Hate
the sin and lo-o-o-ve the sinner? As Austin Powers
might say, “Yeah, baby!”
I
chose Seligsohn’s quote for this week’s column
not for the usual reasons, but because it offers food for
thought, a jumping-off point to a larger conversation that
contrasts the religious right’s language surrounding
gay sex to that surrounding lesbian sex. I have no idea
if what Seligsohn says is true. I don’t even know
if there’s a way to prove his assertion. But it certainly
sounds reasonable. What fun is a good ol’ lesbian-filled
fantasy if the lesbians in it are evil trolls?
Men
will be men, regardless of whether or not they claim to
have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Christian
men, like non-Christian men, fantasize about women—all
types of women, including lesbians. They want their lesbians
a little naughty, but hot and subservient; a little rough,
but not wielding a machete.
This
is not rocket science; it’s language right out of
a syllabus for Fantasy 101.
Jerry
Falwell, Pat Robertson and their male cohorts and followers
might be self-described men of God, but they’re not
eunuchs. Strip them to the physiological core and they’re
just plain men. They all might be very good at denying themselves
satisfaction of a hedonistic sexual urge (or publicly claiming
that they deny themselves satisfaction of that urge), but
if my memory of biology class serves me well, they can’t
deny the urge.
Seligsohn’s
claim brings into question the strength of the religious
right’s so-called convictions and, in turn, makes
me wonder (yet again) where those convictions were borne.
These people are so much more visibly upset about gay sex,
so much more focused on gay sex than other religious folks
that we owe it to ourselves to ask why.
The
most obvious answer can be handed down by anyone who watches
Dr. Phil: It’s easier and, in this case,
more acceptable and noble to fight the Devil outside as
opposed to the Devil inside.
Seligsohn’s
claim sexualizes a group of people who not only believe
they’re somewhat divine and above or immune to all
but the most basic sexual urges, but also are successful
in demonizing and even criminalizing anyone who has a sexual
urge unrelated to procreation, namely (gasp!) a homosexual
urge.
Gay
men are bad—very bad, says the religious right. Lesbians?
Not so much.
If
you go on the Christian Broadcasting Network’s
website
you’ll find a PDF document titled "The Health
Risks of Gay Sex, a Corporate Resource Council Report"
by John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D. In it, Diggs describes the horrors
of gay sex in detail, but is much less specific and cataclysmic
when discussing the health ramifications of lesbian sex.
Is that a coincidence or is it rather a result of straight
men not wanting to infect their lesbian fantasies with unpleasant
thoughts?
Diggs
devotes 3 out of the 14+ pages of his report to the physical
health risks of gay male sex, but only 3/4 of a page to
the health risks of lesbian sex—and most of that text
discusses lesbians having sex with men. That 3/4 page ends
with this paragraph:
