Ian McKellen to Book of Leviticus: Bite Me (Updated)

I remove the unsightly (and flammable) plastic wrap from the lampshades in hotel rooms.

Good for him. I don't blame him.

I'm a Jew who loves to eat pork, but I would never deface or a destroy a book that says I shouldn't, especially if it wasn't mine. There's plenty to be found in hotel room Bibles that I object to (like most of the stuff about Jesus), but ripping it out or burning the book would not make my life any better, and I don't think it's doing anything to help McKellen, either.

Personally, I like to visit bookstores, libraries, and the homes of other people, find any pro-gay material or political expressions with which I disagree, and then deface them.  I recognize that this is puerile at best and smacks of fascism at worst, but, hey-- if a respectable guy like Sir Ian can do it, why not me?

Now, if you'll excuse me, the local Barnes & Noble just got in a new leatherbound edition of the Complete Works of Alice B. Toklas, so I've got some shredding to do.

Mind if I stop by your place later today and check all of your written, recorded, artistic and video materials for ideological purity?  Can't be too careful with what we allow other people to read, you know.

At least we can be grateful for the advance warning!  I shall send neither Sir McKellen, nor Mr. Cohen, an invitation to this month's book club meeting in my home.    

I am sympathetic to Dankravetz's point of view, and tend to oppose the destruction of books in general (it's a personal thing), but I have to say, the confusion some people have regarding the difference between a book located in someone's home, or in a bookstore, and one located in a public place is baffling. While I would certainly not storm into someone's home and rip up their copy of, say, the collected works of Kevin Macdonald, I might be more tempted to get destructive if a hotel found it acceptable it put that book in every single room, presumably in the hopes that people might read and be moved by the book.

As much as it pains me to say this (I have an LGBT sister and thusly my own arguments with Leviticus), I absolutely 100 percent agree with you. 

I was in Montreal staying at the downtown Marriot and made the horrific mistake of picking up the bonus, spanking fresh copy of "The Book of Mormon" (which apparently accompanies the Gideon Bible in the finer hotels of Quebec).

My French is terrible, nothing was on the television so I fgured "Hell...I'm bored.  I'll see what the whole deal is with these Mormons." 

In a nutshell my Amazon review would be:

"Awful.  Pure fiction.  Did not care for it...in fact, I was deeply deeply offended."

BUT.

If I claim to be an honest man...in my humble opinion it is not for me to judge, deface (or write liner notes such as "Wrong, wrong, wrong!) in the margins of sacred texts belonging to other religions. 

Just as I would quite literally come to blows with anyone I caught defacing the Torah.

Leviticus is what it is.  Who am I to appoint myself editor?

Hotel room bibles aren't owned by the hotel, they're supplied by the Gideons. It's the same as having a Jack Chick tract slipped under your pillow; it has nothing to do with going into someone's private library or censorship. Those Bibles are there for two simple reasons: because it's a semi-public place, and to convert people to Christianity.

I don't care for book clubs since I have a life. If you don't understand the difference between Gideon religious propaganda and private property, I'm afraid the intellectual level of books you and I read is a little uneven. You're probably up to the last Harry Potter by now, though, so that's good.

Erik----What the fuck is an "LGBT sister"? And if you're saying your sister is either a lesbian, a gay guy, a bisexual girl, or a transgendered person, then how can you defend Christian propagandists over a proud gay guy who doesn't want to share a room with savage literature about stoning gays to death? 

I can and will do whatever I want with a Gideon Bible in a hotel room. Anyone who tries to equate that with defacing personal property or even a hotel lampshade is being stupid and anti-gay. If Ian was tearing out pages from a Holocaust-denier's book, you'd be touched and supportive.

If he was tearing out pages from a Holocaust-denier's book, I'd be touched & supportive??  No, I'd think he was acting just as silly as Sinead O'Conner was when she tore up a Bible because she was upset with the Pope. 

That "savage literature" of Leviticus, belonged to us Jews before Christians adopted it.  You identify as a Conservative Jew?  Are we both going by the same Torah here?Until D.J., an atheist, mentioned it, I hadn't actually thought about the hotel room bible as another piece of potentially subversive propaganda.  But a bound book is different from a pamphlet , & no matter whose property it is (the hotel's, or the Gideon's) it's not yours to destroy.  And neither is the phone book in there, for that matter!

