Rob Tisinai highlighted an amazing passage from the 1969 book Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask) by David Reuben today over at Box Turtle Bulletin, and they are over there laughing at it, so I figured I’d share the joy over here as well. Explaining homosexual men, David says:
The homosexual must constantly search for the one man, the one penis, the one experience, that will satisfy him. Tragically there is no possibility of satisfaction because the formula is wrong. One penis plus one penis equals nothing. There is no substitute for heterosex—penis and vagina. Disappointed, stubborn, discouraged, defiant, the homosexual keeps trying. He is the sexual Diogenes, always looking for the penis that pleases.
That is the reason he must change partners endlessly. He tries each phallus in succession, then turns away remorsefully. “No, that’s not the one!” He is in a difficult position—condemned eternally to search after what does not exist—after what never existed.
It’s like Goldilocks! This penis is too big! This penis is too small! But there’s no “just right” in this scenario.
[Sad face.]
Also, I have my pen and scratchpad out and I keep trying to work out the penis+penis=nothing formula, but I keep ending up with a remainder of two. Help?
Rob has some more well-thought-out comments on this, so if you want to read them, click his name above, and also this. If you are like me and prefer to simply giggle, that’s fine too.
What a relief, this really explains my twenties.
Because we all know how easily hetero males are able to find the one vagina that will satisfy them.
Most literature of that era was consistent with the book in question. This began to turn around in the 1970s (The Joy of Gay Sex wasn’t published until ca 1976), but it wasn’t until the last 20 years or so that the situtaion really improved. It is remarkable how much progress we’ve made in the last 40 years.
I was a teenager when this book came out and I remember reading this stuff in a book store. I thought the guy was totally bonkers even back then because none of what he said applied to me. Plus if I’m not mistaken, I remember him saying that gay men wear plastic vaginas! Besides sounding incredibly uncomfortable, I’ve never even SEEN one (fleshlights don’t count). This guy obviously was just pulling all of this stuff out of his a*s. No pun intended.
My parents had this book, and I remember reading that chapter, hoping to get a better understanding of what it meant to be gay. It was actually depressing at the time. What bothered me was, even though much of it rang false-AND I was aware some of the information had to be outdated, it represented the kind of information my parents, and other adults, were getting. There were a lot of books like this in our school library too. I remember one that actually said that even if a person was exclusively attracted to members of the same sex, that didn’t mean they were homosexual. And I thought, “Well WHAT THE f**k ELSE COULD IT MEAN?”
All of this had one effect: keeping from talking to adults, because the stuff “experts” were telling them continually set of my b******t detector.
That said, the passage quoted above is completely ridiculous. (I guess when you’re a 13 year old in 1977, you’re less likely to see the idiocy of it.)
No no no. No. He’s got it all wrong. Finding the right penis is relatively easy; there are plenty of em, and they’re all generally the same basic design with a few custom options. Its making sure its not attached to a guy who IS a complete dick that requires a trial and error approach. That takes time.
“Also, I have my pen and scratchpad out and I keep trying to work out the penis+penis=nothing formula, but I keep ending up with a remainder of two. Help?”
I guess he means that trying to stick your penis in another guy’s penis won’t work? Maybe?
@Boo (#8)
docking (NSFW)
8.“Also, I have my pen and scratchpad out and I keep trying to work out the penis+penis=nothing formula, but I keep ending up with a remainder of two. Help?”
Evan, LMFAO!!! Classic! I remember that book and reading it back in the early 1970s. Even then, just barely having come out, I knew this guy was trying to blow smoke up my a*s.
I would say the guy is unbelievable, but a lot of literature on sex, especially homosex was roughly along those lines. It’s a LOT better now and I thank the God/dess for that.
8.“Also, I have my pen and scratchpad out and I keep trying to work out the penis+penis=nothing formula, but I keep ending up with a remainder of two. Help?”
Evan, LMFAO!!! Classic! I remember that book and reading it back in the early 1970s. Even then, just barely having come out, I knew this guy was trying to blow smoke up my a*s.
I would say the guy is unbelievable, but a lot of literature on sex, especially homosex, was roughly along those lines back then. It’s a LOT better now and I thank the God/dess for that.
Oh but there is a substitute for hetero-sex there is! In fact it replaces it.
“He is the sexual Diogenes…” Wow. I’ve never been called a ‘sexual Diogenes’ before. Compared to the bile the anti-Gays spew nowadays, that’s actually kinda classy.
The author never knew an uncloseted gay man in his life prior to writing that. The gay rights movement was in its infancy and the publisher suggested something on gays be included and the author simply made up some tripe and wrote it down. That’s my guess.
If penis + penis = 0, find X: penis + X x vagina = 7/boobies.
Listen to the raving, lunatic fundies. Has much changed since this book?
Well, I really must disagree with the author, based on the exerpt that Evan provided, the reason being (personally), I HAVE found the perfect penis. Many, many, many times. ;) Many. Times. :)