>>
>> katha:
>>> Andrew has made himself a public figure, and has made his presumed
>>> sexual behavior part of that public persona and part of his
>>> arguments in favor of various stands. Sometimes, indeed, his
>>> self-report is just about the ONLY evidence he puts forward: he
>>> takes testosterone and uses his one-man sample to make all sorts of
>>> ridiculous assertions about innate male-female differences.
>>
>> Christian:
>>And so you need knowledge of his sexual life to make these views
>> look ridiculous? Or they look more ridiculous once you know about it?
Katha:
the views already look ridiculous, but sure, they look more ridiculous once
you know that the slender thread of "evidence" they hung on -- the private
life of Andrew sullivan, as recounted by himself -- is a fabrication. in the
same way, we all know the Catholic church is sexist, but the recent scandal
of priests raping nuns adds a certain vividness to the picture.
>>
>>>Katha:
>>>If, for instance, Doug or I--or, for that matter, Philip Roth or
>>> Anne Tyler -- had been discovered advertising for sex partners on
>>> the Internet few would care. But because Andrew has publicly
>>> attacked free-floating sex, and ridiculed gay culture in a fairly
>>> spectacular way, while cozying up to cultural conservatives from
>>> Pat Robertson to the Pope, it is indeed newsworthy that his own
>>> personal life resembles the lives he disapproves of so deeply.
>>
>> Christian:
>>Funny that you say it's newsworthy. Below you say it's just gossip.
Katha; Oh christian, where have you been? gossip is newsworthy! it's almost the only news there is! I was making a distinction between laws and gossip, not between gossip and news.
>> katha:
>>> But the supposed sexual harrassment of paula jones does not mean
>>> everyone had to pile on bill and monica as they did. for example,
>>> andrew could have written a thousand columns SYMPATHIZING with pres
>>> clinton's sexual drivenness,which he shares, or wondering why it is
>>> so hard for people, gay and straight, to stay faithful. it would
>>> have been a good moment for him to wonder whether gay marriage was
>>> going to achieve the transofrmation of gay sexuality he had
>> argued it would. ETC. But instead it was all attacking and
>> bemoaning -- because Andrew wanted the republicans to win. That's
>> all it was.
>>
Christian:
>> It would have been a good moment to wonder about gay marriage, but
>> why you need to have gossip about Sullivan's sexual life in order to
>> make that point clearer? Moreover, what has "drivenness" got to do
>> with this? I suspect, that in addition to wanting the Republicans to
>> win, Sullivan may have been turned off not by Bill's drivenness, but
>> by his affecting the persona of someone in _Porky's_: as if he'd
>> never had sex before and wanted to check and see if his dick worked.
well, Andrew's inability to walk the walk is empirical evidence that it's a
crock. it's like priests having affairs. you don't "need" the gossip to
make the abstract point, but why be abstract when you can be concrete? Life
isn't a philosophy class. The way ideas are embodied in people is
interesting. It's interesting when a racist turns out to have a thing for
black women, or when an anti-semite is part jewish. it tells you something
about the psychology of racism and anti-semitism-- the love-hate obsession
with the Other. As for Bill C ,to each his/her own. you are more dismayed
by his sexuality than I am. Give the guy a little credit -- he went down on
Gennifer flowers for hours at a time (according to her). And where were
andrew's pieces about newt's infidelities , and henry hyde's etc etc?
>>
>>> As for the 'right to privacy' -- rights have to do with laws, not
>>> gossip. That's all this is. You might just as well argue that
>>> because abortion is covered under the right to privacy I don't
>>> have the right to talk about anti-choice pundits who've paid for
>>> their girl friends abortions.
>>
>> You're kidding, right? Talk about affecting the stance of the
>> victim. When did anyone deny you the right to say something? I just
>> said that Andrew Sullivan's hypocrisy (if it is that) is not a good
>> defense of a woman's right-to-choose. You think it is? I'd like to
>> know more about that.
andrew's hypocrisy makes his anti-choice views particularly self-serving and lacking in empathy. Gay men, it would seem, get to have multiple partners, anonymous partners, in whatever numbers or combinations they like, with no strings or inconvenience attached (like having to go out on two whole dates with someone who might reject you! Oh no!). Having spent a lifetime attacking it, Andrew now defends his right to live in the world of no consequences sex. fine--I'm not quarrelling with his sexual choices. But he would not let women have that kind of a no-=strings, no-consequences sex life: the Cath church he supports denies them contraception and emergency contraception, and even sterilization;he himself would make abortion a crime, with all that implies in the legal policing of female sexuality. So men, at least gay men, get to do whatever the heck they want, and women, at least women who have sex with men, must tread the narrow path or be punished with pregnancy and childbirth. Boys have all the fun--and for andrew, that's as it should be.
Katha
>>
>> Christian