Quote: "If he was tearing out pages from a Holocaust-denier's book, I'd be touched & supportive??  No, I'd think he was acting just as silly as Sinead O'Conner was when she tore up a Bible because she was upset with the Pope."

Not buying it. You'd probably make a scene out of tolerating antisemitic lit now that I brought the example up, but that def wouldn't be your first instinct. 

And yeah, I'm Conservative. If you knew anything about the movement, you'd know they're really enlightened and modern regarding gay rights. I do not think the Torah is inerrant and perfect and divine. It's important and contains some eternal myths and truths, but it's stupid to say it was written by God. It was written 5000 years ago by goat-herders. If you fail to see how condemning people to be stoned to death because they're gay is savage, then your own beliefs are savage.

Being a self-appointed arbiter of what is and what isn't acceptable reading for others is simply unnacceptable. IsaacCohen? You're certainly entitled to your opinion about God and goats and all that but, you know, there are folks who somehow manage to combine a literal belief in the Torah AND tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals - for instance you might want to read one such interpretation here. I do not take well to anyone telling me what I can and cannot read, whether it's some hoity toity English knight tearing out pages from Leviticus, some angry dude defacing a copy of Mein Kampf at the Jewish Public Library or some hypothetical self-righteous twat pontificating on a blog.

---------------------------------
We got a blog about walking your dog at Jewlicious.com

Falsifying my argument. I didn't say anything about those people who combine strict interpretations of halakha with not being a savage regarding gay people.

The only problem, jewlicious, is when a bunch of self-righteous Jews bash a gay non-Jew for tearing one fucking anti-gay page from the Jews' precious, hate-filled literature, which he didn't ask to be placed by missionaries in the hotel he paid good money for.

By comparing that simple act with defacing Mein Kampf at the library or by making the ludicrous analogy of coming into my home to check up on the ideological purity of my books, you, BrookLynn, Erik, and Morganfrost are just being tribal, because there's no way in hell you would care what I did with a book Scientologists got placed in hotels.

If you don't want people to think of Jews as being self-serving, narrow-minded, tribal bigots who side with anything having the slightest bit to do with their own people, you might want to stop acting like it.

 

take you down to a G-string, Isaac?

lol

It's not our precious hate-filled literature, it's the Gideons, who are Christians. =)

Those bibles are free for you to take; the Gideons will replace them, they want you to take one. So, it is actually yours to destroy. They just never figured anyone would take the chance to piggyback on their ideological message. Although, I do really feel for the kind of person who can't figure out whom to consider an abomination in the eyes of God, turns to the bible in their hotel room, and FORGETS TO HATE GAY PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT PARTICULAR PAGE IS MISSING. Woe is unto us as a society, because we have lost that which is so precious in the sight of the Lord--chapters 19-21 of Leviticus in a hotel room bible.

As long as we're talking about Mein Kampf, I wonder what the anti-McKellen contingent would feel about someone defacing copies of Mein Kampf that were handed out as free propaganda by the NSDAP?

And by the way, if you steal bottles of shampoo from a hotel bathroom, aren't you just being the same kind of hateful arbiter of what is and what isn't acceptable lathering for others?

My piece said, I'm gonna go back to rolling joints with pages from Deuteronomy. The miniature bibles you get from street missionaries are exactly the right size.

P. S., Sinead O'Connor ripped up a picture of the Pope, not the Bible. But I can see how easily that mistake can be made, because really, who gives a shit if you tear up a bible or a photograph? These two meaningless actions in and of themselves are interchangeable when you've come to a foregone conclusion. Also, did she own that picture of the Pope? Didn't Sinead just appoint herself the arbiter of what is and is not an acceptable photograph of the Pope for others?  

You're right, it was a picture of the Pope.  There was some other rocker that tore up a bible.  Or maybe it was Yoko Ono during some "live art" performance.  Whatever.

