The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Don’t hint, don’t wink: An immodest proposal

It’s been a long time since I was required to shower among 40 or so friends, acquaintances, and virtual strangers, or not do so at all — a socially unacceptable option.  Forty-two years after the fact, I no longer have a clear recollection of the experience, so it must not have made much of an impression on me.  I’m certain I would have vivid memories of the experience if my shower-mates had been potential sexual partners.

If you are as bored as I am with the nearly 20 years of political blather about gays in the military, you’ve probably stopped reading already, assuming you started at all.  But in all that I have read — before I stopped reading myself — and heard on the matter, I have never encountered my eminently sensible proposal, one that protects the patriotic urges of some homosexuals as well as the national interest on the basis of “force readiness” arguments which should govern the thinking of those charged with implementing the defense of our country:  Lesbians should be allowed to serve, gay men (hereafter “gays”) should not.

Exceptions to every generalization I posit abound, but I don’t think I’m enlightening many of you when I assert that men by nature are more promiscuous than women.  (You’ve noticed that, too, huh?)  This is overwhelmingly true whether those men and women are straight or gay.  Our instincts were designed by Parent Nature at a time when early humans were not the predators, but the prey, and our remote ancestors were still trying to avoid extinction and establish a permanent presence on this planet.  It fell to men to swing through the trees and scour the caves in search of as many women as possible to subdue and impregnate — a tough job but someone had to do it.  Women had to be more selective because, then as now, the principal consequences of copulation were theirs:  pregnancy; childbirth; most of the responsibilities of childrearing whilst their baby-daddy hunter-gatherers were about hunting and gathering and finding other women to subdue; and the ruination of their pulchritudinous figures.  How our ancient foremothers ever managed to establish any choice in the matter is utterly beyond me when one considers that they did not have access to Mace, police whistles, Lady Smith .38s, or domestic violence hotlines.

Regardless, Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons lost the evolutionary crapshoot while Homo sapiens endured and multiplied.  Dumb luck is probably as responsible for our survival as our larger brains and female selectivity, but these characteristics prevail still and apply equally regardless of sexual orientation.  The associations and lifestyles of gays encourage these opposing natural forces.  Lesbians do not face the same pressures as straight women to “put out” for men.  They therefore tend to develop long-term, monogamous, stable, and even permanent relationships.

Certainly they have their counterparts among gays, but they are rarer than hyperactive sloths.  Homosexual men are not stymied by the instinctive — not to mention aggravating — caution and selectivity of most women.  Most men who are sexually attracted to other men can and do indulge their promiscuous urges with little or no restraint; i.e., it’s “party time” all the time. My wife and I watched a sad documentary about AIDS a few years ago.  An emaciated man in his mid-30s or so, not long for this world, said that he’d spent a lot of his free time on Fire Island and estimated that he’d had sex with “about 3,000 men.”  My wife said, “I don’t think I’ve spoken to 3,000 people in my entire life.”  I replied: “I’ll bet he hasn’t, either.”  The unrefuted 1978 study by Bell and Weinberg indicated that 43% of gays had sex with 500 or more partners, and 28% had 1,000 or more partners.

  • Pingback: What is Rape Culture? | Persephone Magazine

  • Mudhooks

    Sir,

    As you seem to have based your entire knowledge about homosexuals and homosexuality on a documentary you watched about AIDS, I would suggest that your “opinion” piece is uninformed, bigoted, and poorly researched. Quite apart from the fact that homosexuals have been serving in the military for as long as humans have been fighting one another, with valour and honour, is no doubt is of absolutely no interest to you. It just doesn’t fit with your concept that homosexuals are only interested in one thing… forcing themselves on red-blooded American males. Nor does the idea that Lesbians only need to be in close proximity to said red blooded American males to magically “convert” to being heterosexual.

    Your “opinion piece” was conveniently edited to remove your repulsive suggestion which, quite rightly, raised the ire of those who read the original piece — the suggestion which alluded to “corrective rape”. Certain countries have recently seen a rise in the numbers of Lesbians or women perceived as being Lesbian raped to “make them heterosexual”. Fact… it doesn’t work. Fact… it is rape.

    You, sir, should put yourself in the shoes of a father whose daughter has been raped because she “needs to be corrected”.

    Fact, sir. Homosexuals and Lesbians are no different from any other human being. They work hard, they are patriots, they raise families, they pay taxes, and they love. They have every right to serve their country and to receive the respect that any other soldier deserves.

    You, sir, deserve no respect.

