a) [Sullivan']s saying that men are more promiscuous than women, that gay men can be more promiscuous because their partners are other men and that straight men would be as promiscuous as gay men if they had the opportunity.
b) Sullivan's saying that since there are two men in a homosexual relationship versus one man in a heterosexual relationship, there's two times as much testosterone - one man's worth per man. But there's still as much testosterone in any one male as any other.
Yes, I think that's what Sullivan is saying. The e-mailers claim is that this doesn't make gay men (in Beinart's words) "inherently more promiscuous than straight people"--what Beinart charged Coulter with saying. I don't know.
a) Sullivan's saying gay men are no more promiscuous than straight men--until they meet another man! Sounds pretty "inherent" to me--inherent to having gay men in the world. Straight men don't lust after a gender that's not going to try to put fairly strict limits their pursuit of sex.
b) Coulter never said "inherent" anyway. That's Beinart putting words in her mouth. She said that gays are "generally ... more promiscuous." Sullivan concedes they are. If it's bigoted for her it's bigoted for him. But it's not.
c) I accept that the initial subjective sexual impulse--"lust in the heart," as it were--may be no stronger in gay men than in ordinary straight men, though I don't see why we should close ourselves to the possibility of a difference. Why is it accepted PC dogma that homosexual orientation--whom you want to have sex with--is in the genes but if you then suggest that maybe there is, in the genes. also a little bit stronger impulse to have sex ... well, then you're an "anti-gay bigot"? If one thing's in the genes it seems entirely possibility the other is too, no? Again, I don't claim it is. I officially endorse the PC Andrew Sullivan/ Bob Wright bien pensant position that being gay is in the genes but that the general lust of gay men for other men is fortuitously exactly equal to the general lust of straight men for women.
d) When I was at the New Republic one of Sullivan's big editorial stunts was publishing and praising a long excerpt from The Bell Curve, which flirted with (but conspicuously couldn't support) the notion that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites. But hey, that's different! You can suggest that blacks are inherently dumb. Just don't suggest that gays are inherently promiscuous.
Wednesday, August 2, 2006
Attention Inequality Dramatizers and Slow-Growth Critics: Many recent downbeat pieces on the American income distribution have included "average weekly earnings" or "average hourly earnings" data from the Department of Labor, as in [emphasis added]:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, in its monthly employment report, measures the average hourly wage of white-collar and blue-collar workers below the rank of supervisor. ... Although the recovery is now nearly four and a half years old, the average wage had lost ground to inflation until last fall, when the unemployment rate finally fell below 5 percent and stayed there. ... -- ( NYT, May 6, 2006)
Average hourly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, adjusted for inflation, are lower now than when the recovery began.
So there you have it. Americans don't feel good about the economy because it hasn't been good for them. Never mind the G.D.P. numbers: most people are falling behind.--(Paul Krugman, NYT, Dec. 5, 2005)
... the quarter-century decline in manufacturing jobs, which often paid middle-class wages and benefits, is one factor that has contributed to the fall during that period in average hourly earnings, adjusted for inflation, economists say. --(WaPo, April 15, 2006)