns. That should weigh down my message until the "hypocrite, filthy rich" flag peeps are on their way to work. Oh! Look up the real estate of the flag houses! Of course they virtue signal, like those gay guys with the trans flag who have ALL of their lights on, to the third floor--the NKVD and the Komintern would be on their case! Until next time, keep planting!
I used the term “bromance” not because I have any information about was between Biden and Sam, but because Biden made such a display of inviting exhibitionistic trans activists to the White House.
I live a couple miles from an upper middle class neighborhood where EVERYBODY has confessional signs about the ever present list of woke causes. I used to go walking there because of course it is lovely. It is just so weird, though, that the entire neighborhood is testifying and preaching the exact same memes. This started during the 2020 mass conversion experience. What preceded it was the temporary appearance of political signs during elections, mostly signaling support for Progressive Dem candidates. That neighborhood and mine are in the Congressional District of one of the most “progressive” representatives in the House.
Aha! I'm in the process of printing out my 2 sheet list of damage to society (like the women murdered by their "trans identified" husbands, the coerced speech they demand from trans widows and the ludicrous "gender unicorn" fantasies.) I bike around like the Norwegian resistance, the Pelle group, leaving messages to be found by others on the side of sound mind/bodies! I'm especially promoting vote NO on Proposition 1 here in NY.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/25/us/politics/grenell-trump-cabinet.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
Many decades ago, there was a study comparing the longevity of gay, straight and lesbian marriages. I think it was during the Seventies or Eighties and was published in Psychology Today. The results showed that female couples had the most long lasting marriages of the three, with gay men having the least. It is also well known within the gay and lesbian subcultures that gay men commonly have non-monogamous relationships whereas lesbian couples commonly commit to monogamy. I of course do not think that women are always faithful to their partners, whether they be male or female. Nevertheless, it makes sense to me why two men would explicitly agree to create non-monogamous relationships and why two women would not.
** Edit: Oops, sorry. This is Leslie, (male). Substack gets us mixed up even though I sign in with my own e-mail address.
Male homosexual sexual promiscuity is like what all men would be like if straight men didn’t have to deal with women needing to be choosy. Men will quite literally fuck anyone of the correct sex who lets them. Most women won’t let them (and if they do they won’t let them fuck other women.). But homosexual men are down with it. They have no reason to say no because they give up nothing by saying yes. (Except risk of infectious disease.)
Men have good evolutionary reasons for not wanting their women to be promiscuous—raising another man’s children and having surreptitious bastards becoming heirs—but men have no such reason to control male partners that way. It just comes down to hurt feelings and jealousy but what’s good for one gander should be good for another. Besides, a rejected homosexual man can find another willing partner, or ten, in half an hour in a city of any size.
Woody Allen was wrong in his joke about how being bisexual doubles your chances of getting a date for Saturday night. It increases it by a factor of ten. And not only do you have ten to choose from. You can do it with all ten.
It’s easy to see why lesbian women make more stable marriages. The incentives of both partners are aligned with each other *and with maintaining the marriage in the first place.*
Rock on, Eva!
WoMen have good evolutionary reasons for not wanting their men to be promiscuous—money from her household going to raise another woman’s children. Just saying.
Of course! Until fairly recently, men didn’t have to pay to support their bastard children, which they usually regarded as mistakes. But certainly, today where men must pay to support all children they father, then absolutely women do not want to risk having to divide the household resources. Very good point. (This was why women supported temperance and, later, Prohibition. Men’s drinking was Hell for women and children when the tavern-keepers got most of the money men earned.)
Yeah? And how many men actually consistently pay child support for the first 18 years? They really don't like to. That's why homicide is a (the) leading cause of death for pregnant women - mostly committed by boyfriends and husbands.