Here's an example where having that section of Leviticus might be helpful:  You happen to be bisexual & you have 2 possible options for a date to bring back to that said hotel room.  This is not if you happen to be gay or heterosexual, but bi.  All things being perfectly equal, bringing someone of the opposite sex back to that room would be a slightly more biblically moral choice.

Btw Isaac, I've been a member of a Conservative shul for 15 years myself. 

BrookeLynn-- lol, if that's what it takes!!

D.J. Waletzky-- thanks for the well-stated comment. And I do know the Gideons are Christians, but my argument is that some people are being tribal because the specific passage Ian tore out of the Bible is of Jewish origin, and that this Jewish origin is what's causing the insanely wronghead condemnation. By having a problem with me--a Jew!!--tearing out the same page, they are appointing themselves the arbiters of acceptable behavior.

BrookeLynn--

That take you just gave on it--while I completely disagree and could talk for hours about why that is so wrong--is far from savage. And I'm friends with a lot of gay Orthodox Jews who have struggled with this bigotry all their lives and have accepted that what the Torah speaks of in this passage has more to do with the kind of male sodomy found in today's prisons and gang initiations (non-consensual male dominance over another male) and has nothing to do with gay-oriented people. But Ian McKellon isn't Jewish (or any faith) and has no reason to want to sleep next to a book containing a passage he sees as evil and a major source of his own peoples' plight.

Isaac, you strike me as a self hating and shallow person. What others have stated quite eloquently and sans drama, you managed to do with a tantrum that would make any ten year old spoiled brat proud. To preemptively hurl the standby threat of "if you don't want people to think of jews as being self serving, narrow minded, tribal bigots...you might want to stop acting like it" at your perceived enemies shows me that a) you're right up there with the best haters in leviticus and b) you must have serious issues with being Jewish if you carry that rage so close to the surface.

The accusation of shallowness comes from your description of the Old Testament being written 5,000 years ago, despite your claims to being a member of a conservative synagogue. I haven't cracked a torah since Hebrew school and I still know this stuff is maybe 3,000 years old, but not 5,000. 

One of the reasons I find religious history to be such a drag is that so many of the so-called great Jewish figures from the Old Testament strike me as being quick tempered, self absorbed, petulant children, and so do you. 

 

 

 

Here's an example where having that section of Leviticus might be helpful:  You happen to be bisexual & you have 2 possible options for a date to bring back to that said hotel room.

ROTFLMAO!

Shouldn't any woman having premarital sex be stoned to death on their honeymoon? Isn't that the  slightly more biblically moral choice?

Disco_Stu

Lol, I'm stating my opinion. If this is your idea of "drama" or "a tantrum," you should get a life. And what are talking about when you say I "prempitvely" hurled my opinion? Do you think my opinions have changed because people posted after me? Comparing tearing a page out of a Gideon Bible with coming to my house and destroying my personal books (something I would beat the shit out of a guy for doing) is fucking stupid. For otherwise smart Jews to make such a fucking stupid argument just because it has something to do with Jewish stuff shows they're being tribal and bigoted.

But sorry I got the age of the text wrong. 

D.J.---

 

haha, good point!!

Isaac, if ever you would like to make the time to answer, I'm sure I'm not the only person who would be curious hear your explanation--

For those gays who say that their sexuality is a choice, as opposed to something they can not change, why is it that they are not making the wrong choice per the Bible?

To Mr. Giggles, please check the dosage on your glaucoma meds.  It was a serious suggestion.  If you're equally bi, choose heterosexuality!  Heck, there are probably many gay folks, for whom their sexuality is not a choice, who would appreciate this also!  Those of us using the Holy Scriptures as a general guidebook for ethical behavior, understand to place things in context.  And God knows there were a lot of misunderstandings within ancient cultures.

Fair enough, Isaac. Looks like I stepped into an argument that wasn't mine.

 I'm not usually a fan of destroying property or superfluously dramatic gestures, but in this case I agree with McKellen. 

 Unfortunately, in the past I've heard 'progressive' Christian bible students use the primitiveness of Leviticus to justify their hostility towards Judaism and Jews. Too often these sorts of half truths have been used to justify polite society bigotry towards Jews. 

Disco_Stu- Quote: "Fair enough, Isaac. Looks like I stepped into an argument that wasn't mine."

