If It Walks Like a Duck...

Today, CNN gave me more insight into my own sexual orientation than I have garnered from the last ten years of living as a violently self-aware gay man/boy/child/what have you. Thanks to a recent study performed by some big school (and sharply refuted by the U of Nebraska...shocker), we now know that there is a direct tie-in between the way a gay man's hair whorls (yes, it's a word) and the way a heterosexual man's hair. As it turns out, 25 percent of gay men (myself included) have hair that whorls (it even feels weird to spell) counter-clockwise, whereas only ten percent of heterosexual men's hair whorls (ahhhhh) counter-clockwise. These are hard, scientific numbers people...virtually irrefutable.

The argument is that, because my hair whorls counter-clockwise, like so many other gay men, it must be something that I was born into. I was destined not only to be gay, but also to have a counter-clockwise hair pattern. This pattern is built into my DNA. The two are connected and, without one, the other is much less likely to exist. Of course, no self-respecting republican is ever going to tolerate the idea that gay men are, in fact, born that way and cannot change (or decide to change). No, no. Sex is biological and, as such, so is sexuality? How preposterous.

This, apparently, goes for republican researchers (practically an oxymoron), as well. The U Nebraska professor argued that, much in the same way we choose to be gay, we are simply more likely to wear our hair in such a fashion that would cause it to whorl counter-clockwise. Now, I'm not sure, but I have had three different hairstyles in the entirety of my life (excluding the thankfully short-lived rat tail): the "surfer cut" -- it was the only thing my Italian barber knew in English...think long on top, short on the sides; a buzz cut --in large part responsible for my no longer looking like an awkward ten year old; and the curly jew-esque mop I wore when most of you met me -- for this one, I apologize.

The point is that none of these haircuts involved me making any attempt at maintaining, let alone forcing my hair to whorl. This argument is like saying that toilets flush in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere because the toilet decided it to be so. Nay, perhaps it is the porcelain on which we can place the blame...or the flush mechanism, tampered with by a pesky (probably gay) toilet designer, intent on making excreting homosexuals more at ease -- you know how we freak out when the toilet whirls in a different direction than the whorl of our hair. We just need organization and symmetry.

My point is this: who gives a shit? Toilets spin in the opposite direction as ours in the southern hemisphere, and the occasional gay person's hair spins, pardon, whorls in a counter-clockwise manner. Here's some hardcore, factual proof that being gay is not a choice: under no circumstance, ever, would I have decided to alienate myself from a huge chunk of the population. I would never have chosen to live this alternative lifestyle (god I hate that word). As much as I am now fully comfortable in my own skin, at least for the most part, I still think that if I could I would go back in time, talk to myself and say, "You're facing a big decision. Do you really want to be gay?" I would’ve talked myself out of it. After all, it’s not exactly an impulse buy. The thing is that I never had such an internal debate. I was gay, am gay, and will always be gay....no matter how I wear my hair.

Another fantastic finding in this CNN article was that most people can determine another's sexual orientation based on the way that they walk. To prove this, they place four videos online with the heading, "Can you tell?" It then gave a brief explanation of gaydar, the miraculous thing that, like a counter-clockwise hair whorl, only a select few (once again, myself included) seem to possess. Watching the videos, you see four individuals walking in the dark with red lights scattered about their limbs.

The first is obviously a lesbian woman. I guessed it the second the video began. First of all, the way she person carried herself -- shoulders hunched, arms too far out to the sides -- made it apparent. According to the article, what seals the deal is the movement of her knees, which, like those of a straight male (video 4), are spread apart. To picture this, imagine the shape of a diamond stretching from the crotch to the feet and fit that between the legs. This, apparently, is the lesbian/straight guy walk. Who knew?

Unsurprisingly, gay men walk in a very similar manner to that of a straight female -- knees tucked like a virginal nun. Rather than a diamond, place nothing between the gay man's/straight woman's legs...no air or anything. If their legs were a catholic school dance, a chaperon would ask for the two legs to "make room for the holy spirit."

In a true, gay, narcissistic, hair-whorling fashion, I immediately watched myself walk in a full-length mirror. Thankfully, I don't suffer from virginal nun walk, nor do I stalk. Then again, I'm extremely duck-footed and, as the title of this entry says, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and wears its hair like a duck, there is a good chance it's a duck.