You may be thinking of this editorial, not original research, that makes the claim that homicide is *the* leading cause of death in pregnant and parturient women....in the United States. As the authors point out, black men with guns — a peculiarly American affliction — account for a disproportionate number of these tragedies. It takes a stretch for the rest of us to get our minds around this.
https://www.bmj.com/content/379/bmj.o2499 (paywalled)
Not all sources say that homicide is the leading cause of death, though, but granted there may be an undercount if you go by death certificates which may not capture pregnancy in the deceased.
The issue in the Black lower income communities is more that the men are proud of fathering kids, and according to Glenn Loury, brag about how many they have. This often occurs in the context of Black adolescents and young men having "multiple relationship values," meaning that multiple simultaneous relationships with girls and women are normalized, and condom use is resisted. All of this contributes to high rates of STD's and abortions. Black women living in poverty are overrepresented among women who have abortions. Among Black women generally, close to 50% of pregnancies are aborted.
If that’s true, it just means that the other causes of death in pregnant women have been lowered so much — nearly to zero — by modern medical and public health advances, and safer automobiles, that thankfully rare events like homicide are now the most common.
Nonetheless I challenge you to prove that claim. Otherwise I say it’s like the statistic that the day of the year with the highest number of calls to women’s violence shelters was Super Bowl Sunday: totally made up out of thin air.
Why men default on child support is complex but I don’t see how it relates to homicide of currently pregnant woman. If men commonly killed women they are currently sleeping with merely to get out of paying child support in the future, you’d think it would be more common. There are easier ways to avoid child-support obligations: just don’t pay. You yourself say that men often don’t. I suspect the kind of man who would murder a pregnant woman is not really much of a provider anyway.
One reason men lose interest in paying child support is that the money goes to the child’s mother. This often causes friction in new relationships where the new woman resents money being spent on this other woman instead of herself and *her* children. Divorced men with children are a bad investment for women with an eye on the prize.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34619735/
The "evolutionary" argument is used to justify male promiscuity and chastity belts for females. An evolutionary and fertility argument could be made for women mating with older males, since female fertility ends sooner than it does for a male. Since there are too many men that unzip the pants and leave the taxpayers to fund the results of their unzipped pants, I would love to see legislation requiring all parents asking for taxpayer $ to have to agree to paternity tracing through genetic genealogy. Condom sales and vasectomies would skyrocket. Then there's those single mothers who don't want the male involved but want the taxpayers to fund her choices. The reindeer games need to end.
I agree that there should be more effort to collect child support payments from fathers, which may be effective mostly in situations where the father is employed. Being unemployed can get dads off the hook. The issues around human reproduction need to be addressed somehow.
We cannot address the problems as long as we talk about women and pregnancy as if a woman goes to the store to "get" a pregnancy. It's ABORTION!, ABORTION!, ABORTION! every day, all day. It should be CONCEPTION!, CONCEPTION!, CONCEPTION! every day, all day. The former purposefully leaves the male out of the discussion. I'm a hardliner on this topic. If a single mom wants taxpayer support, then she agrees to DNA testing and genetic genealogy. I keep hearing we need poor illegal immigrants (slaves) to pick vegetables. If the male is alive, he either pays child support or goes to a prison work farm. Two problems solved at once.
Many men don't pay child support, and the baby mamas often prefer the taxpayer for child support since then she doesn't have to bother with dealing with the male donor. I'm fed up with both sides.
HIV is also still an issue. The virus has spread through the Black communities due to people, mostly men, having multiple partners and resisting condom use. In lower income Black neighborhoods there has been an association between ideas about manliness and fathering children with multiple women. See my reply to Sufeitzy, posted below.
Precisely so! When men are let off the leash they are usually non-monogamous, especially when they are young.
Or perhaps you mean to say that women find men “off a leash” irresistible, especially when they are young. It so sad when women lead poor young unsuspecting men down a road of perdition into the consumptive arms of spectral promiscuity.
Oh, the shamelessness!