It's cool.

 "Quote: "Unfortunately, in the past I've heard 'progressive' Christian bible students use the primitiveness of Leviticus to justify their hostility towards Judaism and Jews."

Word. I know exactly what you mean. I hear that all the time, and it's stupid because the New Testament and the Koran are also primitive. It's just people using anything they can to attack Jewish people.

BrookeLynn- Quote: "Isaac, if ever you would like to make the time to answer, I'm sure I'm not the only person who would be curious hear your explanation-- "

Some gay frum Jews see the male-sodomy prohibition in the Torah (there is no such prohibition against lesbian sex so it's wrong to say the Torah is saying gay sex is wrong) as condemning the sort of non-consensual, non-loving acts of sodomy found in prisons and gang initiations and not sex between gay people.

But since I already said that, I guess you're wanting me to explain why your example is wrong?

Well, your example is a little ridiculous and weird. You're saying the Torah can come in handy for a bi person trying to choose between illicit fornication with a guy or a chick, and you said choosing an f-buddy from the opposite sex would be the slightly more moral choice. If that's your idea of Conservative Judaism, then it should be your interpretation of Torah that's called into question.

 

 

 

Are you saying that choosing heterosexuality is somehow more moral than stoning a non-virgin to death on the day after her wedding? Show me the Bible verse! And if you can't, at least tell me what basis you could possibly have for saying so--because whatever THAT is, it seems like a much likelier candidate for your "general guidebook for ethical behavior." 

You can recontextualize anything, provided you're the one supplying the new context. I could say that Mein Kampf was less anti-Semitic than pro-German. I could say that the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, but rather idolatry. I could say the Sun revolves around the Earth in a non-elliptical pattern with no other point of reference.

Of course, those positions are all bullshit, like when people protest that the Bible doesn't actually mean the things it said--clearly, the Bible was drinking a lot that night and it's sorry. All these rationalizations (oops, I meant "recontextualizations")  do is make some people feel better about violating God's Laws As Written In The Holy Scriptures. The only misunderstandings God knows about in the Tanakh are the ones where other ancient cultures didn't bow down to YHWH.

Ancient cultures had plenty of understanding--they just came up short on facts.

Isaac--  Thank you for answering my question.  I really hadn't paid any close attention to many of the biblical nuances regarding homosexuality, since I consider what consenting adults do privately none of my business.  I hadn't ever seen the point made before that there's no specific prohibition against lesbian sex.

D.J.--  "Are you saying that choosing heterosexuality is somehow more moral than stoning a non-virgin to death on the day after her wedding?"  No.  I'm saying where there is a choice involved, heterosexuality is preferable to homosexuality in a religious context.  I'm not even touching on the practice of killing female non-virgins, though, off-hand, I don't recall seeing that specifically.  In general women were not treated very well in ancient times.  We couldn't choose our own husbands, & we were regularly forced to become another man's wife in order to save our current husband's life. 

So if the Gideon Bible is as useful as some people seem to think, what happens in the Honeymoon Suite when:

" ¹³ If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her ¹⁴ and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," ¹⁵ then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. ¹⁶ The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. ¹⁷ Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, ¹⁸ and the elders shall take the man and punish him. ¹⁹ They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

 ²⁰ If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, ²¹ she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you."

If the husband gets a bunch of fellows together and they murder his new wife on her father's doorstep, how is that wrong? How is that not preferable to not stoning her to death in a religious context? How can you deny the utmost urgency with which evil must be purged from Israel?

And, if for some sacreligious, god-hating, secular humanist-style reason you feel that this kind of murder is wrong, how can you tell?

Thank you for sharing that text, D.J.  You know, for two years I had almost perfect attendance at every 3-hour-long Shabbat service at my shul.  Somehow that passage must have gotten glossed-over twice.  It's the type of thing that really would have stuck in my mind, if I had read it, & not just skimmed the words with my eyes!

I guess from a purely practical sense, that passage would suggest to the new bride that it would be really prudent for her to take a small razor into her marital bed with which to nick herself & demonstrate a visible bloodstain.

