Fred Thompson's Colorful Sex Life

The other day, Andrew wrote that it was lucky for Fred Thompson that "regular GOP voters turn out to be relatively tolerant when it comes to sexual minorities and private sex lives," since he's "had a colorful and wide-ranging sex life, as I'm sure we will soon find out." Ace of Spades wonders whether I'll "take co-blogger Andrew Sullivan to task for his bottom-feeding gossip-columnist smear of a non-gay man as gay?" referencing an earlier post in which I'd taken him and Glenn Reynolds to task for observing, with regard to Glenn Greenwald, that "Consenting biweekly to having one's duodenum battered with the manic hydraulic fury of a tricked-out V-12 jackhammer manned by an epileptic Con-Ed worker with an ancestral oath of vengeance against asphalt would, I think, tend to butch one up, at least as regards one's pain threshold."

Several points in response. One is that making gross and obviously derogatory statements about a gay man's sex life is pretty clearly a different sort of thing than simply observing that a gay man is, in fact, gay. Next, Andrew didn't say Thompson was gay. The defenders of Thompson's heterosexuality point to his well-documented series of flings with several attractive women, often substantially younger than Thompson, as evidence of his robust desire to have sex with women. This, of course, is what Andrew was talking about -- Thompson's not very "focus on the family" sex life as a straight man.

A good companion piece to this dispute is The Washington City Paper's article on Last Night's Shots, a DC social club for young conservative assholes. It's notable that the young men reported on in the article clearly don't see pursuit of a colorful and wide-ranging heterosexual sex life as in any way in conflict with their conservatism. One gets the sense, however, that this is a no gays welcome sort of club. Which I think tells us something about the enduring appeal of homophobia as a conservative trope; most elements of traditional sexual ethics have the unfortunate side-effect of asking people to refrain from doing things that would be fun. The claim that avoiding gay sex is serious ethical obligation is, by contrast, enormously appealing to the large majority of people who have no intention of having any gay sex anyway. Thus, evidence of Thompson's colorful sex life becomes a rebuttal to rumors of a colorful sex life, because the only form of male sexuality that can be conceived of as possibly in opposition to social conservative dictates is gay male sexuality.

Comments

...The Washington City Paper's article on Last Night's Shots, a DC social club for young conservative assholes...

That's young conservative duodenums. Keep it classy.

Posted by James Gary | July 13, 2007 9:00 AM

It's Late Night Shots, not Last Night's Shots, dude.

Posted by Robert VerBruggen | July 13, 2007 9:18 AM

"The claim that avoiding gay sex is serious ethical obligation is, by contrast, enormously appealing to the large majority of people who have no intention of having any gay sex anyway."

Thank you for pointing this out. I've always wondered why this point isn't made more often about homophobia. Homophobia, among other things, is a way for some people to feel all self-righteous and morally superior at absolutly no cost to them. Kinda like the Iraq war cheerleaders who feel all bold and manly supporting a war that demands absolutly no sacrifice or actual effort from them.

Posted by Laurent | July 13, 2007 9:35 AM

C.S. Lewis, a great favorite of the conservatives, never gave advice about gambling because he never felt the urge to do it, and argued that one should never spout off about "temptations" that one never experiences. The Foley/Haggard mold) aren't even good conservatives.

Posted by nolaboyd | July 13, 2007 9:44 AM

Ace is, of course, a thinly repressed homosexual, and hence sees Teh Gay everywhere.

Posted by Anderson | July 13, 2007 9:47 AM

Thompson's heterosexuality point to his well-documented series of flings with several attractive women, often substantially younger than Thompson, as evidence of his robust desire to have sex with women. This, of course, is what Andrew was talking about -- Thompson's not very "focus on the family" sex life as a straight man.

Sullivan discusses "sexual minorities" and says Thompson has a "wide-ranging sex life". It's not obvious that womanizer is a sexual minority or that a demonstrated preference for young blond women is a "wide-ranging sex life"

The original post was vague and open to wingnut or gossip reporter interpretation.

Posted by ChrisB | July 13, 2007 9:49 AM

I'm pretty sure a minority of 60 year old men have had sex with 30 year old women.

Posted by pj | July 13, 2007 9:57 AM

Re Thompson

The attitude of the f***ing born agains relative to Mr. Thompson is very simple. "Thank god it was girls."

Posted by SLC | July 13, 2007 9:57 AM

Also, in reference to the wing-nut description of jack-hammers, epileptics, etc., I think it needs to be said:

these people are just weird when it comes to sex, any sex.