Twenty years ago I did a partial literature review of peer reviewed articles on cheating in heterosexual relationships. At that time, and I think still, the highest rates of infidelity were in the Black culture. Several qualitative studies involved interviewing Black male and female adolescents and young (30's) people about their views regarding monogamy and non-monogamy, consensual or otherwise. The general theme was that the Black culture viewed males as inherently non-monogamous, and both men and women viewed their infidelity as normal. The boys and men mostly said that they believed men should be allowed to have multiple relationships at the same time, but a minority of men dissented. The males in many cases had not thought about whether women should have the same rights, but when they did, some thought women also should be allowed to have multiple partners and some disagreed. The girls and women who were interviewed did not particularly like the setup, but starting in adolescence, were already resigned to the idea that their boyfriends and husbands would also have other women. I will post one of those articles below, but people can't get access to it without a professional subscription of some type. The title is: "The Ball Was Always in His Court."
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00124.x
My niece and I had a joke head ago about gay men who took prep as being “aspirational”. I’m
I think inqthe current period the amount of sex has crashed and burned in many communities.
The rate of teen pregnancy has dropped 75% or more. It’s not because they have become experts. Kid
Folks, let’s clarify - the probability that a straight man or woman are non-monogamous is roughly the same.
More women have fewer partners, more men have more partners, the distinction is skewed.
And surprisingly, the skews are the same for gay men and straight men, a few men have a lot of partners while most men don’t.
Gay and lesbian marriage is new. Any comparisons of straight to gay marriage are meaningless since in the US it is legal for - take a breath - 9 whole years.
Any comparisons of straight to gay male promiscuity are meaningless for a key reason that that because gay men could be punished in many states for having a visibly committed gay relationship up until - take a breath - 9 years ago. There is no equivalent random sample of gay men to heterosexual married men, the ones most likely to be monogamous.
HIV has gutted gay male communities. I knew men who developed HIV and died after one sexual encounter. I knew men who developed HIV slowly and died after a decade. All close gay friends that I had before 1990 are dead, one reason I moved to France in 1989. Consider statistics when 100% of men I knew who would have been in a sample group are dead.
All long-term and multi-partner gay statistics are rendered fairly useless because there is no random sample for long term monogamous relationships, the sample selects for HIV survivors who are monogamous. That’s statistically unreliable and can’t be used to make valuable comparisons among population groups. It’s bad math.
Personally, I may be the first married gay American - the Dutch consulate thinks so. I’ve been married 25 years. We’ve been together 31. Most of my oldest friends are married, and I’ve moved into the age group where those marriages are changing because a partner dies of age-related disease.
My partner and I are on the extreme curve of sexual partners. I’ve had sex with almost all of my friends of the last 25 years, and I continue to while enjoying sex with my husband. I had sex least when I was young (sorry Sandra Pinches) in LA in the 80’s because school was intense (Caltech), I wasn’t of legal age (21) for bars, and soon after I arrived in LA I had a boyfriend (9 years together). By the time I was 21 HIV hit and sex was more problematic - I didn’t drink and never really went to bars.
In Europe I had quite a bit of sex, it was easy to have new opportunities every day, though after 3 years I moved in with my future husband.
We agreed within a few months that we were both men with very high sex drives, so other partners were fine but we would always prioritize the needs of each other. I kept my promise 31 years.
In the early 2000’s I became the head of a global research firm and traveled once or twice monthly around the world alone, with my team or with my husband . I’m far over 2 million miles in air flights. And due to that schedule I was afforded the chance to meet men for friendship and sex in most major cities of the world, many times, from Amsterdam, Abu Dhabi, Auckland, Athens Austin Atlanta; Buenos Aires to Brussels, Berlin, Barcelona, Brisbane, Bangalore Bogotá; Cairo, Copenhagen, Chicago; Dallas, Dubai, Dublin, Detroit. Glasgow, Göteborg, Gdańsk, Houston, Hong Kong; Jerusalem, Johannesburg, Jeddah; Kuala Lumpur, LA, London; Madrid, Mexico City, Melbourne; New York, New Delhi, New Orleans, Nashville; Philadelphia, Quebec City. Rome, Rio, Riyadh; Stockholm Seattle Seoul, Shanghai, Sydney, San Francisco, São Paulo, Tokyo, Toronto, Taipei; Washington DC, Warsaw, - the difference Ian Gay life are striking.