My husband just told me that one of our next door neighbors is a Gideon Christian & that, you are right D.J.--they do want you to take those hotel bibles home with you if you find the reading inspirational.  He added that there are websites with testimonials from lonely & desperate people who claim that it was their hotel room bible that prevented them from killing themselves.

 

 Are Jewcy's staff standards slipping? First the insinuation that McKellen is Jew-bashing by ripping out a page of Leviticus from hotel bibles, and now 'the update'.

McKellen said keeping his life a secret and the notion that if people knew his secret they had license to physically or verbally assault him was reminiscent of being a Jew in a certain time in central Europe.

It may not be a perfect analogy, but he was expressing a feeling. 

To then infer that McKellen was saying it was like being a Jew in the Holocaust without giving McKellen the benefit of clarification is a form of passive aggressive cowardice. Maybe 'Jewcy staff' should define 'Holocaust' before throwing the word around so freely. After all, there was almost a decade where Jews lived in European society wearing yellow stars and being openly discriminated against, sometimes subjected to acts of gratuitous bashing, and making derogatory comments against Jews was encouraged in greater society.

Then for about three or four years they were rounded up and put onto trains and sent off to be murdered in death camps.

 Guess what. Those first eight years of Nazi rule before the deportations were probably fairly similar to what gays experienced in polite western society: state sanctioned hatred and discrimination.

'Jewcy staff', you brought up the Holocaust, McKellen didn't. He mentioned being Jewish in a certain period of time in central Europe. So, Jewcy staff, you need to either define what exactly you mean by 'Holocaust' or tell us how you came to understand that McKellen was implying that being gay in England was equivalent to the Holocaust. 

Your conclusion was hasty and amateurish. And honestly, what does this sort of thing prove? Is McKellen Bad For The Jews? Is being gay an abomination to Hashem? Does your day not get started until you find another Jew basher? Or what?

Yeah, I just don't like this article at all. I don't see how anything Ian said was offensive or even very interesting.

@Isaac:

And I'm friends with a lot of gay Orthodox Jews who have struggled with
this bigotry all their lives and have accepted that what the Torah
speaks of in this passage has more to do with the kind of male sodomy
found in today's prisons and gang initiations (non-consensual male
dominance over another male) and has nothing to do with gay-oriented
people.

That may be a POV held by some gay Orthodox Jews, but there's another interpretation that's definitely in currency among other gay OJs -- that the qualifier "as with a woman" should be read as narrowing the scope of the Leviticus prohibition to male/male anal sex (which resembles heterosexual intercourse insofar as it involves penetration of a hole "down there"). Gay and bi frum men who hold to this interpretation argue that they can enjoy such activities as fellatio, mutual masturbation, and frot in good conscience without running afoul of the Leviticus ban, but they regard anal sodomy as being "unredeemable" even if it occurs in a consensual, loving relationship. 

This page, for example, goes on at some length to address the question, "What options are available for gay Orthodox Jewish men who want to have a physical relationship?", and it basically argues that there's some "wiggle room" when it comes to blowjobs, wanking, and passionate kissing between two men (i.e., these acts are possibly sinful, but not necessarily so), while insisting that anal sex, in contrast, cannot be justified.

P.S. I'm not even Jewish, but I always specify "NO ANAL PLZ." in online personal ads, just 'cause I don't like it -- and over the years this has lead to occasional inquiries from Orthodox Jewish men. So that's how I learned that some of them read Lev 18:22 as a ban on backdoor shenanigans only.

הגיון

 

Yeah, I know there are frum homos like that. I just think that's self-loathing bullshit, but whatever works for them. Unless of course, they are like you and just don't LIKE anal. If you're gay and you don't have intercourse because you don't like it that's one thing; if you don't do it because you choose to interpret a verse in Leviticus in a prejudiced, anti-gay way, then. . . score one for the militant anti-religion secularists, I guess. I hope those gay Jews don't have any regrets when they're so old no hot young guy is going to want to fuck them anymore.

Yeah, I know there are frum homos like that. I just think that's self-loathing bullshit, but whatever works for them. 

