Not that there's anything wrong with that

In what world is it objectionable to state the fact of a person's entirely not-secret sexual preference, and yet, NOT objectionable to blog about the following?

• (1) the sexual dysfunction of a recent ex who is likely to be reading said blog,


• (2) the shape as well as speed of arousal of another recent ex's member,


• (3) the supposed girl-on-girl crush of a young waitress who works the brunch shift at a well-known Manhattan eatery,


• (4) the bowel problems of former date, Irritable Bowel Guy, ALTHOUGH, I will grant you that at least we don't know who he is and can't guess, unlike all the others on this list, and


• (5) the marital problems, including infidelity, of husband-wife gallery owners who once employed said blogger (talk about biting the hand that feeds you!)?

Still mulling this insanity over. Let's simplify it. Here are the Rules Of Enragement on Boodiba's "Drug Trip Deny Whore" blog:

Not objectionable: sharing really embarassing and intimate details about unsuspecting people.

Objectionable: reiterating the fact of someone's sexual preference, which fact is not a secret.

IN WHAT WORLD, I ASK YOU? In what crazy, irrational, messed up world?

If you haven't been following the recent blog war, here's the quick and dirty history. On second thought, I'm not going to bother.

Suffice it to say that I have objected to that which the Drug Trip Deny Whore blog has deemed non-objectionable. Which is to say that I took issue with the whole making fun of innocent people's embarassing problems extravaganza. And I have dared to say that which the Deny Whore blogger has deemed to be highly objectionable. Which is to say I might have been the verbal equivalent of a cold shower on her fantasies of a love affair with a certain unavailable guy.

As a delightful and unexpected benefit, I have had the pleasure of being called the "c" word by the Deny Whore blogger as well as "yuppie c-word" (despite that I am neither young, urban or professional, and well, the rest I leave for you to decide) by her married sycophant who calls himself "DILF", which I think means, "Doofus I'd Like to Flog".

But all of that high school crap aside, here's the real rub: The notion that one's sexual orientation must be shrouded in secrecy cannot even exist unless there is a concurrent existence of shame over said sexual orientation.

Is there shame in this case? I don't think so. But logic dictates that those who are attempting to "protect" the person whose sexual orientation has been called into question MUST, in fact, believe that there IS shame. They must believe if this person is gay, then he must want that fact to be hidden. Or THEY want that fact to be hidden. Or they desperately want that fact to be otherwise. I suspect that it is a combination of all of the above. Depending on whether the sexual-orientation-protection-vigilante in question is gay, anti-gay, or in lust with someone who might be gay.

And to me, that is the biggest insult they could lay on this person.

That they do not understand that is the tragedy of this whole rigamarole.

YC