I mean, if they imagine that this is what homosexual intercourse involves, what do they think heterosexual intercourse involves?

All that repulsive verbiage, but with "duodenum" replaced by "vagina"? This is what they imagine they are doing to the women they have intercourse with?

Well, yes, probably. Their "ancestral oath" is not an expression of hatred against asphalt, but rather against women.

Closet queers or not, these guys are just creeps.

Posted by Count Cant | July 13, 2007 10:04 AM

Your average evangelical Christian conservative will not only tolerate Thompson's affairs, he/she will positively admire him for them. This should surprise no one, because Christian conservatism is not really religious at all, is in fact almost completely devoid of a spiritual dimension, and at bottom is identity politics for white people.

Posted by kth | July 13, 2007 10:10 AM

Sullivan discusses "sexual minorities" and says Thompson has a "wide-ranging sex life".

I guess the part following "sexual minorities" where Sullivan says "and private sex lives" is lost on you - unless you choose to read it as meaning the private sex lives of sexual minorities - which is not what Sullivan said.

And the Vitter case more or less makes Sullivan's point without Vitter being a "sexual minority", doesn't it?

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | July 13, 2007 10:12 AM

Ok, so this obviously isn't the point, but the duodenum is between the stomach and the small intestine. That's closer to the beginning than the end of the digestive tract, nowhere near the rectum--you'd have to go through the entire large and small intestines to get to it. Big words never make dumb people look smart, but especially not when they (the people) don't know what they (the words) mean.

Posted by nitpicker | July 13, 2007 10:12 AM

Christian conservatism is not really religious at all, is in fact almost completely devoid of a spiritual dimension, and at bottom is identity politics for white people.

QFT.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | July 13, 2007 10:16 AM

Sullivan discusses "sexual minorities" and says Thompson has a "wide-ranging sex life". It's not obvious that womanizer is a sexual minority or that a demonstrated preference for young blond women is a "wide-ranging sex life"

Um, Chris, Sullivan discussed "sexual minorities and private sex lives." He then talked about Thompson's sex life. What's the basis for the gay inference?

Posted by Led | July 13, 2007 10:19 AM

The original post was vague and open to wingnut or gossip reporter interpretation.

That's a pretty low standard for vagueness. I think it was completely obvious to anyone not obsessed with gay sex that Sullivan was referring to his well-known heterosexual sex life, not his never-before-mentioned-or-even-rumored homosexual sex life. Just becuase Ace or Wonkette is going to interpret every comment about someone's sex life as insinuating they are gay does not mean everyone should have to attach the disclaimer "I am not saying he is gay" to every post.

Posted by ibid | July 13, 2007 10:29 AM

Read Ace's post: Um, yikes, he just doesn't get less weird about sex, does he?

He seems to think there was "subtext" that suggested Ethan Hawke "drilled" Ben Stiller in "Reality Bites"? Not in the version I saw, man, but not that there's anything wrong with the fact that it happens every other scene in the version playing Ace's head's multiplex.

The idea that every homophobe is just freaking about their own repressed same-sex lusting is too convienent and neat to be true, but that doesn't mean it's never true.

Ace, however, whatever his actual orientation, writes like he's a creepy weirdo first and gay/straight/bi/asexual second.

Posted by witless chum | July 13, 2007 10:39 AM

"Several points in response. One is that making gross and obviously derogatory statements about a gay man's sex life is pretty clearly a different sort of thing than simply observing that a gay man is, in fact, gay. Next, Andrew didn't say Thompson was gay."

The mere fact that you feel the need to make those stunningly obvious points shows how profoundly stupid Mr. Ace is.

Posted by Algernon | July 13, 2007 10:52 AM

What's the basis for the gay inference?

The original post
Outside the extremist, activist base, regular GOP voters turn out to be relatively tolerant when it comes to sexual minorities and private sex lives. They're not well represented by their party leaders, as far as policy is concerned. This is good news for Fred Thompson. The man has had a colorful and wide-ranging sex life, as I'm sure we will soon find out.

"relatively tolerant" links to this
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/27/243438.aspx
Which discusses survey responses about social issues including gay rights nothing about dating younger women.

There isn't a strong gay inference, there also isn't any straight inference. There is nothing that would exclude homesexual behavior as being part of Thompson's sex life.

The post is esoteric and vague and it isn't clear what he's talking about.
There's no reason( until the follow up post) to exclude the possibility that he's saying Thompson was the subject of gay rumors.