    • Mudhooks

      I would further point out that a 1978 study on homosexuals may be “unrefuted” but completely outdated by thousands of other studies done since that time. Nor can the Kinsey Report be considered at all relevant to the lives homosexuals (or heterosexuals, for that matter) living in 2011 be considered relevant. And here is a fact, in North America heterosexuals and intravenous drug users who are contracting HIV/AIDS are now almost equal to the numbers of homosexuals acquiring HIV/AIDS, And world-wide, heterosexuals are group who are by far the highest transmitters of HIV/AIDS.

      HIV/AIDS research 2004

      New HIV cases in America
      Male to Male contact- 18,203
      Drug use(IDU-Injection drug usage)- 5,962
      Homosexual IDU- 1,373
      Heterosexual contact- 12,683 (Males, 4,581)(Females-8,102)

  • 210les

    Hey Joe..I’m a lesbian and been serving in the army for 3 years now, I havnt been “Cured” yet…what do you say your GI men are slacking on their sex drive? I bet I have more sex drive than you! I hate ignorant people like you, you were probably raped when you were a little boy werent you? and now trying to take it out on gay ppl and lesbians…how mature. Tell you right now if any “GI” man came at me with his penis in hand I’d take a 9mm to it.

    One question for you, are you an “in the closet” homo?

    • 210les

      P.S.
      I wanna let you know that in afghanistan they have a term called bache bazi and its referring to an old petafile that rapes little boys for pleasure. in ur picture you just look like a bache bazi.

  • Pingback: Rehyansky, Distilled, Bulleted, and Illustrated « Farfeloni of the Blow Hole

  • Mark State

    I read the article cited in Mr. Haraldsson’s piece so I could get good and mad at this dork Joe Reyhansky for advocating “corrective rape”, a blight that needs to be eradicated from society. I was shocked to think that a person of Reyhansky’s background could be as incredibly insensitive and stupid as to think that there was anything at all legitimate in “corrective rape”. (I hate that term…it implies some kind of legitimacy to rape.)

    So I read the original article (there’s a link to it in Haraldsson’s piece). And here’s my conclusion: Nothing wrong with Joe Reyhansky. He’s just a guy with a point of view. On the other hand, the author of the article “Conservative Joe Rehyansky Advocates Corrective Rape for Lesbians”, Hrafnkell Haraldsson, is potentially one seriously sick man.

    How did I come to this conclusion?

    There is NOTHING AT ALL about corrective rape in the article by Reyhansky. The article is about Reyhansky’s opposition to having gays and lesbians showering with straight soldiers in order to protect the latter from being ogled during naked group showering by some homosexuals, especially males, whom he believes might be turned on by the sight of nude bodies of the same sex just as heterosexual males may be tempted to ogle when showering with people of the opposite sex. He’s pretty straightforward in explaining that he comes to this conclusion because he believes men (all men, both straight and gay) are naturally hornier than women.

    Clearly, that conclusion is a generalization, and subject to debate. I personally believe that both sexes share a fairly equal sex drive…but that’s not stated here by way of condemnation of Reyhansky’s ideas. We may differ, but that’s the summation of his article and the total of the opinion he expresses. No big deal.

    The only whack job and sexist person (misandrist) I could find in the above article was its author, Hrafnkell Haraldsson. The article commences with its author’s vituperative suggestion that Reyhansky thinks his goodness flows out of the tip of his penis, and carries on to claim that Reyhansky “thinks the lesbians should be allowed to join the military so that they can be raped into changing into good little heterosexuals. Subdue them with the penis, seems to be Joe’s battlecry (sic). Because what lesbian can resist a penis or ten?”

    Since this has nothing at all to do with anything in Reyhansky’s article, and nothing to do with what Reyhansky wrote about, I conclude that those ideas came out of the mind of Hrafnkell Haraldsson; and therefore in my opinion Haraldsson epresses himlself like a very sick individual …and judging from his prose, he seems to me to be quite possibly filled with hatred toward all men besides.

    • enchanted0ne

      @ Mark State – just so you know, Joe very much DID advocate corrective rape; however, the Daily Caller decided to remove that part of the rant. It originally read like this:

      “My solution would get this distaff part of our homosexual population off our collective “Broke Back,” thus giving straight male GIs a fair shot at converting lesbians and bringing them into the mainstream.”

      The HuffPost, among many other news websites, caught the real article before it got “cleaned up.” Just wanted to let you know the Mr Heraldsson who vilified Joe didn’t make that up out of thin air.

  • Pingback: Stuprare le lesbiche per “curarle” dall’omosessualità « Confusa ratio