Quack.

Just a Short, UNCENSORED Tirade About the First Amendment

Lately, there has been an overwhelming amount of discussion as to whether or not Don Imus should be stripped of his right to free speech because what he said was so darn politically incorrect. First, let us note that what he said, while indeed racist, was mostly sexist. I know a few "nappy-headed hos," and not a single one of them is black. Actually, I haven't showered today, and my hair is feeling a bit nappy. Perhaps I should use a clarifying shampoo.

While the status of my hair can be held accountable for many interior arguments (up? down? what is a gentile with jew hair to do?), it has little to do with Don Imus and everything to do with our idea of America. What if the world decided that I couldn't call my gentile hair jew hair because it is politically incorrect and sent Harvey Fierstein to teach me a lesson? Perhaps...a bribe?

And that is exactly what I am talking about. If we limit free speech, simply because it steps on other people's toes, then we have taken the Constitution and chucked it out the window. There is a reason it is the first amendment. It is the MOST important.

George Bush is a terrible president, and in the United States it is perfectly legal to call him anything you want. Hick, moron, greedy motherfucker, whatever. You have the right. Sure, you can't say that you want to kill him, but technically you can't say that you want to kill anyone. Every time you joke about how you are going to kill your friends because they are beating you at Scrabble is a felony, should we choose to live in a Imus-free world.

So censor the president. He has proven himself a liar time and time again. Let's be frank...it is just not possible to be that misinformed when you are the most powerful fucking man in the world. He used his free speech to mislead for his own benefit, and that is illegal.

Don Imus used his free speech to express his opinion. He has (had) been doing it for 40 years, and no one ever really got that upset, and he has called people a lot worse than "nappy headed hos." Some say that allowing someone with so much sway over the general public to spew remarks like that is unconstitutional, but that is where they are very much wrong.

Think of the words being used to describe Don Imus now, with bigot being a mere introduction to a delightful selection of often non-PC words. Yet 40 million people have listened to him every day, and they would still have listened to him if he hadn't been yanked off the air. Admittedly, he deserved that one. All of his sponsors bailed on him and the company couldn't make money. Perfectly legit, yet people still listened. That is because there are at least 40 million people in the US that agree with Don Imus. Of course, we know there are more than that, given that we have an entire country built for the most part on racism and sexism. While we, with our educations and ideas of true equality, disagree with his remarks, we have to respect the fact that a good chunk of people don't. What about their right to hear what they want to hear? Those airwaves are as much theirs as they are ours, yet we've taken away their ally.

During the revolutionary war, the rules of engagement stated that the greatest war crime was to kill the opposition's general. Even as they killed each other, they recognized that each side had just as much right to be fighting as the other. They were 100% equal.

Of course, that war never would have happened if people hadn't said what they felt regarding the Brits and, recognizing that very fact, we made that right the most important part of our constitution. Freedom of speech fuels dissent which, in turn, fuels democracy. Be thankful for that right, and never, ever place a limitation on it. Every person, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or ideology has a right to express their opinion. Otherwise, you have no right to disagree with Don Imus who, in turn, had no right to say what he did in the first place.

Instead, be grateful that he said what he did. It has been a long time since Americans became so enraged by a person's beliefs. In fact, I think the last time it happened, Martin Luther King was standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial declaring that he had some sort of dream. What a nappy-headed ho.

Don Imus was wrong to have said what he did, but had every right in the world to say it. If he wants to go on record and say that every gay person is a fag, every black a nigger, every Jew a money-grubbing userer, he has that right, just as I have the right to publish those things in context here. To deny anyone their ability to do so is incredible hypocrisy, for you talk about what you want to talk about, say what you want to say, or disagree with the message of our current administration. Yet without the first amendment you would have no right to do so, nor would you have any right to express the belief that Don Imus should be taken off the air. Are you willing to sacrifice your own rights to stifle the outrageous words of another? If so, the next time I see you you'd better have some duct tape over your mouth. Otherwise I will be forced to stuff a copy of the constitution down your throat to stifle your speech.