It turns out I am homozygous for the CCR5 Delta-32 mutation, rendering me immune to HIV thanks to some marauding Viking 1000 years ago. That’s why my lifetime partner number is probably in the high thousands. I’m older, and fortunately in the gay community my exaggerated secondary male characteristics became even more attractive the older I got. Bill Goldberg as Santa Claus.
In my family, I have by far the longest marriage and longest relationship. All of my siblings had at least one
divorce as the result of female infidelity, not male. All of my siblings have had at least three marriages.
So as the extreme gay sex partner count and friend count, as well as extreme longevity of marriage, and my continued sexual relationships I’m off all the scales.
Which wow why when I read a description of gay circa Eisenhower or Kennedy or Nixon administration, I have to laugh. I lived the mythic gay life of money, professionalism, theatre and music around the world with handsome men at my beck and call as
Well S the gay love of $25 gay pulp fiction novels. And found myself with extraordinary men in mind blowing encounters cherish, the sex the hallucinogens, celebrity and down low plain old. Been a life
And as Eva admonished, never let someone sucker
You into bullshit politics through dear. Conservatives
Long ago developed a kind of gay affirmative action which keep them fluffy and fun behind the scenes
As I said, the article about gay marriage was quite a while ago. Since you mentioned the number of years gay marriage was legal, it did jog my memory of the lead author of the article I referenced commenting that gay marriage had been made legal earlier in some states than others, and the researchers had to take this into account in their research design. It might have been in about 2014 I read the article, which was about 10 years from the time Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. You are of course correct in your argument that gay marriage has not been legalized long enough to be able to research gay marriages in the legal sense that have lasted over 30 years. Nevertheless, it is of interest to me to know if the legalization of gay marriage has affected the longevity of gay partnerships in the 10 year range.
The HIV crisis was a horrific viral event. I was involved as a volunteer. The loss of so many men was catastrophic, and included important friends. I am glad for you that you are immune from the virus, which is horrific. And you accurately point out that the men who survived the AIDS crisis may not be a random sample of the population of gay men who lived prior to it. Taking that point into account limits generalizability of any research on the gay men who went through the AIDS crisis when it was killing very high percentages of infected people.
We think alike. I’d be foolish to make any attempt to say gay men given the opportunity don’t have as much sex as they can, but something collapsed in the community after 2012 and it related to what gay men have in common, having sex.
I was in the gym this evening in the center of gay central Castro San Francisco California. Perhaps 60 men, 25-60 years, boys daddies, bears, twinks, bodybuilders, most bearded or mustached, straight out of a circa 1978 gay fantasy magazine. I watch people, and enjoy men particularly. There were a few women clearly protecting their straight male partners there with them. There was a moment when I saw 20 or 30 men on my floor paused, staring at their phone.
Nobody was talking, no exchanging turns on machines, nobody was looking at others while resting (except me), no glances, hello kisses, gossip, eye rolls, absurd getups, loud talk, nothing social. Do a set, on the phone, do a set, on the phone.
And what I find men do on the phone is “cruise for sex” with other men who are cruising for sex on the phone, surrounded by voluptuous masculine half-naked men. Surreal.
And the irony is that they make contact with so many men - on the phone - that in the end they don’t have sex, sex consists of talking about meeting sometime.
I think the main promiscuity with gay men since Covid is promiscuous use of an app on a phone to contemplate sex with men who are contemplating sex with men on an app.
Mirthless, joyless, sexless, monastic, focused attention on something in their hand about the same length as a cock, but just not quite the same.
If the statistics on gay promiscuity change, it’s not because they are monogamous, it’s because they are in the zombie clutch of an app that promises more than the “friend” of Facebook, but almost never delivers.
The only sexy people in the gay gym in gay land were straight couple, women and men tenderly patiently working out with each other.
Surreal.
