It's seems to be no secret that AS could live without Ace of Spades, but I have to concur that the recent screed doesn't get a pass because it purported to be funny. It trades on nasty stereotypes, that gays are by definition unable to control themselves sexually (are wanton), in both the Tyson chicken distribution center metaphor and the irresistibility-of-Ace "test".
The core insecurity, as old as the hills, is that heterosexuals might have their manliness questioned by gay men, backed up with the schoolyard idea that Ace-heteros are at the head of the pecking order when it comes to that. ("Not that I'm saying homosexuality is incompatible with masculinity, of course." - but of course you are!). The real side-splitting stuff comes later, but reinforces this view. After having portrayed all homosexuality as basically wanting to get drilled (or be held by a real man), Ace relies on Glen Reynold's wife, not his fellow travelling butchsters, to vouch the pundit's masculine virtue. With logic like that, it wasn't the low road that Ace took, but the corkscrew roller coaster ... a weeeeeeee - look, ma, no hands!
Finally, anyone who would write this in a public forum and then wonder about The Left calling them gay has to get a little public psychological intervention, right? Afterall, if I borrow a movie line to sum it up, Ace basically looks in the mirror and says, "Yeah, I'd f- me!:"
Is Instapundit A Homo? Well, I think I met him three times or something, and he never tried to pork me. Given the fact I'm 180 pounds of rompin'-stompin' Clydesdale-clompin' 180 proof sex, I'd say he successfully passed that test.
Find that horse a bit and saddle ... before he hurts himself again.
[And what's with 180-proof, that I missed? Isn't that 10% shy of the full monty?]
