Of course, there is a whole genre in gay pornography about seducing heretofore straight men and women, but it has been a long time since pornography has been considered agenda-setting.

I have been playing the PC fantasy game Morrowind for an hour or so each evening for the last few weeks. There are many other characters in the game for your character to interact with. Frequently you need something from them, either information or an item, or to barter.

The stronger your personality and greater your speaking skills, the more likely you are to be successful or to get a good deal. Anyways, one of the ways you can try to improve your chances of success is via admiring the other character (as well as intimidation or the simple bribe). I’ve found that both male and female characters react the same way to admiration, with comments like “Why thank you. No one’s told me that for the longest time” if the admiration is successful, or “No thanks. I have plans tonight” if it isn’t. This suggests that your character is bisexual.

It seems that the gay agenda is everywhere . . . of course, considering that the wackier American churches have been crusading against fantasy for many years as anti-Christian, it only makes sense that the gay would be appearing there as well. After all, us hellbound anti-Jebusians need to work together in order to bring about the rise of the Beast.

As for the “supporting the killing,” I suppose if you want to dig deep enough, probably. But we act as if it doesn’t, because that would silence dissent and much worse things happen then. By the same token, plenty of pro-war folks are probably happy that 9/11 happened, but they don’t get called on it, because polite society doesn’t work that way. It’s all about how far down the rabbit hole you want to go, and because the “Convert” context is so well established, I don’t see why it should be ignored.

Very true, James. I have to remind myself periodically that not all law professors are intellectually dishonest hacks, Volokh and Glenn Reynolds notwithstanding.

That’s probably about true.

But applying that standard, doesn’t the blandest of anti-bush statements actually qualify as ‘supporting those killing american troops’?

Because, assuming the goal of at least some of the insurgents is to make the occupation politically unsustainable, then any telling criticism of Bush is, objectively speaking, advancing their aims. That’s the political ecosystem that provides context to any such statement.

Equally, of course, inneffective criticism, the type that makes some people dismiss war critics as ‘flakes’, counts as supporting the bombing of Fallujah

The point being that that way of thinking is unsupportable, soon leads to nonsense. So maybe it would be better to discuss statements on the basis of whether or not they are true, rather than which agenda they support.

soru

So where’s Eugene Volokh’s post on straight men trying to convert lesbians to a dangerous lifestyle, I wonder? Because that’s the combination I’ve most noticed this behaviour in.

They aren’t out to convert ‘straights’ to their ‘life style’. They simply don’t want to be persecuted.

Volokh, for all his smarts, is wrong on this one.

Not heterosexuality, but certainly seeing the loved one get a C-section after 20 hours of drug-free labor killed any womb envy I had.

If I’m reincarnated as a woman and get pregnant, fuck the “living the beautiful experience of childbirth” – it’s epidural all the way.

I will say this. In the process of courting, there is logical step in which one attempts convince the other party that you represent someone they want to be physically involved with. Picking up a stranger involves this step without first knowing the sexual orientation of the other party. It is pretty easy to see how an aggressive suitor could be seen as attempting to convert or cajole the other party. Especially if that suitor ignores the “no” type answers.

I’m actually pretty agnostic on whether Volokh is cluefully engaging in homophobic attacks posing as moderate truth seeking, or whether he is, as you suggest, simply clueless about the larger implications of his post.

The point I was making is that whether or not Volokh knows it, his post is quite designed to reaffirm a myth that plays a crucial role in homophobic discourse. Given all that Volokh says explicitly, however, the only thing that he might in fact be clueless about is the role that the myth about which he writes plays. And I guess I have a hard time entirely believing he’s that clueless.

I realize that, like Reagan, you pay for the microphone. But it’s still bullshit to shut the discussion down.