Posted by ChrisB | July 13, 2007 10:55 AM

The post is esoteric and vague and it isn't clear what he's talking about.
There's no reason( until the follow up post) to exclude the possibility that he's saying Thompson was the subject of gay rumors.

There's also no reason to exclude the possibility that when I say "ChrisB is fond of animals" what I meant to imply is that "ChrisB is fond of schtupping the family poodle". Except that (within the context of this hypothetical) everyone ostensibly has heard about ChrisB's great affection for animals and no one has ever heard a rumor about ChrisB having a penchant for man-on-dog, so contextually, what's the more reasonable reading?

Posted by Quarterican | July 13, 2007 11:01 AM

There are a lot of marginal Christians who are able to excuse themselves by saying, "I'm no angel, but at least I've never __________". It's an easy minimum standard of ethical behavior. A lot of hard core homophobes turn out to have a lot of skeletons in their closet.

It functions much like racism does for racists -- "At least I'm not a n_____". Everybody can feel a little pride at no cost.

Posted by John Emerson | July 13, 2007 11:01 AM

"It's notable that the young men reported on in the article clearly don't see pursuit of a colorful and wide-ranging heterosexual sex life as in any way in conflict with their conservatism."

This is an important observation, but it's also worth noting that it doesn't really apply to the "Christian conservative base." Many evangelical families raise their children in near-total cultural isolation from mainstream society and actually do make a good-faith to repress all colorful displays of sexuality, whether gay or not. (Naturally, some of these folks get caught in hotel rooms with hookers, but this is because they're trying to HIDE their sexual exploits. Most evangelical Christians consider drunken hetero hookups to be very nearly as inappropriate as gay sex.)

What's striking to me, though, is that the not-very-Christian young conservatives described in this article, who pay lip service to morality on issues that don't affect them personally, almost certainly outnumber the Christian Conservatives. And the $64,000 question is why the Religious Right continues to blame "liberals" for all the debauchery in America, when so much of the crassness in our culture is actually the responsibility of frat-guy conservatives.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 13, 2007 11:07 AM

Works for me, John.

you can't imagine how often I console myself with the thought, 'at least I'm not John Emerson'!

Posted by Count Cant | July 13, 2007 11:08 AM

The post is esoteric and vague and it isn't clear what he's talking about.
There's no reason( until the follow up post) to exclude the possibility that he's saying Thompson was the subject of gay rumors.

Given that Sullivan beleives (correctly) that gay sex is normal (or at least, "virtually normal"), then it follows that his description of someone's sex life as "colorful and wide-ranging" doesn't imply gay. And if wingnuts can't understand that, well, that's a feature and not a bug--let them mislead themselves.

Look, I'm gay, I've been in a monogamous relationship for almost 20 years, and we're now both in our 50's. I don't have any hesitation in describing our sex life as good, but "coloful and wide-ranging"? Nah . . .

Posted by rea | July 13, 2007 11:13 AM

One of the things about being famous is that you play a big role in the lives of humble people you know nothing about.

Posted by John Emerson | July 13, 2007 11:15 AM

and you do it well, JE. I especially liked that recent photo shoot of you in People Magazine. We humble people were grateful for the glimpse of your glittering lifestyle.

Posted by Count Cant | July 13, 2007 11:19 AM

I find the responsibility burdensome at times. I always have to ask myself, "Will something I do or say in an unguarded moment send some Ivy-league politico down the wrong path?"

Posted by John Emerson | July 13, 2007 11:26 AM

I think that "rambunctious milk-zeppelins" is a totally awesome name for breasts, and/or a rock band.

I also think it's cool how after using the phrases: "drama queen traffic whore slander-slinging cocksuckers (and I use that word advisedly)," "Andrew 'Milky Loads' Sullivan", "pretend you were balls-deep inside Ethan Hawke," and "rambunctious milk-zeppelins," Ace then writes "Strong content warning for the rest(!) of this post."

Posted by Ben | July 13, 2007 11:47 AM

Sure, sure, the pressure to set a good example. It can be so constricting. Noblesse oblige and all--you can count on a Count to understand.

But it's so good that here on the internet we can relax and let it all hang out, without worrying about other people observing us.

Posted by Count Cant | July 13, 2007 11:53 AM

Hey, I want to know what Dennis Kucinich has got going for him that landed him that 6' Hibernian warrior princess wife with three feet of hair the color of a brand new penny who is half his age.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 13, 2007 11:57 AM

re: Kucinich
a plan to get us out of Iraq. real ideas on healthcare for all. and a cock like a baby's arm

Posted by dent | July 13, 2007 12:02 PM

Seriously, Dennis Kucinich has the hottest wife I've ever seen on either a politician or a leprechaun. Somehow, this makes him seem even more ridiculous.