What a waste of time.
Awesome post! Young heterosexual people report doing the same behavior you described. When they feel "ready to date" they mean "I am back on the apps." They tell me they spend hours scrolling through potential "profiles" without being able to make a decision. It gets exhausting and frustrating for them, so they then "stop dating" for a few months. Or sometimes they actually initiated a "conversation," which means a text exchange. They might continue conversing with someone for weeks without meeting them in person. That gets boring, gains no momentum, so they drop the effort.
Not all gay men are stereotypically promiscuous. The problem is the ones who are won't shut up about it.
Remember reading a study a few decades ago in which gay men were the least faithful to their partners, followed by straight men, followed by straight women, and lesbians the most faithful. As the old joke goes: "What do lesbians do on a second date?" "Rent a U-Haul!"
That joke is still with us. Getting married doesn’t say much, however, about the extent of extramarital sex that will go on. I would be interested in seeing if there is any more recent research on the subject. As an aside, infidelity is strongly related to ethnicity in the U.S., with Black men scoring the most points, so to speak.
Dem black men be hos. :)
I obviously do not speak for all gay men, but my husband and I just celebrated our 43rd year together. Our best friends, a Canadian couple, have been together almost as long. My Midwestern cousin has been with his partner even longer than I have been with mine. I can think of two other couples who are at or past the 40-year mark.
It would be interesting to see the results of a comparative longevity study today.
Congratulations on your anniversary, Ollie! It is truly wonderful to be able to say you have been together 43 years.
I think there would be different results in a relational longevity study today. I did see one that came out not long after gay marriage became lawful. I don't recall it in detail, but the results indicated that legally married couples stayed together longer than those who were in other arrangements, including cohab.
Considering the level of difficulties that all couples face in sustaining relationships in our culture, I suspect that female couples do not have the stability and longevity that they had decades ago.
I would add here that I did not use the term "promiscuous" in my post as it has a derogatory connotation. I personally do not view the practice of consensual non-monogamy as "worse than" monogamy, and I do not know if male couples who are non-monogamous have more or less lasting partnerships. Also, to the extent that I can remember the studies I mentioned, they measured "average longevity" for the people included in the study. When the statistic used is a mean score we lose a lot of information about individual circumstances, and outliers pull the mean in their direction.
As a gay conservative woman of almost 60 years! one can only imagine how utterly sick of this I am. I've heard it all, argued, persuaded, and most of all, lived my life as I have chosen. My wife, recently "legalized", of over 50 years, and I have simply lived honestly, unabashedly but not confrontationally; we are blessed to have close friends who are straight, gay, mostly conservative, and loving, close, supportive family. Young, old (like us!) and a growing number of grand babies. Did we do anything unusual? No. Are we extraordinarily fortunate? Maybe. All I know is that none of the nonsense out there over those years, made our life the joyful journey it has been. I would change nothing. Be an example kind, trustworthy, in short, be the person you would be proud of. The rest will take care of itself.
Well, when your biggest desire is to BE A VICTIM, the Left is a perfect fit for a whiner.
Bravo! Great post, Eva. I agree with you in that I am constantly trying to fight off the anti-conservative people due to their pre-supposed ideas of conservatives. It is them projecting their “religious” mantras over and over with no substance. (I am Albertan.)
Looking forward to pictures of your new baby bundle!
You are a treasure. Don’t ever stop writing.
<<However, more might lean conservative if they entertained the idea that conservatives are not their enemies and that those suggesting otherwise might not have their best interests at heart.>>
Well...for a long, long time it was absolutely true that conservatives were the enemies of gay people, absolutely. Those of us who were alive in the 80s remember well when White House press secretary Larry Speakes made light of AIDS in a briefing, and nobody in the Reagan administration said a word against him. Jesse Helms was a lifelong enemy of gays and lesbians, and evangelicals blamed us for all manner of societal ills. Conservatives were our enemies, without question.
Are they still? Not as much, I concede; even evangelicals seem to have moved on from same sex marriage, although they opposed that to the bitter end, assisted by conservatives like George W. Bush. And before anyone starts with false equivalence, while it is true that liberals weren't always allies, they were not pushing marriage amendments and military bans and whatnot. They might have gone along with some of that stuff, but there's a moral difference between getting on the bandwagon and *driving* the bandwagon.
I'm not telling people how to vote--you do what you do--but the notion that conservatives are not the enemies of gays and lesbians is a relatively recent one.
Then they should be supported for moving in the right direction. Since it's now the status quo, true conservatives will now protect it.
Don't be so sure; there are conservatives who still want to repeal the Social Security Act, for crying out loud. The law is nearly a century old, but conservative support for repealing it is there. Medicare, too, although that's only about half as old. The Affordable Care Act was signed into law 14 years ago, and that's still in Republican crosshairs. Roe vs. Wade was precedent for a half-century, but that didn't save it from the Roberts court.
Conservatives don't want to protect ALL of the status quo, for sure.
"If conservative politicians can help us course correct, then we can continue enjoying the fruits of the hard-fought gay rights battle, which aimed to live openly and integrate into society."
If we consider conservatism a preference for the status quo, at least in part, we must consider the presence of a status quo. In many parts of the world, that status quo is something akin to "we may be different, but we're all getting along as well as people ever do."
That's what so many of us "reimagined" half a century ago. Now that it's become a widespread reality, what now calls itself "progressive" becomes reactionary.
Public service msg to New York voters: NO on Proposition 1, sneaking "gender identity" and "gender expression" into our state constitution. It would end girls' rights to girls' sports.
Thanks, Eva, and mazal tov on the new life inside you! Tip for labor, even though it seems impossible, walk up and down the hallway during the first stages. Have someone follow you with a chair to sit on during contractions. It will go faster. I did it the second time, very fast labor.
The captured language of the "trans movement" which does iatrogenic harm to the patients through hormones and surgeries shows through in this video I did on the affidavit a "gender psychologist" put out way back in 1996, as she inserted ideology into the law. That's what they do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXPFwSBwdgc&t=133s
It's true, the Biden administration, the Democratic Party's elite and, even moreso, its cadres have drunk deeply from the well of gender nonsense. It's telling how hard they have endeavored to conceal their efforts and how scrupulously their allies in the press have collaborated in the deceit. I doubt more than a tiny fraction of the public knows of the efforts to substitute "gender identification" for "sex" in law by means of the Equality Act and the Title IX regulations, the efforts of the Justice Department to compel states to pay for sex change treatments for children, or the surreptitious effort of ADM Rachel née Richard Levine (who really does need to find a new stylist) to delete the minimum age for genital surgeries from the WPATH standards of care.
Sadly, VP Harris has not tried to put any distance between herself and these efforts. Even worse, MAGA has, as I have long expected, caught on to the emotional political value of attacking them. The past few years of seeing the preposterous proposals pushed by the radical trans activists have already stimulated a recrudescence of the most vicious, superstitious forms of anti-gay sentiment. It may prove to be fertile soil for the flourishing of MAGA's current campaign. If Trump is reelected, I will blame the trans fetishists and their half-witted "allies".
In a normal election, I'd vote against any candidate who did not adamantly reject the trans nonsense, but No, I cannot vote for someone who attempted to overthrow the U.S. government by force and violence, who stole documents classified Top Secret (and heaven knows what additional, higher classifications) all for undoubtedly nefarious purposes, who praises the worst example of naked criminal aggression in over half a century and does so because the President of the invaded country declined to cooperate in a scheme to concoct a fraudulent smear of a political opponent, who threatens to dismantle the system of alliances and economic arrangements that have given the world an unprecedented level of peace and prosperity, and who clearly is afflicted with untreated mental illness involving psychotic degrees of narcissism, grandiosity, and feelings of persecution, probably aggravated by delusions if not hallucinations.