Um, why exactly is it "self-loathing," just because they choose to abstain from a particular sex act that's popular with other gay men? I suppose that if they REALLY REALLY wanted to have anal sex, yet denied themselves this yearned-for pleasure out of religious piety, one might arguably call that self-loathing -- but only to the same extent that it's "self-loathing" for a baal teshuva Jew who REALLY REALLY likes bacon-wrapped scallops to voluntarily deny himself this sensual delight. 

Of course, there may be some gay Orthodox Jews who don't know whether they like or dislike anal sex because they've never even tried it. Is it "self-loathing" that they refuse, for religious reasons, to give anal intercourse "a fair try"? Perhaps, but again, only to the same extent that it's "self-loathing" when a gay man refuses to give golden showers "a fair try," whether for some sort of religious reason, or because he believes (wrongly) that getting pissed on is medically unsafe, or just because he thinks the whole concept is gross and totally unarousing.

I hope those gay Jews don't have any regrets when they're so old no hot young guy is going to want to fuck them anymore.

I have some bad news for you, twinkie: Not everyone thinks you're an extra-special prize just because you're young. And young gay men who disdain older guys are missing out, since some of those wrinkled, silver-haired daddies are dynamite in bed  ("every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement," as Ben Franklin famously wrote.)

And I'm speaking from my experience as a 38-year-old man who can easily pass for 28, who's been homosexually active since age 19, and who has always preferred men older than myself.

הגיון

It sucks to write something and just immediately know that a crucial sentence is going to go unnoticed or glossed over just so someone can make a point.

Quote from me, Isaac: "Yeah, I know there are frum homos like that. I just think that's self-loathing bullshit, but whatever works for them."

Quote from you, Throbert: "Um, why exactly is it "self-loathing," just because they choose to abstain from a particular sex act that's popular with other gay men? I suppose that if they REALLY REALLY wanted to have anal sex, yet denied themselves this yearned-for pleasure out of religious piety, one might arguably call that self-loathing"

I specifically dealt with that distinction when I said, "Unless of course, they are like you and just don't LIKE anal. If you're gay and you don't have intercourse because you don't like it that's one thing. . ."

Other than this (deliberate?) oversight, the rest of your argument is equally wrong.

Quote from Throbert: "but only to the same extent that it's "self-loathing" for a baal teshuva Jew who REALLY REALLY likes bacon-wrapped scallops to voluntarily deny himself this sensual delight.  Of course, there may be some gay Orthodox Jews who don't know whether they like or dislike anal sex because they've never even tried it. Is it "self-loathing" that they refuse, for religious reasons, to give anal intercourse "a fair try"? Perhaps, but again, only to the same extent that it's "self-loathing" when a gay man refuses to give golden showers "a fair try. . . "

You're comparing being gay with enjoying bacon and golden showers. Sorry, that's not right. And you being older than I doesn't make you any wiser on the subject. But maybe that's how it was seen back in the old days, so I shouldn't be too hard on you. (That's for the twinkie comment.)

When I came out, I didn't tell my family and friends that I'm a power-top. I told them I'm gay--that I am only attracted to men and not to women. I managed to get through the whole process without letting my parents know any more about my sex life than they know about my straight brothers. They like girls, I like guys. Mom and Dad can expect future girlfriends from my brothers, boyfriends from me. Simple as that. An orientation is not the same category as sexual preference or food-cravings.Therefore a gay guy who doesn't really want to settle for a life of hand-jobs but does so anyway because he's following an anti-gay passage in a Bible is self-loathing, whereas a Jew who resists treif is not.

 

 

 

I specifically dealt with that distinction when I said, "Unless of
course, they are like you and just don't LIKE anal.

Yes, I know you said that men who don't have anal simply because they dislike it aren't self-loathing -- and I acknowledged that distinction by bringing up the cases of guys who avoid anal for reasons other than not liking it (specifically, men who know they like it but decide to abstain for religious reasons, along with men who refuse to try it in the first place because of religious reasons).

You're comparing being gay with enjoying bacon and golden showers.

Young man, I believe that if you would read more carefully, you'd see that I was actually comparing the enjoyment of bacon and/or golden showers with the enjoyment of anal sex -- and not with "being gay."

When I came out, I didn't tell my family and friends that I'm a power-top.

