You were pointing out a potential double standard here.

Then we have quo taking offense, not to a double standard, but to you having brought attention to it. At least that’s the way I took the “what are you trying to prove” line.

Considering that quo finds it perfectly acceptable to conclude without “proof” that gay men “as a group” are more promiscuous than straight men, yet demands “proof” to show differently – I find this to be a double standard.

So for quo to consider your legitimate attention to a double standard to be something that you are somehow unqualified to suggest, is a reaffirmation of a double standard on quo’s part. Basically proving your point.

This is what I meant by “Exactly.”

..I probably should have said all that the first time. ;)

When I read the headline, my first thought was that of course, such a headline is ridiculous. And that led me to ask why? Why did I find it ridiculous? (And did anyone else jump to that reaction or was their reactions completely different. And agin, why?)

I know that it’s relatively rare for men in general to be busted for hiring a prostitute. Some cities may institute crackdowns here and there, but generally What’s more common is that prostitutes are arrested but the Johns often aren’t targeted. Why is that? Is it some sort of male priveledge?

And speaking of priveledge, what about the heterosexual priveledge that some people mention? We can intellectually understand that the story behind the headline would be just as “bad” as Sen. Craig’s problem: Someone advocating one thing but doing something else in a very shade manner. But would a gay man hiring a female prostitute be seen as a betrayal for other gay men? Is it an act of hyporcrisy, or would it be seen as “proof” that even this hypothetical gay man is seeking a kind of “normalcy.” Would it even be celebrated in some quarters the way Mike Glatze is? Would this story gain the same visceral reaction of Sen. Craig’s? Would it gain the same visceral reaction as Mike Glatze’s?

Or would the hypothetical gay John get some kind of a pass overall because, well, what do you expect from homosexuals? Are gay men seens as being so far outside of “family values” that such a headline would be somehow less shocking than Sen. Craig’s? and If so, what does that say about society’s attitudes and expectations towards gay men?

I could go on with a whole bunch of questions and possibilities. I am barely scratching the surface. But the upshot of this is that I often find it interesting to examine situations by asking what if the opposite happened? That’s all. What if instead of Sen. Craig caught in a men’s restroon, it was Barney Frank on the D.C. Madam’s list? Would the reaction be different? I think it would be very different. And if I’m right, what would that say about our society?

QUO: “What is this supposed to prove?”

Exactly.