This. I totally agree. If you’re going to be a single issue voter, then voting on democratic norms and rules being upheld, most importantly the peaceful transfer of power, must take precedence. Then, win the war of ideas with the left about the gender ideology.
As a fellow Albertan I love Eva’s perspective on gender ideology and how it’s being addressed by our provincial political parties. Our current premier is making very sound policy decisions regarding gender-affirming care for minors. But that is about the only thing she’s doing that makes any sense. Most of her other decisions and policies are incredibly damaging to our institutions and our vulnerable populations, and have a distinctly authoritarian bent (though she isn’t Trump).
Though I'm a left-winger I hate the label "progressive". It reeks of elitism & dishonesty. Thinking progressively is one thing but calling yourself a progressive is something else. Left-Wingers(whatever degree) aren't the only ones who have taken on that label or have been bestowed with that label by another person or another group. Right-Wingers(whatever degree) have also taken on that label or have been bestowed with that label by another person or another group.
And black Americans and Hispanics and women and…….
Hispanic isn't a race or ethnicity
True— too broad a demographic. But so is “ Caucasian”
Amen sister! Gay conservative here from Vancouver - yes we exist although a threatened species. My husband and I have a gay conservative friendship what’s app group and it’s vindicating and therapeutic to know we aren’t the only ones. We are immune to group think that’s sadly infected the LGBT + who feel compelled to go along with so much absurdity. ( Compelled is a word that makes me shudder. ) I was thrilled when Danielle mentioned gay conservatives in her discussion with Dr Peterson; we have been recognized and are not part of this militant alphabet mafia that’s highjacked our flag and legacy and smeared it with bad colours.
I'm not afraid that Trump himself will abolish gay rights. And it horrifies me what the Left has done, with all the "identity" shit. But I'm voting for Harris because I AM deathly afraid (and rightfully so) of Project 2025, which is the Heritage Foundation plan for a 2nd Trump presidency. Trump was by no means prepared the first time he won, so he didn't do much except try to build a stupid wall and cut taxes for the very rich. This time around, the 980+ page plan is in place, ready to be enacted. It won't matter much what Trump does after he replaces all government workers with his Heritage Foundation pals, and they set out to returning us to a time before women could vote. And if Trump wins we are one heart attack away from having TheoBro JD Vance for president. He wrote the forward to the Project 2025's author's book. He is also a terrible human and we would have him for president without knowing much more about him. One might hope that we can course-correct via future elections, but that is assuming that there are any, and Trump & co's plan is that elections will be a thing of the past.
Wonderful work Eva... and best of luck with new baby!
I wish we gay American cousins had a few young, proud, intelligent folks like you to articulate these truths as bravely as you do.
Oh Eva, there is so much I love about you, and I certainly agree about the Left often being our enemy, but the Right Wing is too. I was just going to say what I agree with about your post until I got to the part that you'd vote for Trump if you were in the US. Please, reconsider giving him your support on any level. He lies constantly, including pretending to be against men allowed in women's restrooms, where I recently found his quote saying he has no problem with it.
His Project 2025 will set up a dictatorship and stop our right to vote. We will lose health care and any ways those of us who are poor have to survive. Those who are rich can just leave, but most of us can't.
What he thinks of women and Lesbians is clear in how many women say he raped them and how he's bragged about grabbing women's vulvas. His racist and classist comments about Kamala are shameful and horrific. He daily says unimaginable terrible things but somehow gets away with it. If he loses, he'll try to start a civil war and could care less about the people who died during his last coup attempt. Almost everyone who has worked with him in the past is against him, including his past VP, Pence. His current VP candidate, JD Vance, is another liar about everything imaginable, including being Appalacian. Trump packed the Supreme Court with right wing maniacs, so now ten year old rape victims are forced to have the rapists' babies and women whose babies died inside them are force to carry the dead fetus to term because doctors are too afraid of losing their licenses. (Some I know say they can just go to another state, but how, with what money?)
Please find his public comments and reconsider. A good source is his Lesbian niece,
Mary Trump, who has written two books about him and what he did to her father.