A study out of (the unbiased, I'm sure) UC Berkeley found that "whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity," while "confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests."
Meanwhile, GQ is reporting that "after numerous years of intensive research on both sides of the aisle—and sometimes in the aisle—I am here to report that Republican men (except the closet cases) are infinitely better to have sex with."
Sex columnist Dan Savage this week essentially agreed, writing: "People's political leanings, competence, and command of the English language tell us very little about their private sexual conduct. Indeed, one study in the mid '90s found that conservatives were, on average, kinkier than liberals."
We're assuming that liberals who want a good lay travel with a bag to put on their partner's head.
[Thanks, Alan]
Savage says that conservatives are, on the whole, kinkier than liberals, but he is hardly agreeing that they're better in bed. He's mostly making a point about hypocrisy. I've often found that guys who are all about the kink are trying to make up for a lack of imagination and skills with leather and toys. An excess of sensitivity is not erotic, but neither is a guy who can't get off unless he's trussed like a roast turkey and spanked for an hour.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by: anapestic | March 24, 2006 at 02:07 PM
Heh, as a Dan Savage fan I caught that one pretty quickly too. I guess Mal automatically equates kinkiness with being good in the sack... interesting... :)
I've been ... umm .. friendly with people on both sides of the aisle. There's really no different in terms of overall skill, at least that I noticed. But if you wanna get into broad strokes: lefties - good technique, low stamina/energy. righties - poor technique, great stamina/energy.
Go figure.
Posted by: Dan | March 24, 2006 at 02:17 PM
These researchers have a lot of free time on their hands. No wonder the cure for cancer and AIDS eludes us, with so much "brain power" being expended studying what adult political leanings whiny children will grow up to have and the like.
Can we infer from Mr. Savage's studies that Conservatives are more likely to own gerbils?
Posted by: Gus | March 24, 2006 at 02:22 PM
I did say "essentially." I think a fair reader would infer that if you're "kinkier," you're also probably less "boring" in bed. Not that I agree with ANY of this, but I thought it was funny.
Posted by: Malcontent | March 24, 2006 at 02:25 PM
Hey, nobody's judging ya Mal. We respect all kinds here ;)
Posted by: Dan | March 24, 2006 at 02:28 PM
I need to be more cautious when I follow the links on your blog. I ended up at Joe My Blob and I can't resist responding to the arrogance and idiocy of the people who comment there.
Posted by: Patrick | March 24, 2006 at 02:32 PM
I do agree that Republicans make better NSA bottoms. You don't have to bother with either foreplay or lube and you can just figure that they're getting what they deserve.
Posted by: anapestic | March 24, 2006 at 02:35 PM
you can just figure that they're getting what they deserve.
Like those fags and AIDS, right?
Posted by: Patrick | March 24, 2006 at 02:39 PM
The link was to Queerty. After that, I wash my hands of it. :-)
But some days I do wish I had sycophants like he has.
Posted by: Malcontent | March 24, 2006 at 02:40 PM
C'mon, Patrick, you know Republicans aren't people. Kind of like blacks weren't until 1965.
Posted by: Malcontent | March 24, 2006 at 02:42 PM
Gee, Patrick, what do cigarettes have to do with diet supplements?
Posted by: anapestic | March 24, 2006 at 02:42 PM
liberals are worse in bed because they will actually start talking politics while you're having sex.
Posted by: Aatom | March 24, 2006 at 04:23 PM
Well uh, personally, I'd fuck as ass rather than an elephant any day.
Posted by: louis | March 24, 2006 at 05:02 PM
I don't suppose it's occurred to you that if a guy is talking politics while you're having sex then you're probably doing something wrong.
Posted by: anapestic | March 24, 2006 at 05:10 PM
Aatom - Yeah, you usually figure "I hate Bush" is implied during the male on male sodomy.
Posted by: Robbie | March 24, 2006 at 05:11 PM
I never talk politics when I am in the act of carnal knowlege and I am proudly out as a liberal. I think boys involved in politics are rather intense in bed.
Posted by: Donald | March 24, 2006 at 05:15 PM
Donald, what happened to the "libertairan" thing? Did the wind shift directions again?
Posted by: Malcontent | March 24, 2006 at 05:27 PM
Gee, when I was at college my (brief but aerobic) career as a downlow bitch involved an out and proud campus 'queer' who was very closety about his expertise in being fucked over (and over and over) by the right-wing.
Posted by: Craig Ranapia | March 24, 2006 at 06:05 PM
This lines up with my experience. I grew up in an incredibly conservative part of the US - very sexually repressed - and the guys were amazing in the sack and very easy to get them there. Now I live in one of the most liberal places there is and I tell ya, I have never met a more boring bunch once in the sack (IF you can get them there). Must be something about repressing it all day that makes it come out better later.
Posted by: John | March 24, 2006 at 07:27 PM
I never talk politics when I am in the act of carnal knowlege and I am proudly out as a liberal. I think boys involved in politics are rather intense in bed.
Actually, had Donald hit upon something here? It seems to me that many liberals tend to not get involved in politics but are very vocal socially about what they think, whereas conservatives are more likely to actually get involved. Perhaps it is actually a correllation with political activity, not necessarily political orientation, that indicates how intensely one fucks.
Posted by: Jamie | March 25, 2006 at 01:18 PM
Must be something about repressing it all day that makes it come out better later.
Not exactly, John.
Gay men would do well to understand what our heterosexual female friends have known for millenia; men want what they can't have, not what they can easily get.
Or, to put it differently, the best-tasting food is always that which you eat after a fast.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | March 25, 2006 at 02:45 PM
You people really infuriate me. How is it that the gay community will take you in as long as you see things from their perspective? I can't, for the life of me, understand why people can't just allow people to have other points of view. I don't subscribe to the whole fucking "if you're a fag, you better be a democrat" GET THE FUCK OVER IT. Both sides are screwing you. If you're not used as a political tool, you're being targeted by people who want to take things away from you. Think bigger than being a fag. We are all so hung up on ourselves. WAH! Deal with it. Worry about youreself, your property, your partner, if you have one, and just hope the government gets so out of control that you're taken out of your home and locked up. Do you see W on your lawn with binoculars? I don't think so. Get over it.
Posted by: zee_tee | March 27, 2006 at 11:19 AM
All politics is local. If most self-identified gays are democrat, its because they largely live in urban environments where mostly local democrat politicians have been responsive to thier civil rights. This is in marked contrast to 'red state' America, that by thier public statements and enactments would as soon see fags 'burn in hell' or arrested or barred from petitioning thier legislatures, or just shut up.
As for in bed: . . . republican? . . . democrat? . . . are they hung?
Posted by: Tommy | March 27, 2006 at 01:49 PM