Er... could you clarify the difference between a "power-top" and a plain ol' "top"? 

Therefore a gay guy who doesn't really want to settle for a life of
hand-jobs but does so anyway because he's following an anti-gay passage
in a Bible

From this one word I deduce that (a) you've never experienced a really good handjob; and (b) that you wouldn't know how to GIVE a really good handjob to save your life. But you're young, so maybe you'll learn eventually.

הגיון

Quote from Throbert: "Yes, I know you said that men who don't have anal simply because they dislike it aren't self-loathing -- and I acknowledged that distinction by bringing up the cases of guys who avoid anal for reasons other than not liking it

No. Your point in no way acknowledged my distinction.

Throbert: ". . .specifically, men who know they like it but decide to abstain for religious reasons, along with men who refuse to try it in the first place because of religious reasons)."

???? Religious reasons? Dude, that's my whole point. It's cool that you're arguing with me, because I can tell you really would still disagree with me if you knew what the hell I am saying. But you seem to not understand what you're arguing with me about. Let me spell it out: I am saying that avoiding intercourse that you actually desire only because of said "religious reasons"--which is your PC way of saying not doing it because the Bible says you should be stoned to death for doing it--makes you self-loathing. Okay? So argue with that, if you want.

Throbert: "Er... could you clarify the difference between a "power-top" and a plain ol' "top"?"

Use your imagination. 

Throbert: "From this one word I deduce that (a) you've never experienced a really good handjob; and (b) that you wouldn't know how to GIVE a really good handjob to save your life."

Oh. Honestly, a girl gave me an h.j. in eigth grade and I haven't cared about them since. But, hey, enjoy!!!! 

Throbert: "Er... could you clarify the difference between a "power-top" and a plain ol' "top"?"

Isaac: Use your imagination.

Okay, fine, I'll let my imagination run wild: Isaac, you don't actually like your homosexuality very much, and you try to compensate for this by casting yourself in the role of a "power-top" who proves his machismo by fucking other men in the ass hard and fast and deep, but refuses to GET fucked, because (a) it would taint your power-top image, and/or (b) you've tried bottoming enough times to decide that you find it completely unpleasant, but it's never crossed your mind that just maybe, the guys who bottom for you also find it less than totally enjoyable, and are merely enduring it for your selfish pleasure, because that's what "bottoms" are supposed to do for "tops."

הגיון

. . . maybe power-top is actually a word that's used in my age group, I really am one, and I thought these posts were getting a little porny so I didn't go into detail. But nice job assuming things about someone you know nothing about.

But nice job assuming things about someone you know nothing about.

Says the guy who asserted, up thread, that frum gay men who abstain from anal are motivated by self-loathing. 

הגיון

Quote: "Says the guy who asserted, up thread, that frum gay men who abstain from anal are motivated by self-loathing."

Dude, seriously. Learn to read. Would you like me to act out my point in hand puppets?

Throbert: ". . . you don't actually like your homosexuality very much, and you try to compensate for this by casting yourself in the role of a "power-top" who proves his machismo by fucking other men in the ass hard and fast and deep, but refuses to GET fucked. . . "

Gay means attracted to the same gender; it doesn't mean you like it in the ass. Some gay guys are tops; others are bottoms. Wtf is wrong with you? And when you say I'm proving my machismo because I don't like my being gay, you are basically saying all gay men are effiminate and that gay pride is fem pride. You--like a lot of other misguided gays--have the exact same opinion as the Christian right.

If it's okay to be feminine (which it certainly is, but I'm sure your crazy little eyes will skip over that part), then it's okay to be masculine. End of story.

 

The Rogue Jew

I'll bet dollars to donuts he wouldn't do the same thing to a Koran out of fear of pissing off a Jihadi and having a Fatwa issued against him.....Allahu Fubar!

He probably wouldn't. Many liberals suck Islam's dick and only bash Judaism and Christianity (unless it's a black church; ass-backwards black Christians get the same special treatment as ass-backwards Muslims.)

 The fact that Judaism is almost completely civilized and sane goes right past these liberal idiots. I HOPE Ian would do the same to the Koran, but I doubt it.

I sure as hell would.