Posted by too many steves | July 13, 2007 12:04 PM

"This is an important observation, but it's also worth noting that it doesn't really apply to the "Christian conservative base." Many evangelical families raise their children in near-total cultural isolation from mainstream society and actually do make a good-faith to repress all colorful displays of sexuality, whether gay or not."

This points to something that bothers me as of late. On the one hand, the evangelical base acts like they are the only true Americans and offending them is offending American values (even things like dissing the Confederate flag). On the other hand, they deliberately remove themselves from mainstream American society, which now includes things like rap, Will and Grace, Sacha Baron Cohen, etc. So which is it, are evangelical Christians real Americans or just pretending to be Americans?

Posted by Reality Man | July 13, 2007 12:04 PM

Rea
Given that Sullivan beleives (correctly) that gay sex is normal (or at least, "virtually normal"), then it follows that his description of someone's sex life as "colorful and wide-ranging" doesn't imply gay.

Wide ranging implie variety of behavior, not necessarily an abnormal nature of said behavior. If Thompson had gay sexual relations with someone in addition to all the womanizing behavior it would certainly fit 'wide ranging' much more then if it turns out there are more young actresses he dated we had no idea about (which is probably what Sullivan was referring to)

Posted by ChrisB | July 13, 2007 12:06 PM

Christian conservatism is not really religious at all, is in fact almost completely devoid of a spiritual dimension, and at bottom is identity politics for white people.

Dennis Kucinich is very spiritual and resultantly quite sensitive, as evidenced by his compassionate, humanistic policies and his comely auburn-tressed giantess wife. And this is precisely why he has 0% chance of being elected. America likes hookers and motel rooms in which to hide their shame. George "Whore" Bush and Bill "Strumpet" Clinton are the types of pros what get elected. Who's got that slutty shine this time? Thrillary, Mittsy & Rudi are the sluttiest for now, but given time, all the real contenders do DVDA-- if they want the brass ring.

Politics: the second oldest profession.

Posted by Gregorio | July 13, 2007 12:40 PM

Kucinich's wife is alright, but I wouldn't exactly call her world-class. I guess this proves the point that guys who like redheads REALLY like redheads.

Posted by Steve | July 13, 2007 1:10 PM

While I was at Harvard grunting under the oppressive yoke of Indy editor Matthias "Rosebud" Yglesias, I sought sexual refuge in an exhausting succession of ravishing redheads. Suffice it to say whilst I find them aesthetically jarring at times, their wanton libidinousness is not to be misunderestimated. In short, Redheaded sluts love teh sex.

Whoops, sorry for the misogynistic musings, fellows, but for a second I thought I had stumbled into a ginger-themed humpalogue at the Fly or some such gentleman's club. Back to my violent, impulsive leftist blather in a jiff.

Posted by Gregorio | July 13, 2007 1:22 PM

I have it from an impeccable source, for real, that when Thompson vacated his D.C. law office they found condoms in between the cushions of his office couch.

A true member of the Family Values Party TM.

Posted by Monarchomach | July 13, 2007 1:22 PM

Is it wrong for me to imagine myself avec Ms. Harper-Kucinich and the Plame-ous Mr. Wilson's wife in a steamy Washingtonian ménage à trois? Would that fall under the rainbow umbrella of "a colorful and wide-ranging sex life?" Just a thought...

Posted by Gregorio | July 13, 2007 1:26 PM

"The claim that avoiding gay sex is serious ethical obligation is, by contrast, enormously appealing to the large majority of people who have no intention of having any gay sex anyway."

Actually I would bet that most of them don't "avoid gay sex," as witness the enormous success of the "Girls Gone Wild" series and lesbian porn, very little of which is consumed by actual lesbians. It's gay men, not homosexuality as such, that they want to avoid.

Posted by Ted | July 13, 2007 3:25 PM

BUTT SEX IS ICKY AND MAKES THE GRID!

Posted by Ronnie RayGun | July 13, 2007 6:10 PM

Apparently ACE is unfamiliar with even the crib sheet version of the Kama Sutra if he had to resort to the jackhammer analogy. For the record, most of the ass I ever 'battered with manic hydraulic fury' belonged to republicans. DARs and former TARs were trailblazers in the hetero anal play realm. Anyone who attempted the tricky "Pearl Clutch" during
BushI knows what I mean.

Posted by family values | July 15, 2007 4:38 AM